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

fanaskin · Jul 21, 2014

Cad_sl said:
I think her contention was that instincts and biological urges are "obsolete" because everything is done by our social fabric and influences now. The instincts still exist but our social programming overrides them all. I think is basically her position.

obviously not if you have to use specifically targeted brainwashing to achieve the results you want

there's really no difference in position between mists and Ignatius loyala that said "if you get them young enough the possibilities are endless" of course Pavlovianly training everybody to fit your concept of what societies should be undermines the whole democratic nature of it.

which is the whole political argument that the latest concepts that feminism is a form of societal control, has nothing to do with equality in the sense that people are treated equally, it's all about achieving their supposed ideal characteristics through controlling and manipulative behavior.

Mist · Jul 21, 2014

Cad_sl said:
Young female chimpanzees treat sticks as dolls: Growing evidence of biological basis for gender-specific play in humans -- ScienceDaily

Chimps in the wild. AKA: chimps living in a chimp society with other chimps. I'm willing to bet they're incentivized and rewarded for emulating the social behaviors of the other females. Because that's what we do, we reward girls (both overtly and covertly) with both material rewards and affection for acting like girls, and we reward boys when they act like boys. And we give negative punishment, by taking their toys away or by not giving them affectionate responses, when they play in a way that is opposite of their gender.

You'd need to show that chimps who live in cages without other chimps around, and without overt or covert emotional responses from researchers, display these gender differences in play behaviors.

I'm not even going to go through the rest. Popular science journalism is terrible and this science has been done to death for decades. And behaviorismalwayscomes out on top.

Behaviorism is king of the hill in the social sciences. It's the ONLY theoretical framework that has the testability, reproducability and predictive rates of actual hard scientific theories. So of course everyone is going to try to knock it off it's perch; you can make quite a name for yourself for even putting a tiny dent in the House that Skinner Built.

Mist · Jul 21, 2014

fanaskin_sl said:
obviously not if you have to use specifically targeted brainwashing to achieve the results you want

Society is broadly targeted pervasive brainwashing every minute of your life. That's the whole fucking point of society.

Tanoomba · Jul 21, 2014

mkopec_sl said:
I can train myself not to have sex, or go hungry for extended periods of time. This does not exclude instinct as a driving force behind those mechanisms. Being trained to desensitize yourself to fight or flight does not get rid of this instinct entirely.

And tanooba, there is literature out there debating that syntax of language is instinctual. Definitely debatable, but the theory is there.

Broca's area and the language instinct - Nature Neuroscience

Amazon.com: The Language Instinct: How the Mind Creates Language (P.S.) (9780061336461): Steven Pinker: Books

Yes, as has been said repeatedly, the brain itself has changed dramatically as a result of the development of language. The brain is primed to make sense of external stimuli as it relates to language. That's doesn't make language "instinctual", it just means our brains our designed to make sense of language (after having gone through the prerequisite developmental stages). A child raised without exposure to any spoken language will not develop his own "instinctually" (at least beyond grunts and yelps), nor will he be able to internalize thoughts in the same way everybody else does. You have yet to contradict anything I've said.

fanaskin · Jul 21, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
Yes, as has been said repeatedly, the brain itself has changed dramatically as a result of the development of language. The brain is primed to make sense of external stimuli as it relates to language. That's doesn't make language "instinctual", it just means our brains our designed to make sense of language (after having gone through the prerequisite developmental stages).

What do neuroscientists say about Noam Chomskys universal grammar theory? - Quora

Mist · Jul 21, 2014

mkopec_sl said:
I can train myself not to have sex, or go hungry for extended periods of time. This does not exclude instinct as a driving force behind those mechanisms. Being trained to desensitize yourself to fight or flight does not get rid of this instinct entirely.

Just because you can't suppress basic physiological needs 100% doesn't make this statement any less fucking nonsensical:

mkopec_sl said:
But no amount of language or the ability to express yourself will ever override the basic instincts of food, shelter, self preservation, reproduction, fight or flight.

