User Tag List

First 123

Results 21 to 29 of 29

  1. #21
    Senior Membrane spirilis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    InTP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp
    Socionics
    INTj Ni
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    However, objectively, there is no significant difference from what exists now and what could be created. As above, an example of decreasing N's because Ss breed more could account for the difference between Ns and Ss. Religions attract certain types of people, and if religious people breed more, then certain traits (namely, ethnocentrism) would be bred. Demographics and breeding habits will happen either way - it's hard to say what is good or bad.
    I am kinda curious about one thing--we talk of breeding S vs N as if it's a genetic trait, but do we have any evidence of such? I keep wondering if temperament and type is a genetic trait or a mostly-random one--like gender.

  2. #22
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spirilis View Post
    I am kinda curious about one thing--we talk of breeding S vs N as if it's a genetic trait, but do we have any evidence of such? I keep wondering if temperament and type is a genetic trait or a mostly-random one--like gender.
    From memory, I believe openness (moderately/strongly correlated to MBTI N) and concientousness (low/moderate correlation to MBTI J) have strong genetic influences. I can't get to the library right now to give you a reference or tell you how strong, I'll see if I can do it tomorrow. I vaguely remember T/F (disagreeableness) being even more genetically correlated, and emotional stability/reactivenss is definitely correlated (MBTI doesn't measure this).

  3. #23
    Senior Membrane spirilis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    InTP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp
    Socionics
    INTj Ni
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    From memory, I believe openness (moderately/strongly correlated to MBTI N) and concientousness (low/moderate correlation to MBTI J) have strong genetic influences. I can't get to the library right now to give you a reference or tell you how strong, I'll see if I can do it tomorrow. I vaguely remember T/F (disagreeableness) being even more genetically correlated, and emotional stability/reactivenss is definitely correlated (MBTI doesn't measure this).
    neat... I wouldn't mind seeing more references at some point, but that question has often piqued my curiosity.

  4. #24
    Senior Member darlets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    357

    Default

    I would like to see stats on people reaching a breeding age rather than birth rates. There's places in Africa where parents delay naming their children a week because so many of them die. If the mortality rate wasn't so high and they had access to contraception it would be step in the right direction.

    Also just because a populations birthrate is declining it doesn't mean it's population is declining. Countries should reach a point where their population is stable, declining birth rates is a step towards that. People see it as this being dramatic problem and it isn't, it's a good thing.
    "The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time."
    Bertrand Russell

    http://rayofsolar.blogspot.com/
    http://zeropointseven.blogspot.com/

  5. #25

    Default

    Also just because a populations birthrate is declining it doesn't mean it's population is declining. Countries should reach a point where their population is stable, declining birth rates is a step towards that. People see it as this being dramatic problem and it isn't, it's a good thing.
    doesn't it mean that not enough people are working to support pensioners?
    dead man talking

  6. #26
    Strongly Ambivalent Ivy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6
    Posts
    24,060

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cafe View Post
    I can see some validity to that theory, pt. Having spent the better part of my life at or bellow the poverty line, I see how family as a safety net could effect people's decisions about how many children they have. One of the positive things I observed about larger families growing up was the way they banded together to take care of and protect one another.

    You were never in a fight with one Sheese, for instance. If you took on one, you risked taking on six. I wanted that kind of clan for my own children and that contributed to my having a larger than average family. My kids will even defend one another against me if they think I'm unfairly penalizing their sibling and I don't see that as a bad thing. My mindset is that the future is uncertain, but if you've got family you've always got somebody to get your back or give you a leg up. Family is the only thing you can really count on so the more the better.
    A book I read about the differences in attitudes of different socioeconomic classes (my sister-in-law recommended it to me after it had been required reading for a Class and Education seminar she attended-- she's a teacher) put this in an interesting way. When you're poor, you own your people. When you're middle-class, you own things. When you're wealthy, you own a legacy.
    The one who buggers a fire burns his penis
    -anonymous graffiti in the basilica at Pompeii

  7. #27
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by spirilis View Post
    neat... I wouldn't mind seeing more references at some point, but that question has often piqued my curiosity.
    Seems like my uni library card isn't working right now... However, not to leave you hanging, I googled up a bit!

    Heritability of Facet-Level Traits in a Cross-Cultural Twin Sample(Google Cache - original expired). The charts show the degree - it's certainly strong enough from a psychological point of view... I have a friend that is a geneticist that I'm seeing tonight, I'll ask him to what degree it could be bred, if he knows. Regardless, reading it hurts my brain - this is a very complex issue and the data isn't always in agreement. Regardless, there is some degree of genetics involved... ranging from low to high. There is, however, no question that environment plays some role... But in many cases it has a lower influence than genetics (sometimes by a huge range!)

    Considering the degree of difference possible, even in twins, that wouldn't show up except in large numbers over a moderate period of time, I would believe that you could breed certain traints into extreme dominance. Not having done so would suggest that there are other pressures, however... or it could be as simple as pair bonding and 1:1 mating...

    Heritabilities of Common and Measure-Specific Components of the Big Five Personality Factors Which, from the abstract, seems to say that I was wrong that certain traits are more/less genetic.

  8. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    intp
    Posts
    53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rivercrow View Post

    I'm with Heart -- if you can afford them, you're reasonably stable, and you both want them, have as many of them as you want.
    That's pretty much where I stand. It's bad when people just pump them out and either live off the government or dump them on other people. I think some people should be sterilized, so what do I know.

  9. #29
    Senior Member darlets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    357

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Il Morto Qui Parla View Post
    doesn't it mean that not enough people are working to support pensioners?
    I do very much take your point and alot of people make it. My problem with it is it increases the world population, when we really should be trying to get it to level off.

    You need a system that is self supporting, not top or bottom heavy.

    This is just speculation on my behalf but I would think that people over 60 should consider working part time until their 70 or potentially beyond. More and more people are going to live longer and longer and be more active as they do so. We should think of the retirement age as the average life expectancy minus a certain number.

    Alot of the elderly I speak to are bored and would like something to do 2-3 days a week. Increasingly a lot of jobs are of a intellectual basis not a physical one so they are still capable of making a contribution and getting paid for it. Also it just seems bizzare to "pasture" someone off when they have this wealth of experience and knowledge to rely on.

    I've stated this as a choice, but I think it will become an increasing economic reality.

    I know I'm swimming against the stream on this but it's just my thoughts.
    "The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time."
    Bertrand Russell

    http://rayofsolar.blogspot.com/
    http://zeropointseven.blogspot.com/

Similar Threads

  1. White House Invites Gay Families to Easter Event
    By 01011010 in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: 04-21-2009, 01:45 PM
  2. On how to keep children from dying in their sleep
    By G-Virus in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 01-28-2009, 01:22 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO