Zen Thought For the Day

[julianw]

I learned that according to stats from some extensive research, it's 40% Nature and 60% Nurture influencing our behaviors, but stats don't mean much anyway.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I wouldn't think so, that's just being obstreperous for the sake of it. I.e., it is quite possible, surely, for a bunch of individuals to agree on a (presumably mutually beneficial) scenario, otherwise you aren't talking about individualism, you're talking about chaotic anarchism.

 

Anarchy could be seen as a sort of individualism, I guess. though I think (*) there are some differences.

 

Sure, but are you consciously making a choice?

 

What you seem to be doing is disenfranchising yourself, unnecessarily; it is quite okay to do something that is not beneficial in the short term (or even penalises one) for a long-term benefit. That's what intelligence is for, deciding what is better in the long term, even it it appears to be counter-intuitive at first sight.

 

Otherwise, without intelligence, long-term advantage would need to be hardwired and may not adapt to new circumstances.

 

Again, you seem to be arguing a sort of anarchism, not individualism. I am very happy with my individualism, I consciously choose every action I take (whether it is to pay for a train ticket instead of stealing a ride, or helping someone in the street). It is a self-esteem perpective: I may be choosing between two bad options, but I am choosing. Even if given an extorionate choice, I can still choose the "wrong" option, should I so wish to exercise my individuality.

 

Well, as before, anarchism could be considered an aspect of individualism... Both seem to share similarities when it comes to the belief that rulership is unecessary. Except while anarchy is focused on a desire to have a stateless society, it's still based on the concept of voluntary social interaction and harmony. Individualism, however, seems to be focused more individual expression and self-reliance, even outside the concept of any kind of social hierarchy (truth be told, I may be confusing it with solipsism?).

 

In all honesty I'm not arguing for either anarchism or individualism, just trying to grasp the concept of individualism and why I feel we aren't absolutely individualistic. As you said, there is a degree of individualism that is possible to attain even when one is inset into society, confident that all my choices are my own but knowing they may be influenced by state, laws, or morals (even if personally one would not directly subscribe to them). The gist of this isn't even trying to claim which would be better - relative or absolute individualism - just discussing how each differs. Because much as absolute individualism is an attractive option, I think I've become such a whore that I'm not sure I'd be able to pursue such a change... I can always be a resignated whore though. The problem is not that I can't find worth in relative individualism, it's just that I can't find enough worth in it.

 

Again, this is a Hobbesian observation of the "jungle out there", or indeed the conclusion to Eric Blair's 1984.

[metadigital]

I learned that according to stats from some extensive research, it's 40% Nature and 60% Nurture influencing our behaviors, but stats don't mean much anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ha ha!

 

Here's todays winner for the most egregious extrapoloation quoted in the popular press:

Sunday Times, 10 Jul 2005:

... Almost two thirds of Americans don't know their national anthem. In a recent survey of 2000 people, 61% admitted they didn't know all the words to "The Star Spangled Banner" ...

 

2000 is a representative sample of 300 million? How were these 2000 chosen? Etc, etc.

[Darth Launch]

Ooo!

 

1. Overwelming evidence? I always thought it was accepted wisdom that there is a) no way to untangle the two correlatorily and causally, and b) enough evidence to suggest the reasonable conclusion that both play a significant part. (Just curious, I wouldn't want to mess up your, obviously efficient, filing system ...  )

 

2. This sounds fascinating ... what dormant genetic traits are were talking about ... 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

1. Just consider studies on schizophrenia and such... also, twin studies and adoption studies that concern monozygotic twins primarily serve as really good evidence in favour of the nativist position.

 

2. It was fairly fascinating until my lecturer butchered it with his appalling terrible monotonous voice... the only two examples of dormant genetic traits that I can remember at the moment are infidelity in women and altruism... but like I said... it was much more in the context of evolutionary psychology as apposed to the nature vs. nurture debate

 

DL

[SteveThaiBinh]

I was always rather impressed that the snappy-sounding 'Nature or nurture' in English translates to the equally snappy-sounding Spanish 'se nace o se hace?'.

 

I hope that free will is stronger than nurture, and nurture is stronger than nature. The evidence doesn't appear to be going that way, though.

 

2000 can be fine as a representative sample of 300 million. A sample of 20,000 or 200,000 would give you little greater accuracy.

[Cantousent]

I hate to bring up a practical point in what I perceive as a theoretical discussion, but here goes: it doesn't matter whether or not we have free will, we must act as if we do. Regardless of other factors, the law will always assume that the majority of people have control over their actions and are accountable for them. How can it be otherwise?

