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

Mist · Jul 24, 2014

For the sake of your own sanity I'd warn you to stay away from delving into the internal pissing contests between the different disciplines within psychology.

Araysar · Jul 24, 2014

You Don't Hate Feminism. You Just Don't Understand It. - The Daily Beast

Jive Turkey · Jul 24, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
"Generalizations" and "declarations of fact" would put me two steps above anything you've contributed.

Why are you acting like these are great mysteries? We actually know a lot about this. The short answer is "neuroscience", and the long answer fills many textbooks and case studies. Are you fishing for an explanation as to how different parts of the brain are responsible for different tasks? Do you need to be told how neural pathways are formed and reinforced between different parts of the brain as associations are made? Would you like information about how parts of the brain that fall into disuse become smaller and less relevant while other parts of the brain that become more active take up more space? How about how the brain sends chemical rewards when exposed to positive stimuli? This is A LOT of information dude (no one said neuroscience was simple), but it answers all of your questions without resorting to mentioning Deeprak Chopra.

I'd be happy to go into more detail about any of these points to help illustrate how they address your questions. Just understand that complicated questions often have complicated answers, and being unable to understand them doesn't make it "mystical".

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 have been able to show through many experiments that the biology 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 limits to what we can see and measure in a functioning brain that would prove this conclusively. However, in everything we CAN see, we see that the brain is undeniably and strongly linked to behaviour and personality, especially in young developing minds, and all available evidence strongly suggests that biology plays a far stronger role in determining people's behavior and decision-making than any environmental forces.

Do you see what I did there?

Jive Turkey · Jul 24, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
Why are you acting like these are great mysteries? We actually know a lot about this. The short answer is "neuroscience", and the long answer fills many textbooks and case studies. Are you fishing for an explanation as to how different parts of the brain are responsible for different tasks? Do you need to be told how neural pathways are formed and reinforced between different parts of the brain as associations are made? Would you like information about how parts of the brain that fall into disuse become smaller and less relevant while other parts of the brain that become more active take up more space? How about how the brain sends chemical rewards when exposed to positive stimuli? This is A LOT of information dude (no one said neuroscience was simple), but it answers all of your questions without resorting to mentioning Deeprak Chopra.

I'd be happy to go into more detail about any of these points to help illustrate how they address your questions. Just understand that complicated questions often have complicated answers, and being unable to understand them doesn't make it "mystical".

Please. By all means.

(and you've completely misunderstood the point of my Chopra comparison, but I'm hardly surprised. Anyway, I'm looking forward to your explanation)

Araysar · Jul 24, 2014

Jive Turkey · Jul 24, 2014

Quaid_sl said:
Neuroscience as a field is in its infancy from what I understand. It really shouldn't be surprising to anyone that we don't know much about the brain and its processes yet.

What? Tanoomba knows. Just you wait

Mist · Jul 24, 2014

Araysar_sl said:

She's got a point. First wave feminism was pretty racist. Then again, first wave american democracy was pretty racist.

Tanoomba · Jul 24, 2014

Jive Turkey_sl said:
Do you see what I did there?

You betrayed your ignorance by showing that you think "biology" and "the brain" are interchangeable.

Jive Turkey_sl said:
Please. By all means.

Pick one, bitch.

Phazael · Jul 24, 2014

Must be Tanoomba's turn to tag in.....

Araysar · Jul 24, 2014

white privilege or male privilege?

Police: California Man Fatally Shoots Allegedly Pregnant Home Invader

Jive Turkey · Jul 24, 2014

Tanoomba_sl said:
You betrayed your ignorance by showing that you think "biology" and "the brain" are interchangeable.

It was showing how flimsy and information free your debate style is, genuis. I literally just had to swap a few words. There was no substance. The paragraph could've been about anything

Pick one, bitch.

