Lendarios
Trump's Staff
- 19,360
- -17,424
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!
Mist
Eeyore Enthusiast
- 30,864
- 23,133
No. If we want to be totally frank, I think boys are rewarded with praise and affection for acquiring certain skills, especially stereotypical "boy" skills like spatial relations, certain types of motor skills, etc. Do this over and over again for the first 10 years your brain is highly plastic and the next when it's still quite plastic and you get the results of boys brains developing to be better at these skills.
And I think girls are rewarded with praise and affection for acquiring skills like learning how to look pretty (this is a skill, the middle 4-7s on 'the scale' all look about the same under all that hair and makeup) and by being emotionally manipulative. Hence their brains develop that way.
So that's why many (most?) girls go through life not picking up actual materially useful skills. And it has absolutely nothing to do with biology.
Lendarios
Trump's Staff
- 19,360
- -17,424
we disagree, been manipulative is an ability as important as strength. When you lack physical strengh and intimidation, the only way to influence other is by manipulation. Why wouldn't this be a skill rewarded by the evolutionary path of females?
As a man i don't need to be manipulative, i just need to be stronger than you, females on the other hand don't work like that, and yes been pretty is a biological trait been directly rewarded with offspring. The same way girls prefer guys that look like brickhouses, guys like girls that follow a more subjective standard ( beauty), but a standard none the less.
As a man i don't need to be manipulative, i just need to be stronger than you, females on the other hand don't work like that, and yes been pretty is a biological trait been directly rewarded with offspring. The same way girls prefer guys that look like brickhouses, guys like girls that follow a more subjective standard ( beauty), but a standard none the less.
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,028
- 47,144
Well ok, there's not really any way to argue against that since we'd need to raise whole crops of girls without treating them that way, with controls in place etc. which isn't happening. But I'm not sure how you prove that is the case as opposed to boys and girls just being biologically different in some ways, not better or worse but their desires just being different. Since their desires are different, they get good at different things just because thats what they spend their time doing. I think this explanation is equally plausible, and neither of them are provable.
Lendarios
Trump's Staff
- 19,360
- -17,424
Also where is the evidence, if we are asking for them, that modelling influences the amount of hormones secreted by the body? The crux of the modelling argument is that modelling eventually causes physical changes on the brain, as early as the fetus stage apparently.
How Male and Female Brains Differ
The physical differences are there, they are measurable. so how modelling accounts for them?
How Male and Female Brains Differ
The physical differences are there, they are measurable. so how modelling accounts for them?
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,028
- 47,144
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,671
- 8,933
nah
Also, I'll go ahead and assume it's the assertion that we can just teach boys not to rape that you find ridiculous, as I didn't make any assertions in my post
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,671
- 8,933
Where is the evidence that sexual dimorphism in the brains of adults (assuming again for the sake of argument that the differences were only apparent in adults and not children) due to hormonal changes throughout non-fetal development is due to environmental pressures rather than being predetermined? Surely if there was ever a case for correlation not signifying causation, this is it. Where are your controls?
After all, boys and girls are remarkably similar structurally until a predetermined release of hormones changes the shape of their bodies
edit: caught up to the thread and it looks like you guys were getting to these questions too. I look forward to Mist's reply
Mist
Eeyore Enthusiast
- 30,864
- 23,133
I don't actually need to show any of that. I just need to show that behaviorism is a far more reliable predictor of behavior than neurobiology.
Arbitrary
Tranny Chaser
- 28,244
- 75,987
Aw, so you are just playing what you think are the odds (that conveniently reinforce how you want things to be, very lucky). Maybe you should have said that at the start rather rather than "science has proven that the influences of biological factors are so small as to be moot."
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,671
- 8,933
Actually, you do need to show us that, because it's the crux of your whole hypothesis. If hormones are shaping the brains in a sexual dimorphic way independent of experience, your argument is nothing more than a fantasy.
And I'll point out to everyone that Mist's side of the argument has retreated even further. Now NO physically dimorphic characteristics of the brain are required for her to prove her point, prenatally developed or otherwise. Please have all references to "ya, but those are adult brains" stricken from the record
Cad
scientia potentia est
- 25,028
- 47,144
Arbitrary
Tranny Chaser
- 28,244
- 75,987
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,671
- 8,933
Mist, what methods do you use to determine the differences between behaviorism and neurological behaviours?
Tanoomba
ジョーディーすれいやー
- 10,170
- 1,439
This is exactly why you guys are a joke.
There are two schools of thought: Nature vs. nurture. Nobody's claiming one has zero influence at all. What we're basically arguing is the degree of influence each side has. if you want to get really specific (in regards to how the discussion started), we are arguing nature vs. nurture relating to career preferences among males and females.
When it comes to "nature", we are unable to pinpoint genetic or gender-related traits that determine behavior and career choice. We've tried, extensively, but have always come up short. We still kind of figure they play a role, because we understand that we are products of evolution and that billions of years of tiny, progressive changes still probably have an influence on us, even though the development of modern society as we know it is due to dramatic changes in the brain that render much of that evolution moot.
