Hi
On Fri, 2 Feb 2001, Jeffrey Nagelbush wrote:
> jim clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >Certainly at the most molecular level, there are extremely
> >striking effects of family. For example, whether one is
> >Episcopelian or Jewish or Anglican or [name your favorite sect]
> >is pretty much determined, I would guess, by the family into
> >which one is born. But now you are saying that if we throw
> >Atheists and Agnostics into the mix, the effect disappears.
> >That is, whether one falls into the superset of religious sects
> >(i.e., the many religious affiliations) or the superset of
> >non-religious sects (i.e., Atheists, Agnostics, ...) is not
> >determined by family. It just seems that something is fishy
> >here. And if it is fishy for religion, then what does that say
> >about the other constructs for which 0-family influence is
> >claimed?
>
> I do not know what fishy means here.
Inconsistent or contradictory? We were told that the rs for
religiosity suggest no general family influence. But whether one
belongs to a particular religious (or irreligious?) group seems
clearly dependent on family. How is it possible for families to
determine whether one is Jewish, Lutheran, Agnostic, ... without
producing a family effect on religiosity? One possibility is
again the problem with twin and adoption studies restricting the
range of the family variables. Would, for example, adoption
agencies consider religion in placing children?
Best wishes
Jim
============================================================================
James M. Clark (204) 786-9757
Department of Psychology (204) 774-4134 Fax
University of Winnipeg 4L05D
Winnipeg, Manitoba R3B 2E9 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CANADA http://www.uwinnipeg.ca/~clark
============================================================================
