Discussion in 'General Martial Arts Talk' started by Primal Monk, Jan 26, 2018.
it was an anoligy to show how silly your not born juggling statement was
really you want evidence that personality traits are to a large extent genetic
At this point we're going into pure speculation. Even the people who study and work with genetics every day know relatively little about what traits are passed on genetically and what traits are developed through early childhood. Mental aptitude towards a particular skill-set is even harder to determine. There are just too many factors and not enough chance for controlled experiments to make a clear distinction.
So, you're saying someone who can juggle would be able to do so if they just waited? Nothing learned or acquired there - they can just wait, like growing to their full height?
And you say my point was silly? Really?
That this specific trait is. You made a definitive claim, which you should be able to support. Research shows there's a genetic component to personality, but I've seen nothing that indicates it is even remotely close to being entirely genetic.
its funny that when it suits you you claim that our chats are not in anyway scientific and you can us terms in any way you want, but then apply a different standard and insist on scientific evidence.and scientific defintions
there is a large body of evidence that personality traits in general are heavily influenced genetics, that you seem to accept? But you are not accepting that this personality trait is.
why would you conclusion. That this trait is substantial different to ALL others?
yes, more or less, i can juggle two balls, just as a factor of my basic level hand eye co ordination. Three balls may take a little practise
your height is of course partly an acquired skill as well, as it takes practise to co ordinate the stabilising muscles , with out which you couldn't stand up straight and this you height would be much less,
I had to train to learn to juggle two. It was not natural.
As for the height thing - now you're working really hard to make it what you said it wasn't. Make up your mind.
hand eye co ordination like standing up is genetic, your programmed to stand just as you are to be,able to catch things, your point seems to be that because you can't juggle immediately after birth, its not a genetics dependant skill.which is indeed silly
no amount of practise will ever give most people the ability to juggle 5 working chain saws, therefore the only safe conclusion is that's genetics which allows people who can do that, to do that. Just as peoples who can't learn how to stand up can safely assume that people who can have a genetic advantage
It is partly genetic. We appear to all have a baseline to work from. Had I not worked for weeks on learning to juggle, I would not be able to juggle today. I was an adult when I took it up (to help build hand-eye coordination), and there was nothing left of genetics-based development to happen at that point. So no, my ability to juggle isn't even mostly genetic. I have worked hard to develop the level of coordination I have, because it was not natural to me.
While I agree that it appears we need a relatively high baseline genetic point to start from to develop juggling to that point (5 complex objects), all that demonstrates is that there is a genetic component. I could probably learn to juggle 5 balls (I briefly worked up to 4). If I learned that, it would almost certainly take me many months. Are you arguing that I'd just be activating genes somewhere that laid dormant until then? And that I can no longer juggle 4 because my genes decayed from disuse? Of course you aren't, because you know there's an acquired component. So I'm not even sure what your point is anymore.
you always make conversations about you, one way or another, which gives you an unfair advantage, as you can change the data we are considering at your whim
so no let's take about juggling in general.
there are people who no matter how they try will Never juggle 3 balls and other who with little effort will manage it in an hour. Why is that,,, genetics
but then the determination to master something, the people who will work for many hours to gain a really pointless skill like juggling three balls, can do so because they have commitment, some less charitable than i may say obsession, that to is strongly influenced by genetics.
so to juggle five things you need genetics for the task and the genetics to stick at learning the task.
clearly the more talented you are at hand eye, the less talented you need be at determination,
So, using myself as an example is "making it about me"?? So, it's necessary to find another example, simply because I shouldn't use the easiest one for me to discuss? And I'm not sure how that gives me an unfair advantage. If you can provide some non-anecdotal evidence to back your claims, my anecdotal evidence would be unconvincing.
Again, where is your evidence that determination and commitment are strongly genetic?
and again, why are you asking for scientific evidence, when you insist our discussions are not scientific,
Pretty comical statement. You’re saying this stuff is all genetic. He’s saying it’s learned. He’s asking you to prove the claim you’ve adamantly been going on about for several pages now.
You’re stating something as scientific fact, yet you refuse to give scientific proof. And you don’t see the irony there?
Which personality traits are due to genetics? I’d really like to see the scientific evidence. It would definitely help me when I teach genetics.
you've missed the back story, which was were he insisted that a chat about anthropology, wasn't on anyway scientific and thus he,could us any terms he wanted to describe its elements and prove his point,
it rather like me saying its genetic , but then making up my own defintion of genetics
all of them according to this paper, the question isnt" which" as much as "to what amount
Thanks for that. I’ll give it a read when I’ve got some time. I’m pretty deep into genetics with my 7th grade class, and my 9th grade biology class’s next unit is genetics. Maybe I’ll be able to pull a lab activity out of it somehow.
And that was where we were many posts ago. There's a genetic component and that has been known for some time, but your choice of wording implies certain characteristics (determination was one you mentioned) are largely genetic.
no all characteristics are largely genetic, determination is only one of many, you were,denying they were genetic at all,
Separate names with a comma.