When it comes to "nurture", we have been able to show through many experiments that the environment has a huge impact on what the brain learns, how it develops and ultimately how people behave. It's not a slam dunk by any means, and it won't be in the foreseeable future since there are moral implications of carrying out the experiments that would prove this conclusively. We can't for example, create a village that has zero contact with the outside world in which little boys are encouraged to play with dolls and little girls are encouraged to play with trucks. However, in everything we ARE allowed to do, we see that the brain is incredibly malleable,especiallyin young developing minds, and all available evidence strongly suggests that the environment plays a far stronger role in determining people's behavior and decision-making than any biological or inclinations or genetics.
This is all that Mist is saying. If you're going to use science to back up your argument (and you damn well should), there is plenty of evidence that suggests we are the products of our environment. The only evidence that exists that shows our gender or race or instincts play a large role in determining what life choices we make is, again,"feels". Which is totally fine, by the way. You're all allowed to have your hunches. You can trust your gut all you like. Just don't try to pretend this stance is somehow more valid just because you're arguing against a female and a beta. That's not how science works, and it's embarrassing that I need to remind you of this.
There are two schools of thought: Nature vs. nurture. Nobody's claiming one has zero influence at all. What we're basically arguing is the degree of influence each side has. if you want to get really specific (in regards to how the discussion started), we are arguing nature vs. nurture relating to career preferences among males and females.
When it comes to "nature", we are unable to pinpoint genetic or gender-related traits that determine behavior and career choice. We've tried, extensively, but have always come up short. We still kind of figure they play a role, because we understand that we are products of evolution and that billions of years of tiny, progressive changes still probably have an influence on us, even though the development of modern society as we know it is due to dramatic changes in the brain that render much of that evolution moot.
When it comes to "nurture", we have been able to show through many experiments that the environment has a huge impact on what the brain learns, how it develops and ultimately how people behave. It's not a slam dunk by any means, and it won't be in the foreseeable future since there are moral implications of carrying out the experiments that would prove this conclusively. We can't for example, create a village that has zero contact with the outside world in which little boys are encouraged to play with dolls and little girls are encouraged to play with trucks. However, in everything we ARE allowed to do, we see that the brain is incredibly malleable,especiallyin young developing minds, and all available evidence strongly suggests that the environment plays a far stronger role in determining people's behavior and decision-making than any biological or inclinations or genetics.
This is all that Mist is saying. If you're going to use science to back up your argument (and you damn well should), there is plenty of evidence that suggests we are the products of our environment. The only evidence that exists that shows our gender or race or instincts play a large role in determining what life choices we make is, again,"feels". Which is totally fine, by the way. You're all allowed to have your hunches. You can trust your gut all you like. Just don't try to pretend this stance is somehow more valid just because you're arguing against a female and a beta. That's not how science works, and it's embarrassing that I need to remind you of this.
Arbitrary
Tranny Chaser
- 28,244
- 75,987
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,671
- 8,933
Mist
Eeyore Enthusiast
- 30,864
- 23,133
At birth.
After that, how do you separate what aspects of brain development are due to hormones and which are due to learned behaviors? Also, hormones are externally influenced, and that can have a lot to do with social structures, so even the hormone thing can become an inconsistent mess of interactions.
Meanwhile, we have another effective model for predicting all animal behaviors all the way up to humans. Show the world's best neurobiologist a full, working model of a subject's brain down to the finest synaptic detail and they might be able to give you a handful of guesses at what the subject's behavior would be like. Meanwhile, show even a shitty behavioral psychologist the incentives and reward structures that exist in that same subject's life and they'll be able to predict a whole LOT about what that subject's behaviors are with a very high degree of reliability.
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,671
- 8,933
How can you say this? Based on what?
I asked you this very same question and you ignored it. We have structural differences at birth. Are we suddenly supposed to assume that structural differences due to social pressures have an effect, but structures at birth dont? You realize how inconsistent that is, right?
You should stop bringing up hormones from here on out because a page back you said they were inconsequential to your argument.
Wait, so now we're modelling for ALL animals? Your whole original point was that it was the 'specialness' of the human brain that was the basis for modelling and the basis for instinct being rendered moot?
Again, where in the brain is the modelling taking place? What interaction between brain regions allows this to happen? How is the brain physically shaped by environment? You're going to hold your hypothesis to the same standards, right?
I'll go back to Deepak Chopra, because it's essentially the same argument. Consciousness is a product of the brain. This is strongly supported through brain anomalies due to injury and disease giving us insight into the function, and more importantly, what functions are lost, when certain brain regions are damaged. Deepak Chopra counters that with "consciousness is a product of none locality of quantum interactions" or some other woo. "show me how a thought is physically formed in the brain or else your physical basis of consciousness is unsupported". I hope you can at least see the ridiculousness of that line of argument. It's what you and the other guy are doing. Of the gaps. Your gaps will get filled with real science
Jive Turkey
Karen
- 6,671
- 8,933
Does tanoomba have anything of value to add to this thread besides generalizations and declarations of fact? Honestly, read every single one of his posts. There is no information there