81–90 of 196 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ok now is my chance. what is this (opens new tab) phenomenon?!
In the article, there's a link in the text right before they put that parenthetical. I'm guessing they're saying that the link interested them so they clicked it to read but opened it in a new tab so they could finish the current article first.
"researchers, including those spearheading the work, are cautious about overselling their results" Either it is correct; or it is not. Perhaps it is somewhat correct, but then it may not be fully correct, so it would contain wrong information. I write this here because science does not really work well when it is based on speculation. So this article is weird. It starts by speculating about something rather than anal…
I hard disagree. Your comment to me reads as if a paper should either prove a new theory or disprove an existing theory.
However, publishing new results without a clear understanding of how it works is just as valid and this seems to be that. In Phsyics and Astronomy, new observations are often published without a theory of how it works. This is not a bad thing, that is part of the collaborative nature of science. The same holds true for papers suggesting a new theory, but lacking either observational or theoretical proof.
I guess this makes sense if you also consider the history of dog breeding. The best traits are always breed forward into future generations, those characteristics could be how athletic the dog is or how friendly the dog is.
You're talking about traits passed via DNA, which is nothing new ... this is quite different.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they all have the same mother, grew up in the same house, etc. I’m pretty sure the first one didn’t have siblings, and the second only had one. Also their mother is not the same person after raising the first kid, or raising two. Parenting never have reproducible conditions.
I have twins (a boy and a girl) and you could tell they have a completely different temperament about two weeks after birth.
Now I’ve got 2 boys, and even at fairly young ages they were very different. I’d say by 6 months old the basics of their personalities were visible, and they haven’t changed vastly as they’ve grown.
Is this a revival of Lysenkoism?[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm insulting myself. I'm describing what is my family dynamic.
No, you're insulting boomers, and you just doubled down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have twins (a boy and a girl) and you could tell they have a completely different temperament about two weeks after birth.
I’m a twin - admittedly boy/girl, so already with some fundamental differences - and we are very, very different people. Always have been. Different interests, different ways of seeing the world, different attitudes to competition, sports, social relationships etc. Now I’ve got 2 boys, and even at fairly young ages they were very different. I’d say by 6 months old the basics of their personalities were visible, and t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m a twin - admittedly boy/girl, so already with some fundamental differences - and we are very, very different people. Always have been. Different interests, different ways of seeing the world, different attitudes to competition, sports, social relationships etc. Now I’ve got 2 boys, and even at fairly young ages they were very different. I’d say by 6 months old the basics of their personalities were visible, and t…
The twins I have known are the same. I would assume it has something to do with a desire to differentiate themselves from one another, but they always seemed far more dissimilar in personality and affect than my siblings.
I have given up trying to explain child development, there's just too many variables.