|
On December 30 2016 00:10 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2016 18:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 29 2016 07:23 JimmiC wrote:On December 29 2016 06:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 29 2016 05:50 JimmiC wrote:On December 29 2016 04:53 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 29 2016 04:05 JimmiC wrote:On December 29 2016 03:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 29 2016 03:47 Uldridge wrote:
Why would the clone behave completely different, though?
I wouldn't discard genetics as a way to become a certain way on a behavioral level. Genes and brain structure are linked, I'm sure. That's a different discussion entirely. But let me put it this way. What would give you an advantage in raising a clone over raising a random child? Remember, all other children you make will also have your genes, not just your clone. Will this clone grow up with the same friends? Same parents? Same social structure? Same social class? Will he grow up with as much resources as you? Same teachers? Same food? Same illnesses? Same movies? Same books? Same education system? Will he have the same opportunities as you? Will he fall in love with the same people? Do the same drugs? Make the same mistakes? Will he have the same hobbies?If his friends, social practices, hobbies, personal goals, and personal interests are all different and the only difference is that instead of getting only 50% of your genes he has 100% of your genes--what will he do that gives you an advantage in raising him? Likely none of this since he is growing up at a different time period. As for social practices. hobbies, personal goals and personal interests are different or the same that would be a nature vs nurture discussion. I have seen people raise adoptive children (right from birth) and there is some challenges that don't exist in biological situations. If you change from 50% dna different and in 50% gender differences that is pretty significant. edit: the question is not if you raised yourself, its if you raised a clone of you. So the person does nothing similar to you, does not have the same social cues as you, and only has 50% more genetic traits than any other child. What does the 50% more genetic traits give that is different from the first 50% of genetic traits already given? Well it would do lots similar to you, because I'm sure you would raise him/her in a way similar to the way you were raised with some differences. And yes the question is if the identical DNA would make that much a difference. And it is not simply 50% as it could be more or less with how dominant and recessive genes work within your body. It seems like you are full nurture and don't think nature has much to do with who you become. I think it's a factor and after having kids more so. I think a prince thrown into the gutter will end up being a poor beggar. I think that a smart person taught to be stupid will become stupid while a stupid person with enough tutoring can learn to be smart. I think that genetics gives you a baseline that life molds into who a person is. Like clay in the hands of a sculptor. And I think that you haven't even answered the question of "what is it about having the same genes that allows you to have an easier time raising them?" Will the job you need to pay bills be different? Will the costs of schools be different? Will your taxes be different? Will the food you can afford to buy be different? Will your friends be different? What would you change that would be different? What would you be able to affect that someone differently by having a kid with 100% of your genes instead of just 50%? Or, let me put it this way, do you think parents have a hard time caring for their kids because they only share 50% of their genes? Or maybe you think that the kid will act like you. Let me ask you this; if you never met the people you've met would you be the same person? If you were taught different things in school that what you were taught, would you be the same person? If you grew up with half the money you grew up with, or twice the money you grew up with, would you be a different person? Do you think that if you taught someone science, but their genes were smart, they would be just as scientifically informed as a dumb kid taught science? Or do you think that many things in life affect who we become, and that genes simply makes some of those variables easier, harder, or different. We are talking about raising a kid. What does the other 50% give you that makes raising a kid easier? Man you make a lot off assumptions about what I think. My question: On December 29 2016 01:10 JimmiC wrote:
Do you think you could do a better job of raising a clone then a child? (exact copy of yourself rather then a naturally occurring child of yours and your partner)
Do you think you would do a better job raising your clone then your parents did with you? It was the question that you are now asking me with you never answering it (although from your long rambling posts it appears you think the answer is no.) and putting out like I somehow think one way or another. I think you should work on the assumptions you put on people if you do it here you likely do it throughout your life. Probably causes you all sorts of issues that don't even exist in reality because assumptions are not facts, and in fact lead to many fuck ups. You had one question: "Do you think you could do a better job of raising a clone then a child?" So when you asked: "Do you think you could do a better job of raising a clone then a child?" Did you not mean: "Do you think you could do a better job of raising a clone then a child?" So when I ask you: "We are talking about raising a kid. What does the other 50% give you that makes raising a kid easier?" How is that making assumptions? I'm literally pointing you back to the specific question you asked. Nothing, something that is the question. It is not a psychology session where I'm in need of answering my own question. I'm interested in others thoughts not my own that is why I posted it. Do you know how annoying and pointless this thread or any thread would become if we just posted peoples questions back to them over and over? Second, reread your posts if you don't think they insinuate that you think I would answer the question a certain way.... well come on man you know they do and you know you do.
