Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...
- Thread starter Balthazar_sl
- Start date
-
Guest, did you like the last podcast notification?? Well here's the second one, and for the third podcast! Yep. This Thursday 8-8-24 at 7pm Central
Go here to check out his podcast thread for info on topics and links!Go into the FoH discord and find the Happy Time Fun Hour channel and give it a listen!
Palum
what Suineg set it to
- 25,648
- 38,965
Lejina
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
- 4,645
- 12,069
I like how Mist throws a definition of theory around (omitting the most important part, being testable) while there's no such thing as scientific theories in soft science as far as I know. At best there's hypothesis. As if that wasn't enough she labels this whole Reader's Digest babble as fact because science.
The sad part is she's an articulated and intelligent person, but she's so invested in those concepts that it blurs any chance she has to look at them objectively, you know, something a scientist would try to do.
The sad part is she's an articulated and intelligent person, but she's so invested in those concepts that it blurs any chance she has to look at them objectively, you know, something a scientist would try to do.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Function of the frontal lobes: The executive function of the frontal lobes involve the ability to recognize future consequences resulting from current actions, to choose between good and bad actions (or better and best), override and suppress socially unacceptable responses, and determine similarities and differences between things or events.
The frontal lobes also play an important part in retaining longer term memories which are not task-based. These are often memories associated with emotions derived from input from the brain's limbic system. The frontal lobe modifies those emotions to generally fit socially acceptable norms.
So yeah, when you're deciding what field of study or career to pursue, it's your frontal lobes at work, not your "instincts". The little "instinct" humans have left have been rendered all but moot by the development of our capacity for high-level brain function.
Let's look at hunger, an instinctual force stronger even than sexual drive. In primitive man, hunger was a driving force behind one's actions. If you were hungry, you had to kill an animal or find an edible plant or die. Modern humans are obviously still capable of feeling hunger, but hunger is no longer a driving force behind our decision-making. Hunger still has an effect insofar that we acknowledge that we need food to survive and we accommodate for that in our day-to-day planning, but it's something we take for granted (especially since we live in developed countries) and we really don't have to think much about it. Hunger might keep a baby from starving itself, but once those frontal lobes start kicking in, it's nothing but background noise.
Similarly, any gender-specific instincts we might have have virtually no power over us compared to the role our frontal lobes (shaped by environment) play. This isn't guesswork. While I'm not claiming that we've solved all the mysteries of the brain, we've certainly studied it enough to learn a hell of a lot. We've learned what parts of the brain are responsible for decision-making, we've learned how those parts have evolved and why, we've learned how neural pathways are formed and reinforced, and we've learned the developmental stages a brain goes through during infancy. We know all this and can prove it through repeatable, predictable experiments. What we're left with are "vestigial instincts", remnants of a time before high-level brain function.
Let's look at it another way. The opposition's theory that "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" ("MAFMWAFV" for short) has worked quite well for a while because it produced predictable results (ie: That certain genders were pre-disposed towards certain fields), both across various independent cultures and across virtually any points in history. Now, let's look at the theory that "the frontal lobe, shaped by external stimuli, has rendered instincts moot". This theory still produces predictable results about gender inclination. It also explains how variations of "expected" behavior can occur, both among individuals in a culture or across different cultures (MAFMWAFV doesn't). It also explains how behavior unrelated to gender roles develops (MAFMWAFV doesn't). It also is backed up by everything we know about how the brain works (MAFMWAFV, on the other hand, is backed by "feels"). Now, MAFMWAFV will still continue to provide predictable and seemingly dependable results, but it's still an inferior theory that we have replaced with a far superior one that does everything MAFMWAFV can do and much, much more, with scientific backing to boot. There is literally no reason to keep pushing "inherent gender differences" as a driving force behind one's decision makingexcept"feels".
If any of you were in any way serious about science, this conversation would be over. Having said that, I expect nothing less than strawman after strawman, "feels"-driven sarcasm that disregards the validity of actual scientific knowledge, and more intentional distorting and dishonest re-phrasing of these points. Ready, kids? Annnnnd... GO!
The frontal lobes also play an important part in retaining longer term memories which are not task-based. These are often memories associated with emotions derived from input from the brain's limbic system. The frontal lobe modifies those emotions to generally fit socially acceptable norms.
So yeah, when you're deciding what field of study or career to pursue, it's your frontal lobes at work, not your "instincts". The little "instinct" humans have left have been rendered all but moot by the development of our capacity for high-level brain function.
Let's look at hunger, an instinctual force stronger even than sexual drive. In primitive man, hunger was a driving force behind one's actions. If you were hungry, you had to kill an animal or find an edible plant or die. Modern humans are obviously still capable of feeling hunger, but hunger is no longer a driving force behind our decision-making. Hunger still has an effect insofar that we acknowledge that we need food to survive and we accommodate for that in our day-to-day planning, but it's something we take for granted (especially since we live in developed countries) and we really don't have to think much about it. Hunger might keep a baby from starving itself, but once those frontal lobes start kicking in, it's nothing but background noise.
