Chan

I dunno man. Jordan's been there done that. Your sources just been there, researched that.

__________________
Hey, look. Another one.

ChosenFEW

lol what was my opinion?

once again there is NO! 'factual' evidence. you cant go up and say 'look those nucleotides in that order create the leadership gene'. no, there is no concrete evidence as i mentioned before

sometimes you have to take research with a grain of salt man. The factual books are constantly being rewritten and new studies are always debunking past ones.

but of course your never wrong and you seem to be the only one here who uses logic and sense.

__________________

alphaorange

College, my boys....college. Logic and Philosophy would do wonders for you guys. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, guess what? Its a duck.

ehmunro

Or a cormorant.

__________________
"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

alphaorange

but they don't quack. Neither do they walk like a duck..funny just the same.

ehmunro

Well, reading your posts is enough to convince us of that.

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

alphaorange

First off, if you knew anything about genetics you would know its nearly impossible for man to EVER completely map genes. The numbers are far too overwhelming. The fact that we have isolated a few genes relative to the total is amazing. So don't look for it to be discovered and mapped anytime soon. It has been strongly suggested that the abilities necessary to become a successful leader are, indeed, connected to a specific gene or genes. Why is that so hard for you to wrap your mind around? So many mental and emotional traits are already found to be genetically linked. Secondly, the fact is many scientific theories are regarded as fact based on nothing more than overwhelming evidence to SUGGEST that they are true. The early works are quoted to reveal that this was considered true for centuries. There is no legitimate body of work to suggest otherwise. The first"link" you refer to is just a quote from a person like you or me suggesting their view. Below it are the real meat and potatoes. You keep going back to the term winner and loser, which are indeed nebulous terms. What we are really talking about is the capacity to become a winner based on traits that one is born with. All men are not created equal. Sorry. And BTW, schooled at SU. 13 years with the Physics, Bio-Physics, Chemistry, and Engineering Dept. until I created my own business. Published in regards to ultra low temperature research in the field of low temperature physics, 1996. I've been involved to various degrees in research in multiple fields including psychology and genetics. I am not a professor, just a curious guy with a knack or two.

ehmunro

Then absent genetic proof what are we left with? If there are no known genetic links what we have are theories, not facts. So stop calling people ignorant for not buying into pop science theory.

Why didn't you provide us with anything to back that up? None of the sources you cited were even capable of providing a working scientific definition of leadership, even the ones that mentioned genes admitted that there was no known marker. In fact, you've zero proof of this assertion. You haven't even provided us with a genetic study of leadership.

Except that in this case there is no "overwhelming evidence to SUGGEST that they are true". Even your citations do nothing more than present pop-psychology as scientific fact. The one serious science citation appears to be years and years out of date.

I'm sorry, how did you make the leap from human behaviour being a mix of nature and nurture to Jeffersonian egalitarianism? I'm really not certain why it even has a place in the discussion. Looks are genetic (but even that is more reliant on cultural dynamics than you understand), athleticism is genetic. Winning and losing (in the organised athletics sense) are not.

__________________
"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

Chan

Or a robot that is modeled after a duck.

With this analogy, Jordan is a duck.

__________________
Hey, look. Another one.

alphaorange

you're a real genius. Pleasure being taught by you.

Chan

__________________
Hey, look. Another one.

alphaorange

Your remedial **** doesn't even make sense. No logic, no depth...nothing of substance. The fact you don't know shows a lack of intellectual potential. Besides...it was a facetious post. Anyone with a brain knows that. Again, just more proof of your shortfalls. *edit*

Chan