Author Topic: Geni ili odgoj?  (Read 7783 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.410
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Geni ili odgoj?
« on: 02-04-2014, 00:56:52 »
Vreme je da ova problematika dobije svoju temu. Članak na Crackedu me je potakao, ali imali smo takve priče i ranije.

http://www.cracked.com/article_21053_5-traits-you-think-you-control-but-totally-dont.html

Objavljeno je prvog aprila, pa se nadam da nije neka prvoaprilska šala, a opet, možda mi je lakovernost u genima. Dakle, postoje stvari koje nas definišu i koje imamo zapisane u genima (ili ono novo čudo, epigenetika), i tu uticaj okoline slabo šta može da promeni, ali bilo bi interesantno utvrditi da li bi neka SF pilula mogla...

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #1 on: 02-04-2014, 11:04:14 »
pa da, šta će kapitalizam da uradi nego da tvrdi da je sve prirodno

mene bi više interesovalo da li je npr taj born to lead gen zastupljeniji u praistorijskih ljudi više nego kod današnjih, jer onda bi imalo nekog smisla

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.925
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #2 on: 02-04-2014, 11:36:48 »
Kao laik bih rekao da je obrnuto. U praistoriji je born to lead uvek bio onaj ko je bolje nabavljao hranu. Danas se taj "gen" neguje.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Ugly MF

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.161
  • Natural born FlatEarther!!!
    • https://www.facebook.com/Art-of-Bojan-Vukic-396093920831839/
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #3 on: 02-04-2014, 12:14:53 »
I hrana se neguje "gen"etski...

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.447
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #4 on: 14-01-2015, 11:04:06 »
   Should Schools Teach Personality?



Quote
Self-control, curiosity, “grit” — these qualities may seem more personal than academic, but at some schools, they’re now part of the regular curriculum. Some researchers say personality could be even more important than intelligence when it comes to students’ success in school. But critics worry that the increasing focus on qualities like grit will distract policy makers from problems with schools.
In a 2014 paper, the Australian psychology professor Arthur E. Poropat cites research showing that both conscientiousness (which he defines as a tendency to be “diligent, dutiful and hardworking”) and openness (characterized by qualities like creativity and curiosity) are more highly correlated with student performance than intelligence is. And, he notes, ratings of students’ personalities by outside observers — teachers, for instance — are even more strongly linked with academic success than the way students rate themselves. The strength of the personality-performance link is good news, he writes, because “personality has been demonstrated to change over time to a far greater extent than intelligence.”
A number of researchers have been successful in improving students’ conscientiousness, Dr. Poropat said in an interview. One team, he said, found that when elementary-school students get training in “effortful control,” a trait similar to conscientiousness, “it not only improves the students’ performance at that point in their education, but also has follow-on effects a number of years afterward.” Another study found that a 16-week problem-solving training program could increase retirees’ levels of openness.
“We probably need to start rethinking our emphasis on intelligence,” he said. “This isn’t to say that we should throw intelligence out,” he cautioned, “but we need to pull back on thinking that this is the only game in town.”
Some already have. “Grit” — which the psychology professor Angela Duckworth of the University of Pennsylvania and her co-authors define in a 2007 paper as “perseverance and passion for long-term goals,” and which they see as overlapping in some ways with conscientiousness — has become part of the curriculum at a number of schools.
Mandy Benedix, who teaches a class on grit at Rogers Middle School in Pearland, Tex., said: “We know that these noncognitive traits can be taught. We also know that it is necessary for success. You look at anybody who has had long-term sustainable success, and every one of them exhibited at some point this grit, this tenacity to keep going.”
One result of the class, which includes lessons on people, like Malala Yousafzai, who have overcome significant challenges: Students “are now willing to do the hard thing instead of always running to what was easy.” Ms. Benedix also coordinates a districtwide grit initiative — since it began, she says, the number of high schoolers taking advanced-placement classes has increased significantly.
The KIPP network of charter schools emphasizes grit along with six other “character strengths,” including self-control and curiosity. Leyla Bravo-Willey, the assistant principal at KIPP Infinity Middle School in Harlem, said, “We talk a lot about them as being skills or strengths, not necessarily traits, because it’s not innate.”
“If a child happens to be very gritty but has trouble participating in class,” she added, “we still want them to develop that part of themselves.”
The focus on character, however, has encountered criticism. The education writer and speaker Alfie Kohn, for instance, argues that grit isn’t always helpful. In a Washington Post essay adapted from his new book, “The Myth of the Spoiled Child: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom About Children and Parenting,” he writes that dogged persistence isn’t the best approach to every situation: “Even if you don’t crash and burn by staying the course, you may not fare nearly as well as if you had stopped, reassessed and tried something else.”
And, he said in an interview, an emphasis on children’s personalities could take attention away from problems with their schools. “Social psychologists for decades have identified a tendency to overestimate how important personality characteristics, motivation, individual values and the like tend to be relative to the importance of the structural characteristics of a situation,” he said. “We tend to think people just need to try harder, or have a better attitude,” but “this tends to miss the boat. What really matters is various aspects of the system itself.”
Truly improving education in America will require “asking about the environment in which kids are placed, what kids are being asked to learn, how they’re being taught, what voice they have, if any, in the experience,” he said. “Every time we focus on personality variables, we are distracted again from addressing the systemic questions that matter.”
And in an essay at The New Republic, Jeffrey Aaron Snyder, an educational studies professor at Carleton College, contends that as currently espoused by KIPP, “character-based education is untethered from any conception of morality.” And, he says in an interview, he questions the value of looking at character traits outside a larger moral framework: “What’s the importance of teaching grit if you’re not teaching it in the context of civic education, the public good, social responsibility?” Teaching it without such context “becomes kind of a looking-out-for-number-one-type approach to education.”
As an example of a better way, he points to a school he came across in his research whose students started a community garden during World War I (gardening is also part of the curriculum at some schools today). Planting, growing and distributing food taught many of the same traits that character-education programs  hope to instill, he said, “but it’s all richly integrated into a task that has genuine purpose and that makes the students think beyond themselves.”
Ms. Bravo-Willey disputes the notion that character education at KIPP is hyperindividualistic. KIPP Infinity, she said, has students get together in groups to help one another with their academic goals, like getting to class on time or making the honor roll. “They work together to do that, because that sense of community is so critical.”
Though academic success is an important goal for KIPP, she said, it’s not the only thing: “We want to make kids that are great citizens for the world.”
And some say understanding personality can help teachers tailor instruction to fit students, or help students choose fields that match their preferences. Tomas Chamorro-Premuzic, a professor of business psychology at University College London who has studied the relationship between personality and learning, is less interested in changing people’s personalities than in helping students find the right path for them. Rather than making everyone gritty in all circumstances, he said, “I think it will probably be more about helping people find what their interests are.”
“If you have no interest in classical music or no interest in starting your business,” he said, “I doubt that you will be very gritty or display a lot of passion and perseverance there.” But personality assessment could help people find areas where they might be more likely to persevere — it could “teach people what they’re naturally like, so they can make better choices.” And rather than changing their personalities completely, people might simply learn behaviors to help them better deal with their existing traits. For instance, he said, “if I know that I’m generally an introverted person and I don’t enjoy social events, I can teach myself four or five simple strategies to relate to other people.”
“I shouldn’t really aspire to be something completely different,” he said, “because that’s a very, very hard and counterproductive task.” And, he added, “We wouldn’t want to live in a world where everybody has the same personality.”
Ms. Benedix believes understanding students’ personalities could help her meet their needs. If she knows a child is introverted, for instance, she might not expect him or her to demonstrate knowledge by speaking up frequently in class. “Anytime you’re teaching any kid,” she said, “the more I know about their personality and how they learn best, the better I’m going to be able to reach them and deliver that.”
And Dr. Poropat said a knowledge of students’ personality traits “provides teachers with more guidance on what they should be doing in the classroom.” People with high levels of openness may learn differently from those in whom the trait is less prominent, he noted. “You can train the students who are low on openness to become more open and curious and so on, but also the teacher can adapt their way of learning to suit the students.”
“A good teacher makes a huge difference,” he said. “It’s not just what the student brings.”




mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.410
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #5 on: 14-01-2015, 14:46:47 »
True grit... Kako li bi se "grit" prevelo kod nas? Istrajnost i strast za dugoročne ciljeve, šta bi to bilo kod nas? Kroz maglu se sećam kako je u Boljem životu kapetan pametovao mladom vojniku Bobi Popadiću: "Gde ima volje i želje ima i načina". Možda je to kod nas volja i želja...

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.447
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #6 on: 14-01-2015, 14:53:57 »
Posvećenost?

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.410
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #7 on: 14-01-2015, 15:37:58 »

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.925
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #8 on: 14-01-2015, 17:24:28 »
Kad govorite o ovoj temi molio bih da izostavite etničku vizuru.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.410
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #9 on: 14-01-2015, 17:36:55 »
Misliš li da sam ja rekao da ako te reči nema kod nas onda nema ni ljudi koji to imaju? Ja to nisam rekao.

Ali, kad si već spomenuo, u tekstu upravo piše da je posvećenost (grit) osobina  koja može da se uči, a učenje je deo kulture, a kultura je deo etniciteta, pa postoje osnove da pričamo i o tome, ako baš mora. Ali ne mora.

pokojni Steva

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.040
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #10 on: 14-01-2015, 18:25:35 »
U mom selu se grit daje kokoškama da ne lupaju jaja  :lol:
Jelte, jel' i kod vas petnaes' do pola dvanaes'?

дејан

  • омнирелигиозни фанатични фундаменталиста
  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 3.563
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #11 on: 10-03-2015, 17:50:13 »
ова увек актуелна тема (посебно на овом форуму) би могла комотно да иде у још неколико топика (рецимо у ментална заосталост наших људи)

 The Secrets To Handling Passive-Aggressive People


(још једна занимљивост везана за неочекивано пристојни горњи чланак, је да га је писао сигурно један од (ако тако може да се каже) најпасивноагресивнијих људи на ио9 - вероватно прорадила подсвест :) )
...barcode never lies
FLA

дејан

  • омнирелигиозни фанатични фундаменталиста
  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 3.563
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #12 on: 11-03-2015, 16:19:10 »
ио9 се ових дана баш намерио на сагиту

This Video Will Save You From Wasting So Much Time Arguing Online


негде на 3.36 доле закаченог филма укратко се приказује како је бобан повремено успевао да повећа број посетилаца на форуму али и како је овај форум срозан до непрепознатљивости у последње 4 године. доле постављени графикон показује колико је бес запаљив интернет материјал а ЗС пример шта се деси када се таквим материјалом лоше, погрешно или уопште не управља (кроз (не)одговарајућу модерацију)


Quote
If you're familiar with the original definition of "meme," you know that ideas can spread and mutate. But what makes memes spread faster? Anger. Here's a video that explores how "angry thought germs" can spread, and reinforce opposing viewpoints.
Where Memes Really Come From
Though history will probably remember Richard Dawkins as the activist who spearheaded a new atheist …
Some quick background: The video, created by YouTuber CGP Grey, is based in large part on a 2012 investigation by researchers at the University of Pennsylvania called "What Makes Online Content Viral?" A preprint version of the article, which was published in the Journal of Marketing Research, can be accessed here, free of charge. (The video also draws heavily on the concept of a "meme," as first presented by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene – though society's conception of what constitutes a meme has changed so dramatically and ironically over time that CGP Grey chose deliberately to avoid the word altogether.)

In one part of their investigation, researchers Jonah Berger and Katherine Milkman analyzed the content of articles on The New York Times homepage and monitored how likely those articles were to be shared. Their observations revealed that the emotions an article kindled in its readers – emotions like awe, anxiety, and especially anger – contributed as much or more to its "virality" as its visibility on the NYT homepage. A table summarizing these findings, which also appears in CGP Grey's video, is featured here. [Credit: Berger and Milkman]
"For example, a one-standard deviation increase in the amount of anger an article evokes increases the odds that it will make the most e-mailed list by 34% ," write the researchers. "This increase is equivalent to spending an additional 2.9 hours as the lead story on the New York Times website, which is nearly four times the average number of hours articles spend in that position."
Anyway, CGP Grey's larger thesis is that anger-stoking content gives rise to these "thought germs" that opposing groups rely on to signal their allegiance in the Internet standoff du jour – the pitfall being that, when these groups and their ideas get big enough, they cease engaging with one another and shift instead to arguing with one another about how angry the other group(s) makes them.
In calling attention to this dynamic, the video does a couple of things particularly well. First, guides the viewer toward the obvious conclusion that this kind of infighting is actually hugely counterproductive, and wouldn't it be swell if we all took a second to breathe and take inventory of our beliefs and just, like, listen to each other man, and maybe keep that in mind the next time we're embroiled in The Next Great Internet Yelling-Match? Which... that's a good point. A bit facile, and one that's been made before, and explored in greater detail, repeatedly, since forever (and for a really fantastic take on it, I highly recommend Barbara Hernstein Smith's Belief and Resistance: Dynamics of Contemporary Intellectual Controversy). But a good point.
The second thing the video does well (and this is more unique and interesting, I think), is serve as a Rorschach test. Whatever controversy or controversies spring to mind when you watch this video, those are the positions you should deconstruct in the interest of sorting your own ideas from those that have, in CGP Grey's words, "passed through a lot of other brains and poke you where you are weakest."


