|
|
We appreciate your help
in keeping this site going.
|
|
10-30-2014, 03:08 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 8,310
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nailer
Ike dislays the terminal uniqueness he decries.
|
Nailer is unclear on the concept.
|
10-30-2014, 03:18 PM
|
|
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by donquixote99
|
Very interesting, thanks. They note the use of drugs to suppress using drink/drugs but don't mention genetic engineering before conception, which I think is coming. [EDIT: I mean, really soon]
Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
|
10-30-2014, 05:07 PM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 8,310
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by donquixote99
|
Wow...the NIH and the Swedes are just figuring out that there may be a genetic component, eh?
Bio-Psycho-Social. Everything is Bio-Psycho-Social. There's a biological component, a psychological component, and a socialization component. And the biological and social components both have a profound effect on psychological development.
The data however, enormous amounts of data, will always continue to remind us that anti-social behavior, sociopathological behavior, psycopathological behavior...whatever we want to call it this week...is most evident in those who have had a history of abuse and or neglect in their early development. Those who have the bio part, the genetic load will be more susceptible to developing the actual conduct disordered behavior as children and subsequent anti-social behavior as adults, than those without the genetic load. There are plenty of people (the majority actually) who have horrendous early developmental histories and never exhibit "un-human" (in-human?) behaviors. But it's pretty rare to find anybody who exhibits those behaviors who hasn't had the bad developmental history. It's occasionally found in the psychotic, but those behaviors don't really appear in the psychotic with any greater frequency than in the general population.
I read the article three times and I don't believe anything in it suggested that these scientists looked at anything outside of genetics. There was even the, what I consider to be, silly-ass comment that there are probably many other genes involved in these behaviors. So it appears that having a daddy who gave you a choice between the belt, the board and the pipe wrench for tonight's beating has nothing to do with it...at least according to these guys.
One thing I left out is that it's pretty much the double fuck for children who have had violently abusive parents as they're more likely to have the genetic loading as well as the environmental experience.
Last edited by Ike Bana; 10-30-2014 at 05:09 PM.
|
10-30-2014, 08:12 PM
|
|
Ready
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 19,163
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike Bana
Wow...the NIH and the Swedes are just figuring out that there may be a genetic component, eh?
Bio-Psycho-Social. Everything is Bio-Psycho-Social. There's a biological component, a psychological component, and a socialization component. And the biological and social components both have a profound effect on psychological development.
The data however, enormous amounts of data, will always continue to remind us that anti-social behavior, sociopathological behavior, psycopathological behavior...whatever we want to call it this week...is most evident in those who have had a history of abuse and or neglect in their early development. Those who have the bio part, the genetic load will be more susceptible to developing the actual conduct disordered behavior as children and subsequent anti-social behavior as adults, than those without the genetic load. There are plenty of people (the majority actually) who have horrendous early developmental histories and never exhibit "un-human" (in-human?) behaviors. But it's pretty rare to find anybody who exhibits those behaviors who hasn't had the bad developmental history. It's occasionally found in the psychotic, but those behaviors don't really appear in the psychotic with any greater frequency than in the general population.
I read the article three times and I don't believe anything in it suggested that these scientists looked at anything outside of genetics. There was even the, what I consider to be, silly-ass comment that there are probably many other genes involved in these behaviors. So it appears that having a daddy who gave you a choice between the belt, the board and the pipe wrench for tonight's beating has nothing to do with it...at least according to these guys.
One thing I left out is that it's pretty much the double fuck for children who have had violently abusive parents as they're more likely to have the genetic loading as well as the environmental experience.
|
There is a tunnel-vision trap in science. When I arrived at college the behaviorists ruled and the undergrad psych majors had all been taught to say there was no evidence that genetics had any influence on behavior.
|
10-30-2014, 11:30 PM
|
|
Rational Anarchist
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: DFW
Posts: 7,315
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike Bana
Nailer is unclear on the concept.
|
The first time I saw the term terminal uniquesness was in a thread where you and Zeke, and you and finnbow were jousting. At a moment of zealous frustration you complimented both on their terminal uniqueness. A visit to Google and a bit of reading generated a pleasant laugh.
This thread is the second time I've seen the concept referenced. My post's humor attempt is fairly tangential so I may just be the only one who got it. Even so, I enjoyed the thought path and creation of my prose. This trait is one of my many non terminal unique qualities.
If you have posted an explanation of teminal uniqueness that is clearer than a cursory Internet search would reveal, I'll read it.
__________________
"We have met the enemy and he is us."
Last edited by nailer; 11-02-2014 at 06:51 PM.
|
10-31-2014, 10:35 AM
|
|
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
|
|
As long as it doesn't harm any dogs [/deadpan]
Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
|
10-31-2014, 01:48 PM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,907
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nailer
The first time I saw the term terminal uniquesness was in a thread where you and Zeke, and you and finnbow were jousting. At a moment of zealous frustration you complimented both on their terminal uniqueness. A visit to Google and a bit of reading generated a pleasant laugh...
|
Yeh, the self-proclaimed nation's only liberal Zionist accuses others of terminal uniqueness.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
11-01-2014, 10:23 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 8,310
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
Yeh, the self-proclaimed nation's only liberal Zionist accuses others of terminal uniqueness.
|
You go right ahead and show everybody where I said I'm the only liberal in the country who supports the state of Israel. You most certainly are confused.
|
11-01-2014, 10:27 AM
|
|
Reformed Know-Nothing
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: MoCo, MD
Posts: 25,907
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ike Bana
You go right ahead and show everybody where I said I'm the only liberal in the country who supports the state of Israel. You most certainly are confused.
|
Again, I used a bit of hyperbole and you, like others, seem to be unaware of the use of hyperbole as a rhetorical tool. You do, however, frequently emphasize the rarity of your stance on Israel for a liberal.
__________________
As long as the roots are not severed, all will be well in the garden.
|
11-02-2014, 09:11 AM
|
Banned
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 8,310
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by nailer
The first time I saw the term terminal uniquesness was in a thread where you and Zeke, and you and finnbow were jousting. At a moment of zealous frustration you complimented both on their terminal uniqueness. A visit to Google and a bit of reading generated a pleasant laugh.
This tread is the second time I've seen the concept referenced. My post's humor attempt is fairly tangential so I may just be the only one who got it. Even so, I enjoyed the thought path and creation of my prose. This trait is one of my many non terminal unique qualities.
If you have posted an explanation of teminal uniqueness that is clearer than a cursory Internet search would reveal, I'll read it.
|
I don't know about recent web-def explanations, but in it's origin, it's an old 12-stepper's concept. The terminally unique type places him/herself above other people...pretty much above everything (the booze ends up being more important than any relationship, family, or pretty much anything else). Thus Pete's clear indication that in his HO humans generally and himself specifically are, in the grand scheme of things, more important than the beasts sounded pretty terminally unique to me. I intended no reference beyond that specific comment.
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:49 PM.
|