If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#331
|
|||
|
|||
|
#332
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote: wrote: In the absense of technology, breastpumps and formula, it would not be possible for us to be away from our babies, and we haven't had those for many generations at all, so I do not see why it is so farfetched to think we may have instincts to stay with our babies when it was physically necessary not very long ago. Some women have used wetnurses for centuries, if not millenia. Best wishes, Ericka And even if you didn't use a wetnurse, it was not uncommon for women to nurse babies that weren't theirs. Heck, I did it myself a few times, and my babies were nursed a few times by other women. It made it easier to babysit for (or get a babysitter for) babies who were exclusively nursed and didn't want to take a bottle. It may not be common any more, and may make some folks feel weird, but there's nothing wrong with it. There have been times and places where it was much more common. Then there's all those babies whose mothers died at birth: they would find another nursing mother to help with the baby. (Nursing two at once is relatively easy, and there are even mothers of triplets who have exclusively nursed; I don't know if there are mothers of higher order multiples who have. But nursing twins was just not difficult.) -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
#333
|
|||
|
|||
In article dEhSd.13870$4D6.10058@attbi_s51,
"P. Tierney" wrote: wrote in message oups.com... Similarly, although we know there are some differences between men's and women's brains, I think it's bunk that this means women are "naturally" unsuited to certain careers, or analytic thinking, or any number of other things that have been said. I haven't read the whole thread, so perhaps others have said things like this, but I wanted to make sure you didn't think I was meaning anything like this. I have a computer science and engineering degree, and worked in computers before I changed careers to be with my kids more. I definitely don't think women are incapable or analytical thinking. Oh don't fool yourself. Women most certainly are incapable of doing such things. I know this for certain. You see, my sister once pursued a career in the sciences. It seemed like a good idea, but once she got a job and worked at it everyday, the tasks required *really* stressed her out. It made her too thin and unhealthy looking. It didn't work out at all and we knew that we had to fix it before she went insane. So, we talked about it, and the reasons for her struggles was inescapable: Women simply must not have the instincts for the sciences. We think that it may be because women are less evolved due to their prehistoric role as the caregiver. Now, she stays at home and parents, and of course, dabbles in a bit of charity work with her ladies tea group. It is clear, from this experience, that her natural role is better for her, and that she stay away from those things that, through no fault of her own, she does not have the proper instincts for -- since she is female. Some might disagree, but it's really better and easier for everyone if we do what has been done for millions of years and let men do the sciences rather than the women. And by the way, I certainly don't expect anyone to be offended by such notions. It's just how it is, you know? P. Tierney Thanks, P. I needed a good laugh this morning! -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
#334
|
|||
|
|||
Stephanie Stowe wrote:
"Emily" wrote in message ... Stephanie Stowe wrote: I volunteered to write it for our agency in this area. They turned me down! Go figure. Just now, or at some time in the past? Emily At some time in the past. I told them that I thought this was a useful service, and would write it for them if they wanted. They apparently did not want it. That's a real shame. I wonder what would happen if some just set it up, and people started approaching day care centers in pairs... Emily |
#335
|
|||
|
|||
|
#336
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote: I don't think the twin studies in existence have convinced researchers that nurture doesn't play a very important role. I don't think nature is meaningless, but I have yet to see anything that convinces me that it is determinitive in much of anything. Honestly, I don't know any researcher who believes nature to be determinitive in much of any social issues. Actually, the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart is pretty interesting, and HAS found a way to trace what traits likely have a strong genetic component. It was conducted by finding many sets of same-sex twins, some fraternal and some identical, who had been separated at birth and raised by different families. Then it looked at various traits, to see if which ones had a higher likelyhood of being true for both if they were identical instead of fraternal. They have been able to find a number of things which seem to have a genetic link, including obesity and addiction -- which are often attributed to nurture, but it turns out have a strong nature component. In fact, identical twins are VERY likely to weigh within a few pounds of each other as adults, while fraternal twins are no more nor less likely than other siblings. The tendency for addiction to run in families cannot be broken by having the babies adopted by non-addictive families, since that tendency is inhereted. Another is that if one identical twin in gay, the other is most likely gay also, indicating again some genetic (or at least some congenital) factor. (In the case of males, at least, there are some studies that indicate a possibility that sexual orientation may be affected by various hormonal levels during the pregnancy.) Nature is definately not meaningless -- neither is nurture. I think those studies that attempt to identify characteristics or tendencies that likely have some genetic component are fascinating. -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