[julianw]

I learned that according to stats from some extensive research, it's 40% Nature and 60% Nurture influencing our behaviors, but stats don't mean much anyway.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ha ha!

 

Here's todays winner for the most egregious extrapoloation quoted in the popular press:

Sunday Times, 10 Jul 2005:

... Almost two thirds of Americans don't know their national anthem. In a recent survey of 2000 people, 61% admitted they didn't know all the words to "The Star Spangled Banner" ...

 

2000 is a representative sample of 300 million? How were these 2000 chosen? Etc, etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I lived in US for 5 years, and I know less than 10 words from the anthem. It's a pretty long song. I try to sing it once, and "Oh Canada..." came out of nowhere.

 

Most stats choose their sample based on multiple factors like income, ethnicity, age. A scientificly acquired stat should be well over 90% accurate. At least that's what my stat teacher said.

[Darth Launch]

I hate to bring up a practical point in what I perceive as a theoretical discussion, but here goes:  it doesn't matter whether or not we have free will, we must act as if we do.  Regardless of other factors, the law will always assume that the majority of people have control over their actions and are accountable for them.  How can it be otherwise?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You make a good point, which is what makes the nature vs nurture debate so controversial... but in terms of psychological research, much of our personality (which determines/defines our actions) has been found to hugely dependent on our genetic disposition...

 

That's why so many boys turn into their fathers... "

 

DL

[metadigital]

You make a good point, which is what makes the nature vs nurture debate so controversial... but in terms of psychological research, much of our personality (which determines/defines our actions) has been found to hugely dependent on our genetic disposition...

 

That's why so many boys turn into their fathers... "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And little girls into their mothers, looking to marry their fathers ...

[Darth Launch]

You make a good point, which is what makes the nature vs nurture debate so controversial... but in terms of psychological research, much of our personality (which determines/defines our actions) has been found to hugely dependent on our genetic disposition...

 

That's why so many boys turn into their fathers... "

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And little girls into their mothers, looking to marry their fathers ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll have you know I resolved all my issues many years ago... no Elektra Complex for me

[metadigital]

I was always rather impressed that the snappy-sounding 'Nature or nurture' in English translates to the equally snappy-sounding Spanish 'se nace o se hace?'. 

 

I hope that free will is stronger than nurture, and nurture is stronger than nature.  The evidence doesn't appear to be going that way, though.

 

2000 can be fine as a representative sample of 300 million. A sample of 20,000 or 200,000 would give you little greater accuracy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Steve, I know it can be a good representative sample space (I did statistics at University, and received a high distinction for it); however, I am constantly amazed how statistics are flourished without any of the necessary context.

 

E.g. degrees of freedom, chi-square distribution, null hypothesis, variance, median, mode, entropy, etc, etc, etcetra.

 

How were these 2000 chosen? Did they pick 2000 kindergarten children, or their teachers, or everyone walking out of the JFK aerodrome on a Friday night? What?

[SteveThaiBinh]

Well, randomly, presumably. Otherwise they wouldn't make the claim that their results are generalisable to the population as a whole.

[Darth Launch]

It would be interesting to know what sampling method they used when selecting the 2000 they did

[metadigital]

Anarchy could be seen as a sort of individualism, I guess. though I think (*) there are some differences.

...

Well, as before, anarchism could be considered an aspect of individualism... Both seem to share similarities when it comes to the belief that rulership is unecessary. Except while anarchy is focused on a desire to have a stateless society, it's still based on the concept of voluntary social interaction and harmony. Individualism, however, seems to be focused more individual expression and self-reliance, even outside the concept of any kind of social hierarchy (truth be told, I may be confusing it with solipsism?).

 

In all honesty I'm not arguing for either anarchism or individualism, just trying to grasp the concept of individualism and why I feel we aren't absolutely individualistic. As you said, there is a degree of individualism that is possible to attain even when one is inset into society, confident that all my choices are my own but knowing they may be influenced by state, laws, or morals (even if personally one would not directly subscribe to them). The gist of this isn't even trying to claim which would be better - relative or absolute individualism - just discussing how each differs. Because much as absolute individualism is an attractive option, I think I've become such a whore that I'm not sure I'd be able to pursue such a change... I can always be a resignated whore though. The problem is not that I can't find worth in relative individualism, it's just that I can't find enough worth in it.

...

(*) Though what I think is more often than not, wrong, half-true, or ignorant.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, I would be mindful of confusing individualism with contrariness. That is just as much a prison as being a drone in a hive: always making the opposite decision, because of what society demands. That isn't individualism, either.

