101–110 of 198 posts
I feel this factor plays a huge role in rich/upper middle class/upper-class people staying rich or growing richer. Kids that grow up upper-class imitate their parent’s approach to work and life in general, giving them an upper-hand. Many poor kids are very smart and capable but end up imitating bad examples early on, making them handicapped. One of the best things a disadvantaged kid can get is a good role model. Doe…
It seems that this is a taboo topic to discuss oftentimes (especially academically), despite the fact that most people I meet seem to have an intuitive understanding that kids are often like parents. It also provides compelling alternate explanations for things like 'children of abusive parents are more likely to abuse' that you also are not really allowed to discuss nowadays.
Of course this is anecdotal but it's obvious for me I do share several personality traits with my parents. I can see the same in many of my close acquaintances. Of course this warrants a lot of social issues we simply don't want to face, but I always felt we were just trying to make them a tabu to discuss.
Some of the comments here are quite baffling for me to read. Of course I'm like my parents. I'm completely made up of their genetic material and for my formative years I spent almost all of my time with them. I've never considered this to be taboo either, it's bloody obvious. Is there some sort of hidden context here I'm not getting?
>I've never considered this to be taboo either, it's bloody obvious. Is there some sort of hidden context here I'm not getting? There is. So the problem comes in when you start looking at something like say a particular minority racial/ethnic group and then picking some statistic that is higher or lower than the average over all people and associating that statistic with bad outcomes like violent offenses, lack of co…
There are much simpler, much more solid mechanistically scientifically associations that are still taboo to discuss that imo have nothing to do with race (race isn't even a real thing).
For instance, a common argument I hear is that "standardized tests are just testing affluence" because the correlation between parental income and standardized test performance is so high. It seems pretty obvious to me that there are potential heritable confounders there, but I would never feel comfortable discussing this publicly.
It's also frustrating because people will strongly implicitly weight the evidence by what they want to be true. Anything contrary to what they want to be true gets much stricter scrutiny than the reverse. For instance, "there is good science to support significant effects of environmental factors, so it's not like we're missing a lot" is simply not an accurate statement of the science. Measurable environmental factors don't explain even remotely close to everything. A lot (or all of the remaining) could just be random variance, but the idea that there just isn't much variance left to explain otherwise is absurdly wrong but people want it to be true.
I feel this factor plays a huge role in rich/upper middle class/upper-class people staying rich or growing richer. Kids that grow up upper-class imitate their parent’s approach to work and life in general, giving them an upper-hand. Many poor kids are very smart and capable but end up imitating bad examples early on, making them handicapped. One of the best things a disadvantaged kid can get is a good role model. Doe…
This implies one's being upper class is a reflection of having better habits than the poor, which is incorrect. They just have more money. Rich people could not survive poverty.
Conscientiousness is partially heritable.
The bankruptcy rate for former NFL/NBA/Music superstars and lottery winners is significantly higher than that of trust fund babies.
Make of that what you want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think free will is simply a restatement of the fact the future is unknowable and the humans are agents. You cant 100% predict what a person will do without duplicating the entire person and the world they are interacting with. Even if everything is causally driven by historic circumstance, it is the human that synthesizes that history and computes an action
That is not what free will is (philosophically). Free will is the belief that we can choose our actions. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will ] In your statement, there is no choice - just a lack of predictability due to unknown starting states.
Individual choice happens if someone believes in an extra-physical soul or not. It happens if you believe in determinism or not.
The question of if someone could have made a different choice is meaningless without an argument for why someone would make have a different choice.
The big difference seems to come from self-reporting vs independent reporting. In other words, people around you think your personality is more similar to your dad’s than you think it is.
Even when kids are put in school, they still spend a lot of time with their parents, and children do a lot of mimetic Would genetics lead to some personality disorder that are common in a family, and would that lead to similar personalities? Or would some brain-related genes lead to some forms of personality tendencies? I would also guess the definition of personality could be rejected by skeptics, since it's very di…
[1] https://www.apa.org/monitor/2015/01/double-life#:~:text=That....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You really don't understand why nature/genetics having a large impact on people's personality, thus behavior, and thus life outcomes is taboo?
They're just saying it seems obvious that a person would be like their parents. Nothing more grandiose than that.