This Video Will Make You Angry
...barcode never lies
FLA

PTY

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 8.602
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #13 on: 16-03-2015, 08:31:57 »
... posvećenost (grit) osobina  koja može da se uči, a učenje je deo kulture, a kultura je deo etniciteta, pa postoje osnove da pričamo i o tome...

u dokaz te tvrdnje:

Quote
America dumbs down

The U.S. is being overrun by a wave of anti-science, anti-intellectual thinking. Has the most powerful nation on Earth lost its mind?



South Carolina’s state beverage is milk. Its insect is the praying mantis. There’s a designated dance—the shag—as well a sanctioned tartan, game bird, dog, flower, gem and snack food (boiled peanuts). But what Olivia McConnell noticed was missing from among her home’s 50 official symbols was a fossil. So last year, the eight-year-old science enthusiast wrote to the governor and her representatives to nominate the Columbian mammoth. Teeth from the woolly proboscidean, dug up by slaves on a local plantation in 1725, were among the first remains of an ancient species ever discovered in North America. Forty-three other states had already laid claim to various dinosaurs, trilobites, primitive whales and even petrified wood. It seemed like a no-brainer. “Fossils tell us about our past,” the Grade 2 student wrote.

And, as it turns out, the present, too. The bill that Olivia inspired has become the subject of considerable angst at the legislature in the state capital of Columbia. First, an objecting state senator attached three verses from Genesis to the act, outlining God’s creation of all living creatures. Then, after other lawmakers spiked the amendment as out of order for its introduction of the divinity, he took another crack, specifying that the Columbian mammoth “was created on the sixth day with the other beasts of the field.” That version passed in the senate in early April. But now the bill is back in committee as the lower house squabbles over the new language, and it’s seemingly destined for the same fate as its honouree—extinction.

What has doomed Olivia’s dream is a raging battle in South Carolina over the teaching of evolution in schools. Last week, the state’s education oversight committee approved a new set of science standards that, if adopted, would see students learn both the case for, and against, natural selection.

Charles Darwin’s signature discovery—first published 155 years ago and validated a million different ways since—long ago ceased to be a matter for serious debate in most of the world. But in the United States, reconciling science and religious belief remains oddly difficult. A national poll, conducted in March for the Associated Press, found that 42 per cent of Americans are “not too” or “not at all” confident that all life on Earth is the product of evolution. Similarly, 51 per cent of people expressed skepticism that the universe started with a “big bang” 13.8 billion years ago, and 36 per cent doubted the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years.

The American public’s bias against established science doesn’t stop where the Bible leaves off, however. The same poll found that just 53 per cent of respondents were “extremely” or “very confident” that childhood vaccines are safe and effective. (Worldwide, the measles killed 120,000 people in 2012. In the United States, where a vaccine has been available since 1963, the last recorded measles death was in 2003.) When it comes to global warming, only 33 per cent expressed a high degree of confidence that it is “man made,” something the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has declared is all but certain. (The good news, such as it was in the AP poll, was that 69 per cent actually believe in DNA, and 82 per cent now agree that smoking causes cancer.)

If the rise in uninformed opinion was limited to impenetrable subjects that would be one thing, but the scourge seems to be spreading. Everywhere you look these days, America is in a rush to embrace the stupid. Hell-bent on a path that’s not just irrational, but often self-destructive. Common-sense solutions to pressing problems are eschewed in favour of bumper-sticker simplicities and blind faith.

In a country bedevilled by mass shootings—Aurora, Colo.; Fort Hood, Texas; Virginia Tech—efforts at gun control have given way to ever-laxer standards. Georgia recently passed a law allowing people to pack weapons in state and local buildings, airports, churches and bars. Florida is debating legislation that will waive all firearm restrictions during state emergencies like riots or hurricanes. (One opponent has moved to rename it “an Act Relating to the Zombie Apocalypse.”) And since the December 2012 massacre of 20 children and six staff at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newtown, Conn., 12 states have passed laws allowing guns to be carried in schools, and 20 more are considering such measures.

The cost of a simple appendectomy in the United States averages $33,000 and it’s not uncommon for such bills to top six figures. More than 15 per cent of the population has no health insurance whatsoever. Yet efforts to fill that gaping hole via the Affordable Health Care Act—a.k.a. Obamacare—remain distinctly unpopular. Nonsensical myths about the government’s “real” intentions have found so much traction that 30 per cent still believe that there will be official “death panels” to make decisions on end-of-life care.

Since 2001, the U.S. government has been engaged in an ever-widening program of spying on its own—and foreign—citizens, tapping phones, intercepting emails and texts, and monitoring social media to track the movements, activities and connections of millions. Still, many Americans seem less concerned with the massive violations of their privacy in the name of the War on Terror, than imposing Taliban-like standards on the lives of others. Last month, the school board in Meridian, Idaho voted to remove The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian by Sherman Alexie from its Grade 10 supplemental reading list following parental complaints about its uncouth language and depictions of sex and drug use. When 17-year-old student Brady Kissel teamed up with staff from a local store to give away copies at a park as a protest, a concerned citizen called police. It was the evening of April 23, which was also World Book Night, an event dedicated to “spreading the love of reading.”

If ignorance is contagious, it’s high time to put the United States in quarantine.

Americans have long worried that their education system is leaving their children behind. With good reason: national exams consistently reveal how little the kids actually know. In the last set, administered in 2010 (more are scheduled for this spring), most fourth graders were unable to explain why Abraham Lincoln was an important figure, and only half were able to order North America, the U.S., California and Los Angeles by size. Results in civics were similarly dismal. While math and reading scores have improved over the years, economics remains the “best” subject, with 42 per cent of high school seniors deemed “proficient.”