Cad · Jul 21, 2014

Mist_sl said:
Chimps in the wild. AKA: chimps living in a chimp society with other chimps. I'm willing to bet they're incentivized and rewarded for emulating the social behaviors of the other females. Because that's what we do, we reward girls (both overtly and covertly) with both material rewards and affection for acting like girls, and we reward boys when they act like boys. And we give negative punishment, by taking their toys away or by not giving them affectionate responses, when they play in a way that is opposite of their gender.

You'd need to show that chimps who live in cages without other chimps around, and without overt or covert emotional responses from researchers, display these gender differences in play behaviors.

I'm not even going to go through the rest. Popular science journalism is terrible and this science has been done to death for decades. And behaviorismalwayscomes out on top.

Behaviorism is king of the hill in the social sciences. It's the ONLY theoretical framework that has the testability, reproducability and predictive rates of actual hard scientific theories. So of course everyone is going to try to knock it off it's perch; you can make quite a name for yourself for even putting a tiny dent in the House that Skinner Built.

Ok, but there's 3 papers from professors in there too. I guess if you're just going to say "Anything that doesn't agree with me is sensational journalism and I'm not looking at it", then allrighty.

Mist · Jul 21, 2014

Cad_sl said:
I think her contention was that instincts and biological urges are "obsolete" because everything is done by our social fabric and influences now. The instincts still exist but our social programming overrides them all. I think is basically her position.

My point is that while there may be minor biological differences in forebrain function between the genders, this still varies so massively from individual to individual that any generalizations you can come to few a few percentage points greater propensity towards A or B between the genders are completely unable to explain the massive differences in outcomes for occupational choices. And that these minor biological differences pale in comparison to massively influential social forces, which are a far better explanation for these differences in outcomes.

It'd be like if someone lit a cigarette just before they jumped jumped off a building, and the medical examiner saying it must have been the cigarette that killed him. Yes, you'd technically be scientifically accurate in saying that cigarettes have been repeatedly shown to cause premature death, but you'd be completely missing the thousands of pound-feet of force that he slammed into the ground with. That's EXACTLY what you guys are doing here.

Mist · Jul 21, 2014

Cad_sl said:
Ok, but there's 3 papers from professors in there too. I guess if you're just going to say "Anything that doesn't agree with me is sensational journalism and I'm not looking at it", then allrighty.

Should we get into the incentive/reward structures of publishing papers as a professor of a university? Just because you do one study that shows some barely-significant correlational link, that doesn't do anything to put in dent the reliably reproducible effects of incentivizing/rewarding/reinforcing behaviors that result from gender modelling.

Cad · Jul 21, 2014

Mist_sl said:
It'd be like if someone lit a cigarette just before they jumped jumped off a building, and the medical examiner saying it must have been the cigarette that killed him. Yes, you'd technically be scientifically accurate in saying that cigarettes have been repeatedly shown to cause premature death, but you'd be completely missing the thousands of pound-feet of force that he slammed into the ground with. That's EXACTLY what you guys are doing here.

Eh I think it's a little more nuanced than all that. I think the biological differences are more of a factor than you're making out. I would however tend to agree that social factors are a greater factor than biology. I think the point is, the social factors arise from the differences that biology makes clear. One springs from the other. They are interrelated and inextricable.

Lendarios · Jul 21, 2014

To the ones that says that no amount of training or conditioning will override a natural instinct, they are incorrect.
That is one of the things that humans have developed over animals.

For every instinct there is , humans have been able to suppressed them thanks to our higher brain functions. Hunger strike (while not an instinct). Fear of dark, fire, sexual response, self preservation all those instincts can be disabled under the proper training and cognitive resolve.

mkopec · Jul 21, 2014

Mist_sl said:
Just because you can't suppress basic physiological needs 100% doesn't make this statement any less fucking nonsensical:

LOL, you cannot get rid of fight and flight, sorry mistbro. Military still struggles with decisions made by soldiers in stressful situations.

fanaskin · Jul 21, 2014

mkopec_sl said:
LOL, you cannot get rid of fight and flight, sorry mistbro. Military still struggles with decisions made by soldiers in stressful situations.

If we could overcome our innate biological framework completely PTSD would never exist.

There's limits and tendencies and no amount of social mysticism will change that, there's an innate biological structure to every creature and every aspect of every creature on the planet except the mystical human mind apparently.