Similarly, any gender-specific instincts we might have have virtually no power over us compared to the role our frontal lobes (shaped by environment) play. This isn't guesswork. While I'm not claiming that we've solved all the mysteries of the brain, we've certainly studied it enough to learn a hell of a lot. We've learned what parts of the brain are responsible for decision-making, we've learned how those parts have evolved and why, we've learned how neural pathways are formed and reinforced, and we've learned the developmental stages a brain goes through during infancy. We know all this and can prove it through repeatable, predictable experiments. What we're left with are "vestigial instincts", remnants of a time before high-level brain function.
Let's look at it another way. The opposition's theory that "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" ("MAFMWAFV" for short) has worked quite well for a while because it produced predictable results (ie: That certain genders were pre-disposed towards certain fields), both across various independent cultures and across virtually any points in history. Now, let's look at the theory that "the frontal lobe, shaped by external stimuli, has rendered instincts moot". This theory still produces predictable results about gender inclination. It also explains how variations of "expected" behavior can occur, both among individuals in a culture or across different cultures (MAFMWAFV doesn't). It also explains how behavior unrelated to gender roles develops (MAFMWAFV doesn't). It also is backed up by everything we know about how the brain works (MAFMWAFV, on the other hand, is backed by "feels"). Now, MAFMWAFV will still continue to provide predictable and seemingly dependable results, but it's still an inferior theory that we have replaced with a far superior one that does everything MAFMWAFV can do and much, much more, with scientific backing to boot. There is literally no reason to keep pushing "inherent gender differences" as a driving force behind one's decision makingexcept"feels".
If any of you were in any way serious about science, this conversation would be over. Having said that, I expect nothing less than strawman after strawman, "feels"-driven sarcasm that disregards the validity of actual scientific knowledge, and more intentional distorting and dishonest re-phrasing of these points. Ready, kids? Annnnnd... GO!
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,671
- 8,933
Has anyone ever said so little with so many words?
For example, this paragraph:
"Similarly, any gender-specific instincts we might have have virtually no power over us compared to the role our frontal lobes (shaped by environment) play. This isn't guesswork. While I'm not claiming that we've solved all the mysteries of the brain, we've certainly studied it enough to learn a hell of a lot. We've learned what parts of the brain are responsible for decision-making, we've learned how those parts have evolved and why, we've learned how neural pathways are formed and reinforced, and we've learned the developmental stages a brain goes through during infancy. We know all this and can prove it through repeatable, predictable experiments. What we're left with are "vestigial instincts", remnants of a time before high-level brain function."
All you've done is list a few of the things known about the physical development of the brain and bookend it with your hypothesis. As if we're just supposed to take it on face value by association. How intellectually dishonest of you
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,671
- 8,933
Are we also pretending that higher brain functioning is totally independent of subconscious influence? Because that's pretty much the gist of your claim
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,887
- 138,036
The frontal lobe is far less in control than you think tanoomba, most of the actions you do in a day are driven at a subconscious level, it's far more influential in the overwhelming majority of people, Most of the decision making you think is done by the frontal lobe isn't actually driven by it, the frontal lobe only works to suppress your subconscious temporarily, easily the subconscious is driving most of your decisions daily. there's multi trillion dollars of industries (various forms of public relations) that function off this principle.
you seriously have no clue what you are talking about. Also you make a joke of science If I was a scientist i'd ostracize you.
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,671
- 8,933
Let me ask you this Tanooba or Mist or anyone who things they're making conscious decisions all day long:
Did you consciously decide what kind of movies are your favourite? Did you watch a Romantic Comedy and a Sci-Fi and a Courtroom Drama, feel the same about all three and decide to yourself "I think I'll be a Sci-Fi nerd". Or were you just drawn to one without knowing where that preference came from?
Did you consciously decide what kind of movies are your favourite? Did you watch a Romantic Comedy and a Sci-Fi and a Courtroom Drama, feel the same about all three and decide to yourself "I think I'll be a Sci-Fi nerd". Or were you just drawn to one without knowing where that preference came from?
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,671
- 8,933
I also wonder if either of them realize that the whole "gender roles are mirroring" and "we make these decisions with our frontal lobes" completely undermines the physical nature of transgender identification which I'm sure they both think they support
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,671
- 8,933
They've also both failed to explain why, in a world dominated by organisms with sexually dimorphic behaviour, in a species with evolutionary cousins that display the same sexually dimorphic behaviour, in hundreds if not thousands of societies that developed completely independent of one another all displaying the same sexually dimorphic behaviour, with modern day tribes virtually untouched by modern society also displaying these same behaviours, we suddenly need a different explanation for where these behaviours come from
Arbitrary
Tranny Chaser
- 28,244
- 75,985
Going to bring up David Reimer again, the man who had his penis destroyed during a botched circumcision and was reassigned female at 6 months old.
