Some atheists still believe in invisible causes.

[Dr. Faye]

            Some atheists still believe in invisible causes. Do you look at invisible causes of behavior the way Christians look at invisible causes of nature? Do you believe genes cause behavior? Really? Do you know that even geneticists now admit that what they claimed to be genetic predispositions can be undone by parenting? Do you even think that genes cause 50% of behavior? If you do, you are just as brainwashed as Christians. You believe in the lies of the pharmaceutical industry. You have been allowing yourself to follow the party line, hook, line and sinker. You have been buying corrupt research the way Christians buy the Bible.  

            James Holmes, aka The Joker, is only part of an epidemic, which was initiated by the feminist movement in concert with the pharmaceutical industry, strange bedfellows with no awareness of how they served one another. Liberated women began leaving their babies and toddlers in daycare, completely violating the evolutionary design of human babies to be attached for their first three years to one primary caregiver following birth. These abandonments were perfect for the pharmaceutical industry who began to make billions of dollars medicating the results, while selling us with faulty research suggesting the epidemic of troubled children was genetic. 

     Of course, there are other ways than daycare to sew the seeds of mental illness, but the most common cause is daycare, nannies, rotating caregivers even grandmas, because even Mother Teresa wouldn't be good enough to take the place of the infant's primary parent. Nevertheless, abuse can do damage character. Weak parenting can do it too. Neglect can do it. Micromanaging children can do it. But, what makes all bad parenting not just harmful, but dangerous, is adding the abuses to neglect and abandonment of the first few years of life. These babies and toddlers who suffer separation anxiety, abandonment or multiple caregivers are not resilient. If the same identical abuse and neglect were suffered just three to five years later, it would not create such harmful long-term damage. The core personality is formed in the first years. People who have a resilient core have enjoyed feeling protected, lovingly touched and adored as infants and toddlers. The killers of our society have had the worst childhoods of us all, something most of us cannot actually fathom. Most of us imagine all parents sort of like our parents. I am not saying, by the way, that predators should be vindicated. I am saying we need to address parenting as quickly as we need to address global warming.    

            I strongly suspect that the Joker suffered a lack of attachment or a severe attachment break, and following that, he suffered rejection and mental abuse, creating an agonizing identity of worthlessness, including self-loathing. His attempts to do the right thing were probably discredited on a regular basis, so he didn’t have the self-worth to make it through college. I don’t know if his childhood included physical or sexual abuse, but that would add another drive to retaliate or do to others what was done to him, especially if his father was authoritarian and/or violent. If he were taught to immunize his parents from complaining about how he was being treated, then that would drive him to scapegoating behavior.  

            We have more massacres and serial killers than we did fifty years ago. When I was in grammar school 60 years ago, the problems of the classroom were primarily chewing gum and cutting in line. Evolution creates genetic changes for the good. External causes create epidemics. Epidemics are not attributable to genes. We are in an epidemic created by daycare, beginning about fifty years ago, and children diagnosed with ADHD and ADD are the more common victims who have suffered the more mild symptoms, because their experiences in daycare began a little later in life or were a little shorter hours or less frequent than the highly disturbed personalities who went to daycare shortly after they were born. Mothers or primary caregivers who were under-nurtured, themselves, and then scolded for their reactivity or allowed to go wild out of parental guilt are parents now. Each generation will become worse if the public doesn’t wake up.

            In other words, many more mothers are colder, less available and less nurturing than they used to be, because they were so under-nurtured. Dangerous parenting assumptions and actions are creating the pathological drive to take revenge against someone, anyone but one’s parents. As long as we support very young children in daycare, we contribute toward creating killers, especially when the parents at home no longer know how to love or discipline correctly. 

P.S. I don't remember ever choosing to call myself me. I must have put it on my computer some time not knowing it would end up here. "Me" sounds narcissistic in this context because every here is "me". If I could change it I would. I am Dr. Faye. My son is theoreticalbullshit on youtube.  

[LL]

LL. Atheists don't believe in invisible causes. Atheists accept that
some causes are unknown. Theists tend to make up stories when faced
with something that is unknown and appear to be unable to accept that
some things have just not yet been answered. It's distressing to
realize that some theists are too ignorant to know the difference and
try to score points without ever experiencing a rational thought. Of
course, if they could think rationally, they'd also he atheists and
wouldn't make such egregious errors.

......

> and less nurturing than they used to be, because *they* were so

[philosophy]

I sometimes get the feeling that even though both Atheists and
Theists live in "hope" that there is a different quality to the type
of hope they have.

eg. It appears that Theist hope is quite irrational at times. Maybe
this is because they believe in the sky fairy. On the other hand
I have observed that Atheists tend to have their hope rooted
more in the reality of this world we live in and tend to accommodate
the variabilities in the human being more appropriately. But then,
I'm biased, I'm an atheist, so of course I'd see myself as being
more "reasonable".

[Ian Betts]

We and I mean Atheists are rooted in the reality of the real world or should be Phil.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Ian

[philosophy]

The one thing I like about your causal theory is that if we put
all emotion aside regarding parenting, the methodology of
"dealing with the problem" appears to be more love, more
cuddles, more engagement with the child, etc - so hardly
a bad thing, eh?

> and less nurturing than they used to be, because *they* were so

[philosophy]

Yup, that's what I'm suggesting Ian.

On Sep 2, 8:25 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We and I mean Atheists are rooted in the reality of the real world or
> should be Phil.
>

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

Do you or do you not believe genes create behavior?

Dr. Faye

Dr. S. Faye Snyder 

A Professional Corporation

PSY #24806, MFC #29816

Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC

Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation

15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210

Granada Hills, CA 91344

PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020  

Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.com

www.theparcfoundation.com (agency)

www.drsfayesnyder.com (forensics)

www.drfayesnyder.com (products) 

www.thecausaltheory.com (theory)

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

Unfortunately, when my son, youtube.com/theoreticalbullshit posted that his mom's book was out on his athiest v Christian debating site, some of his atheist subscribers complained that I was a quack because I fly in the face of science, genetics and the evidence of genes creating personality. Unfortunately, there is no such credible, lasting evidence. I was practicing. I am trying to wake people up, even atheists, that genes don't account for behavior.

Dr. Faye
Dr. S. Faye Snyder
A Professional Corporation
PSY #24806, MFC #29816
Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
Granada Hills, CA 91344
PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020
Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.com
www.theparcfoundation.com (agency)
www.drsfayesnyder.com (forensics)
www.drfayesnyder.com (products)
www.thecausaltheory.com (theory)

[LL]

On Sep 1, 2:18 pm, "Dr. Faye Snyder" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> Unfortunately, when my son, youtube.com/theoreticalbullshit posted that his mom's book was out on his athiest v Christian debating site, some of his atheist subscribers complained that I was a quack because I fly in the face of science, genetics and the evidence of genes creating personality. Unfortunately, there is no such credible, lasting evidence. I was practicing. I am trying to wake people up, even atheists, that genes don't account for behavior.

LL. Of course they do. Genes determine how we respond to our
environment. If it weren't for differences in genes everyone who has
similar experiences would be affected by those experiences in the same
way, and we know they aren't. Take two kids who were abused in their
childhoods. One goes off the rails, the other pulls himself together
and becomes a psychologically stable person. Or take two people who
are raised in a stable home. The same things can happen to them as to
the abused individuals.

I know two brothers who were raised in a stable home by intelligent
parents (both hold doctorates). Both brothers have high IQs. One was
a serious and superior student who went on to have a brilliant career
and a stable marriage. The other got a degree in physics, though not
so brilliantly as his brother, but had a good mind and some success in
his career, though it was unconventional. He also became an
alcoholic, lost jobs and has had terrible relationships. Both say they
were brought up well by their parents. Are you saying genes played
no role? Where did the differences come from?

....

....

> Dr. Faye
> Dr. S. Faye Snyder
> A Professional Corporation
> PSY #24806, MFC #29816
> Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
> Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
> 15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
> Granada Hills, CA 91344
> PaRC(818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off.(661) 257-1020
> Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.comwww.theparcfoundation.com(agency)www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)www.drfayesnyder.com(products)www.thecausaltheory.com(theory)
>

[Ian Betts]

No Faye I believe Genes give us characteristics like our parents but behavioral traits are learnt.

[TLC]

Hi ya, Doc,

Seems like you're forgetting that day care appeared in France about
1840, and the Société des Crèches was recognized by the French
government in 1869. Originating in Europe in the late 18th and early
19th century, day cares were established in the United States by
private charities in the 1850s, the first being the New York Day
Nursery in 1854. Never made us in Europe much worse.

Also, after the two world wars day care, even for babies, became
normal in most advanced European countries, because women were needed
to re-build the economy, which was a way of caring via strangers for
infants which only the rich could afford in the past. In fact, look
at how many Western leaders in the past were firstly, brought up by
collections of nannies and then sent away to boarding school.

Whilst most of us can agree with you in the nature verses nurture
debate that "genes" are not the prime factors in how ones behaviour
becomes when growing up and bad parenting does do harm, I think you're
taking into account the massive social movement, economic and
technological changes in society which have occured and made life, and
lives, completely different than even 30 years ago.

Also, you should take into account that in the past most mental
illness was not diagnosed and even ignored untill it became too
noticable, then people were just, in many cases, locked away for
life.

> and less nurturing than they used to be, because *they* were so

[TLC]

[TLC]

On 2 Sep, 12:48, TLC <tlc.tere...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi ya, Doc,
>
> Seems like you're forgetting that day care appeared in France about
> 1840, and the Société des Crèches was recognized by the French
> government in 1869. Originating in Europe in the late 18th and early
> 19th century, day cares were established in the United States by
> private charities in the 1850s, the first being the New York Day
> Nursery in 1854.  Never made us in Europe much worse.
>
> Also, after the two world wars day care, even for babies, became
> normal in most advanced European countries, because women were needed
> to re-build the economy, which was a way of caring via strangers for
> infants which only the rich could afford in the past.  In fact, look
> at how many Western leaders in the past were firstly, brought up by
> collections of nannies and then sent away to boarding school.
>
> Whilst most of us can agree with you in the nature verses nurture
> debate that "genes" are not the prime factors in how ones behaviour

> becomes when growing up and bad parenting does do harm, I think you're not

[LL]

On Sep 2, 2:07 am, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
> No Faye I believe Genes give us characteristics like our parents
> but behavioral traits are learnt.

LL. Do you think Steve Jobs, as one example, got his "behavior
traits" from his adoptive parents, who were both quite ordinary
people, or from his birth parents who he never knew about until he was
an adult? Is it just a coincidence that he has a biological sister who
is a respected, intellectual writer?

.....

>
> On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Dr. Faye Snyder <drf...@drfayesnyder.com>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Do you or do you not believe genes create behavior?
>
> > Dr. Faye
> > Dr. S. Faye Snyder
> > A Professional Corporation
> > PSY #24806, MFC #29816
> > Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
> > Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
> > 15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
> > Granada Hills, CA 91344

> > PaRC(818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off.(661) 257-1020
> > Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.com
> >www.theparcfoundation.com(agency)
> >www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)
> >www.drfayesnyder.com(products)
> >www.thecausaltheory.com(theory)
>

> > On Sep 1, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > We and I mean Atheists are rooted in the reality of the real world or
> > should be Phil.
>

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

Hi LL, I am absolutely saying genes created no role. No gene has been isolated to account for behavior, even though we have been told it and it has been assumed just about every day of our lives. The scientists who have claimed that genes have been isolated for schizophrenia or depression, etc., have made a big PR splash, got lots of recognition, but their studies have never been replicated (the hallmark of good science). We have been sold a bill of goods and the pharmaceutical industry is propheting.  I am a psychologist and forensic evaluator. There are critical things that happen at critical times in our development that make the difference. Know this, no child has the same two parents in the same family. For the most part different children are treated differently in many significant ways. Maybe it's because one is the first child and the other is the second child, so the first child is the experiment or the one who gets all the attention, while the second one gets less attention, or a jealous sibling, or parents who give up, or whatever. The mother may have postpartum the second time. She may resort to daycare the first time of the second time. Maybe it is because the first child is jealous of the second child and the parents start defending the second child, or maybe they ignore it and don't see it. These subtle things that happen in child rearing and most people don't see, because they ASSUME that their child's behavior is inborn. That's just their "personality". They were born that way. As long as it's just their inborn personality, QUESTIONING STOPS. ASSUMPTIONS ARE MAINTAINED. 

Are you an atheist? If you are, this is exactly my point. I wish atheists would begin to question something far more present and harmful to our society and children. I wish they would begin to see their children as evidence for how they are doing and respond accordingly. When a child is seen clearly without the projection of inborn personality, that child can be corrected, healed, supported, and validated. Our belief in genetics is a huge social downfall. It allows us to defy evolution and put babies in daycare. It allows us to pretend that serial killers, mass murderers, rapists and terrorists were created now born. It allows us people we can love to hate. It is a blindness worse than a belief in the God of the Bible. 

By the way I have written a book on this subject, The Manual. (see drf...@drfayesnyder.com). I am the author of the Causal Theory that Psychology has been talking about. I am hear to try to wake a few people up if I can. I am trying to find out how reachable people are before I have to do interviews. I have liked your posts, for the most part, and I am so glad you are writing to me. I am a parenting expert and a forensic evaluator. I am the mother of a successful and talented atheist, theoreticalbullshit (on youtube). Show me a killer or a great person, and I can tell you about their childhood, within reason, and certainly better than a psychic. I can teach people how to raise amazing children. I get behavior and where it comes from. 

I am 3/4 through writing a book on the false research methods of so-called behavioral/genetic scientists. But there are more than 20 such books written by scientists for other scientists, and these critics are also great researchers, themselves. We, in the field of psychology have a War of the Researchers going on that is being ignored, and those in our field pretend that both sides are right. It's like pretending that atheists and Christians are both right. It's insane. What is happening is that not only are children brainwashed into religion, they are also brainwashed into parental loyalty. That makes them even more blind that religion. They have to bury their truth when they are hurting in order to immunize their parents from responsibility for mistreatments, from subtle to grotesque. There are pro-parent researchers and pro-child researchers. The former is analagous to Christianity and the latter is analagous to atheism. 

I hope you write back.

   

Dr. Faye
Dr. S. Faye Snyder 
A Professional Corporation
PSY #24806, MFC #29816
Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
Granada Hills, CA 91344

PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020  
Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.com
www.theparcfoundation.com (agency)
www.drsfayesnyder.com (forensics)
www.drfayesnyder.com (products) 
www.thecausaltheory.com (theory)

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

Oh, do you mean physical characteristics (like our parents) and behavioral traits are learned? If so, excellent! Cool. Fantastic. That makes you a thinking atheist. (Many BELIEVE IN genes, that they account for behavior).  

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

Do you mean behavioral characteristics? If you believe behavioral characteristics are in the genes, please show me the basis for that belief. If you pull a study from the Internet, please give me the link, because I will show you how it's all speculation (on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry). This is what I am saying about atheists believing without evidence. It's like believing in the Bible's explanation of cause and effect. You have been sold a bill of goods. Can you consider this? 

 

Dr. Faye

Dr. S. Faye Snyder 

A Professional Corporation

PSY #24806, MFC #29816

Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC

Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation

15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210

Granada Hills, CA 91344

PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020  

Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.com

www.theparcfoundation.com (agency)

www.drsfayesnyder.com (forensics)

www.drfayesnyder.com (products) 

www.thecausaltheory.com (theory)

On Sep 2, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Ian Betts <ianbe...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

Hi TLC,
I like your handle.
What do you mean? I'm not forgetting that others have raised other people's children Do you think that because certain classes of people were in daycare that those children didn't suffer too? I am offering an explanation for our epidemic of ADHD here in the United States, but I acknowledge it has been around and mental illness has been around, especially in pre-World War II Germany. I am arguing that where there is a lack of secure attachment there will be symptoms, either en masse or singularly. For a short time in history, Freud himself, offered trauma as an explanation for hysteria, neurosis and psychopathy. He was shot down, and the man recanted.

I am trying to challenge atheists to stop believing that genes account for ANY behavior. All "evidence" of such is refutable and has been refuted time and again. These criticisms are ever ignored.

