Моя философия материнства

"Феерический бред" говорите? Голословно как всегда. 20 минут без ребёнка, эксперимент учёных период распада окситоцина придумала не я, и не учёные, они лишь это открыли. А Вам надо лишь уяснить. Обезьянки действительно тоже научный эксперимент, а что Вас смущает? Я не говорила, что человеческая мать поведёт себя в точности как макака, но ведь, всё равно, выводы какие-нибудь можно извлечь о ИВ и материнском инстинкте, хотя бы предположения, если не выводы. Про АйКью, опять Вы не правы, нет научных доказательств - об этом нижеследующее. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence     Views on research In an article on possible ethical guidelines for research on group differences in intelligence, Hunt and Carlson,[29] while arguing that such research is "scientifically valid and socially important", identify four contemporary positions on the topic of racial differences in intelligence: "There are differences in intelligence between races that are due in substantial part to genetically determined differences in brain structure and/or function" (Rushton (1995); Rushton & Jensen (2005)) "Differences in cognitive competencies between races exist and are of social origin" (Ogbu (2002), Sowell (2005)) "Differences in test scores that are used to argue for differences in intelligence between races represent the inappropriate use of tests in different groups" (Ogbu (2002)) "There is no such thing as race; it is a term motivated by social concerns and not a scientific concept " (Fish (2004); Smedley & Smedley (2005); Sternberg, Grigorenko & Kidd (2005)) The American Anthropological Association in 1994 and more recently Stephen Rose in 2009 maintained that the history of eugenics makes this field of research difficult to reconcile with current ethical standards for science.[57][25] Sternberg, Grigorenko & Kidd (2005) have criticized research into race and intelligence, arguing that:[32] "the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis" "because theorists of intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best" "race is a social construction with no scientific definition" so that "studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends" "no gene has yet been conclusively linked to intelligence, so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time" "heritability, a behavior-genetic concept, is inadequate in regard to providing such a link" In their 2005 survey paper, Rushton and Jensen suggest that the debate has remained unresolved for so long because of "the difficulty of the subject matter, the political issues associated with it and the emotions they arouse, and the different meta-theoretical perspectives of the experimental and correlational methodologies".[58] Contrasting these methodologies, they write that: Hereditarian heuristics include constructing better tests, developing better techniques for measuring mental abilities, and discovering biological correlates (e.g., heritability, inbreeding depression and heterosis, brain size, brain metabolic rate, brain evoked potentials, brain imaging) of these tests. The process then involves examining the similarities of the scores among people whose varying degrees of genetic resemblance can be predicted from Mendelian theory (Fisher, 1918). Culture-only heuristics include searching for the environmental factors that cause differences in intellectual performance and discovering the bias in existing tests. If two groups differ in mean IQ, culture-only theorists conjecture either that the lower scoring group has been exposed to one or more deleterious experience or been deprived of some beneficial environmental stimuli or that the tests are not valid measures of their true ability. Compensatory training might be initiated and the hypothesis confirmed if the groups then obtain more nearly equal scores, or if less biased tests are developed on which the group differences are reduced but still predict outside criteria. Of course, these two programs overlap to some degree, and a given experiment might well combine elements of the heuristics of each.[59] In a commentary in the same issue as the survey paper, the cognitive psychologist Richard Nisbett wrote that Rushton and Jensen:[60] ignore or misinterpret most of the evidence of greatest relevance to the question of heritability of the Black–White IQ gap. A dispassionate reading of the evidence on the association of IQ with degree of European ancestry for members of Black populations, convergence of Black and White IQ in recent years, alterability of Black IQ by intervention programs, and adoption studies lend no support to a hereditarian interpretation of the Black–White IQ gap. On the contrary, the evidence most relevant to the question indicates that the genetic contribution to the Black–White IQ gap is nil. In his 2008 book Where have all the liberals gone?, the political scientist James R. Flynn summarised his views on research into the black-white IQ gap as follows:[61] What do we know? First, we know that the black-white IQ gap disappeared in Germany. But the numbers are scant, there are unknowns that could have biased the results, and one study should not convince anyone. Second, that the g pattern disappeared in Germany. This shows that the German environment at least addressed the root causes of the IQ gap insofar as it is environmental, something America does not seem to have done to date. The contrast focuses attention on the peculiar black subculture that exists in America. Third, what causes the g pattern is a special inability to deal with cognitive problems the more complex they become. Therefore, we could do well to look at anything in the American black subculture that signals a less cognitively complex environment. Fourth, about a third of the traditional black-white IQ gap has disappeared. This is encouraging, be we do not know whether it is due to hearing aids [a previous analogy of Flynn] or addressing root causes. Fifth, there is reason to believe that the black loss of ground on whites with age is environmental. I believe this is plausible because of the steady trend to lose 0.6 IQ points per year after infancy. But more to the point, at each age, there seem to be environmental factors that would engender a less complex cognitive environment. Sixth, if that is so, and if hints that black and white are equal in terms of their genotype for IQ at conception are not deceptive, then the entire black-white IQ gap is environmental. The number of "ifs" tells the reader why I believe all conclusions are tentative. And why I said at the start that anyone who claims to know that black and white are genetically equal for IQ is too bold. In his 1998 book The g Factor, Jensen has summarized his own perspective about the cause of the black-white IQ gap:[62] In contrast to these various ad hoc hypotheses intended to explain the average W-B population difference in cognitive ability, particularly g, the default hypothesis (that the IQ gap includes a genetic component) has the attributes of simplicity, internal coherence, and parsimony of explanation. Further, it does not violate Occam’s razor by treating one particular racial population as a special case that is culturally far more different from any other populations. The size of the cultural difference that needs to be hypothesized by a purely environmental theory of the W-B difference is far greater than the relatively small genetic difference implied by our evolution from common human ancestors. […] (The default) hypothesis is consistent with a preponderance of psychometric, behavior-genetic, and evolutionary lines of evidence. And like true scientific hypotheses generally, it continually invites empirical refutation. Linda Gottfredson has been one of the most vocal defenders of hereditarian theory and has made statements about its critics and their own alternative theories of intelligence. After Sternberg responded to her criticisms of his triarchic theory which he found were expressed in "a hostile tone and some of the substance ... less than fully constructive",[63] Gottfredson replied:[64] Sternberg disputes not a single point in my critique of his work on practical intelligence. Instead, he discusses his broader theory of successful intelligence and answers self-posed objections from unspecified critics. His discussion exhibits the same problematic mode of argument and use of evidence that my critique had documented: it repeats the unsubstantiated claims that critics question as if merely repeating them somehow rebutted the critics; it ridicules rather than answers critics while claiming to do the reverse; and it spuriously validates Sternberg’s theory by reporting evidence selectively and inaccurately Gottfredson refers to Hunt and Carlson's suggestion of higher ethical standards for research into group differences in intelligence as "double standards": [65] This standard, often reflexively applied today, automatically renders a disfavored conclusion scientifically inferior to all competing ones and then burdens it further by giving critics license to generate an endless regress of doubts about it—regardless of where the preponderance of scientific evidence lies. She cites as an example Nisbett's 2005 critique of hereditarian theory, an "illusory disproof" in the light of "Rushton and Jensen’s large network of evidence". Of Flynn's 2007 book What is intelligence? Beyond the Flynn effect, she wrote of his explanation of the Flynn effect:[66] With characteristic understatement, Flynn says that everything became clear to him when he awoke from “the spell of g” ... The reader, feeling afloat in a rolling sea of images and warm words, might ask whether he succeeds only by loosing himself from the bonds of evidence and logic. More troubling, his core argument rests on logical fallacies that profoundly misinterpret the evidence.