Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,426
- 49,040
Does being influenced by external forces somehow make them not differentiate the brain/bodies of humans? Why do you keep repeating that as if it makes them ineffective?
Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...
- Thread starter Balthazar_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,931
- 138,213
Arbitrary
Tranny Chaser
- 28,912
- 79,256
Look, we really think we've got something here when it comes to women not going into engineering and we are going to bring this up over and over and over again as proof of something something.
Mist
REEEEeyore
- 31,190
- 23,340
They can. But the complex system we're looking at is the occupational patterns, not the brain. So yes, very very small differences in brain are multiplied by very very powerful sociological forces to create the occupational patterns we see. You guys are making my point for me.
Mist
REEEEeyore
- 31,190
- 23,340
There's absolutely no significant differences in mathematical ability between girls and boys. This is both scientifically provable and provable by sheer data. So it has to be societal forces.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,931
- 138,213
we'll that's one way to twist my point which is that small biological differences in complex systems like the brain can lead to largely different outcomes of attitudes of individuals. you can remove the "very very powerful sociological forces" which is meaningless since we have this thing called history and a myriad historical examples of different societies that have different "very very powerful sociological forces"
occam's razor that shit
Arbitrary
Tranny Chaser
- 28,912
- 79,256
Where as entering a highly competitive field with substantial monetary rewards may be massively advantageous for a male when it comes to passing on one's genes the exact opposite is true for a woman. The women throughout history that were of that mindset were just less likely to sire a bunch of successful offspring and have their genes passed on. The highly competitive males that took risks (and got paid on them) were able to sire piles of children.
The dude going into Engineering so he can buy a sports car and a fancy house so he can bang lots of women isn't doing what he does for reasons any different than why the peacock is dancing around with his pretty feathers.
Mist
REEEEeyore
- 31,190
- 23,340
So you agree that it's sociological and not biological. Glad we're on the same page. Thanks.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,931
- 138,213
so there's no such thing as biological evolution then? you sound like one of those "professors" that claimed disease was a social construct.
Mist
REEEEeyore
- 31,190
- 23,340
Arbitrary
Tranny Chaser
- 28,912
- 79,256
The decisions we make today are molded by the decisions of our successful ancestors and the traits that they passed on to us.
But I can understand why you find such an idea disturbing. The knowledge that your little cunty habits and mannerisms won't be passed on to a new generation of women, that as far as the species of mankind is concerned you will prove to be nothing more than an anomalous and irrelevant blip no more important to your species than an aborted goat, might keep you awake at night.
But I can understand why you find such an idea disturbing. The knowledge that your little cunty habits and mannerisms won't be passed on to a new generation of women, that as far as the species of mankind is concerned you will prove to be nothing more than an anomalous and irrelevant blip no more important to your species than an aborted goat, might keep you awake at night.
Mist
REEEEeyore
- 31,190
- 23,340
Lost argument on basically every level, including lacking a high school level understanding of the difference between DNA and genes; resorts to ad hominem.
EDIT: You're also still confusing learned behavior with genetic traits.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,931
- 138,213
that's the conclusion i drew from your assertion that it's all nurture and no nature, so if it's retarded it's a reflection of your answer.
Arbitrary
Tranny Chaser
- 28,912
- 79,256
Oh man, I know that playbook.
Tanoomba! Did you hack Mist's account? YOU AREN'T OVER AT HER PLACE ARE YOU
Our genetics impact out behavior. The traits that successful males passed on and the traits that successful females passed on are not the same. Men and women are not the same. If we were the same we probably would have died out at the start. There isn't anything negative about being different.
Unless you have some ridiculous agenda that you are trying to advance but that would be silly.
Tanoomba! Did you hack Mist's account? YOU AREN'T OVER AT HER PLACE ARE YOU
Our genetics impact out behavior. The traits that successful males passed on and the traits that successful females passed on are not the same. Men and women are not the same. If we were the same we probably would have died out at the start. There isn't anything negative about being different.
Unless you have some ridiculous agenda that you are trying to advance but that would be silly.
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,426
- 49,040
Mist, I think what he's describing is the biological basis for the way males choose jobs/careers/activities vs. the way females do. Males tend to be driven to pick those kind of jobs because our ancestors were more successful like that, so those traits got passed on.
But just curious - what do you actually consider biological? You're basically saying everything we do is sociological, which is okay I don't really have any problem with that, but I'm wondering what your criteria is so we can talk with equivalent terms.
Arbitrary
Tranny Chaser
- 28,912
- 79,256
Who teaches the freshly hatched turtle to seek the shore? How does the salmon know to return to its spawning ground? Who instructs the spider how to balloon?