They don’t appear to be getting much smarter as they age. A 2013 survey of 166,000 adults across 20 countries that tested math, reading and technological problem-solving found Americans to be below the international average in every category. (Japan, Finland, Canada, South Korea and Slovakia were among the 11 nations that scored significantly higher.)

The trends are not encouraging. In 1978, 42 per cent of Americans reported that they had read 11 or more books in the past year. In 2014, just 28 per cent can say the same, while 23 per cent proudly admit to not having read even one, up from eight per cent in 1978. Newspaper and magazine circulation continues to decline sharply, as does viewership for cable news. The three big network supper-hour shows drew a combined average audience of 22.6 million in 2013, down from 52 million in 1980. While 82 per cent of Americans now say they seek out news digitally, the quality of the information they’re getting is suspect. Among current affairs websites, Buzzfeed logs almost as many monthly hits as the Washington Post.

The advance of ignorance and irrationalism in the U.S. has hardly gone unnoticed. The late Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter won the Pulitzer prize back in 1964 for his book Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, which cast the nation’s tendency to embrace stupidity as a periodic by-product of its founding urge to democratize everything. By 2008, journalist Susan Jacoby was warning that the denseness—“a virulent mixture of anti-rationalism and low expectations”—was more of a permanent state. In her book, The Age of American Unreason, she posited that it trickled down from the top, fuelled by faux-populist politicians striving to make themselves sound approachable rather than smart. Their creeping tendency to refer to everyone—voters, experts, government officials—as “folks” is “symptomatic of a debasement of public speech inseparable from a more general erosion of American cultural standards,” she wrote. “Casual, colloquial language also conveys an implicit denial of the seriousness of whatever issue is being debated: talking about folks going off to war is the equivalent of describing rape victims as girls.”

That inarticulate legacy didn’t end with George W. Bush and Sarah Palin. Barack Obama, the most cerebral and eloquent American leader in a generation, regularly plays the same card, droppin’ his Gs and dialling down his vocabulary to Hee Haw standards. His ability to convincingly play a hayseed was instrumental in his 2012 campaign against the patrician Mitt Romney; in one of their televised debates the President referenced “folks” 17 times.

An aversion to complexity—at least when communicating with the public—can also be seen in the types of answers politicians now provide the media. The average length of a sound bite by a presidential candidate in 1968 was 42.3 seconds. Two decades later, it was 9.8 seconds. Today, it’s just a touch over seven seconds and well on its way to being supplanted by 140-character Twitter bursts.

Little wonder then that distrust—of leaders, institutions, experts, and those who report on them—is rampant. A YouGov poll conducted last December found that three-quarters of Americans agreed that science is a force for good in the world. Yet when asked if they truly believe what scientists tell them, only 36 per cent of respondents said yes. Just 12 per cent expressed strong confidence in the press to accurately report scientific findings. (Although according to a 2012 paper by Gordon Gauchat, a University of North Carolina sociologist, the erosion of trust in science over the past 40 years has been almost exclusively confined to two groups: conservatives and regular churchgoers. Counterintuitively, it is the most highly educated among them—with post-secondary education—who harbour the strongest doubts.)

The term “elitist” has become one of the most used, and feared, insults in American life. Even in the country’s halls of higher learning, there is now an ingrained bias that favours the accessible over the exacting.

“There’s a pervasive suspicion of rights, privileges, knowledge and specialization,” says Catherine Liu, the author of American Idyll: Academic Antielitism as Cultural Critique and a film and media studies professor at University of California at Irvine. Both ends of the political spectrum have come to reject the conspicuously clever, she says, if for very different reasons; the left because of worries about inclusiveness, the right because they equate objections with obstruction. As a result, the very mission of universities has changed, argues Liu. “We don’t educate people anymore. We train them to get jobs.” (Boomers, she says, deserve most of the blame. “They were so triumphalist in promoting pop culture and demoting the canon.”)

The digital revolution, which has brought boundless access to information and entertainment choices, has somehow only enhanced the lowest common denominators—LOL cat videos and the Kardashians. Instead of educating themselves via the Internet, most people simply use it to validate what they already suspect, wish or believe to be true. It creates an online environment where Jenny McCarthy, a former Playboy model with a high school education, can become a worldwide leader of the anti-vaccination movement, naysaying the advice of medical professionals.

Most perplexing, however, is where the stupid is flowing from. As conservative pundit David Frum recently noted, where it was once the least informed who were most vulnerable to inaccuracies, it now seems to be the exact opposite. “More sophisticated news consumers turn out to use this sophistication to do a better job of filtering out what they don’t want to hear,” he blogged.

But are things actually getting worse? There’s a long and not-so-proud history of American electors lashing out irrationally, or voting against their own interests. Political scientists have been tracking, since the early 1950s, just how poorly those who cast ballots seem to comprehend the policies of the parties and people they are endorsing. A wealth of research now suggests that at the most optimistic, only 70 per cent actually select the party that accurately represents their views—and there are only two choices.

Larry Bartels, the co-director of the Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions at Vanderbilt University, says he doubts that the spreading ignorance is a uniquely American phenomenon. Facing complex choices, uncertain about the consequences of the alternatives, and tasked with balancing the demands of jobs, family and the things that truly interest them with boring policy debates, people either cast their ballots reflexively, or not at all. The larger question might be whether engagement really matters. “If your vision of democracy is one in which elections provide solemn opportunities for voters to set the course of public policy and hold leaders accountable, yes,” Bartels wrote in an email to Maclean’s. “If you take the less ambitious view that elections provide a convenient, non-violent way for a society to agree on who is in charge at any given time, perhaps not.”

A study by two Princeton University researchers, Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page, released last month, tracked 1,800 U.S. policy changes between 1981 and 2002, and compared the outcome with the expressed preferences of median-income Americans, the affluent, business interests and powerful lobbies. They concluded that average citizens “have little or no independent influence” on policy in the U.S., while the rich and their hired mouthpieces routinely get their way. “The majority does not rule,” they wrote.

Smart money versus dumb voters is hardly a fair fight. But it does offer compelling evidence that the survival of the fittest remains an unshakable truth even in American life. A sad sort of proof of evolution.