#337
|
|||
|
|||
dragonlady wrote:
In article , Ericka Kammerer wrote: I don't think the twin studies in existence have convinced researchers that nurture doesn't play a very important role. I don't think nature is meaningless, but I have yet to see anything that convinces me that it is determinitive in much of anything. Honestly, I don't know any researcher who believes nature to be determinitive in much of any social issues. Actually, the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart is pretty interesting, and HAS found a way to trace what traits likely have a strong genetic component. It was conducted by finding many sets of same-sex twins, some fraternal and some identical, who had been separated at birth and raised by different families. Then it looked at various traits, to see if which ones had a higher likelyhood of being true for both if they were identical instead of fraternal. They have been able to find a number of things which seem to have a genetic link, including obesity and addiction -- which are often attributed to nurture, but it turns out have a strong nature component. In fact, identical twins are VERY likely to weigh within a few pounds of each other as adults, while fraternal twins are no more nor less likely than other siblings. The tendency for addiction to run in families cannot be broken by having the babies adopted by non-addictive families, since that tendency is inhereted. Another is that if one identical twin in gay, the other is most likely gay also, indicating again some genetic (or at least some congenital) factor. (In the case of males, at least, there are some studies that indicate a possibility that sexual orientation may be affected by various hormonal levels during the pregnancy.) Right...but have they found social behaviors to have a strong nature component (like the things Kathy mentioned-- career, choice of car, living in city/suburbs/rural areas, or maternal instincts)? Nature is definately not meaningless -- neither is nurture. I think those studies that attempt to identify characteristics or tendencies that likely have some genetic component are fascinating. Oh, I agree, and I think nature has a role to play. I just have yet to see any evidence that the role of nature is determinitive in the sorts of social behaviors that have been under discussion. I think it highly likely that nature plays a role, but not one that is determinitive by a long stretch. I do think that research into genetic relationships and such is absolutely fascinating, and I do think there is much to be learned. I just think that on balance, social behavior has more to do with nurture. I also think that people vastly underestimate the impact of socialization. Even language is absolutely fundamental to our ability to interpret the world we live in. Different languages lead to different understandings. I find that research equally fascinating. Best wishes, Ericka |
#338
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
dragonlady says... In article , Ericka Kammerer wrote: I don't think the twin studies in existence have convinced researchers that nurture doesn't play a very important role. I don't think nature is meaningless, but I have yet to see anything that convinces me that it is determinitive in much of anything. Honestly, I don't know any researcher who believes nature to be determinitive in much of any social issues. Actually, the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart is pretty interesting, and HAS found a way to trace what traits likely have a strong genetic component. It was conducted by finding many sets of same-sex twins, some fraternal and some identical, who had been separated at birth and raised by different families. Then it looked at various traits, to see if which ones had a higher likelyhood of being true for both if they were identical instead of fraternal. They have been able to find a number of things which seem to have a genetic link, including obesity and addiction -- which are often attributed to nurture, but it turns out have a strong nature component. In fact, identical twins are VERY likely to weigh within a few pounds of each other as adults, while fraternal twins are no more nor less likely than other siblings. The tendency for addiction to run in families cannot be broken by having the babies adopted by non-addictive families, since that tendency is inhereted. Another is that if one identical twin in gay, the other is most likely gay also, indicating again some genetic (or at least some congenital) factor. (In the case of males, at least, there are some studies that indicate a possibility that sexual orientation may be affected by various hormonal levels during the pregnancy.) Nature is definately not meaningless -- neither is nurture. I think those studies that attempt to identify characteristics or tendencies that likely have some genetic component are fascinating. Right. But this goes to temprament, not 'instinct'. Banty |
#339
