Re:The ‘Real You’ Is a Myth
by boomboomsubban on Thursday September 27, 2018 @10:12AM
(#18084624)
My point is that social conditioning begins the moment you have interactions with the child, and if you notice a behavior you expect a similar behavior. I can't see how that would be disputed, though the importance of any one aspect is still unclear.
> though the importance of any one aspect
There's a lot more certainty about the relative weight of these factors than you might expect. Pick up any beginners developmental psychology textbook and see for yourself.
Unless you're actually trying to debunk the whole field in which case you'll need more than just a glib remark.
Re:The ‘Real You’ Is a Myth
by boomboomsubban on Thursday September 27, 2018 @10:44AM
(#18084979)
The field hardly has consensus on the issue. It is one if the areas where twin studies are a primary form of research. Ignoring any potential issues being raised about twin studies, personality traits seem to have a medium heratibility. Which makes it difficult to determine what personality traits are genetic in the best situations, and a parent's anecdotal opinion is far from the best situation.
As I say, it has a far greater consensus than what you said.
Re:The ‘Real You’ Is a Myth
by boomboomsubban on Thursday September 27, 2018 @01:09PM
(#18086509)
All you've said is that I'm wrong, and linked a 1939 Anthropology paper detailing an experiment testing if certain people talk more.
No scientist worth a damn watch a very young baby for a few hours and determine that their genetics mean they will have some personality trait. At best, genetics provide a range of how strong a personality trait is, with environment and chance both influencing things too.
Ah you're only a grumpy contrarian.
You've supplied nothing but spite to this discussion. Go back under your rock.
If you can elaborate on your point of view I'd be happy to further explain what I mean here.
[0] https://www.jstor.org/stable/87360?seq=1#page_scan_tab_conte...