50-0-50 rule

Originally Posted by Moonbear

I've never heard of such a rule either. And, there certainly is an influence of rearing on behavior. If there wasn't, scientists wouldn't go to such great lengths to cross-foster rats to elimate that bias of maternal interactions/rearing in behavior experiments. Why on earth would other environment be so influential and family environment not be? It doesn't even make sense.

In her 1995 article, and then in her 1998 book The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do, Harris methodically demolishes the universally held assumption that how parents raise their children is a major determining factor in how they turn out. Harris instead argues that parental socialization has very little effect on children because they are mostly socialized and influenced by their peers. While Harris’s conclusion was enormously controversial and widely condemned by politicians and the media alike, it is in fact corroborated by behavior genetic research.

Originally Posted by Pythagorean

Well, that's why it's so interesting, because it's counter-intuitive. Of course, we don't like to hear it as parents, but that doesn't mean it's false.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...-no-effect-chi

Originally Posted by Evo

Unfortunately this is the old "nature versus nurture" argument made by racists and eugenicists that argue that IQ is primarily genetic in order to push their agendas to wipe out races and people of "lower IQ" that are incapable of producing intelligent offspring, in their opinion.

Neried and I fought this battle for at least 2 years here against those that were pushing this train of thought. We won.

Originally Posted by Evo

Unfortunately this is the old "nature versus nurture" argument made by racists and eugenicists that argue that IQ is primarily genetic in order to push their agendas to wipe out races and people of "lower IQ" that are incapable of producing intelligent offspring, in their opinion.

Originally Posted by ideasrule

What? So you're claiming that Judith Rich is advocating eugenics because he believes genetics is as important as environmental factors in determining intelligence?

Originally Posted by Proton Soup

i don't think it is exactly that. genetics may determine your neurochemistry, and that may have a huge factor on your "personality". not that personality should be taken as other things, tho, like "character"/behaving morally. i'd expect genetics to have a big influence on whether a person is say, gregarious or a risk-taker.

IQ? i'm not even sure i know exactly what that means. but perhaps genetics do play a role in predisposing people for certain tasks. we do know that it can determine what muscles you may or may not have. if you're white, you probably have a psoas minor, but not if you're black. and if musculo-skeletal structure is affected, there's no reason to believe that there aren't statistical differences in brain structure.

Originally Posted by ideasrule

What? So you're claiming that Judith Rich is advocating eugenics because he believes genetics is as important as environmental factors in determining intelligence? I can't believe you would make such an accusation based on a person's scientific beliefs! There's PLENTY of evidence proving genetics has a major role in determining intelligence, and PLENTY of evidence proving environmental factors play a major role as well. Just because this guy believes the split is 50-50 between genetics and environment instead of 49-51 or 40-60, he's a racist and eugenicist?

This kind of ad hominem attack is typical of religion and politics, but has no place in science.

Originally Posted by Evo

I was simply telling people this was referring to the old nature vs nurture argument, since they didn't understand and thought they've never heard of it. You know the famous twin experiments? I don't think pythagorean is a eugenicist or is calling for racial cleansing, I never said that.

But if anyone here thinks we're going to go down the racist/eugenics road, nope.

Originally Posted by denverdoc

Actually, Evo, I don't see it as nature vs nurture so much as nurture vs nurture: the claim is that most, if not all of the environmental inflluences are coming from the kids' peers and general socializing influences of whatever culture he/she may be reared in, and very little from the parents/immediate family.

I find it an astonishing notion in that practically every screwed up kid I have met has guess what, screwed up parents. At least within western psychiatry, there has been a back and forth re the effect of the parents--Freudian's believe that just about every problem can be traced back to the collective influence of traumas, small and large, intended or not, on the part of the parents. More recent psychoanalytic theory tends to get away from this extreme view with folks like Melanie Klein suggestng that a parent only need be good enough for crucial development milestones to be successfully achieved.

If you buy into the latter notion as I do, (and I'm not much of a fan of psychoanalysis) it may well be that peers, teachers and others become the primary shapers of the child's personality. And maybe the percentage of really screwed up parents is small enough that truly bad parenting gets washed out in a study of this type. I believe that's why both I and Andy R were questioning the effects of abuse. I've often wondered how the kibbutzes did in this regard as presumably the effects of lousy biological parents would be softened by the large amount of contact with healthier members, just as having a good granny or aunt here can ameliorate the effeects of the primary caregivers. At least that was my take. There were too many other confounding issues with Kibbutzism in my limited knowledge of the subject to draw any conclusions re the question at hand.