I already gave my initial answer as the first response to your question:
On December 29 2016 02:02 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 29 2016 01:10 JimmiC wrote:
Do you think you could do a better job of raising a clone then a child? (exact copy of yourself rather then a naturally occurring child of yours and your partner)
Do you think you would do a better job raising your clone then your parents did with you? False conclusion: Assuming a clone of you would act the same as you. Being as you were never raised by a copy of you, your life has different variables than his and hence requires different responses which creates different lessons. *However* lets assume this is a repeated process. Each clone of yours that grows up then clones himself and raises that child, and then their child clones themselves and raises that child. At N progenies where N is, what I would assume, a fairly high number, I could imagine a genetic evolution where each generation gets easier and easier to raise.
Wherein I not only answer your direct question, but further move towards an implicitly asked question of how it would be possible to create an environment where we can have an easier time raising children then our parents by not only cloning their genes, but the environment and social structures they are in as well.
This is already practiced by Cults and closed communities, and it is fairly successful at making an easy environment to raise a child save for the few runaways and inability to conform to the outside society. But I assumed you didn't want to hear the answer that what you're asking for is a cult not genetic replication.
|
Its called state (tax) funded kindergarden/daycare, nothing cultish about it.
|
On December 30 2016 02:05 Velr wrote:
Its called state (tax) funded kindergarden/daycare, nothing cultish about it.
I think you and I have very different definitions of what counts as a cult.
|
Judging from earlier "discussions", I think you and I have very diffrent definitions about kinda anything (as you do with most people).
|
On December 30 2016 03:49 Velr wrote:
Judging from earlier "discussions", I think you and I have very diffrent definitions about kinda anything (as you do with most people).
I just don't think public education counts as a cult. Nor do I think public education has control of home life and social environments. Hence my confusion.
|
When is someone considered a genius?
|
On December 30 2016 10:53 Uldridge wrote:
When is someone considered a genius?
God that's a stupid question, good job 
All I can say is that is the eyes of the public, a genius and intelligence are only very weakly corelated.
|
But seriously, what metrics can be used for determining this? Because it seems like between or in certain communities there is no consensus for it. Like when people can't agree on when someone is a bonjwa or not for example, if that's a good analogy (or maybe it's even just a synonym)
|
|
|
I do get the feeling it's more and more a buzzword, but that someone can definitely be one, based on merit and accomplishments. However, intelligence and what you have done/do/are going to do with it do not go hand in hand, and you absolutely need to have this. Also, certain areas of intelligence will foster certain talents. Ever thought of how someone being a social genius? Is that even a possible area one can be a genius in?
|
Let's start from the google definition
an exceptionally intelligent person or one with exceptional skill in a particular area of activity.
Seems pretty wide, and also two different categories...
For the first one, there are a lot of different intelligent (math, language, social, spatial, etc) and I guess exceptional interlligence in any will make you a genius. It's not always easy to measure, but there are some attempts, like IQ tests would be the first example coming to mind. Otherwise it'd be peer recognition I guess. So genius of this type one would be someone that either scores very high in some flavour if intelligence test, and/or is recognised as highly intelligent by peers. The second being a bit softer definition, but what can you do...
The second, "exceptional skill", is extremely wide, so tough to nail down a definition for. I guess one thing to watch out for here is how you weight "skill" vs achievement. What if you have a maybe not THAT great skater that through lucky circumstances won the olympics. Genius? I think most would agree not. While on the other hand, someone extremely skilled, doing things no one else does, but that get's injured over the olympics or something, can still be classed as genius I guess. So well, I guess it'd still have to come to mainly peer recognition.... :/
So yeah... Not really very specific hard definitions. Can anyone improve on this?
