nick22ca said:
But I am right. The original presentation of empirical evidence on my part was to show that males are not needed to raise a well-adjusted child in any way. In fact, the book goes even further and implies that male role models are detrimental. I will leave that for your own folk theories to decide, but with regard to the original question I took issue with, I am right.
One book, one opinion. I never said I thought it was
necessary for a role model to be present for a child to be well balanced, as you well know. I agreed with you on this point. Where I disagreed and still do is that the reverse was true, if this book to which you refer suggested that male role models
are bad, then would be best described as a crock. However you acknowledge that book says they "
may be detrimental" so you concede that there are no absolutes?
If you have childen you better follow your own dogma and leave for the good of your child.
Can be detrimental, yes,
are detrimental you surely don't believe that? You are right from
your perpective, what you keep failing to do is acknowledge that other viewpoints exist, which are equally valid. For someone as yet unqualified to be dismissing other professionals opinions as folk theories is as immature as it is tragically narrowminded.
nick22ca said:
You could give me more credit that than. I am being trained in neuroscience and clinical psych. Regardless, the original suicide intent example was stupid. You do realize that treatments for disorders remain constant across different people with the same disorder, right?
I give someone as much credit as they earn. It was an example, far from perfect. Yes, treatment for disorders does typically follow standard lines but there are occasions where a given treatment may be innapropriate and another may be needed, sadly people also fall through the cracks and are misdiagnosed or undiagnosed. You seem to have such tunnel vision for a would be professional.
nick22ca said:
I wasn't necessarily sweeping it aside. I do think that people are obsessed with genetic predispositions, and they desperately want most things to be genetically determined. At least this way they would feel like they have control over traits. But the truth is that for every personality trait studied, the variability explained by genetics has never been more than the variability explained by other sources. Again, with regard to the original question, the effects of genetics on pyshosocial development may as well be non-existent.
You said everyone took it with a pinch of salt....how close to sweeping it aside do you need to be? You said it right though, "
you think..." you don't know for sure and that is all I'm arguing. You just can't see it. While feeling that you are in control of behavioral or other traits, real or folk theory is good but doesn't
necessarily make it so. Typically part of mental illness is denial that something is actually not how you perceive it to be.
But in the end, you are missing my point, I merely said that there is evidence both ways on these issues, you dogmatically take one side I can see the merits of both. I can accept that I am not knowledgeble enough to have a definitive answer, you seem unable to do the same.
This has precious little to do with the orignal thread, if you want to continue this create a dedicated thread, you may get some other opinions to dismiss out of hand.
Unless you are the fount of all human knowledge which you are not then your arrogance is misplaced. Admitting the possibility you may not have all the answers is
not a sign of stupidity, denying that possibility
is.
fftopic:
