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

Mist

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,863
23,133
Jive Turkey_sl said:
Here, let me lead you by the hand:

" "This was a study that was waiting to be done, because it leads so clearly from the current literature," she said.

Recent work by Witelson and colleagues indicated that the corpus callosum, a long fiber tract that connects the two brain hemispheres, was larger in gay men than in heterosexual men.

Brain features such as the corpus callosum and amygdalae develop very early, suggesting they are primarily genetically determined, she said. "
Click to expand...
The problem with popular science journalism is that it doesn't bother to tell you how MUCH different? How MUCH larger is the corpus callosum? Just how much larger does it have to be to account for suddenly liking a dick in the ass?

Regardless, being gay is not an occupational choice! (Well, not most of the time.) You're not furthering your side of the argument.
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,671
8,933
Here's your problem, mist. You think your social science on gender is so powerful, yet you admit you know nothing about it biologically. You simply don't know the opposition. It's lazy and it's willfully blind and I hope it's not what you're working on in whatever college you're mucking about in
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,671
8,933
Mist_sl said:
Regardless, being gay is not an occupational choice! (Well, not most of the time.) You're not furthering your side of the argument.
Click to expand...
I'm arguing that gender specific behaviour is biological, not learned. If it's biological, then it makes perfect sense that unideal fetal androgen levels at particular points in the brain's development would result in a male with a more "female" brain. Why do I have to explain this to you???
 
Mist

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,863
23,133
Jive Turkey_sl said:
Are you bringing operant conditioning into a discussion on the biological basis of sexual dimorphism? Christ sake
Click to expand...
Yes. The argument of most behaviorists is that basically ALL OF SOCIETY is pervasive operant conditioning, and that all social problems are rooted in rewarding the wrong behaviors and not rewarding the right ones. With enough operant conditioning, you could make anyone do just about anything.

Yes, I realize this a lot of "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail." But at least I have a fucking hammer. You guys are flailing around like monkeys trying to bang in some nails with a ripe banana.
 
Mist

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,863
23,133
Jive Turkey_sl said:
Here's your problem, mist. You think your social science on gender is so powerful, yet you admit you know nothing about it biologically. You simply don't know the opposition. It's lazy and it's willfully blind and I hope it's not what you're working on in whatever college you're mucking about in
Click to expand...
This whole argument started from a documentary where they brought two studies with some correlational data from PSYCHOLOGISTS who did nothing to actually look at the underlying biology, merely made some observations and correlations and then did some magical handwaving and stated that because they had no other hypothesis it had to be because of biology. All I was doing was presenting another hypothesis that could explain their data within current psychological frameworks without having to reach into the realm of biology with no evidence.
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,671
8,933
Mist_sl said:
This whole argument started from a documentary where they brought two studies with some correlational data from PSYCHOLOGISTS who did nothing to actually look at the underlying biology, merely made some observations and correlations and then did some magical handwaving and stated that because they had no other hypothesis it had to be because of biology. All I was doing was presenting another hypothesis that could explain their data within current psychological frameworks without having to reach into the realm of biology with no evidence.
Click to expand...
I haven't once cited that doc, so leave me out of that part. You keep saying "no evidence", yet when presented with some, you say "that's not evidence". You're so entrenched in your position you've become blind to what actually constitutes evidence. Go learn some biology before trying to refute it
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,671
8,933
Mist_sl said:
Yes. The argument of most behaviorists is that basically ALL OF SOCIETY is pervasive operant conditioning, and that all social problems are rooted in rewarding the wrong behaviors and not rewarding the right ones. With enough operant conditioning, you could make anyone do just about anything.
Click to expand...
yet when we aren't talking about a learned behaviour, this all goes out the door. Your hypothesis is flawed from the start
 
Mist

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,863
23,133
My big problem with current neuroscience is that they get these fMRI scans and compare them to each other and show a certain amount of activity in a certain part of the brain and saying thats indicative of something.

That would be like taking the cover off two computers, a modern Intel i7 CPU in one and an old AMD CPU in the other, pointing a temperature sensor at both and saying that because the AMD was throwing more heat it must be the more powerful of the two.

Just because something is throwing off more energy into the scanner doesn't indicate how much computation work is actually getting done.
 
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,752
8,192
Mist_sl said:
No, there aren't, and no one said gender roles were BAD. My argument was that gender roles are largely socially driven/incentivized/enforced rather than the result of biological urges.
Click to expand...
And you continue to be totally wrong in saying it.

Politically correct, but wrong.
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,671
8,933
Mist_sl said:
My big problem with current neuroscience is that they get these fMRI scans and compare them to each other and show a certain amount of activity in a certain part of the brain and saying thats indicative of something.

That would be like taking the cover off two computers, a modern Intel i7 CPU in one and an old AMD CPU in the other, pointing a temperature sensor at both and saying that because the AMD was throwing more heat it must be the more powerful of the two.

