Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Jive Turkey · Jul 18, 2014

Mist_sl said:
But we'vedone the science, and the biological forces at work are tiny and the social forces at work are absolutely MASSIVE. It's not 1%/99%, its probably more like 20%/80%.

Post like this give me a good chuckle. "facts" pulled from thin air

Mist · Jul 18, 2014

I said probably, it was clearly an opinion.

khalid · Jul 18, 2014

Mist_sl said:
People keep bringing up the documentary as if it wasn't the very definition of cherrypicking evidence to support a hypothesis. Again, that is not how science works. You make a hypothesis and then you do your best to ATTACK the hypothesis. Again, that's why that documentary was bullshit, that's why Bullshit was bullshit. Yeah, it's fun to watch shit that agrees with your points of view but that doesn't make it science.

The show wasn't doing science, it was SHOWING science. It was discussing other studies, that directly attacked the hypothesis that nature did nothing. When so-called scientists were shown evidence disproving their theory that nature did nothing, they went into "denial" mode. Just like you.

Cad · Jul 18, 2014

Keep in mind kids that Mist also wants to control people's actions and tell them what they can and can't do "until they're mature enough to make good decisions". Good decisions being decisions she agrees with, of course. From that perspective, OF COURSE everything we do is caused by societal factors, and OF COURSE changes in society are needed "for our own good and to make things equal". How can you guys not see it? It's so obvious.

Jive Turkey · Jul 18, 2014

So I guess Mist's argument goes something like this?

1 billion years of evolution produce instinctive, biological differences between the sexes. Our common ancestor with Chimpanzees also displayed these instinctive characteristics. Every sexually producing animal on the planet today displays them. They're certainly hard wired into our "primitive" brain (or not so primitive in reality since you need only go back 400 thousand years or so to see the non-homo-sapiens brain we're directly descended from). Yet in the past 100 thousand years or so (a blink of an evolutionary eye), language has rendered 1 billion years of selection moot. There are no longer biological differences. It's all societal mirroring. Behaviour before language = biology. The exact same behaviour after language = mirroring.

Ridiculous

Mist · Jul 18, 2014

Arbitrary_sl said:
It's a set of ideas that reinforce the worldview she already has. There's not really anything to talk about. The only reason I keep posting is because every few days Mist will pass of something truly batshit crazy like its an obvious truth and I'm given this glimpse into the world she lives in. It helps me understand.

What 'worldview' are you even talking about? I've said that I think western societies are in a good place as far as gender roles are concerned, I've said we don't need to take additional steps to normalize gender participation for most occupations. I'm not screaming patriarchy here.

I'm just talking about the science of this 100 year old nature vs nurture argument for gender roles. Yeah, I'm being lazy and not linking all sorts of studies because I really don't feel like rehashing the past 6 years of my college education in psychology to catch you guys up. It's fucking summer.

Arbitrary · Jul 18, 2014

edit - damn it, no good way to do what I wanted to do now

Mist · Jul 18, 2014

khalid_sl said:
The show wasn't doing science, it was SHOWING science. It was discussing other studies, that directly attacked the hypothesis that nature did nothing. When so-called scientists were shown evidence disproving their theory that nature did nothing, they went into "denial" mode. Just like you.

It didn't show science. It showed some people talking about science. Science would actually be looking at their fucking data, which they didn't show other than vaguely pointing at a screen and wiggling their fingers.

Jive Turkey · Jul 18, 2014

It's a good thing I saw my parents eating when I was a child. Since I'm able to talk about hunger and since I'm able to have mental conversations about eating, it's rendered any biological propensity I've ever had redundant

fanaskin · Jul 18, 2014

Cad_sl said:
Keep in mind kids that Mist also wants to control people's actions and tell them what they can and can't do "until they're mature enough to make good decisions". Good decisions being decisions she agrees with, of course. From that perspective, OF COURSE everything we do is caused by societal factors, and OF COURSE changes in society are needed "for our own good and to make things equal". How can you guys not see it? It's so obvious.

This is an inherent problem with social justice warrior types that seek to control other peoples behavior because they believe they know better than those individuals.

Positive and Negative Liberty (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The paradox begins with the idea of a divided self. To illustrate: the smoker in our story provides a clear example of a divided self, for she is both a self that desires to get to an appointment and a self that desires to get to the tobacconists, and these two desires are in conflict. We can now enrich this story in a plausible way by adding that one of these selves - the keeper of appointments - is superior to the other: the self that is a keeper of appointments is thus a 'higher' self, and the self that is a smoker is a 'lower' self. The higher self is the rational, reflecting self, the self that is capable of moral action and of taking responsibility for what she does. This is the true self, for rational reflection and moral responsibility are the features of humans that mark them off from other animals. The lower self, on the other hand, is the self of the passions, of unreflecting desires and irrational impulses. One is free, then, when one's higher, rational self is in control and one is not a slave to one's passions or to one's merely empirical self. The next step down the slippery slope consists in pointing out that some individuals are more rational than others, and can therefore know best what is in their and others' rational interests. This allows them to say that by forcing people less rational than themselves to do the rational thing and thus to realize their true selves, they are in fact liberating them from their merely empirical desires. Occasionally, Berlin says, the defender of positive freedom will take an additional step that consists in conceiving of the self as wider than the individual and as represented by an organic social whole - "a tribe, a race, a church, a state, the great society of the living and the dead and the yet unborn". The true interests of the individual are to be identified with the interests of this whole, and individuals can and should be coerced into fulfilling these interests, for they would not resist coercion if they were as rational and wise as their coercers. "Once I take this view", Berlin says, "I am in a position to ignore the actual wishes of men or societies, to bully, oppress, torture in the name, and on behalf, of their 'real' selves, in the secure knowledge that whatever is the true goal of man ... must be identical with his freedom"

Jive Turkey · Jul 18, 2014

Mist_sl said:
I'm just talking about the science of this 100 year old nature vs nurture argument for gender roles. Yeah, I'm being lazy and not linking all sorts of studies because I really don't feel like rehashing the past 6 years of my college education in psychology to catch you guys up. It's fucking summer.