|
On December 30 2016 13:02 Cascade wrote:Let's start from the google definition Show nested quote +an exceptionally intelligent person or one with exceptional skill in a particular area of activity. Seems pretty wide, and also two different categories... For the first one, there are a lot of different intelligent (math, language, social, spatial, etc) and I guess exceptional interlligence in any will make you a genius. It's not always easy to measure, but there are some attempts, like IQ tests would be the first example coming to mind. Otherwise it'd be peer recognition I guess. So genius of this type one would be someone that either scores very high in some flavour if intelligence test, and/or is recognised as highly intelligent by peers. The second being a bit softer definition, but what can you do... The second, "exceptional skill", is extremely wide, so tough to nail down a definition for. I guess one thing to watch out for here is how you weight "skill" vs achievement. What if you have a maybe not THAT great skater that through lucky circumstances won the olympics. Genius? I think most would agree not. While on the other hand, someone extremely skilled, doing things no one else does, but that get's injured over the olympics or something, can still be classed as genius I guess. So well, I guess it'd still have to come to mainly peer recognition.... :/ So yeah... Not really very specific hard definitions. Can anyone improve on this?
The fewer people are capable of doing said task, the more likely that those who can perform those tasks can be considered geniuses of that task.
|
On December 30 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2016 13:02 Cascade wrote:Let's start from the google definition an exceptionally intelligent person or one with exceptional skill in a particular area of activity. Seems pretty wide, and also two different categories... For the first one, there are a lot of different intelligent (math, language, social, spatial, etc) and I guess exceptional interlligence in any will make you a genius. It's not always easy to measure, but there are some attempts, like IQ tests would be the first example coming to mind. Otherwise it'd be peer recognition I guess. So genius of this type one would be someone that either scores very high in some flavour if intelligence test, and/or is recognised as highly intelligent by peers. The second being a bit softer definition, but what can you do... The second, "exceptional skill", is extremely wide, so tough to nail down a definition for. I guess one thing to watch out for here is how you weight "skill" vs achievement. What if you have a maybe not THAT great skater that through lucky circumstances won the olympics. Genius? I think most would agree not. While on the other hand, someone extremely skilled, doing things no one else does, but that get's injured over the olympics or something, can still be classed as genius I guess. So well, I guess it'd still have to come to mainly peer recognition.... :/ So yeah... Not really very specific hard definitions. Can anyone improve on this? The fewer people are capable of doing said task, the more likely that those who can perform those tasks can be considered geniuses of that task.
Yeah, that more or less sums it up. There are a few complication, but as first approximation it's good.
For example, it's kindof important to factor in how many are actually trying to perform it though. Like, there will be niche activities that very few people do. Are the best few people in every obscure sport geniuses just because there are only a few thousand that bother to play it world wide? Everyone with weird and disgusting world records in Guinness book of world records would be the highest class of genius, as they are the only ones that did it.
And it's not always easy to formulate things in terms of performing a task. A lot things in sports and music for example would be hard to pin down I think. Exactly what task makes Messi a genius for example? He's not the fastest, doesn't have the hardest shot, not capable of the most difficult dribbles, etc. How do you measure game sense? You get the point. Maybe peer recognition like awards is a more inclusive measure than a single task in some cases.
But yes, for a single sentence it's good.
|
On December 30 2016 10:53 Uldridge wrote:
When is someone considered a genius?
I'd guess someone is a genius when either (a) he shows great skill or great promise/potential in many different fields or subfields (à la Leonardo Da Vinci) : then he is a "genius" in the wholest sense of the word, (b) he shows great skill or great promise in a given field without much work/effort (thus he naturally seems to be good), or (c) he shows great skill or great promise in a given field with a lot of work, effort and sacrifice behind it (but that's definitely the weakest kind of genius). But yeah, there's no clearly defined metric for this.
|
genius is someone who has what you need when you need it; then you play with contexts(family, block/village, school, city, country and so on).