Dr. Faye
Dr. S. Faye Snyder
A Professional Corporation
PSY #24806, MFC #29816
Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
Granada Hills, CA 91344
PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020
Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.com
www.theparcfoundation.com (agency)
www.drsfayesnyder.com (forensics)
www.drfayesnyder.com (products)
www.thecausaltheory.com (theory)

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

Steve Jobs was very much a product of his childhood. His mother and father adored him. His mother was a stay at home mom. He was so very wanted. He had the ideal first three years, which made his inner core very strong. His dad took Steve with him when he labored and talked to him about perfection. If you do anything, do it so that whoever is looking from either side of it will see no imperfections. You build a fence so it looks good on both sides. (You build a computer so it looks beautiful inside, as well as outside.) His father availed the Silicon Valley to him and then his garage, where the three started their business. With his father he tore apart cars and rebuilt them. He taught Steve to see how things tick. He introduced him to electronics, but didn't know much about it. Steve discovered something about electronics his father didn't know. It made him think he was smarter than most adults and most people in authority. Once a child has that thought, they tend to become unmanageable by authority, and it can make them extremely high functioning, but arrogant. By then, Steve thought he was the cats meow. If he didn't understand something or needed something, he would call the owner of Hewlett Packard.

His parents modeled values, but they didn't enforce them much. He wasn't disciplined much. They thought he was amazing when he was young and would make demands on them. As such, he learned that he was superior to his parents, and he could surpass them. They expected him to surpass them. He became a bit of a spoiled brat and would throw tantrums to get his way and it worked. He even came to look down on them a bit. They never required him to respect people or to show gratitude. It was an interesting combination of traits. Fortunately, he meditated extensively and developed some level of humility and introspection to self-correct.

I don't remember much about his sister's childhood, but if she was adored in the first three years and then got exposed to creative writing and had parents who encouraged her, it would be enough. A lot of times parents who adopt out pick parents similar. I would have to go back and look at her childhood. She was a good writer, but she wasn't great. She didn't change the world. There's no comparison.

Dr. Faye
Dr. S. Faye Snyder
A Professional Corporation
PSY #24806, MFC #29816
Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
Granada Hills, CA 91344

PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020
Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.com
www.theparcfoundation.com (agency)
www.drsfayesnyder.com (forensics)
www.drfayesnyder.com (products)
www.thecausaltheory.com (theory)

[philosophy]

Fascinating. I hope to hear more about the
two different sides.

On Sep 2, 2:05 pm, "Dr. Faye Snyder" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> Hi LL, I am absolutely saying genes created no role. No gene has been isolated to account for behavior, even though we have been told it and it has been assumed just about every day of our lives. The scientists who have claimed that genes have been isolated for schizophrenia or depression, etc., have made a big PR splash, got lots of recognition, but their studies have never been replicated (the hallmark of good science). We have been sold a bill of goods and the pharmaceutical industry is propheting.  I am a psychologist and forensic evaluator. There are critical things that happen at critical times in our development that make the difference. Know this, no child has the same two parents in the same family. For the most part different children are treated differently in many significant ways. Maybe it's because one is the first child and the other is the second child, so the first child is the experiment or the one who gets all the attention, while the second one gets less attention, or a jealous sibling, or parents who give up, or whatever. The mother may have postpartum the second time. She may resort to daycare the first time of the second time. Maybe it is because the first child is jealous of the second child and the parents start defending the second child, or maybe they ignore it and don't see it. These subtle things that happen in child rearing and most people don't see, because they ASSUME that their child's behavior is inborn. That's just their "personality". They were born that way. As long as it's just their inborn personality, QUESTIONING STOPS. ASSUMPTIONS ARE MAINTAINED.
>
> Are you an atheist? If you are, this is exactly my point. I wish atheists would begin to question something far more present and harmful to our society and children. I wish they would begin to see their children as evidence for how they are doing and respond accordingly. When a child is seen clearly without the projection of inborn personality, that child can be corrected, healed, supported, and validated. Our belief in genetics is a huge social downfall. It allows us to defy evolution and put babies in daycare. It allows us to pretend that serial killers, mass murderers, rapists and terrorists were created now born. It allows us people we can love to hate. It is a blindness worse than a belief in the God of the Bible.
>
> By the way I have written a book on this subject, The Manual. (see drf...@drfayesnyder.com). I am the author of the Causal Theory that Psychology has been talking about. I am hear to try to wake a few people up if I can. I am trying to find out how reachable people are before I have to do interviews. I have liked your posts, for the most part, and I am so glad you are writing to me. I am a parenting expert and a forensic evaluator. I am the mother of a successful and talented atheist, theoreticalbullshit (on youtube). Show me a killer or a great person, and I can tell you about their childhood, within reason, and certainly better than a psychic. I can teach people how to raise amazing children. I get behavior and where it comes from.
>
> I am 3/4 through writing a book on the false research methods of so-called behavioral/genetic scientists. But there are more than 20 such books written by scientists for other scientists, and these critics are also great researchers, themselves. We, in the field of psychology have a War of the Researchers going on that is being ignored, and those in our field pretend that both sides are right. It's like pretending that atheists and Christians are both right. It's insane. What is happening is that not only are children brainwashed into religion, they are also brainwashed into parental loyalty. That makes them even more blind that religion. They have to bury their truth when they are hurting in order to immunize their parents from responsibility for mistreatments, from subtle to grotesque. There are pro-parent researchers and pro-child researchers. The former is analagous to Christianity and the latter is analagous to atheism.
>
> I hope you write back.
>
> Dr. Faye
> Dr. S. Faye Snyder
> A Professional Corporation
> PSY #24806, MFC #29816
> Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
> Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
> 15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
> Granada Hills, CA 91344
> PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020

> Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.comwww.theparcfoundation.com(agency)www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)www.drfayesnyder.com(products)www.thecausaltheory.com(theory)

> >> Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.comwww.theparcfoundation.com(agency)www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)www....)

> ...
>
> read more »

[philosophy]

We need someone like you in the Education
System arguing for the rights of children
NOT to have religious education thrust down
their necks. Also to get the nonsense of
creationism out of the classroom, and get
back to science proper.

On Sep 3, 6:21 am, "Dr. Faye Snyder" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> Steve Jobs was very much a product of his childhood. His mother and father adored him. His mother was a stay at home mom. He was so very wanted. He had the ideal first three years, which made his inner core very strong. His dad took Steve with him when he labored and talked to him about perfection. If you do anything, do it so that whoever is looking from either side of it will see no imperfections. You build a fence so it looks good on both sides. (You build a computer so it looks beautiful inside, as well as outside.) His father availed the Silicon Valley to him and then his garage, where the three started their business. With his father he tore apart cars and rebuilt them. He taught Steve to see how things tick. He introduced him to electronics, but didn't know much about it. Steve discovered something about electronics his father didn't know. It made him think he was smarter than most adults and most people in authority. Once a child has that thought, they tend to become unmanageable by authority, and it can make them extremely high functioning, but arrogant. By then, Steve thought he was the cats meow. If he didn't understand something or needed something, he would call the owner of Hewlett Packard.
>
> His parents modeled values, but they didn't enforce them much. He wasn't disciplined much. They thought he was amazing when he was young and would make demands on them. As such, he learned that he was superior to his parents, and he could surpass them. They expected him to surpass them. He became a bit of a spoiled brat and would throw tantrums to get his way and it worked. He even came to look down on them a bit. They never required him to respect people or to show gratitude. It was an interesting combination of traits. Fortunately, he meditated extensively and developed some level of humility and introspection to self-correct.
>
> I don't remember much about his sister's childhood, but if she was adored in the first three years and then got exposed to creative writing and had parents who encouraged her, it would be enough. A lot of times parents who adopt out pick parents similar. I would have to go back and look at her childhood. She was a good writer, but she wasn't great. She didn't change the world. There's no comparison.
>
> Dr. Faye
> Dr. S. Faye Snyder
> A Professional Corporation
> PSY #24806, MFC #29816
> Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
> Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
> 15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
> Granada Hills, CA 91344
> PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020
> Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.comwww.theparcfoundation.com(agency)www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)www.drfayesnyder.com(products)www.thecausaltheory.com(theory)
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[LL]

On Sep 1, 9:05 pm, "Dr. Faye Snyder" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> Hi LL, I am absolutely saying genes created no role. No gene has been isolated to account for behavior, even though we have been told it and it has been assumed just about every day of our lives. The scientists who have claimed that genes have been isolated for schizophrenia or depression, etc., have made a big PR splash, got lots of recognition, but their studies have never been replicated (the hallmark of good science). We have been sold a bill of goods and the pharmaceutical industry is propheting.

LL: What studies have every been made or replicated that show that
genes are not involved in behavior. You are insisting that good
science show evidence of genes having influence but you don't show
anything that proves they don't. Then you decide for yourself that the
unproven "genes don't count" trumps the unproven "genes do count."
Actually there is scientific evidence that they DO count and none that
that they don't.

 I am a psychologist and forensic evaluator. There are critical
things that happen at critical times in our development that make the
difference. Know this, no child has the same two parents in the same
family. For the most part different children are treated differently
in many significant ways. Maybe it's because one is the first child
and the other is the second child, so the first child is the
experiment or the one who gets all the attention, while the second one
gets less attention, or a jealous sibling, or parents who give up, or
whatever. The mother may have postpartum the second time. She may
resort to daycare the first time of the second time. Maybe it is
because the first child is jealous of the second child and the parents
start defending the second child, or maybe they ignore it and don't
see it. These subtle things that happen in child rearing and most
people don't see, because they ASSUME that their child's behavior is
inborn. That's just their "personality". They were born that way. As
long as it's just their inborn personality, QUESTIONING STOPS.
ASSUMPTIONS ARE MAINTAINED.

LL: Yes, and one of the assumptions is that genes play no role.

>
> Are you an atheist? If you are, this is exactly my point. I wish atheists would begin to question something far more present and harmful to our society and children. I wish they would begin to see their children as evidence for how they are doing and respond accordingly. When a child is seen clearly without the projection of inborn personality, that child can be corrected, healed, supported, and validated. Our belief in genetics is a huge social downfall. It allows us to defy evolution and put babies in daycare.

LL: How does putting babies in daycare have anything to do with
genetics?

It allows us to pretend that serial killers, mass murderers, rapists
and terrorists were created now born. It allows us people we can love
to hate. It is a blindness worse than a belief in the God of the
Bible.

LL: It's been shown scientifically that some are born and some are
nurtured into serial killing, mass murder, rape and terrorism. It's a
combination of both. If the genetic tendency wasn't there, no
experience is going to create a serial killer, mass murderer, rapist
or terrorist.

>
> By the way I have written a book on this subject, The Manual. (see drf...@drfayesnyder.com). I am the author of the Causal Theory that Psychology has been talking about. I am hear to try to wake a few people up if I can. I am trying to find out how reachable people are before I have to do interviews. I have liked your posts, for the most part, and I am so glad you are writing to me. I am a parenting expert and a forensic evaluator. I am the mother of a successful and talented atheist, theoreticalbullshit (on youtube). Show me a killer or a great person, and I can tell you about their childhood, within reason, and certainly better than a psychic. I can teach people how to raise amazing children. I get behavior and where it comes from.

LL: I think you don't. You have decided that it's all nurture and you
refuse to see that it is also nature.

>
> I am 3/4 through writing a book on the false research methods of so-called behavioral/genetic scientists. But there are more than 20 such books written by scientists for other scientists, and these critics are also great researchers, themselves. We, in the field of psychology have a War of the Researchers going on that is being ignored, and those in our field pretend that both sides are right. It's like pretending that atheists and Christians are both right. It's insane. What is happening is that not only are children brainwashed into religion, they are also brainwashed into parental loyalty. That makes them even more blind that religion. They have to bury their truth when they are hurting in order to immunize their parents from responsibility for mistreatments, from subtle to grotesque. There are pro-parent researchers and pro-child researchers. The former is analagous to Christianity and the latter is analagous to atheism.
>
> I hope you write back.

LL: I'm glad to discuss it. I disagree with your premise, however. I
feel you are taking an absolutist stance, that has no place in
scientific thinking.


********

>
> Dr. Faye
> Dr. S. Faye Snyder
> A Professional Corporation
> PSY #24806, MFC #29816
> Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
> Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
> 15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
> Granada Hills, CA 91344
> PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020

> Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.comwww.theparcfoundation.com(agency)www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)www.drfayesnyder.com(products)www.thecausaltheory.com(theory)

> >> Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.comwww.theparcfoundation.com(agency)www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)www....)

> ...
>
> read more »

[LL]

On Sep 2, 8:27 am, "Dr. Faye Snyder" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> Oh, do you mean physical characteristics (like our parents) and behavioral traits are learned? If so, excellent! Cool. Fantastic. That makes you a thinking atheist. (Many BELIEVE IN genes, that they account for behavior).

LL: While you BELIEVE in nurture and that it accounts 100% for
behavior and that genes don't dount. I don't BELIEVE in genes
determining behavior. I accept the science.


******

>
> Dr. Faye
> Dr. S. Faye Snyder
> A Professional Corporation
> PSY #24806, MFC #29816
> Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
> Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
> 15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
> Granada Hills, CA 91344
> PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020
> Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.comwww.theparcfoundation.com(agency)www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)www.drfayesnyder.com(products)www.thecausaltheory.com(theory)
>

> On Sep 2, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > No Faye I believe Genes give us characteristics like our parents but behavioral traits are learnt.
>
> > On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Dr. Faye Snyder <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> > Do you or do you not believe genes create behavior?
>
> > Dr. Faye
> > Dr. S. Faye Snyder
> > A Professional Corporation
> > PSY #24806, MFC #29816
> > Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
> > Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
> > 15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
> > Granada Hills, CA 91344
> > PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020
> > Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.com
> >www.theparcfoundation.com(agency)
> >www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)
> >www.drfayesnyder.com(products)
> >www.thecausaltheory.com(theory)
>

> > On Sep 1, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> We and I mean Atheists are rooted in the reality of the real world or should be Phil.
>

> >> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

>
> >> --
> >> Ian
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

> >> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

>
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[LL]

On Sep 2, 8:25 am, "Dr. Faye Snyder" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> Do you mean behavioral characteristics? If you believe behavioral characteristics are in the genes, please show me the basis for that belief. If you pull a study from the Internet, please give me the link, because I will show you how it's all speculation (on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry). This is what I am saying about atheists believing without evidence. It's like believing in the Bible's explanation of cause and effect. You have been sold a bill of goods. Can you consider this?

LL: If you BELIEVE behavioral characteristics are NOT in the genes,
please show us the basis for that BELIEF. If you pull a study from the
Internet, please give us the link, because we will show you how it's
all speculation. This is what I am saying about so-called experts
BELIEVING without evidence. It's like believing the Bible's
explanation of cause and effect. It's you who has been sold a bill of
goods. You are taking an absolutist stance without a shred of
evidence. I do not claim that everything comes from genes, but that
genes are an important part of all behavior. It is you who is taking
the extremist view on this issue, with no evidence.


********

>
> Dr. Faye
> Dr. S. Faye Snyder
> A Professional Corporation
> PSY #24806, MFC #29816
> Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
> Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
> 15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
> Granada Hills, CA 91344
> PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020
> Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.comwww.theparcfoundation.com(agency)www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)www.drfayesnyder.com(products)www.thecausaltheory.com(theory)
>

> On Sep 2, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > No Faye I believe Genes give us characteristics like our parents but behavioral traits are learnt.
>
> > On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Dr. Faye Snyder <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> > Do you or do you not believe genes create behavior?
>
> > Dr. Faye
> > Dr. S. Faye Snyder
> > A Professional Corporation
> > PSY #24806, MFC #29816
> > Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
> > Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
> > 15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
> > Granada Hills, CA 91344
> > PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020
> > Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.com
> >www.theparcfoundation.com(agency)
> >www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)
> >www.drfayesnyder.com(products)
> >www.thecausaltheory.com(theory)
>

> > On Sep 1, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> We and I mean Atheists are rooted in the reality of the real world or should be Phil.
>

> >> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

>
> >> --
> >> Ian
>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
> >> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> > --
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[LL]

'Behavior has an evolutionary history that persists across related
species. Chimpanzees are our closest relatives, separated from us by a
mere 2 percent difference in DNA sequence. We and they share behaviors
that are characteristic of highly social primates, including
nurturing, cooperation, altruism, and even some facial expressions.
Genes are evolutionary glue, binding all of life in a single history
that dates back some 3.5 billion years. Conserved behaviors are part
of that history, which is written in the language of nature's
universal information molecule—DNA."