 

Even an individual, determined to be isolationist, must interact with the environment: choosing no interaction is a choice, and an interaction (the null hypothesis :D ).

 

Your distinction between absolute and relative individualism presents an interesting inconsistency (more to do with the semantics of the language we use to describe philosophical concepts, rather than the concepts themselves). I would suggest using different words, if the semantics become problematic. What do you mean by individual? Contrary, anarchistic, selfish, egocentric?

 

I think it comes down to the intention behind an individual's actions. If the individual is not acting on their own impetus, for their own agenda (whether that is short-, medium- or long-term), then they are not acting in the spirit of individualism, surrendering to the hive mentatlity.

[metadigital]

Well, randomly, presumably.  Otherwise they wouldn't make the claim that their results are generalisable to the population as a whole.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, Steve, journalists are reknowned for their rectitude and numeracy.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Fair enough. By individual I mean either the condition of being an individual as a distinct entity (as distinct as one can be); or a form of distinction based on opposing any form of authoritary control and promoting independant liberty. I may have been using the terms interchangeably; if so that was a clear error on my part. A better distinction was perhaps needed.

 

As such my theme of discussion has been primarily focused on the second meaning rather than the first. To answer your question I feel egotistic and selfish may be wrong depictions of the concept, while contrary and anarchist might seem better... Though I still maintain that I believe there is some measure of differences between individualism and anarchism.

[metadigital]

Sure, no-one is pointing fingers, I was just going back to first principles to help make some progress.

 

Because you haven't even started on the other definitions: what sort of grouping these individuals are reacting too.

 

For example, I am (in case you hadn't noticed) quite supportive of the libertarian model for a society: I think it creates more opportunities and better citizens than an authoritarian civilization, even considering the benefits of specific, well-documented roles. (I would use real-world examples like JiT manufacturing methodology generally, and specifically the Japanese kaizen R&D on processes, as evidence.)

 

Still, the point remains that an "individual" in a libertarian democracy will behave radically differently to one in a repressive autocracy.

[EnderAndrew]

My family makes for a good example for this debate. I was raised by my stepfather, atleast until I was 14 and kicked on the street. His two fully-blood children carry his genes, where as I do not. But I also have a brother from yet another father, two more brothers from another father, and an adoptive sister.

 

Bob's two children that are all his own take after him the most, which leads some creedence to the theory of genetics, but I suggest it could also suggest that he nurtured them more.

 

However, my family might suggest overall that environment is more important that genetic instinct as every single member of my family save for myself has ended up a felon and a high school drop out.

 

Was I an individual enough to rebel against my family and emphasize on morality and education, or was the genetic information of my birth father (that I don't know) so overwhelming to over come my environment?

 

The adopted sister, Erica, is not yet a full felon, but she did get caught with pot and some stolen check cards, and she is only 15.

 

And Role Player, I think Anarchy is so good, it should be law.

[metadigital]

I am pleased that you achieved a secondary level education before you began your professional criminal career.

[Darth Launch]

Was I an individual enough to rebel against my family and emphasize on morality and education, or was the genetic information of my birth father (that I don't know) so overwhelming to over come my environment?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It very well could be the case that what traits you inherited from your father reduced your likelihood of having a life of crime... it also may have been the case that, from an evolutionary point of view, you had not experienced the environmental trigger necessary for you to take that path... for instance, having been kicked out at 14.

 

DL

 

P.S. Nice new banner Mr. Metadigital

[metadigital]

P.S. Nice new banner Mr. Metadigital 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank Kaftan, he did if for me.

 

 

(I think I'll shrink it down a bit, I look like a wide boy from Essex, or some sort of ghetto bling addict ...)

[Darth Launch]

Thank Kaftan, he did if for me. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Aye, I was aware, he seems to be a master of such things

[metadigital]

Indubitably.

[Cantousent]

I inherited genes from a fellow who beat his wife and children daily and died of Cirrhosis of the liver before he turned 50. Two of his six children turned out to be an alcoholic. None of his children abuse his or her spouse. Folks telling me that our fates lie not in our hearts but in our genes just don't make sense. Sure, he passed on a lot of terrible genes to me, but I take after my dad, my real, adoptive dad much more than I do the fellow who passed on a few strands of DNA. I might look like my biological father, but I act like my real dad. Maybe other folks just weren't that lucky.

[metadigital]

This is why it gets really difficult to seperate out genotype from phenotype ... after all how much of genetic material is necessary to be passed on for various traits?

 

I do know that the stuff that has been researched on zygote twins seperated at birth is fascinating, though. They marry the same type of people, get the same type of job, etc etc. Or is it all just (today's word for the day is: ) apophenia?