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/america-dumbs-down/

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.447
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #14 on: 12-06-2015, 09:31:34 »
Apocalypse Neuro: Why Our Brains Don't Process the Gravest Threats to Humanity





Quote
Our brains are incredible little mushboxes; they are unfathomably complex, powerful organs that grant us motor skills, logic, and abstract thought. Brains have bequeathed unto we humans just about every cognitive advantage, it seems, except for one little omission: the ability to adequately process the concept of long-term, civilization-threatening phenomena. They've proven miracle workers for the short-term survival of individuals, but the human brain sort of malfunctions when it comes to navigating wide-lens, slowly-unfurling crises like climate change.
Humans have, historically, proven absolutely awful, even incapable, of comprehending the large, looming—dare I say apocalyptic?—slowburn threats facing their societies.
“Our brain is essentially a get-out-of-the-way machine,” Daniel Gilbert, a professor of psychology at Harvard says in his . “That’s why we can duck a baseball in milliseconds.” That is, our brain seems to be programmed to react best to hard, certain information—threats that unfold over generations fail to trigger our reactionary instincts. “Many environmentalists say climate change is happening too fast,” Gilbert says. “No, it’s happening too slowly. It’s not happening nearly quickly enough to get our attention.”
It’s an unfortunate quirk of human psychology; it’s allowed us to outwit and outplay most other species around the globe—we’re smarter, more resourceful, more conniving—but it might also come to mean we won't outlast them. There are currently a host of very real, very pressing, and very long-simmering crises on our plates; climate change, sure, but also biggies like mass extinction and biodiversity loss and ocean acidification, which will take up to many decades before they become full-blown, civilization-threatening calamities.
That’s why I’ve always bristled a bit at the post-colon header of Jared Diamond’s great book, Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed. What society, comprised of humans capable of abstract thought, with fully developed brains, would actively choose to fail? “It’s been a good run, but seeing as how I am exhausted from all this rapaciousness and decadence, I hereby opt to Fall” -the Roman Empire.
Diamond’s work, published in 2005, before the emergence of the post-Inconvenient Truthclimate change awareness boom, details the myriad ways that societies doom themselves, primarily through environmental misdeeds that should be ominously familiar to contemporary society, like deforestation, overfishing, and the ruination of farmland, as well as unsustainable social practices like slavery, over-taxation, and loss of trade partners.
The societies he examines—like that of Easter Island, which he argues perished almost solely because it gradually degraded the environment it relied upon for food and ship-making—can maybe be said to have had a choice to have done things differently, in hindsight. But given what we know now about how the human brain is wired, it’s unclear that, even given the observable information that slowly failing societies had at the time—food stocks that seemed to be declining, that fewer and fewer trees were apparently available to construct shelter or vessels, and that farmland’s yields kept on decreasing—their members would have been cognitively equipped to tackle the existential threats that would prove bigger problems for their grandchildren then themselves.
It seems perverse, but a load of evidence shows this to be true—our grey matter is set up to instruct us to cope with the here-and-now, and flails in the face of long, uncertain future threats.



In a survey of the research on how the brain processes climate change, the Guardian reports that psychologists, neurologists, and social scientists alike have demonstrated that our brains are programmed to respond to immediate, or “reliable” inputs—the slow, gradual rise of global temperatures accompanied by a host of difficult-to-predict impacts is perhaps the antithesis of what we’re designed to react swiftly to. The oft-cited “Marshmallow study,” in which children were shown to exhibit a willingness to make sacrifices in the present for greater rewards (more mallows) in the future only if they knew for certain that reward was incipient, that it was "reliable," is evidence of said behavior. Kids who weren’t sure they’d be rewarded mostly weren’t willing to do shit.
We’re all kind of like children, when it comes to these decadal threats. We opt for instant gratification—guzzling oil, burning coal, razing forests, manufacturing plastic—in the face of what we perceive to be unreliability. We’re greedy little fossil-fueled Fausts.
Even Al Gore points to neuroscience to illuminate this obstacle. The science journal Nature, covering one of Gore's speeches, explains the VP's take: "Evolution, he said, had trained us to respond quickly and viscerally to threats. But when humans are confronted with 'a threat to the existence of civilization that can only be perceived in the abstract', we don’t do so well. Citing functional magnetic resonance imaging, he said that the connecting line between amygdalae, which he described as the urgency centre of the brain, with the neocortex is a one way street: emotional emergencies can spark reasoning, but not the other way around."
Of course, the science itself is anything but unreliable. A staggering 97 percent of scientists agree that climate change is caused by man, and while they certainly disagree on the precise fallout if we fail to decide to change our ways, most are certain that for billions of people, especially the world’s poor, will suffer.
That’s all but guaranteed. But what is it, the big difference between the slowly unfurling climate crises that are sure to eventually wipe out whole coastal communities and cities in arid places, and, say, the slowly unfurling nuclear crises that may or may not eventually wipe out whole metropolises and military bases?
“Why,” as the science journalist George Marshall writes, does the one “quicken the pulse, and the [other] induce widespread indifference?” Marshall is the author of Don’t Even Think About It: Why Our Brains Are Wired to Ignore Climate Change, and tries to explicate why, even though we’re aware of climate change, we never seem to list it as a pressing threat (we don’t—survey after survey finds global warming ranking extremely low among Americans’ priorities). The answer, he says, of course, lies in psychology.
“The primary reason is that our innate sense of social competition has made us acutely alert to any threat posed by external enemies,” he wrote in an op-ed last year. “In experiments, children as young as three can tell the difference between an accident and a deliberate attack. Climate change confounds this core moral formula: it is a perfect and undetectable crime everyone contributes to but for which no one has a motive.”
So the lack of anyone immediate to lay blame on (deep down, Americans know it’s largely our fault, even if we like to make ham-fisted attempts at blaming China) further complicates the picture.
Even if you live on the vanishing shores of Bangladesh, in the tinder brush woods of the Australian outback, or the parched dustbin of the American Southwest, your brain is not making the case that climate change is going to kill you. Storms might, wildfires might, drought might, the symptoms of a warming globe might. But climate change itself remains impersonal, an abstraction, and registers little need for urgent action.
On top of that, we’re afflicted with confirmation bias, which helps prevent those whose political ideologies (like tax-and-regulation-averse political conservatives) are at odds with curtailing the behaviors that beget climate change, mass extinctions, or ocean acidification, from accepting that they are happening at all. Entrenched conservatives actively seek out (the very flimsy) arguments that humans are not warming the atmosphere, not acidifying the oceans, to confirm their bias that big government and taxes are anathema to a free society. (We all do this, on different issues.) So yes, there’s a cognitive reason that your uncle is still in denial about climate change, despite the vast sea of evidence washing up on his doorstep—and that so many politicians steadfastly refuse to accept the vast scientific evidence that humans activity is warming the globe.