"What indications are there that behavior has a biological basis?
[text provided by Joseph McInerney]

"Behavior often is species specific. A chickadee, for example, carries
one sunflower seed at a time from a feeder to a nearby branch, secures
the seed to the branch between its feet, pecks it open, eats the
contents, and repeats the process. Finches, in contrast, stay at the
feeder for long periods, opening large numbers of seeds with their
thick beaks. Some mating behaviors also are species specific. Prairie
chickens, native to the upper Midwest, conduct an elaborate mating
ritual, a sort of line dance for birds, with spread wings and
synchronized group movements. Some behaviors are so characteristic
that biologists use them to help differentiate between closely related
species.

"Behaviors often breed true. We can reproduce behaviors in successive
generations of organisms. Consider the instinctive retrieval behavior
of a yellow Labrador or the herding posture of a border collie.

"Behaviors change in response to alterations in biological structures
or processes. For example, a brain injury can turn a polite, mild-
mannered person into a foul-mouthed, aggressive boor, and we routinely
modify the behavioral manifestations of mental illnesses with drugs
that alter brain chemistry. More recently, geneticists have created or
extinguished specific mouse behaviors—ranging from nurturing of pups
to continuous circling in a strain called "twirler"— by inserting or
disabling specific genes.

"In humans, some behaviors run in families. For example, there is a
clear familial aggregation of mental illness.


"How do genes influence behavior?

"No single gene determines a particular behavior. Behaviors are
complex traits involving multiple genes that are affected by a variety
of other factors. This fact often gets overlooked in media reports
hyping scientific breakthroughs on gene function, and, unfortunately,
this can be very misleading to the public.

"For example, a study published in 1999 claimed that overexpression of
a particular gene in mice led to enhanced learning capacity. The
popular press referred to this gene as "the learning gene" or the
"smart gene." What the press didn't mention was that the learning
enhancements observed in this study were short-term, lasting only a
few hours to a few days in some cases.

"Dubbing a gene as a "smart gene" gives the public a false impression
of how much scientists really know about the genetics of a complex
trait like intelligence. Once news of the "smart gene" reaches the
public, suddenly there is talk about designer babies and the potential
of genetically engineering embryos to have intelligence and other
desirable traits, when in reality the path from genes to proteins to
development of a particular trait is still a mystery.

"With disorders, behaviors, or any physical trait, genes are just a
part of the story, because a variety of genetic and environmental
factors are involved in the development of any trait. Having a genetic
variant doesn't necessarily mean that a particular trait will develop.
The presence of certain genetic factors can enhance or repress other
genetic factors. Genes are turned on and off, and other factors may be
keeping a gene from being turned "on." In addition, the protein
encoded by a gene can be modified in ways that can affect its ability
to carry out its normal cellular function.

'Genetic factors also can influence the role of certain environmental
factors in the development of a particular trait. For example, a
person may have a genetic variant that is know to increase his or her
risk for developing emphysema from smoking, an environmental factor.
If that person never smokes, then emphysema will not develop."

Where can I learn more about the genetics of different behavioral
traits?

Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) is a large, searchable, up-
to-date database of human genes, genetic traits, and disorders. Each
OMIM record contains bibliographic references and a summary of the
scientific literature describing what is known about a particular
gene, trait, or disorder. The following behavioral traits are included
in OMIM. The six-digit number MIM number is used to uniquely identify
each record.

Hand skill, relative (handedness): (139900)
Hand clasping pattern: (139800)
Arm folding preference: (107850)
Ears, ability to move: (129100)
Tongue curling, folding, or rolling: (189300)
Musical perfect pitch: (159300)
Novelty seeking personality trait: (601696)
Stuttering: (184450)
Tobacco addiction: (188890)
Alcoholism: (103780)
Homosexuality: (306995)
You also may want to search OMIM for behavioral traits not included in
the list above. For step-by-step instructions, see our OMIM Search
Tutorial. For more detailed information, review the Help and FAQs
pages. For information on other databases of human genes, see the Gene
and Protein Database Guide available through Gene Gateway.

Behavioral Genetics Links

General Information

University of Pennsylvania Behavioral Genetics Laboratory
Virginia Institute for Psychiatric and Behavioral Genetics
Behavioral Genetics A downloadable book and special supplement from
AAAS and the Hastings Center
Genetics and Human Behaviour - Health feature from the BBC in the U.K.
DNA & Behavior: Is Our Fate in Our Genes? - An overview of the science
and social implications of research in behavior genetics. From The DNA
Files, last updated October 2001.
Personality Traits: Nature and Nurture - Audio file of a radio program
from SoundVision Productions. From The DNA Files.
Genes, Environment, and Human Behavior -- Educational module targeted
to teachers includes five student activities and extensive background
information on the methods and assumptions of behavioral genetics
(2000).
Articles
Toward Behavioral Genomics - Article from Science (February 2001).
Learning About Addiction From the Genome - Article from Nature
(February 2001).
Caution urged for brain research on violence--from CNN (July 28, 2000)
Judging Molecular Biology of Murder, Addictive Disorders, and Dementia
- Meeting proceedings, Human Genome News 11(1-2)
Genes and Behavior: A Complex Relationship - Article by Joseph D.
McInerney, Judicature 83, 112 (November-December 1999).
The Impact of Behavioral Genetics on the Law and the Courts - Article
by Mark A. Rothstein, Judicature 83, 116 (November-December 1999).
Recent Developments in Human Behavioral Genetics: Past Accomplishments
and Future Directions - Am. J. Hum. Genet. 60, 1265 (1997 ASHG
Statement).
Associations

Behavior Genetics Association
Society of Behavioral Medicine
International Society of Behavioral Medicine
International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development
Books

Behavioral Genetics in the Postgenomic Era, by Robert Plomin, John C.
Defries, Ian Craig, and Peter McGuffin, eds., and Jerome Kagan. 2002,
608 pp.
Behavioral Genetics: The Clash of Culture and Biology by Ronald A.
Carson and Mark A. Rothstein. 1999, 224 pp.
Behavioral Genetics by Robert Plomin (Editor), John C. Defries, Gerald
E. McClearn, Peter McGuffin. 2000, 4th edition, 449 pp.
Living With Our Genes: Why They Matter More Than You Think by Dean H.
Hamer and Peter Copeland. 1999, 368 pp.
Genetics of Mental Disorders: A Guide for Students, Clinicians, and
Researchers by S.V. Faraone, M.T. Tsuang, and D.W. Tsuang. Guilford
Press (1999), 272 pp."


http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml

On Sep 2, 1:21 pm, "Dr. Faye Snyder" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> Steve Jobs was very much a product of his childhood. His mother and father adored him. His mother was a stay at home mom. He was so very wanted. He had the ideal first three years, which made his inner core very strong. His dad took Steve with him when he labored and talked to him about perfection. If you do anything, do it so that whoever is looking from either side of it will see no imperfections. You build a fence so it looks good on both sides. (You build a computer so it looks beautiful inside, as well as outside.) His father availed the Silicon Valley to him and then his garage, where the three started their business. With his father he tore apart cars and rebuilt them. He taught Steve to see how things tick. He introduced him to electronics, but didn't know much about it. Steve discovered something about electronics his father didn't know. It made him think he was smarter than most adults and most people in authority. Once a child has that thought, they tend to become unmanageable by authority, and it can make them extremely high functioning, but arrogant. By then, Steve thought he was the cats meow. If he didn't understand something or needed something, he would call the owner of Hewlett Packard.
>
> His parents modeled values, but they didn't enforce them much. He wasn't disciplined much. They thought he was amazing when he was young and would make demands on them. As such, he learned that he was superior to his parents, and he could surpass them. They expected him to surpass them. He became a bit of a spoiled brat and would throw tantrums to get his way and it worked. He even came to look down on them a bit. They never required him to respect people or to show gratitude. It was an interesting combination of traits. Fortunately, he meditated extensively and developed some level of humility and introspection to self-correct.
>
> I don't remember much about his sister's childhood, but if she was adored in the first three years and then got exposed to creative writing and had parents who encouraged her, it would be enough. A lot of times parents who adopt out pick parents similar. I would have to go back and look at her childhood. She was a good writer, but she wasn't great. She didn't change the world. There's no comparison.
>
> Dr. Faye
> Dr. S. Faye Snyder
> A Professional Corporation
> PSY #24806, MFC #29816
> Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
> Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
> 15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
> Granada Hills, CA 91344
> PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020
> Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.comwww.theparcfoundation.com(agency)www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)www.drfayesnyder.com(products)www.thecausaltheory.com(theory)
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

OK, this is where atheists remind me of Christians telling me that I have to prove God plays doesn't exist, referring to mythology as evidence that "He" does. You refer to information that is unverifiable, as they do. In logic, you can't prove that something that doesn't exist and you don't have to. It's up to the person believing in something heretofore unverifiable to prove it exists. I can prove that parenting can create every behavior known to humankind, and that is enough for me, especially when I use that information to help heal people every day. I use it with people who came to me believe that things were wrong with them they can't fix. I have to first convince them that the way they are is not genetic and can change. I this information to read people's behavior. I use it to understand and read babies and children. I use it to see more clearly. When a person believes that invisible causes explain what they see, they lose their curiosity, and they don't see so well anymore. The main reason why people believe in genetics, as far as I can tell, is because it vindicates their parents, as if parents need protecting by their children. 

It is up to scientists to prove genes cause behavior, before they tell us that genes do. Otherwise, it's a lie. It's fraud. You're buying it. Children are at stake. Mental health is at stake, and people buy it. Until they can prove genes cause behavior, let's go with what HAS been proven. We can explain EVERYTHING by environment and parenting. Why ignore the obvious and go looking for metaphysical causes. What purpose does that serve?  Don't you like evidence? What I can show you is lots of research that proves that childhood issues, parenting and environment cause every known symptom. Why ignore these studies and look for ones that don't produce? 

I "decide" that explanations for behavior that are unverifiable do not trump evidence that completely explains behavior because we are so disinclined to hold parents responsible for how their children turn out.  Please show me one study that ever held water that genes count in human behavior. I will show you how you have been deceived. 

Here are all the tricks that pro-parent scientists use to make us believe parenting isn't that relevant.  http://thecausaltheory.com/articles/ResearchRuleOut.pdf

Or, do you feel protective of your parents the way Christians feel protective of their God? Just wondering... because otherwise you seem so logical.

[LL]

On Sep 2, 9:00 pm, "Dr. Faye Snyder" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> OK, this is where atheists remind me of Christians telling me that I have to prove God plays doesn't exist, referring to mythology as evidence that "He" does. You refer to information that is unverifiable, as they do. In logic, you can't prove that something that doesn't exist and you don't have to. It's up to the person believing in something heretofore unverifiable to prove it exists. I can prove that parenting can create every behavior known to humankind, and that is enough for me, especially when I use that information to help heal people every day. I use it with people who came to me believe that things were wrong with them they can't fix. I have to first convince them that the way they are is not genetic and can change. I this information to read people's behavior. I use it to understand and read babies and children. I use it to see more clearly. When a person believes that invisible causes explain what they see, they lose their curiosity, and they don't see so well anymore. The main reason why people believe in genetics, as far as I can tell, is because it vindicates their parents, as if parents need protecting by their children.
>
> It is up to scientists to prove genes cause behavior, before they tell us that genes do. Otherwise, it's a lie. It's fraud. You're buying it. Children are at stake. Mental health is at stake, and people buy it. Until they can prove genes cause behavior, let's go with what HAS been proven. We can explain EVERYTHING by environment and parenting. Why ignore the obvious and go looking for metaphysical causes. What purpose does that serve?  Don't you like evidence? What I can show you is lots of research that proves that childhood issues, parenting and environment cause every known symptom. Why ignore these studies and look for ones that don't produce?
>
> I "decide" that explanations for behavior that are unverifiable do not trump evidence that completely explains behavior because we are so disinclined to hold parents responsible for how their children turn out.  Please show me one study that ever held water that genes count in human behavior. I will show you how you have been deceived.
>
> Here are all the tricks that pro-parent scientists use to make us believe parenting isn't that relevant.  http://thecausaltheory.com/articles/ResearchRuleOut.pdf
>
> Or, do you feel protective of your parents the way Christians feel protective of their God? Just wondering... because otherwise you seem so logical.

LL. Whether I'm logical or not, it comes from my genes. I had a
logical parent.

......

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

Do you know about mirror neurons? They are in our brain, recording how people treat us, creating a drive to behave as we have been treated.

Can you see that you are using the same logical fallacy of Christians to atheists?

[Ian Betts]

Research Is carried out not to disprove an idea but to prove it.

While studies have suggested and direct correlation for genetic transfer of behaviours in practice and life this is not born out because we all know of or hear of people who overcome their parenting and make a good life of effort. Gifted people in all field do not all come from gifted parents.

   

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Ian

[Ian Betts]

But those neurons can be bypassed or subdued and are often as some severely abused children do not repeat that behaviour.

Like all trained people you appear to look for an obvious link not for the exceptions.

--
Ian

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

Wow, Ian, I put a lot into writing to you, and I don't get that you read it. What did you think of my analysis of Steve Jobs' childhood?

There are ways to create every temperament, behavioral style, drive, and personality disorder by parenting. There are no known ways to create any of these things by genes. Why focus on the answers in what has not been shown to be true, when what is knowable accounts for behavior completely or damn close.

Why would you believe in what you don't know over what you know? I don't get it. 

  

Dr. Faye

Dr. S. Faye Snyder 

A Professional Corporation

PSY #24806, MFC #29816

Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC

Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation

15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210

Granada Hills, CA 91344

PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020  

Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.com

www.theparcfoundation.com (agency)

www.drsfayesnyder.com (forensics)

www.drfayesnyder.com (products) 

www.thecausaltheory.com (theory)

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

As I have said, the earliest years determine how susceptible a person is to future trauma, as in resilience. Early experiences that lead to a lack of attachment create very fragile personalities. Veterans come back with PTSD while others didn't, even though those others had worse experiences. They are the ones who had insufficient or broken attachments in the first three years. Also, you cannot equate trauma one person to another, just like that. You need to measure it. How much, how often, what age, and by whom? You need to measure the pre-existing trauma of the earliest years. Also, there are mitigators. I am betting you don't know what would mitigate trauma. I am hoping you will open your mind and let me in. Of course I am also speaking to anyone else who will listen. Please review the links I sent you. Here they are again, including the answers to my question, what mitigates trauma.

http://thecausaltheory.com/?page_id=2 (resiliency)

[Ian Betts]

Wow Faye I have never once said Genes control behavior and while some abused children , that id mentally. physically and sexually abused do get damaged so much that they do turn out to be very damaged adults that is far from the case in so many others.

Steve Jobs was obviously a gifted individual from his genes pool and adoption added to his upbringing  knowledge.

 He was a luck boy.

Faye can you not see that in 25 years in child care service I know the abused child and the adult they grew into.

You may know the theory but my knowlege is hands on experiance

[Ian Betts]

You are generalizing Faye from research findings not from personal experience with human beings. What work have you done in the field.

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Dr. Faye Snyder <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:

As I have said, the earliest years determine how susceptible a person is to future trauma, as in resilience. Early experiences that lead to a lack of attachment create very fragile personalities. Veterans come back with PTSD while others didn't, even though those others had worse experiences. They are the ones who had insufficient or broken attachments in the first three years. Also, you cannot equate trauma one person to another, just like that. You need to measure it. How much, how often, what age, and by whom? You need to measure the pre-existing trauma of the earliest years. Also, there are mitigators. I am betting you don't know what would mitigate trauma. I am hoping you will open your mind and let me in. Of course I am also speaking to anyone else who will listen. Please review the links I sent you. Here they are again, including the answers to my question, what mitigates trauma.

http://thecausaltheory.com/?page_id=2 (resiliency)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

 

 

Dr. Faye

--
Ian

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

I hate to have a pissing contest with you as to who has the most hands-on experience. I could not have written my book without experience, beginning with healing myself. Unfortunately, I am realizing I cannot give you the picture of where I am coming from this way. Theory is only as good as it describes the way of reality. 

I do not want to offend you. I trust your experience, but as long as you consider that some traits are genetic, you are not seeing everything. That is my premise. I have spent 30 years studying cause and effect. If you say that some of behavior is genetic, you are saying just that. 

Did you read what I wrote about Steve Jobs? His greatness and crankiness can be completely explained by his childhood. Why would you throw that out to call it genetic, when you have evidence for the experiences and no evidence for genetic instruction of behavior?  

[Ian Betts]

And you do no READ what I wrote. I did not say some traits are genetic I inferred genetics add to the story of the human being, I could tell you are your father and mother daughter,

but learning is the rest. Learning being the process where experiences good and bad  add to the brain bank

I did not see Steve Jobs as anything more than what he was, no more than Bill Gates was a product of his background

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

It sounds like you are saying behavior has a genetic component. Am I wrong? Are you saying genes only determine the likeness of the body? Didn't you say that some people are more resilient than others, that some handle abuse better than others? Does not that mean to you that the ones who appear to handle abuse worse did not necessarily have it worse? 

I am confused. Didn't you ask me to explain how Steve Jobs must have had genetic input to how he turned out, especially since his sister became a highly recognized author? Was that you? 

I wrote a causal, non-genetic explanation, for how he turned out. Did you see it? I have been having some problems with my posts. I would like to send it again, if you didn't get it.

[TLC]

Hi Doc,

I agree with much of what you are saying and I think most atheists do
also and don't excuse most cases of behavioural dysfunction as being
caused by inherited genes, except in some cases where some mental
illness' are known in a family, schizophrenia etc. Although, genes
are only one cause of family physical resemblance, behaviour can also
be the result of shared family environment. It should also be pointed
out that most individuals who suffer from these mental disorders do
not have affected parents and the risk to the children of affected
individuals is relatively low.

What I don't understand is why do you think atheists are more ready to
accept behavioural problems as being genetic, when, in my experience,
atheists will look for causes to idividuals behavioural dysfunction in
the influences in their up-bringing and social back-ground.

That's why we point out that religious belief will normally depend on
where one is born and type of family.

On 2 Sep, 16:53, "Dr. Faye Snyder" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> Hi TLC,
> I like your handle.
> What do you mean? I'm not forgetting that others have raised other people's children  Do you think that because certain classes of people were in daycare that those children didn't suffer too? I am offering an explanation for our epidemic of ADHD here in the United States, but I acknowledge it has been around and mental illness has been around, especially in pre-World War II Germany. I am arguing that where there is a lack of secure attachment there will be symptoms, either en masse or singularly. For a short time in history, Freud himself, offered trauma as an explanation for hysteria, neurosis and psychopathy. He was shot down, and the man recanted.
>
> I am trying to challenge atheists to stop believing that genes account for ANY behavior. All "evidence" of such is refutable and has been refuted time and again. These criticisms are ever ignored.
>
> Dr. Faye
> Dr. S. Faye Snyder
> A Professional Corporation
> PSY #24806, MFC #29816
> Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
> Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
> 15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
> Granada Hills, CA 91344
> PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020
> Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.comwww.theparcfoundation.com(agency)www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)www.drfayesnyder.com(products)www.thecausaltheory.com(theory)
>

[Ian Betts]

No lets take a simple example from my background.

My mother was tiny. 5 foot tall but her way was always to say what she thought. I take after her in that respect but I have learnt that sometimes its better to say nothing.

That is a genetic component in simple terms.

[LL]

LL. There have been hundreds of studies of identical twins raised
separately. It's been proven over and over again that no matter how
differently they are raised they wind up eerily similar in heir
emotional state and in their choices.

....

On Sep 3, 3:16 am, "Dr. Faye Snyder" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> It sounds like you are saying behavior has a genetic component. Am I wrong? Are you saying genes only determine the likeness of the body? Didn't you say that some people are more resilient than others, that some handle abuse better than others? Does not that mean to you that the ones who appear to handle abuse worse did not necessarily have it worse?
>
> I am confused. Didn't you ask me to explain how Steve Jobs must have had genetic input to how he turned out, especially since his sister became a highly recognized author? Was that you?
>
> I wrote a causal, non-genetic explanation, for how he turned out. Did you see it? I have been having some problems with my posts. I would like to send it again, if you didn't get it.
>

> On Sep 3, 2012, at 1:49 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And you do no READ what I wrote. I did not say some traits are genetic I inferred genetics add to the story of the human being, I could tell you are your father and mother daughter,
> > but learning is the rest. Learning being the process where experiences good and bad  add to the brain bank
>
> > I did not see Steve Jobs as anything more than what he was, no more than Bill Gates was a product of his background
>
> > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Dr. Faye Snyder <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> > I hate to have a pissing contest with you as to who has the most hands-on experience. I could not have written my book without experience, beginning with healing myself. Unfortunately, I am realizing I cannot give you the picture of where I am coming from this way. Theory is only as good as it describes the way of reality.
>
> > I do not want to offend you. I trust your experience, but as long as you consider that some traits are genetic, you are not seeing everything. That is my premise. I have spent 30 years studying cause and effect. If you say that some of behavior is genetic, you are saying just that.
>
> > Did you read what I wrote about Steve Jobs? His greatness and crankiness can be completely explained by his childhood. Why would you throw that out to call it genetic, when you have evidence for the experiences and no evidence for genetic instruction of behavior?
>
> > Dr. Faye
> > Dr. S. Faye Snyder
> > A Professional Corporation
> > PSY #24806, MFC #29816
> > Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
> > Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
> > 15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
> > Granada Hills, CA 91344

> > PaRC(818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off.(661) 257-1020

> > Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.com
> >www.theparcfoundation.com(agency)
> >www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)
> >www.drfayesnyder.com(products)
> >www.thecausaltheory.com(theory)
>

> > On Sep 3, 2012, at 12:31 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Wow Faye I have never once said Genes control behavior and while some abused children , that id mentally. physically and sexually abused do get damaged so much that they do turn out to be very damaged adults that is far from the case in so many others.
>
> >> Steve Jobs was obviously a gifted individual from his genes pool and adoption added to his upbringing  knowledge.
>
> >>  He was a luck boy.
>
> >> Faye can you not see that in 25 years in child care service I know the abused child and the adult they grew into.
>
> >> You may know the theory but my knowlege is hands on experiance
>
> >> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Dr. Faye Snyder <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> >> Wow, Ian, I put a lot into writing to you, and I don't get that you read it. What did you think of my analysis of Steve Jobs' childhood?
>
> >> There are ways to create every temperament, behavioral style, drive, and personality disorder by parenting. There are no known ways to create any of these things by genes. Why focus on the answers in what has not been shown to be true, when what is knowable accounts for behavior completely or damn close.
>
> >> Why would you believe in what you don't know over what you know? I don't get it.
>
> >> Dr. Faye
> >> Dr. S. Faye Snyder
> >> A Professional Corporation
> >> PSY #24806, MFC #29816
> >> Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
> >> Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
> >> 15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
> >> Granada Hills, CA 91344

> >> PaRC(818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off.(661) 257-1020

> >> Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.com
> >>www.theparcfoundation.com(agency)
> >>www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)
> >>www.drfayesnyder.com(products)
> >>www.thecausaltheory.com(theory)
>

> >> On Sep 3, 2012, at 12:03 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Research Is carried out not to disprove an idea but to prove it.
>
> >>> While studies have suggested and direct correlation for genetic transfer of behaviours in practice and life this is not born out because we all know of or hear of people who overcome their parenting and make a good life of effort. Gifted people in all field do not all come from gifted parents.
>

> >>> > > start defending the second child, or maybe they ignore it and...
>
> read more »

[LL]

On Sep 3, 3:16 am, "Dr. Faye Snyder" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> It sounds like you are saying behavior has a genetic component. Am I wrong? Are you saying genes only determine the likeness of the body? Didn't you say that some people are more resilient than others, that some handle abuse better than others? Does not that mean to you that the ones who appear to handle abuse worse did not necessarily have it worse?
>
> I am confused. Didn't you ask me to explain how Steve Jobs must have had genetic input to how he turned out, especially since his sister became a highly recognized author? Was that you?
>
> I wrote a causal, non-genetic explanation, for how he turned out. Did you see it? I have been having some problems with my posts. I would like to send it again, if you didn't get it.

For behavior geneticists like Eaves, who do the nitty-gritty work in
the nature-nurture debate, twins are the perfect people on whom to
test hypotheses about what is molded by life's pressures and what is
inborn. But such scientists wage the battle from a distance, using
statistics to describe the behavior of populations -- of aggregates,
in other words -- rather than individuals.

These statistics have shown that on average, identical twins tend to
be around 80 percent the same in everything from stature to health to
IQ to political views. The similarities are partly the product of
similar upbringing. But evidence from the comparison of twins raised
apart points rather convincingly to genes as the source of a lot of
that likeness. In the most widely publicized study of this type,
launched in 1979, University of Minnesota psychologist Thomas Bouchard
and his colleagues have chronicled the fates of about 60 pairs of
identical twins raised separately. Some of the pairs had scarcely met
before Bouchard contacted them, and yet the behaviors and
personalities and social attitudes they displayed in lengthy batteries
of tests were often remarkably alike.

The first pair Bouchard met, James Arthur Springer and James Edward
Lewis, had just been reunited at age 39 after being given up by their
mother and separately adopted as 1-month-olds. Springer and Lewis,
both Ohioans, found they had each married and divorced a woman named
Linda and remarried a Betty. They shared interests in mechanical
drawing and carpentry; their favorite school subject had been math,
their least favorite, spelling. They smoked and drank the same amount
and got headaches at the same time of day.

Equally astounding was another set of twins, Oskar Stohr and Jack
Yufe. At first, they appeared to be a textbook case of the primacy of
culture in forming individuals -- just the opposite of the Lewis-
Springer pair. Separated from his twin six months after their birth in
Trinidad, Oskar was brought up Catholic in Germany and joined the
Hitler Youth. Jack stayed behind in the Caribbean, was raised a Jew
and lived for a time in Israel. Yet despite the stark contrast of
their lives, when the twins were reunited in their fifth decade they
had similar speech and thought patterns, similar gaits, a taste for
spicy foods and common peculiarities such as flushing the toilet
before they used it.

Bouchard's collection of twins-raised-apart is unique in American
behavior genetics. In most twin studies, including Eaves's research,
scientists are comparing the similarities between identical twins and
fraternal twins; in other words, they compare comparisons. To test the
assumption that genes play a role in IQ, for example, scientists ask
whether the IQs of identical twins (who share all their genes) are
more similar than those of fraternal twins (who share an average of 50
percent). To have any statistical validity, such studies must examine
thousands of twin pairs. But enough studies have been done to show
that identical twins are roughly 85 percent similar for IQ, fraternal
twins about 60 percent. Crunching the numbers, behavior geneticists
say about half the variation in IQ, whether among twins or non-twins,
may be due to genes.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/twins/twins2.htm

>
> On Sep 3, 2012, at 1:49 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > And you do no READ what I wrote. I did not say some traits are genetic I inferred genetics add to the story of the human being, I could tell you are your father and mother daughter,
> > but learning is the rest. Learning being the process where experiences good and bad  add to the brain bank
>
> > I did not see Steve Jobs as anything more than what he was, no more than Bill Gates was a product of his background
>
> > On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:34 AM, Dr. Faye Snyder <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> > I hate to have a pissing contest with you as to who has the most hands-on experience. I could not have written my book without experience, beginning with healing myself. Unfortunately, I am realizing I cannot give you the picture of where I am coming from this way. Theory is only as good as it describes the way of reality.
>
> > I do not want to offend you. I trust your experience, but as long as you consider that some traits are genetic, you are not seeing everything. That is my premise. I have spent 30 years studying cause and effect. If you say that some of behavior is genetic, you are saying just that.
>
> > Did you read what I wrote about Steve Jobs? His greatness and crankiness can be completely explained by his childhood. Why would you throw that out to call it genetic, when you have evidence for the experiences and no evidence for genetic instruction of behavior?
>
> > Dr. Faye
> > Dr. S. Faye Snyder
> > A Professional Corporation
> > PSY #24806, MFC #29816
> > Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
> > Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
> > 15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
> > Granada Hills, CA 91344

> > PaRC(818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off.(661) 257-1020

> > Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.com
> >www.theparcfoundation.com(agency)
> >www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)
> >www.drfayesnyder.com(products)
> >www.thecausaltheory.com(theory)
>

> > On Sep 3, 2012, at 12:31 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Wow Faye I have never once said Genes control behavior and while some abused children , that id mentally. physically and sexually abused do get damaged so much that they do turn out to be very damaged adults that is far from the case in so many others.
>
> >> Steve Jobs was obviously a gifted individual from his genes pool and adoption added to his upbringing  knowledge.
>
> >>  He was a luck boy.
>
> >> Faye can you not see that in 25 years in child care service I know the abused child and the adult they grew into.
>
> >> You may know the theory but my knowlege is hands on experiance
>
> >> On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Dr. Faye Snyder <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> >> Wow, Ian, I put a lot into writing to you, and I don't get that you read it. What did you think of my analysis of Steve Jobs' childhood?
>
> >> There are ways to create every temperament, behavioral style, drive, and personality disorder by parenting. There are no known ways to create any of these things by genes. Why focus on the answers in what has not been shown to be true, when what is knowable accounts for behavior completely or damn close.
>
> >> Why would you believe in what you don't know over what you know? I don't get it.
>
> >> Dr. Faye
> >> Dr. S. Faye Snyder
> >> A Professional Corporation
> >> PSY #24806, MFC #29816
> >> Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
> >> Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
> >> 15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
> >> Granada Hills, CA 91344

> >> PaRC(818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off.(661) 257-1020

> >> Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.com
> >>www.theparcfoundation.com(agency)
> >>www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)
> >>www.drfayesnyder.com(products)
> >>www.thecausaltheory.com(theory)
>

> >> On Sep 3, 2012, at 12:03 AM, Ian Betts <ianbett...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> Research Is carried out not to disprove an idea but to prove it.
>
> >>> While studies have suggested and direct correlation for genetic transfer of behaviours in practice and life this is not born out because we all know of or hear of people who overcome their parenting and make a good life of effort. Gifted people in all field do not all come from gifted parents.
>

> >>> > > start defending the second child, or maybe they ignore it and...
>
> read more »

[Marc]

Dr. Faye

No one gene will ever be isolated for behaviour not because genes play no role in behaviour but because complex human behaviour is not built from one 'gene' or, more accurately, a single allele. Complex behaviour is an emergent phenomenon which requires the brain, which is itself an emergent phenomenon of a series of alleles working in concert to build our neurological structure - i.e. is influenced by many 'genes'. Human behaviour is not the same as hair colour which does have a relatively narrow set of genes influencing it. 

The options:

1) All genetics

2) All environment

3) A combination with 1) & 2) being dominant at different points along a human's developmental path.

All genes is obviously silly for 1 reason, resources: In order to grow a complex creature the genes need energy and resources to work with and these must be provided by environment.

All environment is obvious silly for 1 reason, organisation: Without the genes energy and resources would not be shaped into anything that we could talk about. Genes organise complex chemistry into an 'us' that can discuss and be discussed.

This leaves us with 3: The environment and the genes are necessary (in the hardest sense) otherwise we would not be. However, in this picture neither can be reasonably excluded.

Finally, the above would not change if you were Einstein's mother; nor would any argument you make be stronger.

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

Hi TLC,

I was challenging atheists to see their blind spots, believing that atheists would take to new information sooner than anyone else. My message is so controversial, I thought the best place to start was with atheists on a debate page, challenging them to see that they have been taught to believe in the invisible. If someone brings up schizophrenia, I am ready to explain how schizophrenia is created by parenting and the research, especially the Scandanavian studies, is bogus.

Also, my son introduced my book on his youtube, and many of the atheists said I was a flake, because I don't acknowledge the research linking behavior to genes. I thought I could try to let atheists know that the public has been hoodwinked on this one too. I hoped they would become great allies.

With cause and effect, we are seeing more and more killers having come from daycare since they were infants and having had other complications develop with other injuries on top of injury.

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

I would say you imprinted your mother's ways via mirror neurons, which record the actions of their parents and create in us a drive to be like them.

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

I know we are led to believe this. It is not true. Show me a study, and I will show you how they rigged it. There are 30 highly used ways to rig a study, and that is what they do. They are hired to get these results. If you want to know the ten tricks most used on schizophrenic studies, I can write back and run them down for you. This is like a Christian saying that the Bible has the truth. These studies are not valid. There is a whole body of scientists saying the same thing.

