Taking sides: Children vs. (non-human) animals

so you're arguing that EI is *not* hereditary, but that we should still test parents on it? that makes sense.

rmde @ this derail

here's the full paper: http://www.psycometriclaboratory.xentricserver.com/adminsdata/files/Emotion%20(2008)%20-%20TEI.pdf

The combined strength of the family and twin designs allows us to draw several conclusions. First, there are considerable genetic influences on trait EI, predisposing individuals to higher or lower scores. Nevertheless, as is the case for the Big Five, most of the phenotypic trait EI variance (which includes measurement error) is accounted for by nonshared environmental effects (e.g., experi- ences outside the family). The impact of nonshared environment on global trait EI ranges between 58% and 68%, according to the twin and family design, respectively. Second, the fact that the family aggregation estimates were lower than the heritability es- timates supports the view that the similarity of family members is mediated genetically and not environmentally. On the whole, these results are consistent with the hypothesis of negligible shared environmental influence on the trait EI population variance.

so you're arguing that EI is *not* hereditary, but that we should still test parents on it? that makes sense.

― Οὖτις, Monday, March 20, 2017 10:41 AM (five minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes! it's measuring capability not genetics

thanks mordy will have a look

yes! it's measuring capability not genetics

but if its not genetic why would you assume it's transferable to children?

i never assumed that

i was engaging in a discussion with mordy about that because that is what *he* said

basically from that paragraph tho there are two problems for your theory: a. that there's a high genetic component which has unfavorable optics and b. that even within environmental impacts the shared environmental effects (experiences within the family) have a negligible footprint on IQ compared to experiences outside the family, which is to say that developing healthy emotional humans has very little to do w/ the parents' provided environment and to the extent that parents have anything to do w/ the kid's IQ it's primarily genetic.

sorry IQ = EI

i never assumed that

then... why do you care if parents have it? if it has no bearing on the kind of children they'll produce? make sense, man!

because it is an indication of their own moral/ethic capability, which yes, i assume, they would be able to teach to their children if they have these capabilities

lol i'm tryin! just it's a topic that involves a lot of in depth reading, not just casual conversation on a thread

my original comment about a 'test' was that a parent should have enough moral/ethical capabilities to be able to teach their own kids to be normal, productive, determined adults in society

maybe scratch normal, i agree that word is complex and has a lot of problems

which yes, i assume, they would be able to teach to their children if they have these capabilities

category error

fair enough

but i think it is a theory that is on the right track

but i think it is a theory that is on the right track if implemented would probably be close to a humanitarian disaster

fixed

Life is a humanitarian disaster stop abrogating our responsibilities

yr a humanitarian disaster

mordy so two beefs with the pdf you linked (not necessarily about ethics/morality but getting in murky waters here)

With respect to trait EI theory, the finding that a substantial proportion of the construct’s variance is heritable has two important
implications. First, speculation about the determinants of emotional “intelligence” will now have to take into account the fact that one of the strongest predictors of adolescent trait EI is actually parental trait EI. In combination with the temporal stability that the construct shows even in children (Mavroveli, Petrides, Shove, & Whitehead, in press), this suggests that training and intervention programs, currently popular in educational and business settings, are unlikely to be more successful in changing trait EI than they have been in changing personality more generally (Costa & McCrae, 1986; Norlander, Bergman & Archer, 2002).

maybe i'm about to open a can of worms, so if you don't agree with the conclusion, that's fine, but there's a boy in my family who was diagnosed with autism at a very young age (i want to say 2, but my vague understanding is that he had to be a certain age for the specialist to confirm it). specialist said that if he was enroled in a lot of classes (cognitive, behavioural, etc., not sure what they are called technically) for it, it would improve his diagnosis. anyway, he did attend those classes. fast forward a few years and he looks and sounds like just about a normal boy. if i wouldn't know he had autism, it would be very difficult for me to tell. i have no evidence except this one anecdotal experience, but my point is that i believe it wasn't just classes, but his family that helped too. so, what your pdf concludes goes against these types of programs that clearly work for some, and would be good enough to keep around

and i would like to see the questionnaire the study used, because it does show testing for limited personality traits:

Of course, the main shortcoming of this argument is the absence of an established personality inventory from the research design, which prevents us from examining the phenotypic and genetic correlations that are key to deciding this issue (but see Vernon et al., in press).

lol oustic

used to yr hyperbole bud

EI in general is ime an incredibly flakey field fwiw, even in comparison to notoriously flakey IQ studies.

sociology and psychology are not all bad

everything is bad

and it's getting worse

EI only a cut about anything related to the arts or humanities as a field of study

had a little too much corned beef friday

that may have been bad for me

so glad we replaced the conversation about having kids as a necessary cost of keeping a good fuck-buddy handy with a conversation about weeding out unsuitable stock

look I did what I could but there are only so many Genes

getting back on track
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/dd/GeneColan6.13.09ByLuigiNovi.jpg/220px-GeneColan6.13.09ByLuigiNovi.jpg

http://68.media.tumblr.com/27ea09645c0da2f704362df2d28c4879/tumblr_inline_np9cjkLp4l1tqm5y1_500.gif

https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP.6P_XemEf9Y8igsp7Mnw-ywEsCo%26pid%3D15.1&f=1

Twas a shit derail tbf

Animals are better than kids because you can eat animals.

Your move, kid lovers

You can eat kids

if you eat a baby goat, all bases are covered

Noble Irish heritage of arguing for this

There was a famine on and also we had company

reminds me of dude that ate human brain not too long ago

https://www.rt.com/viral/380197-cnn-hindu-aslan-aghori-brain/

"Eating brains, that's where I'm a lion"

still amused ∞ kept calling Outis "oustic".

Pronounced "Eustace"

Don't have kids. If you've had kids, raise them not to have kids. Also, sterilize your pets. (Don't sterilize your kids.)

everything is bad

― mark s, Monday, March 20, 2017 11:36 AM (one year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and it's getting worse

― mark s, Monday, March 20, 2017 11:36 AM (one year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i don't have kids

but mind yr own fuckin business

something something something

Don't have kids.

ive had dogs and a kid. kids are better. and i used to love my dogs but i dont give a FUCK about them now.

whether you have kids or don't have kids. my advice is to find ways to maximize your outlets for giving and receiving unselfish love. you'll still suffer, like all of us must, but at least your suffering will have meaning.

Don't have kids myself, only have a godchild, and I've never experienced such love

I worry though about the future world she is going to experience

Seems kinda selfish to have a kid just so your suffering will have meaning

um, that's not what I recommended, silby. read it again.