Just because something is throwing off more energy into the scanner doesn't indicate how much computation work is actually getting done.
Click to expand...
wow

kudos for bringing back the crappy computer metaphor though
 
Mist

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,863
23,133
Quaid_sl said:
And you continue to be totally wrong in saying it.

Politically correct, but wrong.
Click to expand...
Where is the DIRECT evidence of biologically driven gender roles? It does not exist anywhere. Whereas I can show decades of direct evidence that you can condition anyone to do just about anything you want, so long as you've got the time and you setup the right incentives. And, you know, absolutely no morals and no institutional oversight.
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,671
8,933
Mist_sl said:
Where is the DIRECT evidence of biologically driven gender roles? It does not exist anywhere. Whereas I can show decades of direct evidence that you can condition anyone to do just about anything you want, so long as you've got the time and you setup the right incentives. And, you know, absolutely no morals and no institutional oversight.
Click to expand...
Can you condition someone to stop eating? Can you condition someone to forget about sex and sexual gratification?

The direct evidence (apart form the anthropological evidence that you just want to forget about, but which is pretty damning for you) is the difference brain structures that were formed before birth. Evidence that homosexual brains are more like those of the opposite sex BEFORE birth. The evidence of every species on sexually reproducing animal on earth that you think doesn't count because we can think about it. The evidence of child behaviour before big bad society gets its claws into them. All you have are soft hypotheses
 
Quaid

Quaid

Trump's Staff
11,752
8,192
Mist_sl said:
Where is the DIRECT evidence of biologically driven gender roles? It does not exist anywhere.
Click to expand...
...uhhhhhh

Everywhere? Every day of your life? Across the entirety of the planet, in every known species? Ever?

What is it you are looking for when you say 'direct'?
 
Mist

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,863
23,133
Jive Turkey_sl said:
Can you condition someone to stop eating?

The direct evidence (apart form the anthropological evidence that you just want to forget about, but which are pretty damning for you) is the difference brain structures that were formed before birth. Evidence that homosexual brains are more like those of the opposite sex BEFORE birth. The evidence of every species on sexually reproducing animal on earth that you think doesn't count because we can think about it. All you have are soft hypotheses
Click to expand...
It's stilljust sex.We're still not talking about forebrain functions or occupational choices.

I was never arguing that human beings have no instincts whatsoever or that biology doesn't influence ANY human behaviors whatsoever. That was an argument that people pinned onto me as an extremely easy strawman to attack. Congrats, the strawman is dead.

My argument was that social forces are a MUCH larger influence on occupational choices than any biological differences. Try actually attacking my argument instead of swinging at strawmen.

And yes, you can definitely condition someone to stop eating all the way down to extremely unhealthy levels of not-eating. We do it to professional models all the fucking time, and all it takes is fleeting fame within the insular modelling culture and not-even-a-lot-of-money.
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,671
8,933
Mist_sl said:
My argument was that social forces are a MUCH larger influence on occupational choices than any biological differences. Try actually attacking my argument instead of swinging at strawmen.
Click to expand...
putting the word 'much" before doesn't make your argument. Show us. Where does it show societal forces are MUCH larger?

And I guess you quoted the rest of my post, but forgot about it? Are you going to refute any of it?

And what do you mean by "just sex"?
 
Mist

Mist

Eeyore Enthusiast
<Gold Donor>
30,863
23,133
Jive Turkey_sl said:
Why don't you cite an experiment where someone was conditioned to do something totally outlandish. Blow our minds
Click to expand...
The problem is that no university IRB will give you approval to do these kinds of experiments because they're unethical. So in order to get any information about them you have to start digging into Lumie-lizardman territory.

There's the very oldLittle Albert experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediathat every psych undergrad gets shown where they condition little baby 1 year old Albert, who at first loved petting little white lab rats, to eventually be fearful of the white lab rats and eventually to be distressed by all fuzzy objects by repeatedly scaring the fuck out of him with extremely loud clanging noises every time he tried to pet the rat. But that's classical conditioning, not operant conditiong.
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,671
8,933
Mist_sl said:
The problem is that no university IRB will give you approval to do these kinds of experiments because they're unethical. So in order to get any information about them you have to start digging into Lumie-lizardman territory.

There's the very oldLittle Albert experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediathat every psych undergrad gets shown where they condition little baby 1 year old Albert, who at first loved petting little white lab rats, to eventually be fearful of the white lab rats and eventually to be deathly afraid of all fuzzy objects by repeatedly scaring the fuck out of him with extremely loud clanging noises every time he tried to pet the rat. But that's classical conditioning, not operant conditiong.
Click to expand...
I genuinely find this stuff fascinating, so for real thanks for the link, but are you saying the whole "do anything you want" is more in theory than in practice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.