Dr. Faye
Dr. S. Faye Snyder
A Professional Corporation
PSY #24806, MFC #29816
Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC
Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation
15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210
Granada Hills, CA 91344

PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020
Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.com
www.theparcfoundation.com (agency)
www.drsfayesnyder.com (forensics)
www.drfayesnyder.com (products)
www.thecausaltheory.com (theory)

[Dingbat]

On Sep 3, 1:25 pm, LL <llpens3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LL.  There have been hundreds of studies of identical twins raised
> separately. It's been proven over and over again that no matter how
> differently they are raised they wind up eerily similar in heir
> emotional state and in their choices.
>

I once read that studies of identical twins show that homosexuality is
at least partly nurture. No study was cited and it wasn't revealed
whether the identical twins found to have different sexual
orientations were raised together or separately. Also, it didn't occur
to the author of the article that if one possibility is that
expression of homosexuality is partly nurture, then another
possibility is that suppression of homosexuality is partly nurture.

> ...
>
> read more »

[yarrido@aol.com]

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 2:12:49 PM UTC-7, LL wrote:

LL.  Atheists don't believe in invisible causes.  Atheists accept that
some causes are unknown.

    There  is something about some unknowns that Atheists do claim they know. The beginning of the universe they certainly know was not caused to come into existence by god. It has to have some kind of natural cause and that is why there is such a push by atheists for the multiverse theory as an alternative explanation, having failed in the steady state universe fairy tale of the past. It is just a substitution of one fairy tale for another. But of course, it isn't called a fairy tale by them. It is given the lab coat covering of a "theory". How amusing is that. Who's making up stories again?
 

[lawrey]

Dr. Faye,
Hello! And may I greet you with a warm and earnest welcome.

I want to slow you down a little; you are obviously enthused
by your topic and eager to get your points across; that said
however, the end result has the effect of appearing to make
you guilty of over-generalisation.

I would like to avoid the temptation of going into long
drawn-out discussions on the part the gene plays in behavior
and the very important part that parenting also plays.

You, as an apparently intelligent person , just like most who
post here, will already know that there are many, many
variables in the field and or realm of human behavior, that
have their part to play in the development and causes of
and for the behavioural patterns we observe in the very
complex and wonderful being that we call human

I think it is very telling that you make this passing comment:

“ I” can prove that parenting “can” create every behavior
known to human kind.”

I have not the slightest doubt but that most here “could” do
the same. We must then ask ourselves to what purpose and
what is the value of such proof?

This whole argument, if it is an argument, must surely turn
not so much on what you can prove rightly or otherwise,
but rather whether the ideas you nurture are born of a
strong belief you foster, or whether in fact thy are born of
actual universal knowledge. (Truth). Do not please take
offence. I am sure your purpose is honourable. There is
no doubting your sincere enthusiasm for your cause.

I want to direct you to your opening gambit; in a word,
“EVIDENCE.” With reference to atheism and or atheists and
the inevitable truism, (“that which does not exist cannot be
proved.”) and the silly argument which goes in response:
“Ah! Just because we cant show it exists, does not mean it
does not.” Na na, nan-nan na! How stupid is that? Yet we
allow it and sometimes endorse it as atheists.

Then again no-one is prepared to accept a statement which
says there is ample evidence demonstrating god’s are the
result of human-kinds machinations, which are not mere
beliefs but actual knowledge of fact according to history
and human experience over time. So Dr. Faye, I can
categorically say: “I can prove god and in particular the
biblical version does not exist.”

Where does that get me? A whole host of criticisms will
follow in urgent need to disprove my apparent proof.
You see where I am going, of what value is your proof.
Let me put it to you this way; of all the children in the
world who have never been abused so far in their lives,
in any way what-so-ever: What proportion of them will
at some time in their lives turn to some form of abuse?

If you can put a figure on that for me and then compare
it with the statistics you have supplied to show how an
undefined proportion of abused children will turn
themselves in later years to a form of abuse, it might if
you could compare the various gropes as having the
same types of backgrounds and same types of parenting
and all of the same time period; (very important in
behavioural patterns). Says he, citing social traits and
copy-cat fashions; be of some unspecific use.

Statistics and traits do not amount to very much more
than statistics and traits, what do they show?
In the main they show what YOU, want them to show,
not you personally I hasten to add.

You make the bold and rather self-defeating and if I may
venture; even rash statement, regarding scientists and
the gene’s involvement in behavior, brashly painting it
as fraud. Please stand back. SCIENCE HAS SHOWN that
genes can and do in fact clearly demonstrate the far
reaching effects on behavioural patterns, which are indeed
documented in scores of studies.

Because these studies and research can measure only the
ways in which people can differ it says very little about the
one thing you have chosen to ignore so far.
THE MIND OF THE INDIVIDUAL HUMAN. And the very
uncertain and misunderstood functioning of psychology
and its misuse and deceptive tendencies so intermingled
with human behavior.

I hope you will not consider my idiosyncrasies are in any
way destructive, they are intended to direct you to
constructive considerations and conclusions.

On Sep 3, 5:00 am, "Dr. Faye Snyder" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> OK, this is where atheists remind me of Christians telling me that I have to prove God plays doesn't exist, referring to mythology as evidence that "He" does. You refer to information that is unverifiable, as they do. In logic, you can't prove that something that doesn't exist and you don't have to. It's up to the person believing in something heretofore unverifiable to prove it exists. I can prove that parenting can create every behavior known to humankind, and that is enough for me, especially when I use that information to help heal people every day. I use it with people who came to me believe that things were wrong with them they can't fix. I have to first convince them that the way they are is not genetic and can change. I this information to read people's behavior. I use it to understand and read babies and children. I use it to see more clearly. When a person believes that invisible causes explain what they see, they lose their curiosity, and they don't see so well anymore. The main reason why people believe in genetics, as far as I can tell, is because it vindicates their parents, as if parents need protecting by their children.
>
> It is up to scientists to prove genes cause behavior, before they tell us that genes do. Otherwise, it's a lie. It's fraud. You're buying it. Children are at stake. Mental health is at stake, and people buy it. Until they can prove genes cause behavior, let's go with what HAS been proven. We can explain EVERYTHING by environment and parenting. Why ignore the obvious and go looking for metaphysical causes. What purpose does that serve?  Don't you like evidence? What I can show you is lots of research that proves that childhood issues, parenting and environment cause every known symptom. Why ignore these studies and look for ones that don't produce?
>
> I "decide" that explanations for behavior that are unverifiable do not trump evidence that completely explains behavior because we are so disinclined to hold parents responsible for how their children turn out.  Please show me one study that ever held water that genes count in human behavior. I will show you how you have been deceived.
>
> Here are all the tricks that pro-parent scientists use to make us believe parenting isn't that relevant.  http://thecausaltheory.com/articles/ResearchRuleOut.pdf
>
> Or, do you feel protective of your parents the way Christians feel protective of their God? Just wondering... because otherwise you seem so logical.
>

> >> Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.comwww.theparcfoundation.com(agency)www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)www....)
>

> >> On Sep 1, 2012, at 7:59 PM, LL <llpens3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sep 1, 2:18 pm, "Dr. Faye Snyder" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> >>>> Unfortunately, when my son, youtube.com/theoreticalbullshit posted that his mom's book was out on his athiest v Christian debating site, some of his atheist subscribers complained that I was a quack because I fly in the face of science, genetics and the evidence of genes creating personality. Unfortunately, there is no such credible, lasting evidence. I was practicing. I am trying to wake people up, even atheists, that genes don't account for behavior.
>
> >>> LL. Of course they do.  Genes determine how we respond to our
> >>> environment.  If it weren't for differences in genes everyone who has
> >>> similar experiences would be affected by those experiences in the same
> >>> way, and we know they aren't.  Take two kids who were abused in their
> >>> childhoods.  One goes off the rails, the other pulls himself together
> >>> and becomes a  psychologically stable person. Or take two people who
> >>> are raised in a stable home.  The same things can happen to them as to
> >>> the abused individuals.
>
> >>> I know two brothers who were raised in a stable home by intelligent
> >>> parents (both hold doctorates). Both brothers have high IQs.  One was
> >>> a serious and superior student who went on to have a brilliant career
> >>> and a stable marriage.  The other got a degree in physics, though not
> >>> so
>

> ...
>
> read more »

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 5:18 PM, Dr. Faye Snyder <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:

Unfortunately, when my son, youtube.com/theoreticalbullshit posted that his mom's book was out on his athiest v Christian debating site, some of his atheist subscribers complained that I was a quack because I fly in the face of science, genetics and the evidence of genes creating personality. Unfortunately, there is no such credible, lasting evidence. I was practicing. I am trying to wake people up, even atheists, that genes don't account for behavior.

I'm not sure that scientists have concluded that either.

I think the general conclusion is that behavior is both influenced by genetics *and* environmental facts.

--

"To no form of religion is woman indebted for one impulse of freedom..." --Susan B. Anthony

"Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad." --Brian O'Driscoll

http://newatheism.blogspot.com/

Freethinkers and atheists Google Group

http://groups.google.com/group/FTAA?hl=en

[Trance Gemini]

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Dr. Faye <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:

            Some atheists still believe in invisible causes. Do you look at invisible causes of behavior the way Christians look at invisible causes of nature? Do you believe genes cause behavior? Really? Do you know that even geneticists now admit that what they claimed to be genetic predispositions can be undone by parenting? Do you even think that genes cause 50% of behavior? If you do, you are just as brainwashed as Christians. You believe in the lies of the pharmaceutical industry. You have been allowing yourself to follow the party line, hook, line and sinker. You have been buying corrupt research the way Christians buy the Bible.  

I think most scientists have determined that behavior is the result of both genetic and environmental / social factors.
 

            James Holmes, aka The Joker, is only part of an epidemic, which was initiated by the feminist movement in concert with the pharmaceutical industry, strange bedfellows with no awareness of how they served one another. Liberated women began leaving their babies and toddlers in daycare, completely violating the evolutionary design of human babies to be attached for their first three years to one primary caregiver following birth. These abandonments were perfect for the pharmaceutical industry who began to make billions of dollars medicating the results, while selling us with faulty research suggesting the epidemic of troubled children was genetic

And yet large numbers of children appear to do quite well. Why do you think that is? They didn't all become James Holmes who was diagnosed as schizophrenic. Although I personally am skeptical about that diagnosis.
 

. 

     Of course, there are other ways than daycare to sew the seeds of mental illness, but the most common cause is daycare, nannies, rotating caregivers even grandmas, because even Mother Teresa wouldn't be good enough to take the place of the infant's primary parent. Nevertheless, abuse can do damage character. Weak parenting can do it too. Neglect can do it. Micromanaging children can do it. But, what makes all bad parenting not just harmful, but dangerous, is adding the abuses to neglect and abandonment of the first few years of life. These babies and toddlers who suffer separation anxiety, abandonment or multiple caregivers are not resilient. If the same identical abuse and neglect were suffered just three to five years later, it would not create such harmful long-term damage. The core personality is formed in the first years. People who have a resilient core have enjoyed feeling protected, lovingly touched and adored as infants and toddlers. The killers of our society have had the worst childhoods of us all, something most of us cannot actually fathom. Most of us imagine all parents sort of like our parents. I am not saying, by the way, that predators should be vindicated. I am saying we need to address parenting as quickly as we need to address global warming.    

            I strongly suspect that the Joker suffered a lack of attachment or a severe attachment break, and following that, he suffered rejection and mental abuse, creating an agonizing identity of worthlessness, including self-loathing. His attempts to do the right thing were probably discredited on a regular basis, so he didn’t have the self-worth to make it through college. I don’t know if his childhood included physical or sexual abuse, but that would add another drive to retaliate or do to others what was done to him, especially if his father was authoritarian and/or violent. If he were taught to immunize his parents from complaining about how he was being treated, then that would drive him to scapegoating behavior.  

The actual evidence would suggest that he was experimenting with some serious drugs.
 

            We have more massacres and serial killers than we did fifty years ago.

No. We have more people caught committing massacres and serial killing than we did fifty years ago. Percentage wise (since our population has increased hugely in 50 years) the numbers could well be less.
 

When I was in grammar school 60 years ago, the problems of the classroom were primarily chewing gum and cutting in line. Evolution creates genetic changes for the good. External causes create epidemics. Epidemics are not attributable to genes. We are in an epidemic created by daycare, beginning about fifty years ago, and children diagnosed with ADHD and ADD are the more common victims who have suffered the more mild symptoms, because their experiences in daycare began a little later in life or were a little shorter hours or less frequent than the highly disturbed personalities who went to daycare shortly after they were born. Mothers or primary caregivers who were under-nurtured, themselves, and then scolded for their reactivity or allowed to go wild out of parental guilt are parents now. Each generation will become worse if the public doesn’t wake up.

            In other words, many more mothers are colder, less available and less nurturing than they used to be, because they were so under-nurtured. Dangerous parenting assumptions and actions are creating the pathological drive to take revenge against someone, anyone but one’s parents. As long as we support very young children in daycare, we contribute toward creating killers, especially when the parents at home no longer know how to love or discipline correctly. 

P.S. I don't remember ever choosing to call myself me. I must have put it on my computer some time not knowing it would end up here. "Me" sounds narcissistic in this context because every here is "me". If I could change it I would. I am Dr. Faye. My son is theoreticalbullshit on youtube.  

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/atheism-vs-christianity/-/wdt0jmcsF2MJ.

To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

[Trance Gemini]

Exactly. Well said.

[Ian Betts]

Tony is right most humans are a mixture of nature and nurture in balance , its only where on element is abused that problems arise.

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 12:11 AM, Toney Smith <greenm...@gmail.com> wrote:

1.All of the evidence in genetics, biology, psychology, and sociology points to humans being products of BOTH nature and nurture, so yeah, where is the evidence you present for your case?

 

  2. What the fuck does this have to do with religion?! This belongs in the medical or science groups... Oh wait, you would be laughed out of both. 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/atheism-vs-christianity/-/CqXLaNOML1IJ.

To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Ian

[Art Grey]

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 2:12:49 PM UTC-7, LL wrote:

Hi LL,

Parallel universes exist in the minds only of many so-called

scientific science fiction writers: (see below)The belief in UFO conspiracies

gains much credibility because parallel universe beliefs in

such stories as The Golden Compass.

 

 

 

 

LL.  Atheists don't believe in invisible causes.  Atheists accept that

some causes are unknown. Theists tend to make up stories when faced

with something that is unknown and appear to be unable to accept that
some things have just not yet been answered.   It's distressing to
realize that some theists are too ignorant to know the difference and
try to score points without ever experiencing a rational thought.  Of
course, if they could think rationally, they'd also he atheists and
wouldn't make such egregious errors.

 

ag:

 

"The multi-verse theory says the entire universe "freezes" during observation, and we see only one reality. You see a soccer ball flying through the air, but maybe in a second universe the ball has dropped already. Or you were looking the other way. Or they don't even play soccer over there.

Sean Carroll, a physicist at the California Institute of Technology and a popular author, accepts the scientific basis for the multi-verse -- even if it cannot be proven. "

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/04/05/freaky-physics-proves-parallel-universes/#ixzz25jN5MHcG

......

On Sep 1, 11:02 am, "Dr. Faye" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
>             Some atheists still believe in invisible causes. Do you look at
> invisible causes of behavior the way Christians look at invisible causes of
> nature? Do you believe genes cause behavior? Really? Do you know that even
> geneticists now admit that what they claimed to be genetic predispositions
> can be undone by parenting? Do you even think that genes cause 50% of
> behavior? If you do, you are just as brainwashed as Christians. You believe
> in the lies of the pharmaceutical industry. You have been allowing yourself
> to follow the party line, hook, line and sinker. You have been buying
> corrupt research the way Christians buy the Bible.
>

>             James Holmes, aka The Joker, is only part of an epidemic, which
> was initiated by the feminist movement in concert with the pharmaceutical
> industry, strange bedfellows with no awareness of how they served one
> another. Liberated women began leaving their babies and toddlers in
> daycare, completely violating the evolutionary design of human babies to be
> attached for their first three years to one primary caregiver following
> birth. These abandonments were perfect for the pharmaceutical industry who
> began to make billions of dollars medicating the results, while selling us
> with faulty research suggesting the epidemic of troubled children was

> genetic.

