The Psychology Thread.

[PoikSpirit]

Because I can. I've heard a few people say that they'd like this thread to be made. So why not?

Well, I hadn't had anything planned for a topic right off, so I'm accepting requests, but I would like to ask one thing of you guys. The first step of my experiment involves a bit of free-association. I would really like all people who read this, whether they participate or not, to post in response to the below.

Please offer two adjectives, one you think involves a “good” moral set, and one that involves a “bad.” These words do not have to be polar opposites, and if you think similarly to me, they can be relatively opposite moral words instead of ones that correspond to “good” or “bad.” That is, I don’t believe that anything can be labeled such, but pretty much everyone else does so I’m going to recognize it in my works.
IMPORTANT: Do NOT specify which you believe is which. Not only does this introduce peer related bias, but it can alienate, and you should realize that the words are going to hold positive and negative connotations most likely anyway; I probably should have you private message me with the words, but I think more will participate this way.

I'll start, just to offer examples. "Violent" and "pacifist."

[Simsmagic]

"Enjoyable" and "unbearable".

[Siranae]

"malicious" and "charitable"

[Giga-Gar]

"Laborous" and "Apathetic"

[Josiah]

"Spiteful" and "Compasionate"

[Astral Omega]

"chivalrous" and "promiscuous"

[PoikSpirit]

"Altruistic" and "Self-preserving."

Just because the current topic is boring. I think I'll introduce one randomly.

In the Nature vs. Nurture debate, more and more often both sides are proven wrong. On average nature and nurture accounts for around half the variation each of psychological factors.
That is, from what I've learned.

[Josiah]

I'd like to know what you're basing that statement on.

[Giga-Gar]

I'd like to know what Nature vs. Nurture is.

[Josiah]

It basically boils down to if someone's attitude, behavior, etc (particularily in relation to doing bad things) is decided by some innate part of them (nature) or how they were raised (nurture).

[PoikSpirit]

"Just" and "protective."

Wow, worded that a little off. At least there was a response.

And Nature vs. Nurture has been applied mostly to bad things in the most shown reports because that's what sells. Nature vs. Nurture boils down to people debating whether nature or nurture is more important to the overall psyche.

But if you look at how they tend to describe it on the Psychology Wiki, the correlation of environment to traits is one minus the correlation of biology to traits. I find that a bit incredible, because it's practically unprovable. At the end they edit their statement to say:

Others have pointed out that the premise of the "nature versus nurture" debate seems to negate the significance of free will. More specifically, if all our traits are determined by our genes, by our environment, by chance, or by some combination of these acting together, then there seems to be little room for free will. In any case, this line of reasoning suggests that the "nature versus nurture" debate tends to exaggerate the degree to which individual human behavior can be predicted based on knowledge of genetics and the environment.

The hard part is gathering enough information to show you what I mean by around 50% as with environmental factors being hard to measure, they usually only show things with significance in the biological side. But while looking through the books, I found quite a few things are environmentally based. Predisposition is biological supposedly, but overall behavior varies on environment. Unfortunately, IQ seems to be biologically based, but school smarts and book learning depends on motivation which relies on how a kid is raised.
The initial set of how we process things is biologically based, but we all have free-will, and some sort of chance, and we all can change if we want to. Well... To a certain extent.
The problem with the debate is they seem to think biology or environment is the be all end all of their found correlations.

[Josiah]

Well of course, scientists want a single definitive answer for things whether there is one or not. Personally, I think nurture is a lot more important than nature, though they both certainly play a big roll. As does some health/environmental factors. Since your thoughts and emotions are essentially boiled down to electrical impulses and various hormones, a chemical imbalance can really screw with your personality. My dad works with some people like that and it can be amazing how drastically some people's personality will change when they're being overexposed to some sort of chemical, food, etc that isn't good for them.

[PoikSpirit]

"Adherent" and "unlawful."

Ah, but you see, that's the best part. These correlations are averages, and no one is a statistic (although collectively we are), so anyone can be an outlier. Just because science dictates, it doesn't mean it's the limit.
Biology sets the way a brain initially records and assimilates data, environment gives the data, you decide what to do with it.
Really, you can't attribute either because there are just about as many lazy people who fall back on what is easy (which, without effort, centers around genetic disposition typically) as the people who search to change. That's my theory (as of now).

Really, Science is looking for correlations. And correlations are not causations.

So now that this project has become a school project, and I have the second part just about ready for use (I finally got the Javascript randomization to sinc up with the form), I think I'd like to either get a few more participants or cut off and have a really lame sample number.