A situation on identity.

[Lord Kenneth]

Re: Re: A situation on identity.

Usually amnesia victims are reduced to the mindset of a 3-year-old. He couldn't be held responsible for his actions.

This is a fantasy amnesia. It's a hypothetical situation.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

As I already stated, it seems to me personality is a complex issue only partly made up of nurture.

Otherwise you and your identical twin would have quiet the same personalities - you would have both being raised in the same household (same nurture).

Please note I'm not arguing personality traits are purely genetic.

P.S.

I'm still waiting on the evidence of nurture being the single largest contributing factor to personality development..

...Your point?

Just because homosexuality may be genetic, doesn't mean a vast, even the majority, of people's personalities are.

I myself am an identical twin, me and my brother has different personalities, with some similarities. Now, how do you explain that?

 

[Fun2BFree]

I admit I have not carefully read everybody's posts since they seem to have gone off the deep end on tangents...American hinted at what I believe is the root of the correct answer....The criminal justice system has nothing to do with what the criminal is made up of--whether materialism is true, or the nature or root of evil...it is created by society to satisfy societies desires for safety primarily and some would say retribution or punishment...Deterring future crimes, preventing a criminal from doing more crime and rehabiliting criminals all go towards making society safer....then there is the lust for revcenge element....this murderer will have left behind thousands--THOUSANDS of family members---it is what they and what society in general would want that matters and if the "new minded" guy wants to be a part of society he will seek to satisfy those desires --and I suspect most people would not be satisfied with this guy wandering around loose or satisfied if he was never caught after doing what he did...imagine if the sniper in DC had never been caught but just stopped...you think people would be comforted by that uncertainty???? Definitely not--- the families of the victims and not most of society living at risk wondering if the murderer of thousands might be coming again...so yes I would turn him in and he should turn himself in. Easy...Next question.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

As I already stated, it seems to me personality is a complex issue only partly made up of nurture.

Otherwise you and your identical twin would have quiet the same personalities - you would have both being raised in the same household (same nurture).

Please note I'm not arguing personality traits are purely genetic.

If the way me and my twin acted was mostly genetic, ImpyTimpy, then there would be little difference between his and my personalities. We have not led the exact same lives.

P.S.

I'm still waiting on the evidence of nurture being the single largest contributing factor to personality development..

I'm still waiting for you to explain these "fallacies" of mine. Oh, and anything I say you won't be satisfied with, I already gave decent enough of examples.

 

[Dancing David]

Wow, there is alot of the underlying message of the buddha here.

There are two seperate issues that need to be decided.
1. Is the murderer likely to murder again?

2. What constitute continuity of the body?

The reason for punishing people is to prevent future crime, in both cases, the original and the simuylacrum, I posit that the basis of punishment would be based on the propensity for future crimes. And on societies need to exact vengance.

On this whole thing of the body changing by obe molecule, it is the meories that establish our identity(note, not the self). So while the physical body of the somalacrum is different the propensity for future crime is high.


So, what if some one has a stroke and forgets that they were a guard at the Nazi death camps, I say kill them

Laws are not about abstract values they are about human values.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

If the way me and my twin acted was mostly genetic, ImpyTimpy, then there would be little difference between his and my personalities. We have not led the exact same lives.



I'm still waiting for you to explain these "fallacies" of mine. Oh, and anything I say you won't be satisfied with, I already gave decent enough of examples.

You're creating nothing more then a red herring... However, I will address your points just so you can go back to showing me evidence... (crickets chirping )

Alright, let me repeat what I just said, if both of your personality traits were enviromental you'd both be similar since you're both brought up in the same household. Like you said, you're not, therefore I'm lead to believe there may be other factors for personality development. I do not wish to dwell on this anymore, since you're starting to make a red herring. You made a claim, I want to see proof to back it up - show me some scientific literature that proves environment is the large determining factor of someone's personality.

As to the fallacies, allow me to explain how you make them, it might help you construct valid arguments in the future.

First of all, I ask you to show evidence that environment determined the personality, to which you respond with:

Basic psychology! Our decisions, as well, are based upon past experiences! Conditioning, for example.

Abused children are more likely to be abusers, people growing up around drug use are more likely to do drugs... being born into a religious family most likely will make you religious...

I point out this is Circulus in demonstrando... Since you don't know what the means, and yoiu seem to have missed my explanation I'll explain it again - you're altering the conclusion to be the premise and repeating it again.

Next when you say:

Good and evil is subjective, Einstein. Killing someone is, objectively, no more good or evil than walking a dog or eating a ham.

I pointed out it's a fallacy of undistributed middle and since you don't seem to understand what it means I'll explain it again. You're simply stating two things are similar (the same in fact) without showing how they are the same.