>             We have more massacres and serial killers than we did fifty

> years ago. When I was in grammar school 60 years ago, the problems of the

> classroom were primarily chewing gum and cutting in line. Evolution creates
> genetic changes for the good. External causes create epidemics. Epidemics
> are not attributable to genes. We are in an epidemic created by daycare,
> beginning about fifty years ago, and children diagnosed with ADHD and ADD
> are the more common victims who have suffered the more mild symptoms,
> because their experiences in daycare began a little later in life or were a
> little shorter hours or less frequent than the highly disturbed
> personalities who went to daycare shortly after they were born. Mothers or
> primary caregivers who were under-nurtured, themselves, and then scolded
> for their reactivity or allowed to go wild out of parental guilt are
> parents now. Each generation will become worse if the public doesn’t wake
> up.
>
>             In other words, many more mothers are colder, less available

> and less nurturing than they used to be, because *they* were so

[John Stockwell]

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:02:57 PM UTC-6, Dr. Faye wrote:

            Some atheists still believe in invisible causes. Do you look at invisible causes of behavior the way Christians look at invisible causes of nature? Do you believe genes cause behavior? Really? Do you know that even geneticists now admit that what they claimed to be genetic predispositions can be undone by parenting? Do you even think that genes cause 50% of behavior? If you do, you are just as brainwashed as Christians. You believe in the lies of the pharmaceutical industry. You have been allowing yourself to follow the party line, hook, line and sinker. You have been buying corrupt research the way Christians buy the Bible.  

The old nature versus nurture item. 

 

            James Holmes, aka The Joker, is only part of an epidemic, which was initiated by the feminist movement in concert with the pharmaceutical industry, strange bedfellows with no awareness of how they served one another. Liberated women began leaving their babies and toddlers in daycare, completely violating the evolutionary design of human babies to be attached for their first three years to one primary caregiver following birth. These abandonments were perfect for the pharmaceutical industry who began to make billions of dollars medicating the results, while selling us with faulty research suggesting the epidemic of troubled children was genetic. 

Distant diagnoses based on media accounts is fairly risky. Some people have organic disfunctions.

To blame this on women's liberation is really silly.

 

     Of course, there are other ways than daycare to sew the seeds of mental illness, but the most common cause is daycare, nannies, rotating caregivers even grandmas, because even Mother Teresa wouldn't be good enough to take the place of the infant's primary parent. Nevertheless, abuse can do damage character. Weak parenting can do it too. Neglect can do it. Micromanaging children can do it. But, what makes all bad parenting not just harmful, but dangerous, is adding the abuses to neglect and abandonment of the first few years of life. These babies and toddlers who suffer separation anxiety, abandonment or multiple caregivers are not resilient. If the same identical abuse and neglect were suffered just three to five years later, it would not create such harmful long-term damage. The core personality is formed in the first years. People who have a resilient core have enjoyed feeling protected, lovingly touched and adored as infants and toddlers. The killers of our society have had the worst childhoods of us all, something most of us cannot actually fathom. Most of us imagine all parents sort of like our parents. I am not saying, by the way, that predators should be vindicated. I am saying we need to address parenting as quickly as we need to address global warming.  

I don't think that history really supports your notion. First, from an evolutionary perspective, we are

"it takes a village" social type species. We have grandparents, as a backup system for when primary

parents die or desert offspring.  I don't think that you can actually support the notion that "all of the

killers" in our society had disadvantaged childhoods. 

 

  

            I strongly suspect that the Joker suffered a lack of attachment or a severe attachment break, and following that, he suffered rejection and mental abuse, creating an agonizing identity of worthlessness, including self-loathing. His attempts to do the right thing were probably discredited on a regular basis, so he didn’t have the self-worth to make it through college. I don’t know if his childhood included physical or sexual abuse, but that would add another drive to retaliate or do to others what was done to him, especially if his father was authoritarian and/or violent. If he were taught to immunize his parents from complaining about how he was being treated, then that would drive him to scapegoating behavior.  

...or he just was that way because of his biology. Throw the biological dice, and sometimes it comes

up snakeeyes.

 

            We have more massacres and serial killers than we did fifty years ago. When I was in grammar school 60 years ago, the problems of the classroom were primarily chewing gum and cutting in line. Evolution creates genetic changes for the good. External causes create epidemics. Epidemics are not attributable to genes. We are in an epidemic created by daycare, beginning about fifty years ago, and children diagnosed with ADHD and ADD are the more common victims who have suffered the more mild symptoms, because their experiences in daycare began a little later in life or were a little shorter hours or less frequent than the highly disturbed personalities who went to daycare shortly after they were born. Mothers or primary caregivers who were under-nurtured, themselves, and then scolded for their reactivity or allowed to go wild out of parental guilt are parents now. Each generation will become worse if the public doesn’t wake up.

I would suggest that you read   "Massacres in the Mountains" by Dunn. It discusses our treatment

of the Native Americans (and their treatment of us) from 1815-1875.

 

            In other words, many more mothers are colder, less available and less nurturing than they used to be, because they were so under-nurtured. Dangerous parenting assumptions and actions are creating the pathological drive to take revenge against someone, anyone but one’s parents. As long as we support very young children in daycare, we contribute toward creating killers, especially when the parents at home no longer know how to love or discipline correctly. 

...or maybe we need better daycare.

 

P.S. I don't remember ever choosing to call myself me. I must have put it on my computer some time not knowing it would end up here. "Me" sounds narcissistic in this context because every here is "me". If I could change it I would. I am Dr. Faye. My son is theoreticalbullshit on youtube.

"me" is a designation that the google groups uses when you see your own email address. We 

all see ourselves as "me" here.

-John

 

 

[Dr. Faye]

Ian, my theory is based upon a long trek that began with a bad childhood and 16 years of bad therapy and finally one year of good therapy. I went through those years with an eye for truth and theory. When I had a good therapist, I wanted to go back to school to see why so many bad therapists. I learned a lot though. I saw conflicting theory. I began to try to work that out and come up with the best theory based upon the best research, so I started writing theory a long time ago. I turned out to be a very good therapist. I was highly effective, especially as I took on people's ideas of themselves, their ego, their belief in genetics and other things. I developed a technique for healing trauma. I taught people the things their parents never taught them in teaching them relationship skills, ethics, problem solving and assessment. I began to have a pretty amazing track record, and all along I was checking and correlating behavior with history with trauma with healing. EVERYONE made sense to me. I have been treating and healing clients for 25 years since I wrote my theory. I have been checking my theory against every experience, and it has become pretty reliable. With it predictions have been made reliably and consistently. I have worked for the Department of Children and Family Services as a social worker, too. I have assessed parents and their parenting and taught them how to reverse their children's behaviors. I have been a forensic evaluator, so I have lots of experience as a client, a therapist and an academic, with ample research to back me up. Nevertheless, I have known a long string of people with credentials and experience who have strong opinions and/or bad practice. Credentials may mean nothing much. My theory is about prevention. It includes resilience, something you focus on. Since I have sought to understand every behavior in my path, I have found that resilience results from secure attachments in the first three years and explains why some people rebound and others don't. 

By the way I am so comfortable writing to you, because I trust you. I trust your humility and openness, even though you disagree with me. You are a sage, and I know it.      

On Monday, September 3, 2012 12:37:01 AM UTC-7, Ian wrote:

You are generalizing Faye from research findings not from personal experience with human beings. What work have you done in the field.

On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 8:23 AM, Dr. Faye Snyder <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:

As I have said, the earliest years determine how susceptible a person is to future trauma, as in resilience. Early experiences that lead to a lack of attachment create very fragile personalities. Veterans come back with PTSD while others didn't, even though those others had worse experiences. They are the ones who had insufficient or broken attachments in the first three years. Also, you cannot equate trauma one person to another, just like that. You need to measure it. How much, how often, what age, and by whom? You need to measure the pre-existing trauma of the earliest years. Also, there are mitigators. I am betting you don't know what would mitigate trauma. I am hoping you will open your mind and let me in. Of course I am also speaking to anyone else who will listen. Please review the links I sent you. Here they are again, including the answers to my question, what mitigates trauma.

http://thecausaltheory.com/?page_id=2 (resiliency)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

 

Dr. Faye

>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

>>> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
>

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Ian

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Ian

[Dr. Faye]

[Dr. Faye]

I have never know two children in the same home to have the same parenting.  http://thecausaltheory.com/?page_id=2 

> Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.comwww.theparcfoundation.com(agency)www.drsfayesnyder.com(forensics)www.drfayesnyder.com(products)www.thecausaltheory.com(theory)

> >> core have enjoyed feeling protected, lovingly touched and adored as infants
> >> and toddlers. The killers of our society have had the worst childhoods of
> >> us all, something most of us cannot actually fathom. Most of us imagine all
> >> parents sort of like our parents. I am not saying, by the way, that
> >> predators should be vindicated. I am saying we need to address parenting as
> >> quickly as we need to address global warming.
>

> >>             I strongly suspect that the Joker suffered a lack of attachment
> >> or a severe attachment break, and following that, he suffered rejection and
> >> mental abuse, creating an agonizing identity of worthlessness, including
> >> self-loathing. His attempts to do the right thing were probably discredited
> >> on a regular basis, so he didn’t have the self-worth to make it through
> >> college. I don’t know if his childhood included physical or sexual abuse,
> >> but that would add another drive to retaliate or do to others what was done
> >> to him, especially if his father was authoritarian and/or violent. If he
> >> were taught to immunize his parents from complaining about how he was being
> >> treated, then that would drive him to scapegoating behavior.
>

> >>             We have more massacres and serial killers than we did fifty
> >> years ago. When I was in grammar school 60 years ago, the problems of the
> >> classroom were primarily chewing gum and cutting in line. Evolution creates
> >> genetic changes for the good. External causes create epidemics. Epidemics
> >> are not attributable to genes. We are in an epidemic created by daycare,
> >> beginning about fifty years ago, and children diagnosed with ADHD and ADD
> >> are the more common victims who have suffered the more mild symptoms,
> >> because their experiences in daycare began a little later in life or were a
> >> little shorter hours or less frequent than the highly disturbed
> >> personalities who went to daycare shortly after they were born. Mothers or
> >> primary caregivers who were under-nurtured, themselves, and then scolded
> >> for their reactivity or allowed to go wild out of parental guilt are
> >> parents now. Each generation will become worse if the public doesn’t wake
> >> up.
>

> >>             In other words, many more mothers are colder, less available

> >> and less nurturing than they used to be, because *they* were so

> >> under-nurtured. Dangerous parenting assumptions and actions are creating
> >> the pathological drive to take revenge against someone, anyone but one’s
> >> parents. As long as we support very young children in daycare, we
> >> contribute toward creating killers, especially when the parents at home no
> >> longer know how to love or discipline correctly.
>

> >> P.S. I don't remember ever choosing to call myself me. I must have put it
> >> on my computer some time not knowing it would end up here. "Me" sounds
> >> narcissistic in this context because every here is "me". If I could change
> >> it I would. I am Dr. Faye. My son is theoreticalbullshit on youtube.
>

[Observer]

Observer

And what of this ?

 Criminal Minds Are Different From Yours, Brain Scans Reveal

by Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Senior Writer
Date: 04 March 2011 Time: 12:24 PM ET





CT scans of a human brain.
CREDIT: Dreamstime
The latest neuroscience research is presenting intriguing evidence
that the brains of certain kinds of criminals are different from those
of the rest of the population.

While these findings could improve our understanding of criminal
behavior, they also raise moral quandaries about whether and how
society should use this knowledge to combat crime.

The criminal mind


In one recent study, scientists examined 21 people with antisocial
personality disorder – a condition that characterizes many convicted
criminals. Those with the disorder "typically have no regard for right
and wrong. They may often violate the law and the rights of others,"
according to the Mayo Clinic.

Brain scans of the antisocial people, compared with a control group of
individuals without any mental disorders, showed on average an 18-
percent reduction in the volume of the brain's middle frontal gyrus,
and a 9 percent reduction in the volume of the orbital frontal gyrus –
two sections in the brain's frontal lobe.

Another brain study, published in the September 2009 Archives of
General Psychiatry, compared 27 psychopaths — people with severe
antisocial personality disorder — to 32 non-psychopaths. In the
psychopaths, the researchers observed deformations in another part of
the brain called the amygdala, with the psychopaths showing a thinning
of the outer layer of that region called the cortex and, on average,
an 18-percent volume reduction in this part of brain.

"The amygdala is the seat of emotion. Psychopaths lack emotion. They
lack empathy, remorse, guilt," said research team member Adrian Raine,
chair of the Department of Criminology at the University of
Pennsylvania, at the annual meeting of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C., last month.



University of Pennsylvania criminologist Adrian Raine
CREDIT: U Penn
View full size image
In addition to brain differences, people who end up being convicted
for crimes often show behavioral differences compared with the rest of
the population. One long-term study that Raine participated in
followed 1,795 children born in two towns from ages 3 to 23. The study
measured many aspects of these individuals' growth and development,
and found that 137 became criminal offenders.

One test on the participants at age 3 measured their response to fear
– called fear conditioning – by associating a stimulus, such as a
tone, with a punishment like an electric shock, and then measuring
people's involuntary physical responses through the skin upon hearing
the tone.

In this case, the researchers found a distinct lack of fear
conditioning in the 3-year-olds who would later become criminals.
These findings were published in the January 2010 issue of the
American Journal of Psychiatry.

Neurological base of crime

Overall, these studies and many more like them paint a picture of
significant biological differences between people who commit serious
crimes and people who do not. While not all people with antisocial
personality disorder — or even all psychopaths — end up breaking the
law, and not all criminals meet the criteria for these disorders,
there is a marked correlation.

"There is a neuroscience basis in part to the cause of crime," Raine
said.

What's more, as the study of 3-year-olds and other research have
shown, many of these brain differences can be measured early on in
life, long before a person might develop into actual psychopathic
tendencies or commit a crime.

Criminologist Nathalie Fontaine of Indiana University studies the
tendency toward being callous and unemotional (CU) in children between
7 and 12 years old. Children with these traits have been shown to have
a higher risk of becoming psychopaths as adults.

"We're not suggesting that some children are psychopaths, but CU
traits can be used to identify a subgroup of children who are at
risk," Fontaine said.

Yet her research showed that these traits aren't fixed, and can change
in children as they grow. So if psychologists identify children with
these risk factors early on, it may not be too late.

"We can still help them," Fontaine said. "We can implement
intervention to support and help children and their families, and we
should."



These brain scans of psychopaths show a deformation in the amygdala
compared to non-psychopaths, from a study by Adrian Raine and
colleagues.
CREDIT: Yang et al./Archives of General Psychiatry
View full size image
Neuroscientists' understanding of the plasticity, or flexibility, of
the brain called neurogenesis supports the idea that many of these
brain differences are not fixed. [10 Things You Didn't Know About the
Brain]

"Brain research is showing us that neurogenesis can occur even into
adulthood," said psychologist Patricia Brennan of Emory University in
Atlanta. "Biology isn’t destiny. There are many, many places you can
intervene along that developmental pathway to change what's happening
in these children."

Furthermore, criminal behavior is certainly not a fixed behavior.

Psychologist Dustin Pardini of the University of Pittsburgh Medical
Center found that about four out of five kids who are delinquents as
children do not continue to offend in adulthood.

Pardini has been researching the potential brain differences between
people with a past criminal record who have stopped committing crimes,
and those who continue criminal behavior. While both groups showed
brain differences compared with non-criminals in the study, Pardini
and his colleagues uncovered few brain differences between chronic
offenders and so-called remitting offenders.

"Both groups showed similar results," Pardini said. "None of these
brain regions distinguish chronic and remitting offenders."

Ethical quandaries

Yet even the idea of intervening to help children at risk of becoming
criminals is ethically fraught.

"Do we put children in compulsory treatment when we've uncovered the
risk factors?" asked Raine. "Well, who decides that? Will the state
mandate compulsory residential treatment?"

What if surgical treatment methods are advanced, and there is an
option to operate on children or adults with these brain risk factors?
Many experts are extremely hesitant to advocate such an invasive and
risky brain intervention — especially in children and in individuals
who have not yet committed any crime.

Yet psychologists say such solutions are not the only way to
intervene.

"You don’t have to do direct brain surgery to change the way the brain
functions," Brennan said. "You can do social interventions to change
that."

Fontaine's studies, for example, suggest that kids who display callous
and unemotional traits don't respond as well to traditional parenting
and punishment methods such as time-outs. Instead of punishing bad
behavior, programs that emphasize rewarding good behavior with
positive reinforcement seem to work better.