So is there any way to bridge this gap? How do we get the human brain to concern itself with slow-moving apocalypses? Science has been tackling this issue, relentlessly, for the past few years. There have been countless studies on the best way to frame messaging, on whether or not doomsaying is an effective motivator of action, or whether optimistic, “business-friendly” language can inspire cooperation without rocking the boat. Here’s an example: a study on the neuroscience of climate engagement that argues that “Moral cognitive neuroscience, and in particular the dual-process theory, indicates that up, close and personal harm triggers deontological moral reasoning, whereas harm originating from impersonal moral violations, like those produced by climate impacts, prompts consequentialist moral reasoning.”
Basically, it seems to be suggesting we embrace an ends-justify-the-means approach, and appeal to our innate moralistic imperative to act towards a greater good—even if that greater good is so far off as to seem uncertain to our survivalist brains. You can see why few of these papers has yet offered environmentalists, politicians, or scientists a silver bullet to rally the masses to action.
It’s deflating stuff. Climate change in particular has been called a “wicked problem,”—even a super wicked problem—seemingly expertly concocted by some malevolent overlord to confound human abilities. Marshall reiterates that fighting climate change requires personal sacrifice now for fuzzy benefits much later: “The cognitive psychologist Daniel Kahneman, who won a Nobel prize for his studies of how irrationally we respond to such issues, sighed deeply when I asked him to assess our chances: ‘Sorry,’ he said, ‘I am deeply pessimistic. I see no path to success.’”
All this may be one reason we're so enamored with apocalyptic fiction right now: maybe it relieves some of that abstract cognitive dissonance that comes with grappling with a real far off threat by resolving the crisis, immediately and violently, so we don't have to think about it anymore. Combine our neurological deficiencies with our current political ones, and it’s easy to despair.
“If you were going to weaponize an issue to take advantage of the weak points in the American political system—to highlight all the blind spots, dysfunctions, and irrationalities—you would create climate change,” Ezra Klein wrote last year. “And then you would stand back and watch the world burn.”
At least all that burning should finally light up our brains.
Humans are capable of tackling long-term monster threats—look how Australia conquered its megadrought, for one—but perhaps only when it registers unambiguously as a threat to our brains. When that particular tipping point will hit is anyone’s guess; we’ve already stared down the barrel of climate change-fueled hurricanes, drought, and floods. It seems foolish to expect that we’re only another crisis away from cooperation. We may, as Diamond might say, already have chosen to fail. If we have, we’ll have no one to blame but our brains.

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.925
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #15 on: 12-06-2015, 10:00:35 »
Jared Diamond je moj tip mislioca. Čini se da je poenta uvek bila u "sada i ovde" umesto u dugoročnom opstanku. Problem je što opcija arčenja tuđeg za sopstvenu dobrobit postaje sve tanja. Ili tog tuđeg više nema ili ga ne daju dobrovoljno. Uvek se može postaviti pitanje ko je pojeo Bliski Istok pre pet hiljada godina, lakše nego zapitati se kome je dojadila dekadencija Rima. I taj Rim je morao da ide sve dalje da bi se domogao tuđih resursa, od hrane i dragocenosti, do ljudi koji će ratovati za njih. Kad suviše daleko odeš, dogodi ti se da nema gde da se vratiš. Mogao bih i o tome kako smo spremno uništili sopstvenu privredu, pa danas slavimo kad dobijemo IKEA u komšiluku. Ali, to je već priča o gramzivosti, a ne o potrebi.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.447
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #16 on: 21-06-2015, 07:42:02 »
O uređivanju DNA sa namerom da se proizvedu bolji ljudi:
 
 Editing the Software of Life, for Fame and Fortune

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.925
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #17 on: 21-06-2015, 08:59:11 »
Ko će uređivati DNK za robove?

Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.410
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #18 on: 21-06-2015, 10:58:47 »
Na trenutak mi se učinilo da piše "da se proizvedu belji ljudi". Ako korekcija gena bude jeftina neki crnci u SAD bi mogli da iskoriste ovu priliku za boljim životom. A i ona Doležalka iz skorašnjih vesti bi mogla da ispravi drinu koju je sama zafrćkala.

Albedo 0

  • Guest
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #19 on: 21-06-2015, 11:02:54 »
skratite mi malo dieneja oko ušiju!

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.447
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #20 on: 12-02-2016, 07:36:48 »
Adult Neurogenesis May Be Increased by Sustained Aerobic Exercise
 
Quote

It may be possible to increase the neuron reserve of the hippocampus – and thus improve preconditions for learning – by promoting neurogenesis via sustained aerobic exercise such as running.
 
Aerobic exercise, such as running, has positive effects on brain structure and function, for example, the generation of neurons (neurogenesis) in the hippocampus, a brain structure important in learning. It has been unclear whether high-intensity interval training (HIT), referring to alternating short bouts of very intense anaerobic exercise with recovery periods, or anaerobic resistance training has similar effects on hippocampal neurogenesis in adulthood. In addition, individual genetic variation in the overall response to physical exercise likely plays a part in the effects of exercise on adult neurogenesis but is less studied.
 
Researchers from the Department of Psychology and from the Department of Biology of Physical Activity at the University of Jyväskylä studied the effects of sustained running exercise, HIT and resistance training on adult hippocampal neurogenesis in adult male rats. In addition to the commonly used Sprague-Dawley rats, rat lines developed by collaborators at the University of Michigan were also used: Rats with a genetically high response to aerobic training (HRT) and those with a low response to aerobic training (LRT). The exercise training period was 6 to 8 weeks (running, HIT or resistance training) during which control animals of the same rat line/strain remained in sedentary conditions in the home cage.
 