And finally, you say

Debated issues? Do you even know what you're talking about? For example, I don't know many religious people who didn't come from religious families. And it sure seems to me that parents raise their children in a fashion similar to how they were raised, in most cases.

Which I point out is a fallacy of hasty generalization.. Since you don't seem to understand that either, I'll explain it. It means you're drawing a conclusion from a very limited sample to support your argument (environment determines personality - your sample is people who you know).

Now once again, I ask you to show evidence and stop making red herrings (it means address the points in the debate, stop going off on different tangents to divert attention away from topics you at hand). Also tone down on the personal attacks, they're not needed, they simply expose you're not confident in your position.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

You're creating nothing more then a red herring... However, I will address your points just so you can go back to showing me evidence... (crickets chirping )

Alright, let me repeat what I just said, if both of your personality traits were enviromental you'd both be similar since you're both brought up in the same household. Like you said, you're not, therefore I'm lead to believe there may be other factors for personality development. I do not wish to dwell on this anymore, since you're starting to make a red herring. You made a claim, I want to see proof to back it up - show me some scientific literature that proves environment is the large determining factor of someone's personality.

Ah, I see what the problem is. You don't understand what I mean by "environment".

I refer to "environment" to be the more standard-psychological definition ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=environment )-- what kind of family they are raised by, the actions of people around them, basically things outside of their own bodies altering their experiences. You are thinking it is simply the terrian, weather patterns, etc, aren't you? That would make sense as to your odd accusations of fallacies.

Anyways, here are some articles dealing on the subject:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0961/2002_Annual/83789643/p1/article.jhtml

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s851224.htm

http://anthro.palomar.edu/social/soc_3.htm

http://www.snc.edu/psych/korshavn/natnur02.htm

Please note that I am not saying it is the only factor that contributes to one's personality, as genetics usually work together with environment... but I find environment to be more of a deciding factor... environment changes, your genetics don't.

But, if genes, like I thought you were proposing, are mainly what defines us, then me and my twin should be almost exactly alike in personality-- this is not so.



[/QUOTE]

 

[ImpyTimpy]

Ah, I see what the problem is. You don't understand what I mean by "environment".

I refer to "environment" to be the more standard-psychological definition ( http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=environment )-- what kind of family they are raised by, the actions of people around them, basically things outside of their own bodies altering their experiences. You are thinking it is simply the terrian, weather patterns, etc, aren't you? That would make sense as to your odd accusations of fallacies.

No need to define what you meant, it was pretty obvious. As to my supposedly odd accusations, I showed how they apply, if you don't like it, don't try and make logical arguments.

Anyways, here are some articles dealing on the subject:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0961/2002_Annual/83789643/p1/article.jhtml

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s851224.htm

http://anthro.palomar.edu/social/soc_3.htm

http://www.snc.edu/psych/korshavn/natnur02.htm

Please note that I am not saying it is the only factor that contributes to one's personality, as genetics usually work together with environment... but I find environment to be more of a deciding factor... environment changes, your genetics don't.

But, if genes, like I thought you were proposing, are mainly what defines us, then me and my twin should be almost exactly alike in personality-- this is not so.

First of all, thank you for trying to provide evidence to support your position. However, I need to ask you to review your own evidence before submitting it.

Take a look here:

http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0961/2002_Annual/83789643/p14/article.jhtml?term=

Is your best bet for evidence if you only read the abstract...

Unfortunetly, when you read into the article you find on page 14:

Given that all humans are one species and that personality has genetic roots (Rieman et al. 1997), the similarities among cultural groups are likely to be greater than the differences. Not surprisingly, most personality researchers emphasize the similarities in personality structure across cultures.

So cultural similarities are in fact caused by genetic similarities...

Onto the next article.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s851224.htm

Things are even worse for your case here. Their conclusions are:

We believe adult personality is characterised more by plasticity than by increasing calcification, and the mechanisms of personality change can be understood best by considering the life contexts that accompany change," they concluded.

And plasticity is defined as:

[/B]
The biological view is the so-called 'plaster' hypothesis, where personality is genetically determined and 'sets' or matures after 30. In contrast, contextual theories argue that personality is determined by a number of influences, such as life stages, experiences, social environment, and gender.

[/B]

Your third source is laughable - it's merely a presentation, not a scientific document or a report on scientific findings. It gives no references whatsoever so it's facts can not be verified. I thought you would do better then this

Your final news article does you no better, look

http://www.snc.edu/psych/korshavn/natnur02.htm

Most human behaviors are not influenced by nature or nurture but by nature and nurture, he says

In light of you saying this:

but I find environment to be more of a deciding factor...

This becomes just something you believe in. The world unfortunetly is not made up of our beliefs.

Also don't throw a strawman into the discussion, I never said genes influence personality more, I insisted that I assume it's one of the many deciding factors. I also said I am not sure on this issue. Thanks for the articles though, they certainly seem to shed some light on it.