And yet here you are talking on the internet none the less.

I also gotta say, I love your technique of assuming we're all getting our information from wikipedia all the while bringing up your 6 years of college psychology and how you'd have to 'catch us up'. I wonder what your college psychology professor would make of that behaviour

Mist · Jul 18, 2014

Jive Turkey_sl said:
So I guess Mist's argument goes something like this?

1 billion years of evolution produce instinctive, biological differences between the sexes. Our common ancestor with Chimpanzees also displayed these instinctive characteristics. Every sexually producing animal on the planet today displays them. They're certainly hard wired into our "primitive" brain (or not so primitive in reality since you need only go back 400 thousand years or so to see the non-homo-sapiens brain we're directly descended from). Yet in the past 100 thousand years or so (a blink of an evolutionary eye), language has rendered 1 billion years of selection moot. There are no longer biological differences. It's all societal mirroring.

Ridiculous

No, my argument is that those instincts from the old parts of our brain didn't translate to the new behaviors we developed with the new parts of our brain. If you could teach chimps to write computer algorithms, then show that the male chimps are better at it than the female chimps, then you would have an argument. You're trying to make an argument that our old primitive behaviors are significantly linked to the new skills/behaviors we've developed in our modern society, when there's no evidence to support that.

It's not ridiculous. Our closest living relatives have 6 billion neurons, we have 80-100 billion, most of which are in entirely new portions of the brain, parts that are so much more powerful and capable than the old parts that they render them mostly moot.

Cad · Jul 18, 2014

Mist_sl said:
then show that the male chimps are better at it than the female chimps

Nobody said males are better than females at anything. They just like doing it more.

Mist · Jul 18, 2014

Jive Turkey_sl said:
It's a good thing I saw my parents eating when I was a child. Since I'm able to talk about hunger and since I'm able to have mental conversations about eating, it's rendered any biological propensity I've ever had redundant

So your example is something both genders do. Good work.

Jive Turkey · Jul 18, 2014

Mist_sl said:
So your example is something both genders do. Good work.

Oh, so only the non gender specific instincts remain intact. How convenient for you

Arbitrary · Jul 18, 2014

Mist_sl said:
So your example is something both genders do. Good work.

Wait, so are you claiming that only gendered behavior falls along your monkey see monkey do ideology?

Jive Turkey_sl said:
Oh, so only the non gender specific instincts remain intact. How convenient for you

Yea, she was doing that yesterday to.

Jive Turkey · Jul 18, 2014

Mist_sl said:
No, my argument is that those instincts from the old parts of our brain didn't translate to the new behaviors we developed with the new parts of our brain. If you could teach chimps to write computer algorithms, then show that the male chimps are better at it than the female chimps, then you would have an argument. You're trying to make an argument that our old primitive behaviors are significantly linked to the new skills/behaviors we've developed in our modern society, when there's no evidence to support that.

It's not ridiculous. Our closest living relatives have 6 billion neurons, we have 80-100 billion, most of which are in entirely new portions of the brain, parts that are so much more powerful and capable than the old parts that they render them mostly moot.

And you're trying to argue, using oddly specific skills as examples, that underlying biology has no bearing on the TYPES of skills males and females are predisposed to. No, the older parts of our brains are not moot just because you say they are

Mist · Jul 18, 2014

Cad_sl said:
Nobody said males are better than females at anything. They just like doing it more.

Okay, fine, show that male chimps like writing computer code more than female chimps.

And then, assuming you had a big sample of chimps, even if you found that the male chimps like writing computer code 10% more than the female chimps do, you'd still have a bunch of outlier female chimps that like writing computer code more than most of the boys, and you'd have a bunch of outlier male chimps that hate writing computer code.

That's my actual point. Is that even when you can find small biological differences when looking at across-the-board averages, the amount and degree of the outliers in the data make those differences insignificant. Human beings vary too much from one individual to the next to make those statistical conclusions we find across a population meaningful to any individual subject.

Mist · Jul 18, 2014

Arbitrary_sl said:
Wait, so are you claiming that only gendered behavior falls along your monkey see monkey do ideology?

Yea, she was doing that yesterday to.

No, mothers are still going to mother and men are still going to be violent. But that's the result of hormones (both in the moment hormones and hormonal effects on brain development over one's lifetime) and not at-birth brain structure. And those hormones are influenced by social factors as well as biological factors.

My point is that all the NEW behaviors, all the higher level intellectual functions we've invented, are not connected to instincts at all.

Mist · Jul 18, 2014

Jive Turkey_sl said:
And you're trying to argue, using oddly specific skills as examples, that underlying biology has no bearing on the TYPES of skills males and females are predisposed to. No, the older parts of our brains are not moot just because you say they are

They're not oddly specific. They're examples of high level intellectual functions not found in nature, skills we invented after the development of the new parts of our brain.

Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Karen

REEEEeyore

Unelected Mod

scientia potentia est

Karen

REEEEeyore

Tranny Chaser

REEEEeyore

Karen

Well known agitator

Karen

REEEEeyore

scientia potentia est

REEEEeyore

Karen

Tranny Chaser

Karen

REEEEeyore

REEEEeyore

REEEEeyore