Quaid · Jul 21, 2014

Jesus Christ this chimp discussion is ridiculous. There are nomadic 'pre-agricultural' societies alive and well in 2014 that give a pretty damn accurate picture of human behaviors 15,000+ years ago.

Read a book.

Mist · Jul 21, 2014

Quaid_sl said:
Jesus Christ this chimp discussion is ridiculous. There are nomadic 'pre-agricultural' societies alive and well in 2014 that give a pretty damn accurate picture of human behaviors 15,000+ years ago.

Read a book.

But that's irrelevant to the discussion. They still have societies and socially incentivized gender roles.

Lendarios · Jul 21, 2014

mkopec_sl said:
LOL, you cannot get rid of fight and flight, sorry mistbro. Military still struggles with decisions made by soldiers in stressful situations.

Is fightorflight, not AND, i dont see see how it relates with military scenarios unless you are sniper who can not fight back, not flight. But for most military situations, the response that is conditioned using training is fight back.

We can suppress fear of fire, as anyone has touched a candle just to get burned, every time we jump in roller coaster we suppress the natural fear of heights and falling. When people go in hunger strikes they suppress the urge to eat, up until the point of dying. When people commit suicide, they suppress self preservation

Mist · Jul 21, 2014

Cad_sl said:
Eh I think it's a little more nuanced than all that. I think the biological differences are more of a factor than you're making out. I would however tend to agree that social factors are a greater factor than biology. I think the point is, the social factors arise from the differences that biology makes clear. One springs from the other. They are interrelated and inextricable.

This is like saying "Human brains are made of meat, therefore everything is purely biological." That's blatant handwaving.

As a metaphor, everything a computer does is in binary, but we don't code in binary and interface with computer by typing 1s and 0s into it and reading 1s and 0s off the screen. We have better frameworks for getting information into and out of a computer, or understanding what's going on inside the computer in order to program it. We have better and more predictive frameworks for understanding human behavior than just the biological responses of a bunch of meat cells.

Mist · Jul 21, 2014

mkopec_sl said:
LOL, you cannot get rid of fight and flight, sorry mistbro. Military still struggles with decisions made by soldiers in stressful situations.

You can't get rid of the underlying instinct, but you can use language in order to impart in someone else the ability to override it. Which is the opposite of what you said. You said no amount of language can override it.

Lendarios · Jul 21, 2014

Mist_sl said:
This is like saying "Human brains are made of meat, therefore everything is purely biological." That's blatant handwaving.

As a metaphor, everything a computer does is in binary, but we don't code and interface with computer by typing 1s and 0s into it and reading 1s and 0s off the screen. We have better frameworks for getting information into and out of a computer, or understanding what's going on inside the computer in order to program it. We have better and more predictive frameworks for understanding human behavior than just the biological responses of a bunch of meat cells.

Mist please stick to soft science. In the recent past people literally read ones and zeros from binaries cards from a computer ouput, and used binary cards for input.

Lendarios · Jul 21, 2014

Mist_sl said:
You can't get rid of the underlying instinct, but you can use language in order to impart in someone else the ability to override it. Which is the opposite of what you said. You said no amount of language can override it.

Wait wait. You are going off the deep end, here. Language has little to do with overriding an instinct. Telling someone over and over again, "dont be afraid of the fire, touch the candle, even if it burns", will NOT remove that fear. The teaching has to include other non language components, such as physical punishment / rewards, in order to overcome the hardwiring. Communicating as a whole does, but not language by itself.

The reason i say language is not relevant, because the same process is the one used to train pets. My dog by instinct pees anywhere, shits anywhere, eats as soon as the food is placed on the bowl and growls if u pet while he is eating.

Using a stick ( newspaper) we have corrected all these behaviors. You can communicate without language.

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

Well known agitator

REEEEeyore

REEEEeyore

ジョーディーすれいやー

Well known agitator

REEEEeyore

scientia potentia est

REEEEeyore

REEEEeyore

scientia potentia est

Trump's Staff

Well known agitator

Trump's Staff

REEEEeyore

Trump's Staff

REEEEeyore

REEEEeyore

Trump's Staff

Trump's Staff