The theory of gender neutrality sold to them by Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins sounded good. Gender identity is the result of social learning so if you raise him to be a girl he'll be a girl. His testes were removed, he was put on hormones, and he was raised as a girl. Unfortunately gender is a little more complicated than that and all the hormones and frilly dresses in the world couldn't make him into a girl and by age 13 "she" was suicidally depressed. His parents finally told him why he felt the way that he felt and he began transitioning back to male. Later in life he killed himself. High fives all around to gender neutrality theory.
The theory of gender neutrality sold to them by Dr. John Money of Johns Hopkins sounded good. Gender identity is the result of social learning so if you raise him to be a girl he'll be a girl. His testes were removed, he was put on hormones, and he was raised as a girl. Unfortunately gender is a little more complicated than that and all the hormones and frilly dresses in the world couldn't make him into a girl and by age 13 "she" was suicidally depressed. His parents finally told him why he felt the way that he felt and he began transitioning back to male. Later in life he killed himself. High fives all around to gender neutrality theory.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,887
- 138,036
tanoomba's so far off base he literally went off the reservation.
Edwared bernays get's a hundred million+ woman to smoke cigarettes based on appealing to their subconscious desires
The irony of this example is the well documented base manipulation of a woman's movement by appealing directly to their subconscious feelings.
Did you know that you never needed to add an egg to cake mix? it was put there to calm the subconcious guilt of housewives?
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
TOTALLY independent? No. But the little influence our subconscious has is ultimately moot.
Show me studies done that show that the subconscious is responsible for the bulk of our decision-making. 'Cause right now, you'll forgive me with not trusting your "feels" over everything we know about how the brain works.
You do bring up a good point about industries, though. They are trying to control how you think, but they don't need to appeal to your subconscious. They know that the brain is shaped by its environment, so they're taking control of your environment and what your brain gets exposed to. The fact that industries are able to tap into and affect our thought processes is proof that nurture is stronger than nature, not the other way around.
No, tastes and preferences are not a conscious decision. Tastes and preferences are however, developed through exposure to various stimuli. A person isn't necessarily pre-disposed towards sci-fi from birth, but rather develops this preference through exposure to multiple films under a variety of circumstances.
So, that's two strawmen and a half-baked theory based on nothing.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
No we don't. We know exactly where these behaviors came from. Our biological differences forced us into roles that were necessary for our survival. Our survival is now all but assured and our brains have developed to the point that regardless of how these roles came about, they are essentially obsolete. I'm not arguinghowwe got where we are, I'm arguing that supposed gender predispositions are all but irrelevant today.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
Who gets to decide that adding an egg to cake mix is a result of "subconscious desires"? Isn't it much more reasonable and logical to assume that women were raised to believe that getting a quality result required greater efforts? The fact that women felt like they were "cheating" by just mixing cake mix with water doesn't need to be explained by the subconscious or, at the very least, by any subconscious that is not a direct result of being shaped by the environment (which makes the idea that subconscious is gender-driven moot anyway). Society shapes how we think, and that includes our so-called "subconscious". The desire to add an egg to cake mix is not part of instinct, it's a direct result of environmental influence, which overpowers any vestigial instincts we have. You're literally supporting my case for me.
fanaskin
Well known agitator
- 55,887
- 138,036
seriously you've never heard of sigmund freud?
we don't have nearly as well an idea what's going on like we do in physics but it's pretty obvious the unconcious/subconcious plays a huge role in decision making.
http://www.donvanravenzwaaij.com/Pap...al,%202014.pdf
http://dtserv3.compsy.uni-jena.de/ws2008/sowpsy_ue/98247953/content.nsf/Pages/7BBFC28FCBFA3F8AC125767700529840/$FILE/acker_jdm71128.pdf
Cambridge Journals Online - Behavioral and Brain Sciences - Abstract - Unconscious influences on decision making: A critical review
Neural reactivation links unconscious thought to decision-making performance
CONSCIENCE WITHOUT COGNITION: THE EFFECTS OF SUBCONSCIOUS PRIMING ON ETHICAL BEHAVIOR
You literally don't get it, they appeal directly to your subconscious, it has nothing to do with "controlling your environment" and , controlling your environment would be insanely more difficult than just appealing to every bodies common subconscious desires.
No you dolt, this worked since the beginning since the earliest days of advertising they used psychologists to specifically appeal to people's subconscious desires, they are tapping into every bodies common subconscious desires. They don't have to instill this desire into people it already existed, it functions with people just the same if they grew up with it or not.
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
No wayTHATwas going to turn out messed up. Also, he spent years with neither penis nor vagina, his twin brother suffered from schizophrenia and died of an antidepressant overdose, and he had a difficult relationship with his parents and his wife left him. There's plenty more to the story than "boy is changed to girl, can't handle it and kills himself". Shame on you.Wikipedia_sl said:
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,671
- 8,933
Care to cite some studies behind your marvelous claim?
You need to stop calling out "feels" because that's all you've shown us so far