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Banty wrote: In article , dragonlady says... In article , Ericka Kammerer wrote: I don't think the twin studies in existence have convinced researchers that nurture doesn't play a very important role. I don't think nature is meaningless, but I have yet to see anything that convinces me that it is determinitive in much of anything. Honestly, I don't know any researcher who believes nature to be determinitive in much of any social issues. Actually, the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart is pretty interesting, and HAS found a way to trace what traits likely have a strong genetic component. It was conducted by finding many sets of same-sex twins, some fraternal and some identical, who had been separated at birth and raised by different families. Then it looked at various traits, to see if which ones had a higher likelyhood of being true for both if they were identical instead of fraternal. They have been able to find a number of things which seem to have a genetic link, including obesity and addiction -- which are often attributed to nurture, but it turns out have a strong nature component. In fact, identical twins are VERY likely to weigh within a few pounds of each other as adults, while fraternal twins are no more nor less likely than other siblings. The tendency for addiction to run in families cannot be broken by having the babies adopted by non-addictive families, since that tendency is inhereted. Another is that if one identical twin in gay, the other is most likely gay also, indicating again some genetic (or at least some congenital) factor. (In the case of males, at least, there are some studies that indicate a possibility that sexual orientation may be affected by various hormonal levels during the pregnancy.) Nature is definately not meaningless -- neither is nurture. I think those studies that attempt to identify characteristics or tendencies that likely have some genetic component are fascinating. Right. But this goes to temprament, not 'instinct'. Banty Absolutely -- this is just a bit of thread drift, into a subject area with which I am fascinated. -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
#340
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
Ericka Kammerer wrote: Right...but have they found social behaviors to have a strong nature component (like the things Kathy mentioned-- career, choice of car, living in city/suburbs/rural areas, or maternal instincts)? Indirectly only. Things like personality traits (introvert/extrovert, for example) as well as types of intelligence (good in music, good in math, good with languages) tend to have a strong genetic component, and those things effect career choices, so there are more similarities. Level of comfort with risk also appears to have a strong genetic component, and that may effect the type of car one chooses. The sorts of anecdotal stuff where they find twins raised apart who have partners with the same name, however, are just anecdotes: they may be fun stories, but that's all they are. Nature is definately not meaningless -- neither is nurture. I think those studies that attempt to identify characteristics or tendencies that likely have some genetic component are fascinating. Oh, I agree, and I think nature has a role to play. I just have yet to see any evidence that the role of nature is determinitive in the sorts of social behaviors that have been under discussion. I think it highly likely that nature plays a role, but not one that is determinitive by a long stretch. I do think that research into genetic relationships and such is absolutely fascinating, and I do think there is much to be learned. I just think that on balance, social behavior has more to do with nurture. I also think that people vastly underestimate the impact of socialization. Even language is absolutely fundamental to our ability to interpret the world we live in. Different languages lead to different understandings. I find that research equally fascinating. Absolutely! I am not a linguist, but some of the stuff I've read that deals with the way language affects thinking has been fascinating. This turns out to be true for different languages, but even for how we use our own language: working on using gender neutral language, or gay-friendly language, can actually change our own perceptions. For example, in most of my life, I refer to the person with whom I share my life as my "partner", and I NEVER ask someone if they are married or have a husband or wife: I may ask if they are dating anyone, or if they are in a relationship, or if they have a partner, but I don't assume gender. I believe my committment to this language has helped me along the way to changed perceptions. In fact, I'm not always comfortable here referring to "DH", and have considered always referring to him as my partner; I've wondered if it would just confuse people too much! In the circles in which I travel, it is common enough that it doesn't often raise any questions. (The only exception is my very-right-wing fundamentalist Christian brother, who is annoyed that I place his relationship with his wife on the same footing as the relationship between my sister and her opposite sex partner, who have two kids and are in a committed relationship but declined to get married until very recently, or my brother and his same sex partner, who have been in a committed relationship for over 15 years -- and recently got legally married in Mass, by the way.) -- Children won't care how much you know until they know how much you care |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Good Newsweek article | Sue | General | 353 | March 22nd 05 03:19 PM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | December 29th 04 05:26 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on breastpumps, Part 1/2 | Beth Weiss | Info and FAQ's | 1 | March 3rd 04 10:06 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on breastpumps, Part 1/2 | Beth Weiss | Info and FAQ's | 1 | February 16th 04 09:59 AM |
misc.kids FAQ on Good things about having kids | [email protected] | Info and FAQ's | 0 | February 16th 04 09:59 AM |