|
On December 30 2016 16:19 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 30 2016 13:02 Cascade wrote:Let's start from the google definition an exceptionally intelligent person or one with exceptional skill in a particular area of activity. Seems pretty wide, and also two different categories... For the first one, there are a lot of different intelligent (math, language, social, spatial, etc) and I guess exceptional interlligence in any will make you a genius. It's not always easy to measure, but there are some attempts, like IQ tests would be the first example coming to mind. Otherwise it'd be peer recognition I guess. So genius of this type one would be someone that either scores very high in some flavour if intelligence test, and/or is recognised as highly intelligent by peers. The second being a bit softer definition, but what can you do... The second, "exceptional skill", is extremely wide, so tough to nail down a definition for. I guess one thing to watch out for here is how you weight "skill" vs achievement. What if you have a maybe not THAT great skater that through lucky circumstances won the olympics. Genius? I think most would agree not. While on the other hand, someone extremely skilled, doing things no one else does, but that get's injured over the olympics or something, can still be classed as genius I guess. So well, I guess it'd still have to come to mainly peer recognition.... :/ So yeah... Not really very specific hard definitions. Can anyone improve on this? The fewer people are capable of doing said task, the more likely that those who can perform those tasks can be considered geniuses of that task. Yeah, that more or less sums it up. There are a few complication, but as first approximation it's good. For example, it's kindof important to factor in how many are actually trying to perform it though. Like, there will be niche activities that very few people do. Are the best few people in every obscure sport geniuses just because there are only a few thousand that bother to play it world wide? Everyone with weird and disgusting world records in Guinness book of world records would be the highest class of genius, as they are the only ones that did it. And it's not always easy to formulate things in terms of performing a task. A lot things in sports and music for example would be hard to pin down I think. Exactly what task makes Messi a genius for example? He's not the fastest, doesn't have the hardest shot, not capable of the most difficult dribbles, etc. How do you measure game sense? You get the point. Maybe peer recognition like awards is a more inclusive measure than a single task in some cases. But yes, for a single sentence it's good.
Who dribbles better than Messi?
|
On December 30 2016 20:27 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 30 2016 16:19 Cascade wrote:On December 30 2016 15:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 30 2016 13:02 Cascade wrote:Let's start from the google definition an exceptionally intelligent person or one with exceptional skill in a particular area of activity. Seems pretty wide, and also two different categories... For the first one, there are a lot of different intelligent (math, language, social, spatial, etc) and I guess exceptional interlligence in any will make you a genius. It's not always easy to measure, but there are some attempts, like IQ tests would be the first example coming to mind. Otherwise it'd be peer recognition I guess. So genius of this type one would be someone that either scores very high in some flavour if intelligence test, and/or is recognised as highly intelligent by peers. The second being a bit softer definition, but what can you do... The second, "exceptional skill", is extremely wide, so tough to nail down a definition for. I guess one thing to watch out for here is how you weight "skill" vs achievement. What if you have a maybe not THAT great skater that through lucky circumstances won the olympics. Genius? I think most would agree not. While on the other hand, someone extremely skilled, doing things no one else does, but that get's injured over the olympics or something, can still be classed as genius I guess. So well, I guess it'd still have to come to mainly peer recognition.... :/ So yeah... Not really very specific hard definitions. Can anyone improve on this? The fewer people are capable of doing said task, the more likely that those who can perform those tasks can be considered geniuses of that task. Yeah, that more or less sums it up. There are a few complication, but as first approximation it's good. For example, it's kindof important to factor in how many are actually trying to perform it though. Like, there will be niche activities that very few people do. Are the best few people in every obscure sport geniuses just because there are only a few thousand that bother to play it world wide? Everyone with weird and disgusting world records in Guinness book of world records would be the highest class of genius, as they are the only ones that did it. And it's not always easy to formulate things in terms of performing a task. A lot things in sports and music for example would be hard to pin down I think. Exactly what task makes Messi a genius for example? He's not the fastest, doesn't have the hardest shot, not capable of the most difficult dribbles, etc. How do you measure game sense? You get the point. Maybe peer recognition like awards is a more inclusive measure than a single task in some cases. But yes, for a single sentence it's good. Who dribbles better than Messi?
Zlatan of course.
|
|
|
On December 31 2016 02:48 Liquid`Drone wrote:nope.  but yes it's determined by peer recognition, and then people, being different, have different definitions. In general people will be less likely to describe someone else as a genius the more skilled they themselves are within a field - probably largely caused by people having an aversion to describing themselves as geniuses, which also means that they can't really define someone at their own level as a genius. descriptive words are rarely quantifiable 
There are definitely quantifiable descriptive words.
Smartest, for example, is super specific (of a group, he is the one who is most smart)
The issue with genius is that part of its description requires a sense of otherness, or "above mediocrity" not within a group, but within a field of study or work. In other words, its on a relative scale by definition.
|
Even your example sucks ass. A group of 14 year olds probably can't come up with an agreed upon definition of "smartest".
Is it the one with the best grades? Or the one with the best grades for level of effort put in? Or the one with the most widespread knowledge base relative to their peers? Or any number of definitions based on someones individual values and priorities.
How in the world is that super specific.
I'm gonna second the "descriptive words are rarely quantifiable" here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
