Friday, June 16, 2017

Kids and human nature

To the dichotomous question of whether "genes" or "experience" play a larger role in determining personality, there is virtually no difference by intelligence, level of education, or political orientation. Non-whites are modestly more likely than whites to attribute differences to genes.

Sex and number of children are among the best major demographic predictors:


A rhetorically effective layman's way of getting communicating the take home message from twin studies is to point out to parents that their children are quite different from one another even though the parents treated them the same and provided them with the same home environment.

Charles Murray used to take this approach fairly regularly. There are more technical approaches available to him now, I suppose, though as genetic research progresses, it's formalizing and validating a lot of what we already knew by way of old proverbs (ie "the apple doesn't fall far from the tree", "birds of a feather flock together", etc).

It's worth keeping these modest differences in perspective. Overall, "experience" beats "genes" by a 3-to-1 margin. Even among mothers of multiple children, it wins by a 2-to-1 margin.

Blank slatism has been baked into the social cake for several decades now. It's not going to be extracted easily.

GSS variables used: GENEEXPS, SEX, CHILDS(0)(1)(2-8), RACECEN1, AGE, POLVIEWS, WORDSUM, EDUC

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

where was this data collected from?

Audacious Epigone said...

The General Social Survey.

NB said...

Confidence intervals around those estimated proportions would be helpful.

Audacious Epigone said...

14.4-22.4, 17.0-29.0, 14.0-25.4, 22.8-35.7, 21.6-29.7, 27.4-34.3 respectively (95% CI).

volz said...

I mean, the confidence intervals overlap significantly, so you can't actually say that, but reasonable hypothesis. Maybe with more power.

Audacious Epigone said...

That's usually the case with one-off GSS questions (this one was only asked in 2004). 90% CIs give us no overlap between those who are childless and those with 2+ children for both men and women. But yes, it's suggestive (no overlap at 75% CI), not determinative, and should be regarded as such.

Santoculto said...

People who are more R-minded tend to think or reflect their own more independent behavior: leaving the home [often without help], seeking employment, forming a family. They do this independently, feel more independent of circumstances and therefore more likely to "blame" themselves and others for their own behavior.

The leftist profile is more dependent even though there are exceptions of independence and contextually dependent people who develop different views, of course. The leftist profiles is a plethora of erratic [strategic] reproductive profile with a variety of extremes, from the most irresponsible [R-mentality], to the most responsible [the latter tend to be typically conservative or typical in behavior, but have a way of thinking that is vulnerable to embracing leftist ideology].

Because they are more likely not to confront the problems in the same way as the more conservative K-oriented, leftists tend to blame the environment and its circumstances more for what happens to them and to people, without necessarily being a method Consciously dishonest. It's a passive [neurotic-like] perspective.

''Things affect me''

Conservative is usually a active perspective.

''I affect 'things' ''

Therefore, one who ''attack its environment'' more independently may be more prone to two lines of thought:

- exaggerate and/or generalize your own motivational ability in relation to others [''if I was capable, you also can, if you become motivated as the same levels as I was] [halfway between 'environment-only' and 'genetics-only' '']

- to emphasize intrinsic characteristics as an important source for different outcomes [more correct view in my opinion].

First you have to put yourself in the shoes of "ordinary" people, who are less analytical and introspective than we are. For most people who were not born with vulnerability to the ideological virus, experience is their natural science to understand reality, since they will not generally have advanced abstract abilities of this nature to make [implicit] associations between different suspended scenarios By space / time to better understand it. In order to navigate the space / time and recognize some or many of its most important patterns.

A person who has talent for this kind of subject [psychology], true talent, can anticipate to the reality without the need to experience it. There is no need to experience that blacks are more prone to crime if you can think and conclude it in correct ways.

Environmentalism-only is a kind of '' exaggerated [mistaken] empiricism with hope. '': typical in any type of cult.

About people without children. Well, many of them, seems, will be gay, and lesbian women seem to pull more on the male mentality. That could perhaps explain why we have more childless men with the '' environmentalism-only '' mentality.

In the case of women with more than two children, that's what I said, "ordinary" people have in their experience their natural method of doing science, while official science is, at least in its half, theories or probabilities .

Most of psychological ''guidelines'' that most of us and specially ''regular'' people do is

''bias''

in portuguese we call

pré-conceito = pre-concept.

But it's not a pre-conception

it's a post-conception, used in invariably exaggerated ways, specially against [hormonal] disaffects.