Raine and his colleagues are also testing whether children who take
supplemental pills of omega-3 fatty acids — also known as fish oil —
can show improvement. Because this nutrient is thought to be used in
cell growth, neuroscientists suspect it can help brain cells grow
larger, increase the size of axons (the part of neurons that conducts
electrical impulses), and regulate brain cell function.

"We are brain scanning children before and after treatment with
omega-3," Raine said. "We are studying kids to see if it can reduce
aggressive behavior and improve impaired brain areas. It's a
biological treatment, but it's a relatively benign treatment that most
people would accept."

'Slippery slope to Armageddon'

The field of neurocriminology also raises other philosophical
quandaries, such as the question of whether revealing the role of
brain abnormalities in crime reduces a person's responsibility for his
or her own actions.

"Psychopaths know right and wrong cognitively, but don't have a
feeling for what's right and wrong," Raine said. "Did they ask to have
an amygdala that wasn't as well functioning as other individuals'?
Should we be punishing psychopaths as harshly as we do?"

Because the brain of a psychopath is compromised, Raine said, one
could argue that they don't have full responsibility for their
actions. That — in effect — it's not their fault.

In fact, that reasoning has been argued in a court of law. Raine
recounted a case he consulted on, of a man named Herbert Weinstein who
had killed his wife. Brain scans subsequently revealed a large cyst in
the frontal cortex of Weinstein's brain, showing that his cognitive
abilities were significantly compromised.

The scans were used to strike a plea bargain in which Weinstein's
sentence was reduced to only 11 years in prison.

"Imaging was used to reduce his culpability, to reduce his
responsibility," Raine said. "Yet is that not a slippery slope to
Armageddon where there's no responsibility in society?"


Regards

Dave

[Ian Betts]

May I say you sound  to good to be true Faye from what you write.

In the USA people make big bucks from putting their sign up and getting the celebs into their consulting rooms.

I used cognitive-behavior therapy in my work in both individual and group settings.

My experience is based direct work with client groups and in many different settings such as a local area office with a case load, an emergency duty team covering the County and both a Mental Health and a General Hospital setting. 

I do not disagree with most of what you say only with some tiny aspects that you highlight from time to time.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/atheism-vs-christianity/-/536iLTGPNokJ.

To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christ...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Ian

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

On Sep 8, 2012, at 1:58 AM, Observer <mayo...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Sep 1, 11:02 am, "Dr. Faye" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:

>> Some atheists still believe in invisible causes....

>
> Observer
>
> And what of this ? Criminal Minds Are Different From Yours, Brain Scans Reveal
> by Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Senior Writer
> Date: 04 March 2011 Time: 12:24 PM ET
>

Yes, their minds and brains are different from all their life's experiences. They have not been nurtured or secure in the first few years of life. That gives them a brain that looks like an Alzheimer's patient (Bruce Perry). Then, they suffer from neglect to rejection to abuse before they are five years old, and that gives them more brain damage (Teichert). They also imprint those experiences into drives to do others what was done to them (J. E. Ledoux, (D. Siegel). Finally, they have usually been hit in the head multiple times in their lifetime.(D.O. Lewis, J. Pinkus) Lastly, they have been forbidden to talk about it or to acknowledge what is happening to them, but rather they are expected to take responsibility for their parent's treatment of them by absorbing "bad" for their identity, which becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. You are looking at effect, and I am looking at cause. They are not born with these damaged brains. They are born with as much possibility in their genes and bodies as you and me.

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

I appreciate talking to you.

[Observer]

On Sep 8, 9:22 am, "Dr. Faye Snyder" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:

> On Sep 8, 2012, at 1:58 AM, Observer <mayors...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 1, 11:02 am, "Dr. Faye" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> >>             Some atheists still believe in invisible causes....
>
> > Observer
>
> > And what of this ?  Criminal Minds Are Different From Yours, Brain Scans Reveal
> > by Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience Senior Writer
> > Date: 04 March 2011 Time: 12:24 PM ET
>
> Yes, their minds and brains are different from all their life's experiences. They have not been nurtured or secure in the first few years of life.

Observer

There are of course methods by which neurological reparation can be
achieved.

In my own case , after being oxygen deprived for a prolonged period of
time much of the ganglia previously depended on were destroyed . My
attempt at raising above a level of dementia entailed to and intensive
attempt re educate my self . For some five years I lived in the
wilderness reading children's text books, then and advancing as best I
could to the more adult college texts. It was necessary for me to re
read the classics , the constitution, , the history of the world
religion science, and to regain my use of logic , reason, scientific
method, a reasonable
reliance on the produce there of , and probably for the first time in
my life to formalize critical thinking.

The result was like the rise of the Phoenix from the flames which had
destroyed it.

So from personal experience ( in my case unassisted by any other human
being and without the foolish beliefs in supernatural nonsense) I was
alone on what turned out to be a wonderful adventure.

I am forced ,however, to comment on the fact , that were it not for my
genetic structure affording ability, the drive the curiosity , the
mechanical , electric, and chemical proprieties of my brain and its
innate ability to produce the chemistry of powerful emotions
(endogenous opiates, enkephalins, and other specific drugs necessary
to my sustained quest) I would have failed completely for it was all
of these which made possibilities with which , for me to find a new
self enabelment..

We are all to quick to chose sides in apparent and opposing beliefs
rather than to lend credence to the fact that there are a multitude of
interactive and interdependent considerations to be given to what lies
beyond our personalized fictions of what is and is not utilitarian
(useful) in our search for edification.

The very best we can do is to attempt to structure fictions (in full
recognition of there inadequacy and vast inaccuracy) which fit
scientifically formulated models that allow , through the use of
reason, logic , scientific method, the produce there of and of course
tempered by critical thinking, the closest * nearness of truth*
available in each and every moment of our lives.

[quote]

Being a responsible adult means accepting the fact that almost all
knowledge is tentative, and accepting it cheerfully. You may be
required to change your belief tomorrow, if the evidence warrants,
and
you should be willing and able to do so. That, in essence, is what
skepticism means: to believe if and only if the evidence warrants.
[end quote]


Excerpt from
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/field_guide_to_critical_thinking/

Observer

If I have mischaracterized your positions I apologize but my
commentary is structured upon what I honestly see as , a
contrast ,between your position and my own.

I have a distinct advantage over most in that if and when I am shown
to be wrong I take from that a victory in my personal quest for
edification.

So please do me the honor of intense , honest, and in keeping with
your great aptitudes , expletives which will mend my opinions .


Best regards

Dave

> ...
>
> read more »

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

"So please do me the honor of intense , honest, and in keeping with
your great aptitudes , expletives which will mend my opinions ."

What did you mean by that? Are you asking me to reconsider my point of view which took so much love of truth to build? I am always modifying old knowledge with new knowledge.

Regarding your life story, a wonderful story, it reminds me of a book I recently heard about. She was on Ted Talk. The book is entitled My Stroke of Insight. She was a neurologist. She had to completely relearn, as well, and she came back reporting what it was like to have a stroke and she used it as an insight into what it is like to be completely right brain for awhile. She commented on the different doctors and nurses and how they treated her so differently when she was like a baby without speech. Some treated her more like an object. Others treated her with tenderness. When she returned to normal she presented the concept that "we are responsible for the energy we bring. something she wants to introduce into medical training.

She lost her memory, but she never lost her right brain's ability to see, hear and process reality. I dare say, he right brain remained health and so did yours. Your incentive to re-learn reflected the healthy childhood you had in the first three years, I am suspecting. You could rebuild upon that same childhood of essential self-worth.

I don't know what happened, really. I can only hypothesize another explanation. I am thinking that it was not your genes that made the difference unless you are talking about the healthy genes were are all born with. Our brains are very plastic. What is self-defeating or resiliency-creating is the first few years of life which give us a negative or positive outlook at our fundamental core. I think it was probably good parenting, or something you did to mitigate bad parenting before you experienced your oxygen deprivation and probable near-death experience.

I am so glad for you. What a great story. Maybe you have a book there yourself.

[Ian Betts]

Faye in the last year of my working life I found that when answering the phone I could not pick up or make sense of the conversation. After a full investigation and scan it was decided with my agreement ( I already knew the Doctor, Psychologist and Psychiatric Consultant who examined me because I had worked with them all.). Like all adult my brain has shrunk and some damage has occurred to left hemisphere.

I am on tablets for life and they make for a stable enough progress.

I live life just the way I did before but my wife answers the phone.I lawn bowl and teach people to use the computer in their own homes. I drive a car, ride a cycle and walk a lot. mI lead a full life.

I still do not think that you need a healthy childhood to make you a fighter in life but it helps I'm sure. 

I have a friend who was cruelly abused and neglected by her parents and spent time in both children homes and foster care, but she is a Doctor in General practice now, with a really lovely family of her own.

 

    

--
Ian

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

Ian, please notice the importance I put on the first three years. I know of two cases where the child was put in a closet for nearly a year. One was on Oprah. The other, I'm not sure how I heard of it. Then, there is The Child Called It, a book by a man whose mother held him in constant contempt. All three of them were enjoyed as infants. It was after they learned to move around and touch things and have a mind of their own that their parents became triggered and cruelly rejecting over "discipline" issues. All three turned out well. But, if you take a child away from it's mother and put him or her into daycare,THERE WILL BE LONG TERM DAMAGE. No infant can escape the results of lack of attachment in the first three years. One of the ways to make a Dali Lama is to find the child of healthy parents and take them away at six years old. It makes a sort of island of a person. They still turn out not to need people, but they have a solid core. I am NOT talking about abuse and neglect and repression, per se. I transcended abuse and neglect, because I never had to stuff my feelings or opinions. That freed me to have a lot of resilience, myself, along with six months of quality therapy (finally). These are three necessary components that have to take place at the right time in life to do damage or in the reverse, create resilience. There is a timing issue here. 

My mother had Alzheimer's. I struggle with serious forgetfulness and now some blanking out. These are physical issues. The brain can have physical damage and the impacts of capabilities, and some come with age. Others with injury.  But, these PHYSICAL issues do not affect PERSONALITY, unless permanently. For example, Alzheimer's patients get cranky. Some get depressed, but these are also appropriate for the condition. Others are resilient and happy, depending upon which parts of the brain are disabled. Personality is mostly a right brain world view thing, complicated or improved by the quality of relationship skills one learns, probelem-solving, ethics and perception, all learned.   

[Observer]

On Sep 9, 12:31 am, "Dr. Faye Snyder" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
> "So please do me the honor of intense , honest, and in keeping with
> your great aptitudes , expletives which will mend my opinions ."
>
> What did you mean by that? Are you asking me to reconsider my point of view which took so much love of truth to build?

Observer

Yes , of course I am . The fact that good will (love) was an integral
emotional state in your work serves only to supply the necessary
genetic functions to provide reward for your ,( very worth while
labors)

Such as emotions are secondary in the scheme of things .

An other wonderful adventure which I was lucky enough to have
experienced was the result of following the aphorisms of Patanjali

[quote]

Patañjali (Sanskrit: पतञ्जलि, IPA: [pət̪əɲɟəli]; fl. 150 BCE[1] or
2nd c. BCE[2][3]) is the compiler of the Yoga Sūtras, an important
collection of aphorisms on Yoga practice. According to tradition, the
same Patañjali was also the author of the Mahābhāṣya, a commentary on
Kātyāyana's vārttikas (short comments) on Pāṇini's Aṣṭādhyāyī and of
an unspecified work of medicine (āyurveda).

[\quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patanjali

The text I followed was a translation by an other extremely gifted man
named, Swami Vivekananda chosen for his scholarly translations .

All of the *experiment* required abstinence from the use of any
stimulants or depressants and an intense , prolonged meditative
practice focusing upon the 54 Aphorisms and the claims made for each
of such.


The net result of which was to induce the most wonderfully
interesting hallucinations imaginable.

The the central nervous system responded by producing a flood of
endogenous opiates and other chemicals instrumental in visualization
(it seems) and emotion now understood rather well as factual.

Were I not prepared for such , I might well have believed that these
*hallucinations* were either religious experience and or views of my
"previous lives*

It is however simply the triggering of genetic , biochemical
components of
inherent in my make up.

I am always modifying old knowledge with new knowledge.

Observer

I am very leery of  the use of the word "knowledge" as such suggests
that one has replicated, as internal mental symbols, an exact replica
of at least some segment of objective reality.

The most cogently terse explication of our practice of structuring
fictions and then acting as though they (the fictions) were truths is
contained in the following.


{quote]


Philosophy of As If

In Philosophie des Als Ob, Vaihinger argued that human beings can
never really know the underlying reality of the world, and that as a
result we construct systems of thought and then assume that these
match reality: we behave "as if" the world matches our models. In
particular, he used examples from the physical sciences, such as
protons, electrons, and electromagnetic waves. None of these phenomena
have been observed directly, but science pretends that they exist, and
uses observations made on these assumptions to create new and better
constructs.[1]

Vaihinger admitted that he had several precursors, especially Jeremy
Bentham's Theory of Fictions. In the preface to the English edition of
his work, Vaihinger expressed his Principle of Fictionalism. This is
that "an idea whose theoretical untruth or incorrectness, and
therewith its falsity, is admitted is not for that reason practically
valueless and useless; for such an idea, in spite of its theoretical
nullity, may have great practical importance." Moreover, Vaihinger
denied that his philosophy was a form of skepticism because skepticism
implies a doubting, whereas in his 'as if' philosophy the acceptance
of patently false fictions is justified as a pragmatic non-rational
solution to problems that have no rational answers.[3]

This philosophy, though, is wider than just science. One can never be
sure that the world will still exist tomorrow, but we usually assume
that it does. Alfred Adler, the founder of Individual Psychology, was
profoundly influenced by Vaihinger's theory of useful fictions,
incorporating the idea of psychological fictions into his personality
construct of a fictional final goal.

Vaihinger’s philosophy of 'as if' can be viewed as one of the central
premises upon which George Kelly's personal construct psychology is
based. Kelly credited Vaihinger with influencing his theory,
especially the idea that our constructions are better viewed as useful
hypotheses rather than representations of objective reality. Kelly
wrote: "Vaihinger's 'as if' philosophy has value for psychology (...)
Vaihinger began to develop a system of philosophy he called the
"philosophy of 'as if' ". In it he offered a system of thought in
which God and reality might best be represented as paradigms. This was
not to say that either God or reality was any less certain than
anything else in the realm of man’s awareness, but only that all
matters confronting man might best be regarded in hypothetical ways".
[4]

Frank Kermode's The Sense of an Ending (1967) was an early mention of
Vaihinger as a useful methodologist of narrativity. He says that
literary fictions belong to Vaihinger’s category of “the consciously
false”. They are not subject, like hypotheses, to proof or
disconfirmation, but only, if they come to lose their operational
effectiveness, to neglect.[5]

Later, James Hillman developed both Vaihinger and Adler's work with
psychological fictions into a core theme of his work Healing Fiction
in which he makes one of his more accessible cases for identifying the
tendency to literalize, rather than "see through our meanings," (HF
110) with neurosis and madness.[6]

[\quote]

>
> Regarding your life story, a wonderful story, it reminds me of a book I recently heard about. She was on Ted Talk. The book is entitled My Stroke of Insight. She was a neurologist. She had to completely relearn, as well, and she came back reporting what it was like to have a stroke and she  used it as an insight into what it is like to be completely right brain for awhile. She commented on the different doctors and nurses and how they treated her so differently when she was like a baby without speech. Some treated her more like an object. Others treated her with tenderness. When she returned to normal she presented the concept that "we are responsible for the energy we bring. something she wants to introduce into medical training.
>
> She lost her memory, but she never lost her right brain's ability to see, hear and process reality. I dare say, he right brain remained health and so did yours. Your incentive to re-learn reflected the healthy childhood you had in the first three years, I am suspecting. You could rebuild upon that same childhood of essential self-worth.
>
> I don't know what happened, really. I can only hypothesize another explanation. I am thinking that it was not your genes that made the difference unless you are talking about the healthy genes were are all born with.

Observer

It is an inconsistency to surmise that "healthy genes" are the only
ones operative in any biological unit.

It is rather the entirety of our genetic structure which is the
initiator of our propensities., both mental and physical such is an
essential rule of the culling process known as "natural selection"

Our brains are very plastic.

