Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 28, 2019 22:10:11 GMT
On channel 4 right now. Fascinating documentary about triplets (and some twins) who were given to three different families (one upper class, one middle, one lower) and never told about each other and studied throughout their lives until they (accidentally) discovered each other. The study was never published but seems to have demonstrated that nature is significantly more important than nurture. The doctors involved deliberately chose mothers with mental health problems. Three Identical Strangers |
|
|
|
Post by Harold of Whoa on Feb 28, 2019 22:50:00 GMT
Off to the heresy dungeon with you! Next thing you know you'll be telling us people are born a specific gender and that it matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lilith on Feb 28, 2019 23:48:56 GMT
Wait. What? You mean the birth mothers, not the adoptive mothers, yes? If that's the case, this is a flawed case study because they are going to be genetically predisposed to having organic dysfunctions. That automatically is not providing a level playing field out of the gate. This is not going to be an accurate representation. That being said, I've seen some pretty incredible YT videos about twins who were separated at birth who had a bunch of strange coincidences later on, despite not meeting each other (until much later). Example: One set of twins married identical twin brothers, and gave birth to identical twin children. Another set of twin brothers who were separated married women with the same first name, and even went into the same profession. There's definitely some weird stuff out there. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 0:01:55 GMT
Wait. What? You mean the birth mothers, not the adoptive mothers, yes? If that's the case, this is a flawed case study because they are going to be genetically predisposed to having organic dysfunctions. That automatically is not providing a level playing field out of the gate. This is not going to be an accurate representation. That being said, I've seen some pretty incredible YT videos about twins who were separated at birth who had a bunch of strange coincidences later on, despite not meeting each other (until much later). Example: One set of twins married identical twin brothers, and gave birth to identical twin children. Another set of twin brothers who were separated married women with the same first name, and even went into the same profession. There's definitely some weird stuff out there. Yes, birth mothers with mental health issues. The idea being to see if their differing upbringings affected their chances of developing similar mental illnesses. |
|
|
|
Post by Lilith on Mar 1, 2019 0:11:34 GMT
Yes, birth mothers with mental health issues. The idea being to see if their differing upbringings affected their chances of developing similar mental illnesses. This is an unfair trial. There is extensive research showing how people who have mental health issues generally can show a family member along the line who's also had mental health problems. More studies support predisposition. Was the goal to see if they thought they could "cure" the mental illness based on household upbringing? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 0:15:39 GMT
Yes, birth mothers with mental health issues. The idea being to see if their differing upbringings affected their chances of developing similar mental illnesses. This is an unfair trial. There is extensive research showing how people who have mental health issues generally can show a family member along the line who's also had mental health problems. More studies support predisposition. Was the goal to see if they thought they could "cure" the mental illness based on household upbringing? I think it was more a case of seeing if nurture could overcome any generic predisposition. This was back in the 50s and 60s when there was a real obsession with nature/nurture. The actual results of this study have never been seen. |
|
|
|
Post by Lilith on Mar 1, 2019 0:29:16 GMT
This is an unfair trial. There is extensive research showing how people who have mental health issues generally can show a family member along the line who's also had mental health problems. More studies support predisposition. Was the goal to see if they thought they could "cure" the mental illness based on household upbringing? I think it was more a case of seeing if nurture could overcome any generic predisposition. This was back in the 50s and 60s when there was a real obsession with nature/nurture. The actual results of this study have never been seen. I have a very personal interest in things like childhood development when it comes to things like trauma, neglect, mental health. They also conducted studies back then where the babies and infants were given bare necessities but no affection, no facial recognition such as smiles and laughs or interacting, no holding, no cuddling. In the parlance of the time, these children developed to be "retarded." When these same children worked with nurses who gently but consistently provided attention and affection, they actually came out of it, grew out of their withdrawn and antisocial behaviour, and what they developed as coping mechanisms such as selective mutism where they just would stare and not react. These are cases where nurture made a very distinctive difference. But these were kids who were diagnosed as "retarded" AFTER the fact of being part of this experiment, conducted in orphanages. I watched a few documentaries, one in particular from the 50's, and it was just interesting to see this nurse in the room with these kids, smoking away on her cigarette, but making efforts to communicate with these kids, and socialize them. |
|
|
|
Post by Lilith on Mar 1, 2019 0:36:02 GMT
Here's a video, just a few minutes, about how important it is for infants to receive facial responses and recognition from their parents and getting attention and validation. This is 2 minutes, and just one simple show of what neglect of recognition does:
Child "retardation." Today we would call this child abuse and neglect:
|
|
|
|
Post by Joc Spader on Mar 1, 2019 1:15:25 GMT
Hux, every time I've seen you guys mention what's on TV it seems like it's always Channel 4. How many do you have over there? Here the main 3 channels are ABC, NBC and CBS.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 1, 2019 1:41:34 GMT
Hux, every time I've seen you guys mention what's on TV it seems like it's always Channel 4. How many do you have over there? Here the main 3 channels are ABC, NBC and CBS. The terrestrial channels are: BBC1 BBC2 ITV Channel 4 Channel 5 Then there's Sky which you pay for. |
|
|
|
Post by Colin Sibthorpe on Mar 1, 2019 2:24:27 GMT
There are about 40 free channels on Freeview, aren't there?
|
|
|
|
Post by Flying Monkeys on Mar 1, 2019 15:14:43 GMT
There are about 40 free channels on Freeview, aren't there? Two hundred and something, I think. 99% mindnumbing shite. Sewing channel. Perfume channel. Cake channel.... |
|
|
|
Post by Colin Sibthorpe on Mar 2, 2019 0:45:23 GMT
OK. But I was closer than Hux!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2019 1:22:15 GMT
There are about 40 free channels on Freeview, aren't there? Freeview is for peasants, people called Dave who live in pebble-dashed houses and drink warm Vimto. |
|