I hope you can take this as a learning experience and not think I'm trying to attack you.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

So cultural similarities are in fact caused by genetic similarities...

No, cultural similarities can most likely be from genetics, not every cultural similarity can possibly be from genetics alone.

Personality does have genetic roots. However, environment interacts with how we are genetically stuctured.

Onto the next article.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s851224.htm

Things are even worse for your case here. Their conclusions are:


And plasticity is defined as:

Now that I go over it again (I skimmed through last time), I don't even see how that source was relevant to the argument. It seems support neither argument and only talks about how personalities change while people age...

Your third source is laughable - it's merely a presentation, not a scientific document or a report on scientific findings. It gives no references whatsoever so it's facts can not be verified. I thought you would do better then this

The third source, in fact, mentions work and findings of several scientists. What are you talking about? You skimmed it, and didn't read it...?

Your final news article does you no better, look

http://www.snc.edu/psych/korshavn/natnur02.htm

I never said personalities were determined by only one or the other. I said that they work together, but...:

In light of you saying this:

Hmm... odd, you didn't quote me entirely. Let's pull up what I said, shall we?

Please note that I am not saying it is the only factor that contributes to one's personality, as genetics usually work together with environment... but I find environment to be more of a deciding factor... environment changes, your genetics don't.

Clearly, you are not being honest by ignoring things I have said. I said I find environment to be more of a deciding factor because it is more variable-- it can be changed and manipulated.

Also don't throw a strawman into the discussion, I never said genes influence personality more, I insisted that I assume it's one of the many deciding factors. I also said I am not sure on this issue. Thanks for the articles though, they certainly seem to shed some light on it.

I hope you can take this as a learning experience and not think I'm trying to attack you. [/B]

Ignoring the fallacy, I don't know, and neither do you, since we don't know what caused the person to be racist in the first place... And don't say nurture because you're yet to show evidence that nurture plays major role in the development of personality traits.

That is just a sample of some of your statements regarding nature and nuture. When you constantly attack the claim that "nature plays a major role..." like that, it very much appears that you think it is mostly genetics and not environment.

I never said that genetics don't play a major role, they do. I, however, think that environment plays a role moreso because it is variable and can very much change.

 

[ImpyTimpy]

No, cultural similarities can most likely be from genetics, not every cultural similarity can possibly be from genetics alone.

Just paraphrasing the author of the article in your link. That seems to be what he was getting at (and that was a lot of reading ). The article wasn't relevant to your argument to be honest but it made some good reading.

Personality does have genetic roots. However, environment interacts with how we are genetically stuctured.

Now that I go over it again (I skimmed through last time), I don't even see how that source was relevant to the argument. It seems support neither argument and only talks about how personalities change while people age...

That's exactly my point - check your sources before using them.

The third source, in fact, mentions work and findings of several scientists. What are you talking about? You skimmed it, and didn't read it...?

I did read it. I should've said it wasn't referenced properly. It gives mentions of two scientists and a very short mention of another but doesn't give further details (journal/paper details for cross reference). In academic terms, this article was worthless, in fact, it wouldn't even stand up as an academic paper.

I never said personalities were determined by only one or the other. I said that they work together, but...

Hmm... odd, you didn't quote me entirely. Let's pull up what I said, shall we?

Please note that I am not saying it is the only factor that contributes to one's personality, as genetics usually work together with environment... but I find environment to be more of a deciding factor... environment changes, your genetics don't.

Clearly, you are not being honest by ignoring things I have said. I said I find environment to be more of a deciding factor because it is more variable-- it can be changed and manipulated.

Sorry if I came off as dishonest. I also note you've changed your stance from environment plays a huge role in personality to environment plays a slightly larger role in personality... I'm glad you're able to recognise facts and change your beliefs (if only slightly, it's a start).

Ignoring the fallacy, I don't know, and neither do you, since we don't know what caused the person to be racist in the first place... And don't say nurture because you're yet to show evidence that nurture plays major role in the development of personality traits.

That is just a sample of some of your statements regarding nature and nuture. When you constantly attack the claim that "nature plays a major role..." like that, it very much appears that you think it is mostly genetics and not environment.

I never said that genetics don't play a major role, they do. I, however, think that environment plays a role moreso because it is variable and can very much change.

You're still pushing a strawman. I repeatedly pointed out I am not claiming genetics plays a major role in personality development, simply that I do not know.

Still, I am glad you've changed your original claim to reflect the facts more closely, however the articles do state that nature and nurture play equal roles in the development.

I don't mean to come off sounding mean, but what you find is what you believe in, not what the articles seem to suggest. The articles actually suggest genetics and environment play equal roles in the development.

P.S.

Thanks for maintaining a civil tone, it's a welcome change