Home > Yahoo Questions > Your Questions About Discover New Niches

Your Questions About Discover New Niches

George asks…

Do you think people are destined for certain roles?

Let’s say there are archetypes of humanity: the artist (craftsman, or builder), the visionary (inventor, adventurer), the warrior (or hunter), the leader, the nurturer and the healer. They crave to create, to discover, to conquer/defend, power, to care for life, and to preserve life, respectively. They feel “right” when they do these things. They’re usually crossed (artist/visionary, warrior/leader, visionary/leader, healer/nurturer, etc.) My question to you is, do you think that all people, regardless of sex or race, are born to fill these niches or niche combinations? (Example: An artist/nurturer would be happy creating something like birdhouses, but an artist/visionary must make something shocking and new.) And that people become unhappy when forced into archetypes they aren’t suited for (Example: a warrior/leader building houses) or, are our preferences developed conciously (we decide to like ___, so we do?) Also, if you agree with the system, which niche combo are you?
Interesting answers so far, but I don’t think a person’s success must factor in to their desires because like someone said, success is half chance (it’s half skill as well, so if you don’t have the opportunity to develop in your supposed niche, you will suck even at your heart’s desire). Let’s say that untapped warrior I mentioned builds a decent house just because they’ve been doing it for years, but they still don’t like building. They’d rather be arguing at a debate, or learning to fight even though they’d be better at building than fighting at first. Surely some of you know the feeling of wishing you were anywhere but your job because you hate the work. You only stay with it because it’s all you know or you need the money. Otherwise, you’d be gone so fast there’d be skid marks on the floor to mark the occassion.
JOHN- I think I mispoke. I didn’t mean “destiny” exactly, only a strong pull towards a social role. Just because you fit a role doesn’t mean you’ll get it, only that the role you’re hardwired to fill is the only role that fulfills you. The forces at work in making slaves is that one group is stronger and looking for slaves. White people had guns, Africans didn’t. Egyptians were settled and had standing armies and the Hebrews were not as cohesive. They made their slaves farm and build but there were definitely leaders, warriors, artists, etc. in there. They just lived a life denied their nature. It’s possible, but it’s not pleasant.

New Niche Finder answers:

Yes, i believe that people have ‘key traits’ somehow embedded in their system that develop their actions, reactions, thoughts, ideas, everything about them. One person could be a scientist, expressing traits of knowledge, solid facts, experimentation. Or someone could have ‘core’ traits of a priest, which would be faith, loyalty, belief. I believe i am an adventurer. Ive always had an extreme imagination, loved adventuring, and thrills/adrenaline rush.

Charles asks…

help me with this biology project?

•Data suggests that humans originated in Africa. Due to intraspecific competition, humans migrated to all parts of the globe. It is theorized that humans were able to cross continents during an ice age, where they crossed from Russia to Alaska (Bering Strait) in the hopes of discovering new habitat and resources. Over time, humans adapted to each different habitat resulting in different physical traits. With the introduction of various ecological stresses (temperature, climate, vegetation, predators) humans diversified into a number of races.
•Prepare a two page, double spaced research report explaining 3 physical traits in humans that exemplify adaptation to different ecological niches
•Example – Africans have developed dark, coarse, curly hair to prevent the suns radiation from reaching the scalp, where in areas that have a cooler climate, thin, straight, and light coloured hair is predominant.
•Other traits include skin colour, skin thickness, muscular development, height, resistance to diseases, etc.

so what am i supposed to search? give me hints.

New Niche Finder answers:

That book needs updating.

“It is theorized that humans were able to cross continents during an ice age, where they crossed from Russia to Alaska (Bering Strait)”

Beringia as a theory has been discredited numerous times.

The following article is from 04.

Http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/11/041118104010.htm

good luck.

Lisa asks…

Do you believe in birth order influence? Read on…?

Firstborn- people pleasing personalities- to the point of obsession, quite confident, controlling, diligent and mature, achieve to make a difference in society.

Middleborn- Have to carve a niche for themselves as all the attention is either diverted to the eldest or the youngest. Try to please other people with their personality. Great social skills. Quest for perfection. Discover new qualities, etc.

Youngest- The names given to the youngest child is revealing: the youngest child of the family is viewed as the party animal, the entertainer who is unafraid to test his or her luck. While this is certainly not true of all youngest siblings, proponents of this theory state that the baby of the family is an endearing, delightful friend if not too self-centered.

New Niche Finder answers:

Oh yes I totally beieve in it.

If you think about it though it is very logical.
The first born is new to everyone. You want the best for them and teach it well and pay it all the attention you have.
The second born…… You are kind of used to it and there for take it all in your stride. You aren’t so scared of everything with them so treat them slightly differently to your first born.
The third born….. You are an expert. They strive to keep up with their siblings and therefore tend to be more adventurous and although may feel left out, he gets slightly more attention than the middle child may have recieved cos the middle one has bonded with the elder one and they go their own way so to speak!.

It is a great observation though and is certainly true in my house!!

Helen asks…

why do people think that just because there are “living fossils” that evolution is disproved?