The results indicate that the highest number of new hippocampal neurons was observed in rats that ran long distances and that also had a genetic predisposition to benefit from aerobic exercise: Compared to sedentary animals, HRT rats that ran voluntarily on a running wheel had 2-3 times more new hippocampal neurons at the end of the experiment. Resistance training had no such effect. Also the effects of HIT were minor. To conclude, only sustained aerobic exercise improved hippocampal neurogenesis in adult animals.
The result is important because, according to previous research, the new hippocampal neurons produced as a result of neurogenesis are needed among other things for learning temporally and/or spatially complex tasks. It is possible that by promoting neurogenesis via sustained aerobic exercise, the neuron reserve of the hippocampus can be increased and thus also the preconditions for learning improved – also in humans.
 The research report has been accepted for publication in the Journal of Physiology, a respected journal both in the field of neurosciences as well as physiology.
 
Funding: Research on the connection between physical exercise and the preconditions for learning is continued in the AFIS consortium funded by the Academy of Finland.
 
Source: Miriam Nokia – Academy of Finland
 Image Credit: The image is in the public domain
 Original Research: Abstract for “Physical exercise increases adult hippocampal neurogenesis in male rats provided it is aerobic and sustained” by Miriam S. Nokia, Sanna Lensu, Juha P. Ahtiainen, Petra P. Johansson, Lauren G. Koch, Steven L. Britton, and Heikki Kainulainen in Journal of Physiology. Published online February 4 2016 doi:10.1113/JP271552
 
 Abstract
 
Physical exercise increases adult hippocampal neurogenesis in male rats provided it is aerobic and sustained
 
Aerobic exercise, such as running, has positive effects on brain structure and function, for example, adult hippocampal neurogenesis (AHN) and learning. Whether high-intensity interval training (HIT), referring to alternating short bouts of very intense anaerobic exercise with recovery periods, or anaerobic resistance training (RT) has similar effects on AHN is unclear. In addition, individual genetic variation in the overall response to physical exercise likely plays a part in the effects of exercise on AHN but is less studied. Recently, we developed polygenic rat models that gain differentially for running capacity in response to aerobic treadmill training. Here we subjected these Low Response Trainer (LRT) and High Response Trainer (HRT) adult male rats to various forms of physical exercise for 6 to 8 weeks and examined its effects on AHN. Compared to sedentary animals, the highest number of doublecortin-positive hippocampal cells was observed in HRT rats that ran voluntarily on a running wheel while HIT on the treadmill had a smaller, statistically non-significant effect on AHN. AHN was elevated in both LRT and HRT rats that endurance trained on a treadmill compared to those that performed RT by climbing a vertical ladder with weights, despite their significant gain in strength. Furthermore, RT had no effect on proliferation (Ki67), maturation (doublecortin) or survival (BrdU) of new adult-born hippocampal neurons in adult male Sprague-Dawley rats. Our results suggest physical exercise promotes AHN most if it is aerobic and sustained, and especially when accompanied by a heightened genetic predisposition for response to physical exercise.
 
“Physical exercise increases adult hippocampal neurogenesis in male rats provided it is aerobic and sustained” by Miriam S. Nokia, Sanna Lensu, Juha P. Ahtiainen, Petra P. Johansson, Lauren G. Koch, Steven L. Britton, and Heikki Kainulainen in Journal of Physiology. Published online February 4 2016 doi:10.1113/JP271552 
 

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.447
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #21 on: 06-05-2016, 08:31:32 »
Slobodna volja možda i ne postoji veli ova studija:

A Simple Task Uncovers a Postdictive Illusion of Choice



Quote
Abstract Do people know when, or whether, they have made a conscious choice? Here, we explore the possibility that choices can seem to occur before they are actually made. In two studies, participants were asked to quickly choose from a set of options before a randomly selected option was made salient. Even when they believed that they had made their decision prior to this event, participants were significantly more likely than chance to report choosing the salient option when this option was made salient soon after the perceived time of choice. Thus, without participants’ awareness, a seemingly later event influenced choices that were experienced as occurring at an earlier time. These findings suggest that, like certain low-level perceptual experiences, the experience of choice is susceptible to “postdictive” influence and that people may systematically overestimate the role that consciousness plays in their chosen behavior.
 
Pa malo isto to samo sažvakano za nas obične.

I isto sažvakano na drugi način.

ridiculus

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.348
    • Strahoslovni domen999
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #22 on: 06-05-2016, 08:36:55 »
Otkrivanje tople vode...

Doduše, bolje i to nego je nikad ne otkriti. :)
Znate... u početku beše Šala, i Šala beše...itd

Ugly MF

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.161
  • Natural born FlatEarther!!!
    • https://www.facebook.com/Art-of-Bojan-Vukic-396093920831839/
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #23 on: 06-05-2016, 10:41:53 »
Notorna glupost!
Da sam ja predodredjen za nešto što nema veze sa mojom slobodnom voljom!?
Phih, onda sam životinja,pas laje, mačka mjauče,ljudi se množe i useravaju sve oko sebe?!

Sve dajem za slobodnu volju!

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.447
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #24 on: 11-08-2016, 07:50:46 »
Research suggests being lazy is a sign of high intelligence



Quote
New research seems to prove the theory that brainy people spend more time lazing around than their active counterparts.
Findings from a US-based study seem to support the idea that people with a high IQ get bored less easily, leading them to spend more time engaged in thought.
And active people may be more physical as they need to stimulate their minds with external activities, either to escape their thoughts or because they get bored quickly.
Researchers from the Florida Gulf Coast University gave a classic test – dating back three decades - to a group of students. 
The ‘need for cognition’ questionnaire asked participants to rate how strongly they agree with statements such as "I really enjoy a task that involves coming up with new solutions to problems", and "I only think as hard as I have to".
The researchers, led by Todd McElroy, then selected 30 ‘thinkers’ and 30 ‘non-thinkers’ from the pool of candidates.
Over the next seven days both groups wore a device on their wrist which tracked their movements and activity levels, providing a constant stream of data on how physically active they were.
Results showed the thinking group were far less active during the week than the non-thinkers.
The findings of the study, published in the Journal of Health Psychology, were described as “highly significant” and “robust” in statistical terms.
But the weekends showed no difference between the two groups, something which has not been able to be explained.
Researchers suggested the findings could lend weight to the idea that non-thinkers get bored more easily, so need to fill their time with physical activity.