Observer

Such plasticity is however limited , however no so limited as to be
rejected as a tool to be implemented , in some cases, for "
rejuvenation (healing) processes".

Doc

What is self-defeating or resiliency-creating is the first few years
of life which give us a negative or positive outlook at our
fundamental core.

Observer


I argue not against the value of nurturing but rather submit that such
is not the end all be all in neurology ,"mental and physical health"
and that the basic *genetic structure* of each individual is of vital
importance even to the point that such may render one, incapable of
reproducing or even of survival within the sociologically defined
parameters of prevailing
and inadequate apothegms which select who and what is permitted
influence , freedom or even survival in such.

I think it was probably good parenting, or something you did to
mitigate bad parenting before you experienced your oxygen deprivation
and probable near-death experience.

Observer

The nonsensical extrapolations made from "near death experience " are
on no interest to me what so ever as they are in general just mind
vomit.



Observer

Of course such is one of the ingredients in the cocktail of influences
and perhaps an important one , we however imbibe of the gene pool as
well, and each set of genes whether considered healthy or otherwise ,
by nature of their chemical structure , produce any thing from
ambrosia to pathological and or physical infirmities with which one
must contend.


I refer you to the following

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_psychopathology#Scope_of_Biological_Psychopathology

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_neuroscience

>
> I am so glad for you. What a great story. Maybe you have a book there yourself.

Observer

I am in no way interested in publishing or even writing such a book
but am rather more interested on one which explicates the
psychopathology of believers in such as , will not withstand the
combined application of reason, logic, scientific method, the produce
thereof and of course the formal rules of critical thinking.

Observer

Oh not so, my friend the variations of the genetic structure have no
such limitation as to variety or influence.

Terribly deformed and debilitated children are born every minute of
every day including the neurologically defective for which recovery
by other than chemical or surgical means is not to be found if at all.


I do not criticize you or your work but offer additional adjuncts
which when studied by a compliant mind , such as yours, might yield
even greater success in the treatment of such pathology as you treat.

There are , after all , no final answers in a universe consistent only
with change, within which and of which all phenomena are temporarily
extended in complete interdependence, and inter activeness within
their sphere of influence.


[ quote]
(Max Planck, 1920) A new scientific truth does not triumph by
convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather
because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up
that is familiar with it.


[Quote ]

We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if
they have existed up to now, that will continue to exist in a similar
manner in
the future. (Max Planck)
 http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Physics-Max-Planck.htm




.
My best to you and yours


Dave

[Ian Betts]

Do you make the same point when the mother dies soon after the birth of the child and a substitute carer, even the father is left to care in your three year period of child development.

Unfortunately life does not deal the best of starts for all children.

Those effects on the brain can easily change mood and motivation as well as memory.

Remember I said I was a hospital SW for head injury for three years.

[Neil Kelsey]

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 11:02:57 AM UTC-7, Dr. Faye wrote:

            Some atheists still believe in invisible causes. Do you look at invisible causes of behavior the way Christians look at invisible causes of nature? Do you believe genes cause behavior?

Do you believe that gravity causes things to stick to the earth? Is gravity visible?

* snip *  

[Ian Betts]

No only physical characteristics  but often, as with my wife, I can tell what is a pattern of her own development or a throwback to her mothers ways.

On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dr. Faye Snyder <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:

Oh, do you mean physical characteristics (like our parents) and behavioral traits are learned? If so, excellent! Cool. Fantastic. That makes you a thinking atheist. (Many BELIEVE IN genes, that they account for behavior).  

 

Dr. Faye

Dr. S. Faye Snyder 

A Professional Corporation

PSY #24806, MFC #29816

Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC

Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation

15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210

Granada Hills, CA 91344

PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020  

Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.com

www.theparcfoundation.com (agency)

www.drsfayesnyder.com (forensics)

www.drfayesnyder.com (products) 

www.thecausaltheory.com (theory)

On Sep 2, 2012, at 2:07 AM, Ian Betts <ianbe...@gmail.com> wrote:

No Faye I believe Genes give us characteristics like our parents but behavioral traits are learnt.

 

On Sun, Sep 2, 2012 at 12:08 AM, Dr. Faye Snyder <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:

Do you or do you not believe genes create behavior?

Dr. Faye

Dr. S. Faye Snyder 

A Professional Corporation

PSY #24806, MFC #29816

Founder and Clinical Director of PaRC

Parenting and Relationship Counseling Foundation

15650 Devonshire Street, Suite 210

Granada Hills, CA 91344

PaRC (818) 891-8477, Pvt. Off. (661) 257-1020  

Email: DrF...@theparcfoundation.com

www.theparcfoundation.com (agency)

www.drsfayesnyder.com (forensics)

www.drfayesnyder.com (products) 

www.thecausaltheory.com (theory)

On Sep 1, 2012, at 3:25 PM, Ian Betts <ianbe...@gmail.com> wrote:

We and I mean Atheists are rooted in the reality of the real world or should be Phil.

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 11:21 PM, philosophy <catswhi...@gmail.com> wrote:

I sometimes get the feeling that even though both Atheists and
Theists live in "hope" that there is a different quality to the type
of hope they have.

eg. It appears that Theist hope is quite irrational at times. Maybe
this is because they believe in the sky fairy.  On the other hand
I have observed that Atheists tend to have their hope rooted
more in the reality of this world we live in and tend to accommodate
the variabilities in the human being more appropriately.  But then,
I'm biased, I'm an atheist, so of course I'd see myself as being
more "reasonable".

On Sep 2, 7:12 am, LL <llpens3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> LL.  Atheists don't believe in invisible causes.  Atheists accept that
> some causes are unknown. Theists tend to make up stories when faced
> with something that is unknown and appear to be unable to accept that
> some things have just not yet been answered.   It's distressing to
> realize that some theists are too ignorant to know the difference and
> try to score points without ever experiencing a rational thought.  Of
> course, if they could think rationally, they'd also he atheists and
> wouldn't make such egregious errors.
>
> ......

> On Sep 1, 11:02 am, "Dr. Faye" <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >             Some atheists still believe in invisible causes. Do you look at
> > invisible causes of behavior the way Christians look at invisible causes of

> > core have enjoyed feeling protected, lovingly touched and adored as infants
> > and toddlers. The killers of our society have had the worst childhoods of
> > us all, something most of us cannot actually fathom. Most of us imagine all

> > parents sort of like our parents. I am not saying, by the way, that

> > predators should be vindicated. I am saying we need to address parenting as
> > quickly as we need to address global warming.
>
> >             I strongly suspect that the Joker suffered a lack of attachment
> > or a severe attachment break, and following that, he suffered rejection and
> > mental abuse, creating an agonizing identity of worthlessness, including
> > self-loathing. His attempts to do the right thing were probably discredited
> > on a regular basis, so he didn’t have the self-worth to make it through
> > college. I don’t know if his childhood included physical or sexual abuse,

> > but that would add another drive to retaliate or do to others what was done

> > it I would. I am Dr. Faye. My son is theoreticalbullshit on youtube.

--
Ian

--
Ian

--
Ian

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

Of course not. Do you believe that genes create your behavior or the experiences of your lifetime? 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/atheism-vs-christianity/-/ScGiU9PUiisJ.

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

Yes, it doesn't matter if there is malice or not sometimes. If the mother "leaves" the child, the child feels left. If the caregiver hasn't enough experience balancing caregiving with career, then the child is at further risk. It's almost impossible to balance. Maybe someone can prey on this child. Maybe the child learns to be on his own prematurely. These things can leave a child who does the right things in life, but feels incomplete inside or, if enough else goes wrong, they can turn to drugs. Etc. Different experiences combine in different ways, The early experiences are the ground. Is it rock solid or is it quicksand? Are there gophers underneath?  

I love the brain. It is so plastic and redundant. It is designed to repair itself. However, it doesn't repair first years of life easily. If they are there, and they are good, and then the brain suffers a blow, there is a better chance the adult child can reconstitute.  

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

And, in my opinion, your wife imprinted these ways by being so close to her. They were not inborn.

[Ian Betts]

Genes transmit not only physical characteristics but often  mannerisms ,traits and innate skills. Of course learning and training over childhood years and beyond will maybe change these, some will last and endure for a life time.

--
Ian

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

OK, does it matter to you that there are major scientists who say that this is not true. There is no gene for a Michelangelo or a criminal. Mannerisms and traits are imprinted. Traits and skills are learned. There is no evidence for this premise. There is lots of evidence for what I am saying. Check out mirror neurons. Check out Bruce Perry regarding inherent skills. I can give you references that would be more than you could or would want to read. 

[Ian Betts]

OK but do we ignore what our eyes tell u about our own familial traits in our own and other families we have know and in the research does on such problems as dyslexia.

Objective.  —There is strong evidence that developmental dyslexia is both familial and heritable, but the mode of genetic transmission has remained unclear. In this article, we examine specific genetic hypotheses about the mode of transmission of developmental dyslexia by performing complex segregation analyses.

Design.  —A family study method was applied, whereby the relatives of dyslexic probands were examined for dyslexia. The families studied represent four independently ascertained samples.

Setting.  —The four samples of families were primarily from rural and suburban communities of Colorado, Washington State, and Iowa.

Participants. 

— A total of 204 families and 1698 individuals in the four samples combined. 

Main Outcome Measures.  —The complex segregation program, POINTER, was used to test competing genetic hypotheses of how a categorical trait (dyslexia) is transmitted in families.

Results.  —The results were consistent with major locus transmission in three of four samples and with polygenic transmission in the fourth. In these three samples, the estimates of penetrance for the AA, Aa, and aa genotypes (where A is the abnormal allele) were, respectively, 1.000, 1.000, and 0.001 to 0.039 in males, and 0.560 to 1.000, 0.550 to 0.897, and 0.000 in females. The estimated gene frequency of the major locus was between 3% and 5%.

Conclusions.  —Sex-influenced, additive, or dominant transmission occurs in a significant proportion of dyslexic families. Other evidence indicates, however, that dyslexia is etiologically heterogeneous and that there is genetic heterogeneity even among families selected for apparent dominant transmission. Thus, while no single major locus may account for all of dyslexia, it is important to pursue potential major loci for dyslexia using linkage techniques.(JAMA. 1991;266:1527-1534)

[Dr. Faye Snyder]

First of all Dyslexia is not personality. If it is physical, they may find genes. 

However, I have treated about six children for Dyslexia, because in the process I was helping their parents. In most of these cases, the children missed out on primary lessons in school and or they were too proud to ask questions, so they got run over by the progress of the class. There are educational psychologists  who have found the same thing. With all children I worked with they had no dyslexia after four sessions. I identified what sort of reading/writing mistakes they made. I had their parents get them flash cards. They had to go back to reading first grade Dick and Jane type books and re-do the basics. It worked. I do the same thing with technology. It is over my head. I didn't get the basic education. I confabulate to get through things. I act like I have dyslexia, and complain and make excuses. I don't want to be pushed to do something I don't understand. 

For example, I have a gifted coach at our agency who I want to become a therapist. I told her to go back to school. She said she couldn't. Her son needed help, because he had a learning disorder. I asked why she had never discussed this with me, because she was acting like he was handicapped or it was genetic. I had her bring him in. I learned he had been a bit of a know it all in kindergarten and first grade. It turned into low self-esteem, defensiveness and defiance by the third grade. 

I talked to him about openness, asking questions and humility. We sent back to the beginning and got the flash cards. (His father didn't know how to read until I taught him, by the way. His father was profoundly neglected by his mother who had other things on her mind.) We only had four session. By the end of the summer he was feeling really good about himself, and he was acting humble. By the end of the year he was a straight A student. By the second year of high school he was applying for scholarships with a lot of interest. Both parents felt estranged from formal education and admitted that they had not helped him academically.  

If this research doesn't review whether or not the child had mumps during the presentation of the educational foundation or some other reason, like arrogance, then their research does not hold water. They have to look for the known environmental causes and rule them out.  

Also, the concept of penetrance is a theory, not fact. It is assumed that existing genes don't make their presence known in the formation of the person, so it's called incomplete penetrance. Now they are using terms like penetrance, like below of 3% and 5%. Do you know that is NOTHING. IT IS TOTALLY INSIGNIFICANT to any scientist who is a scientist or the real deal. The wording below is proof and evidence that this is a shell game. They didn't find anything, but wrote as if it had meaning. 

[Ian Betts]

My eldest son has Dyslexia, he struggled at school but has overcome it and made a good life as a ski instructor. You cannot get over Dyslexia you can learn to cope with it and read the words. I was involved in helping several families through the education system to get special teaching that can recognize and help this group.

As you tell you stories about the therapy you offer, especial about the flash cards, I see that it must be that you have a great presence for therapeutic attachments, some p[eople have it naturally built in, tell me how you think you got it?

The research on Penetrance seem to be wholly on disease transmission not on traits, at least that is want I find. 

[Observer]

On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:38:04 AM UTC-7, Dr. Faye wrote:

OK, does it matter to you that there are major scientists who say that this is not true.

Observer

Who , what , when ,where, why, and how .Please site the studies , who did them, and their methodology.

I should think that you would know better than to make claims with out substantiating data.

I am appalled that your mind has slammed shut to the psychological actualities underlying everything ascribed to being human.

As I said before , No genes no behavior at all. The basic chemistry of the human body determines it's propensities , abilities, it's resiliency,  it's strength and weakness and its strengths. This is not to deny that adjustments there to can not be effected by things experiential ( including your personalized style of intervention. for you to disavow the facts that other approaches are effective  is absolutely preposterous.

What are your credentials in pharmacology, neurology, and biochemistry and evolutionary biology  ?

Why us it , that , you claim, absolute  knowledge, when you have such little reliable scientific data , and so much cognitive bias in the mix?

Your posting behavior begins to smack of an advertisement for your business rather than a scientific inquiry or an explicative thereof.

 

 

There is no gene for a Michelangelo or a criminal.

Observer

All biological make up is not homo-genius some basic bio chemistry produces greater and some lesser abilities with which to function with greater and lesser degrees of qualitative  achievement.   

 

Mannerisms and traits are imprinted.

Observer

A partial truth but far from the hole truth.

 

Traits and skills are learned.

Observer

Skills are learned only in accordance with  the biological potentia provided by the physiological structure of the learner.

Why is such beyond your grasp?

 

There is no evidence for this premise.

Observer

It's your straw man,

 

 There is lots of evidence for what I am saying. Check out mirror neurons. Check out Bruce Perry regarding inherent skills. I can give you references that would be more than you could or would want to read. 

Observer

Please refer me,  to peer reviewed  papers, published by the top scientific journals only .

I am reasonably familiar with motor neurons and their function , it is however a fact that such are a part of the genetic substrata, which makes possible cognition and which can not extend beyond that substrates inherent potentia.

No genes no humans , no human functioning of any kind.

I do not deny the value of your work, but vehemently object to such nonsensical  statement that the "invisible gene" (invisible reckoned to be non existent or unimportant). can not be a basic truth of the facts of human existence and functionality. 

Psychopharmacology would there by rendered useless, and we all know that is not true.

It is a clear understanding of nurture and nature combined which is necessary to the remaining need for additional knowledge (reasonably to be trusted data) turning a blind eye to such is a breach of , reason, logic, scientific method and abhorred by  critical thinking.

I wish you well

Dave
 

      

On Sep 11, 2012, at 12:23 AM, Ian Betts <ianbe...@gmail.com> wrote:

Genes transmit not only physical characteristics but often  mannerisms ,traits and innate skills. Of course learning and training over childhood years and beyond will maybe change these, some will last and endure for a life time.

On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 8:07 PM, Dr. Faye Snyder <drf...@drfayesnyder.com> wrote:

Of course not. Do you believe that genes create your behavior or the experiences of your lifetime? 

On Sep 9, 2012, at 6:14 PM, Neil Kelsey <neil.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 11:02:57 AM UTC-7, Dr. Faye wrote:

            Some atheists still believe in invisible causes. Do you look at invisible causes of behavior the way Christians look at invisible causes of nature? Do you believe genes cause behavior?

Do you believe that gravity causes things to stick to the earth? Is gravity visible?

* snip *  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/atheism-vs-christianity/-/ScGiU9PUiisJ.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.

--
Ian

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To post to this group, send email to atheism-vs-...@googlegroups.com.

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsub...@googlegroups.com.