Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaorange
Wow....you're well traveled. And the born winner thing has really been embellished by you folks trying to make your point. I think what I said is clear. There are qualities that winners and leaders have that are inherently part of their make up. To deny that is just incredibly ignorant. Its the same as saying that everyone is born with the same intelligence potential or logic potential. Reading this board is clear evidence that is completely wrong.
|
Well, reading your posts is enough to convince us of that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alphaorange
Tell me what you disagree with and how you intend to prove your point. Here are comments that you may feast on, providing you can understand them.
|
What you've provided us with are a sampling of theories about an ill-defined concept,
leadership, being inborn and not developed. For this to be an actual scientific theory, and not pop-science lit, you would need an actual working scientific definition and then a concrete genetic link to prove that something was "inborn".
Now, let's examine your links. The first citation you used theorizes that its ill-defined term (
leadership) is entirely dependent on an even more ill-defined term (
the spirit of adventure) and doesn't even attempt to establish a genetic basis for "the spirit of adventure" that makes good "leaders". I can't really comment extensively on the last two citations you used as you didn't provide us with links to the full articles, I will point out that St. Scholastica citation appears to base its assertions on 19th century and early 20th century
psychological studies which are going to have no genetic evidence at all. Dr. Chadwick's homily to leadership presents no scientific evidence at all to support his assertions, while Brent Holliday's paean contains his own backhanded admission that there's no existing genetic basis for his claims about "leadership". So, what do I have? A whole lot of nothing in scientific terms.
Now, what does
any of this have to do with your claim that an even fuzzier term,
winner, is inborn and not developed? Again, here's the challenge for you non-academic sorts. You have to bring us a scientific definition of
winner and
loser and then establish for us the concrete genetic link. And, when I say concrete, I don't mean in the intellectually dishonest Daniel Dennett fashion.
Tendencies aren't good enough, if there's a genetic "winner" marker, and everyone that has it isn't a "winner" then being a "winner" is at least partially learned behaviour (I am referring to his "religious gene" claims). However, as I have yet to see any scientific definition even of "leadership", I'm not going to hold my breath.
__________________
"The Spurs are the Jason Voorhees of the NBA. No matter how many times you think you've finally killed them, turn your back on them and they're right back on their feet, machete in one hand and chainsaw in the other."
"Tim Duncan is the biggest crybaby in the NBA. If the Spurs were gay, he'd be Liberace." MCD
"Opium is the religion of the masses."
Fred Reed
"I do not know what the Queensberry rules are, sir, but the Wilde rules are to shoot on sight!" Oscar Wilde to the Marquis of Queensbury after being threatened by the former pugilist.
Those who are in the know praise
Dead Women Tell No Tales:
"The account of Kobe participating in orgies and the description of the surroundings is accurate. I attended few of those parties myself..." -- Jondell R. Montgomery, Long Beach, 2006
"Mom, you'd tell me if you were in a German scheisse video, right?"