Creationists sometimes claim that the existence of living fossils disproves the theory of evolution. They usually don’t explain the reasoning by which they reach this conclusion, but it seems to be based on one or both of two possible errors.

The first error is to think that a handful of lineages which have stayed stable over a long period of time somehow means that all lineages do this. This is on a par with pointing to someone who’s lived in the same house for fifty years as evidence that no-one ever relocates. The fact is that the same fossil record which shows us that some lineages have remained stable over long periods of time also shows that other lineages have undergone large evolutionary changes. If creationists were right, all species would have to be living fossils, but in fact they are the exception and not the rule: this is why there is a special name for them.

The second error is to think that the theory of evolution predicts constant change. It does not. Adaptive evolution by natural selection will happen only when there are new conditions to adapt to: when a lineage colonizes a new niche, or when its environment changes. When a lineage has adapted to its environment, and there are no nearby vacant niches for it to colonize, we should only see the sort of functionally insignificant changes brought about by genetic drift. (See also the article on Punctuated Equilibrium for further discussion of patterns of change and stasis in the fossil record.)

Creationists generally compound these errors in theory with errors in fact: they grossly overstate the stability of living fossils. Modern coelacanths, for example, are not the same species or even the same genus as the coelacanths found in the fossil record, but you will often hear creationists claim that they are identical and have “not evolved”.

Another peculiar error is to characterize any creature new to science as a “living fossil”. For example, one creationist[2] lists the gorilla as a living fossil. Now the fossil record does not, in fact, show gorillas remaining morphologically stable for hundreds of millions of years: his stated reason for listing it among “living fossils” is that it was only “discovered” (i.e. cataloged by Western scientists) in 1847. As usual with creationists, it is hard to tell whether the man is being disingenuous or just stupid.

New Niche Finder answers:

You have made some good points. The 2 extant species of coelocanths (Latimeria) represent an extremely old evolutionary line, but I had not heard of their differences from forms hundreds of millions of years ago; such species derivations are not always easy to determine from fossils.

The idea that gorillas are “living fossils” is derived from the old comment that, “If humans evolved from apes, then why are there still apes?”

And, yes, discussion of such topics is very much like the old adage that “one should not attempt to teach a pig to sing- it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.” Are those of us that refuse to listen to Creationist “theory” being close-minded, the way we accuse THEM of being? I have been accused of such a thing, when all I asked was for some information that would help me see Creationism from a positive perspective. But, again, we “evolutionists” are too close-minded to listen to reason; we refuse to “believe!

What I say is this:

Evolution is not something one “believes” or does “not believe.” Belief takes Faith, and there is no “Faith” in Science. There is only observation of demonstrable facts that lead to sound, commonsense decisions.

Evolution is a scientific Theory that, like all Theories, is accepted or rejected on the basis of analysis, inference, and logical conclusions concerning observable data. Because it is a Theory, it tries to explain, in a reasonable, sensible way, why organisms are the way they are and how they got to be that way; evolution uses the concept of Natural Selection to demonstrate the mechanism behind it. The Theory can test (and be tested by) new findings, which may challenge its validity without destroying its basic concept. Also, because it is a Theory, it can be changed to accommodate new findings and new ideas without being totally rejected.

Creationism is none of these things; there are no observations and no data. The idea that “God did it” cannot be changed to accommodate new information, nor is there room to question or modify any actual “mechanism” of Creation: We cannot ask “How did creation occur?” Creationists provide no positive argument to support their “Theory.” They call their Theory “Science,” but in Science, there must be some data or observations upon to which to form a Theory in the first place. They can point out several reasons why they think evolution is wrong, but have not even one way to demonstrate why Creationism is right.

Mark asks…

How to find my passion in life or Niche?

Im 16 years old i know im kinda young to be thinkin about htis stuff but im goign into junior year so i have to start thinking about my future. i was reading about peoples passion and how if you do that for your career you will be happier when your working… soo im going to tell u what i like and dislike and what i am good at and not and i wanna hear what people think i should do when i go to colege and after that… I love to help people, and discover new things, work on and dream about cars,race cars, be chill and listen to music(dont know if thats useful or not) i love to build and imagine things, i dont like to write im terrible with writting and reading i also dont like to be around to many angree people it kinda ruins things i know people cant be happy all the time and things im good at is math, computer, science stuff like that i also am a good problem solver and good people person idk if that is enough if not just tell me thanks

New Niche Finder answers:

Maybe you should be an auto mechanic. Perhaps you should pick up a copy of the book “What Color is Your Parachute” (a used copy is fine). It elaborates on what you have started … Thinking about what you find enjoyable and fulfilling, and then asking people for advice to help zero in on specific jobs and careers etc. Of course at your age you don’t really have to be in a hurry — some of us don’t find our true calling until age 30 or 40 or 50.It’s normal to sample several job types and careers as you feel out what it is you like and are good at.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

I love hearing from you so please post a comment. All I ask is that you contribute to the conversation in a meaningful way. If your comment is unrelated to the post or is solely self-promotional, your comment will not be approved.

Comments are closed.