But the downside to being brainer – and lazier – warned Mr McElroy was the negative impact of a sedentary lifestyle.
He suggested that the less active people, no matter how clever they are, should aim to raise their overall activity levels to improve their health
The British Psychological Society quoted the study, saying: "Ultimately, an important factor that may help more thoughtful individuals combat their lower average activity levels is awareness.
"Awareness of their tendency to be less active, coupled with an awareness of the cost associated with inactivity, more thoughtful people may then choose to become more active throughout the day."
Despite highlighting an unusual trend, generalising the findings should be done with caution due to the small sample of participants, it added.


mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.410
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #25 on: 08-09-2016, 12:18:57 »
Ovde se spominjao pojam "grit", istrajnost i strast za dugoročne ciljeve. Danas sam čuo (od 1:10) i za pojam "gumption". Kembridž kaže da je to "the ability to decide what is the best thing to do in a particular situation, and to do it with energy and determination". Prvi deo rečenice se u drugim rečnicima obično svodi na "common sense", a drugi na "enterprise" i "initiative". Ostaje pitanje da li nam je gumption urođen ili se može steći? I kako bismo ga na srpskom saželi u jedan pojam? I koja je razlika između grita i gumptiona? Čini se da grit ne podrazumeva "common sense".

scallop

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 26.925
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #26 on: 08-09-2016, 13:08:28 »
"the ability to decide what is the best thing to do in a particular situation, and to do it with energy and determination".


Kako god ga zvali, boldovano sigurno nije tačno. Zapnu ti sa gritom ili sa gumption i u obrnutom slučaju. Lično smatram da je genetski. Ne možeš ga ni razviti, a ni suzbiti.
Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience. - Mark Twain.


mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.410
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #28 on: 29-09-2016, 12:29:13 »
Vidim gene, ali gde je tu odgoj?

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.447
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #29 on: 29-09-2016, 12:39:56 »
Ima vremena, tek se rodilo.  :lol:

Šalim se, ali svakako interesantna vest a ovaj topik mi je bio najpribližniji.

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.410
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #30 on: 17-11-2017, 02:02:06 »
Odličan članak o Elonu Masku u Rollingstoneu

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/features/elon-musk-inventors-plans-for-outer-space-cars-finding-love-w511747

Elonov otac je takođe neki genije kao i sin mu, ali izgleda ima i zlu narav. Da li bi Elon postao globalni tehnomesija samo uz očeve gene, ali bez očeve kombinacije ignorisanja i nipodaštavanja?

mac

  • 3
  • Posts: 10.410
    • http://www.facebook.com/mihajlo.cvetanovic
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #31 on: 15-12-2018, 02:00:44 »
Znači ipak geni..

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/in-the-nature-nurture-war-nature-wins/
Quote
In the Nature–Nurture War, Nature Wins



When psychology emerged as a science in the early 20th century, it focused on nurture, the environmental causes of behavior. Environmentalism—not the ecological kind, but rather the view that we are what we learn—dominated psychology for decades. From Freud onward, the family environment was assumed to be the key factor in determining who we are. In the 1960s geneticists began to challenge this view. Psychological traits such as mental illness clearly run in families, but there was a gradual recognition that family resemblance could be due to nature (genetics) rather than nurture (environment) alone, because children are 50 percent similar genetically to their parents.

During the past four decades, scientists have conducted long-term studies on special relatives like twins and adoptees to test the effects of nature and nurture. This research has built a mountain of evidence showing that genetics contributes importantly to all psychological differences between us. In fact, inherited DNA differences account for about 50 percent of the differences between us, in our personality, mental health and illness, and cognitive abilities and disabilities.

The word “genetic” can mean several things, but here it refers to differences in DNA sequence, the 3 billion steps in the spiral staircase of DNA that we inherit from our parents at the moment of conception. It is mind-boggling to think about the long reach of these inherited differences that formed the single cell with which we began life. They affect our behavior as adults, when that single cell with which our lives began has become trillions of cells, all with the same DNA. They survive the long and convoluted developmental pathways between genes and behavior, pathways that meander through gene expression, proteins and the brain. The power of genetic research comes from its ability to detect the effect of these inherited DNA differences on psychological traits without knowing anything about the intervening processes.

Understanding the importance of genetic influence is just the beginning of the story of how DNA makes us who we are. Studying genetically informative cases like those of twins and adoptees led to some of the biggest findings in psychology because, for the first time, nature and nurture could be disentangled.

One of the most remarkable discoveries is that even most measures of the environment that are used in psychology—such as the quality of parenting, social support and life events—show significant genetic impact. How is this possible when environments have no DNA themselves? Genetic influence slips in because the environment is not randomly “out there” independent of us and our behavior. We select, modify and even create our environments in line with our genetic propensities. Correlations between such so-called environments and psychological traits don’t necessarily mean that the environments cause the traits. For example, parental negativity correlates with their children’s antisocial behavior, but this doesn’t mean that the parents cause their children’s antisocial behavior. Instead, this correlation is substantially caused by parents responding negatively to their children’s genetically-driven propensities.

A second crucial discovery is that the environment works completely differently from the way environmentalists thought it worked. For most of the 20th century, environmental factors were called nurture because the family was thought to be crucial in determining environmentally who we become. Genetic research has shown that this is not the case. We would essentially be the same person if we had been adopted at birth and raised in a different family. Environmental influences are important, accounting for about half of the differences between us, but they are largely unsystematic, unstable and idiosyncratic—in a word, random.

The DNA differences inherited from our parents at the moment of conception are the consistent, lifelong source of psychological individuality, the blueprint that makes us who we are. A blueprint is a plan. It is obviously not the same as the finished three-dimensional structure. The environment can alter this plan temporarily, but after these environmental bumps we bounce back to our genetic trajectory. DNA isn’t all that matters, but it matters more than everything else put together in terms of the stable psychological traits that make us who we are.

These findings call for a radical rethink about parenting, education and the events that shape our lives. It also provides a novel perspective on equal opportunity, social mobility and the structure of society.

The nature-nurture war is over. Nature wins, hands down.

Ugly MF

  • 4
  • 3
  • Posts: 5.161
  • Natural born FlatEarther!!!
    • https://www.facebook.com/Art-of-Bojan-Vukic-396093920831839/
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #32 on: 15-12-2018, 16:31:07 »
I to jopet cvrc... Kako to da nature or nurture niko ne nazva sa prefiksom 'and' umesto 'or'... E, pun mi k...c debila koji se nazivaju naučnicima....

Meho Krljic

  • 5
  • 3
  • Posts: 50.447
Re: Geni ili odgoj?
« Reply #33 on: 28-02-2019, 09:13:51 »