You can choose whichever you'd like. Please go ahead

And in regard to the Chopra reference, since it flew right over your head:
We've given you structural differences in the brain. Structures we know the function of (for example, the parietal cortex is essential to 3 dimensional/spacial orientation). But since we can't tell you specifically how a trait is manifested in the brain to an outward behaviour(if you're still not following, here's where the Chopra bit comes in), it's dismissed by you two. It's the exact same argument Chopra makes for the formation of consciousness (ie 'If you can't tell me how a thought is physically created in the brain, then my soft science hypothesis must be true'). The only leg you have to stand on is theassumptionthat experience releases hormones to shape the brain dimorphically and that it's not predetermined like the other sexually dimorphic hormonal changes.

Tanoomba · Jul 25, 2014

I got a few of my books out, I'm enjoying going over them and finding relevant info, but this isn't as simple as "cut and paste" so I don't have an essay ready for you yet.

Jive Turkey_sl said:
When it comes to "nature", we have been able to show through many experiments that the biology 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 limits to what we can see and measure in a functioning brain that would prove this conclusively. However, in everything we CAN see, we see that the brain is undeniably and strongly linked to behaviour and personality, especially in young developing minds, and all available evidence strongly suggests that biology plays a far stronger role in determining people's behavior and decision-making than any environmental forces.

Do you see what I did there?

I wanted to come back to this, if you don't mind. It bothers me that you think you made some kind of point here, not because you're a pompous ass (everyone here is), but because it strongly implies you're just not capable of taking in new information. You think you've exposed a flaw in my logic by replacing a few words in my paragraph, but what you apparently don't even realize is that the resulting paragraph is objectively wrong. When you say "we have been able to show through many experiments that the biology has a huge impact on... how people behave" this is wrong. There have been many experiments that set out to prove just that, but they always came up short. The phrase "However, in everything we CAN see, we see that the brain is undeniably and strongly linked to behaviour and personality, especially in young developing minds" is actually true. We do know that the brain is linked to behavior and personality. But we know the brain is highly malleable and extremely subject to outside influences, so that doesn't imply that biology is responsible for behavior. But when you follow up that phrase with "all available evidence strongly suggests that biology plays a far stronger role in determining people's behavior and decision-making than any environmental forces", then you're in objectively wrong territory again. We have virtually no evidence that suggests that. You can't just take a paragraph that makes statements backed up by science, reword it so it makes false statements not backed up by science, and say "Gotcha!" Well, unless you actually don't understand the original paragraph, which is what I'm guessing is happening here.

Jive Turkey_sl said:
And in regard to the Chopra reference, since it flew right over your head:
We've given you structural differences in the brain. Structures we know the function of (for example, the parietal cortex is essential to 3 dimensional/spacial orientation). But since we can't tell you specifically how a trait is manifested in the brain to an outward behaviour(if you're still not following, here's where the Chopra bit comes in), it's dismissed by you two. It's the exact same argument Chopra makes for the formation of consciousness (ie 'If you can't tell me how a thought is physically created in the brain, then my soft science hypothesis must be true'). The only leg you have to stand on is theassumptionthat experience releases hormones to shape the brain dimorphically and that it's not predetermined like the other sexually dimorphic hormonal changes.

Wait a second, just because the "nature" side can't tell you specifically how a trait is manifested in the brain to an outward behavior, it doesn't mean the "nurture" side can't. You assume I misunderstood your reference because you think I'm an idiot. "Ha! He didn't buckle under my Chopra comparison, moron didn't even understand what I was saying". It didn't even occur to you that I understand perfectly well what you were saying, but that your comparison is ass. I'm not dismissing "nature" because it fails to explain certain aspects of behavior. I'm dismissing "nature" because "nurture" succeeds where "nature" fails. The "nurture" side doesn't need to rely on "assumptions" (as you seem to think it does somehow).

Would you consider sexual tastes to be biological? Not just inclination, but tastes and preferences. Real question.

Arbitrary · Jul 25, 2014

iannis · Jul 25, 2014

that's pretty much the only response left.

You've got mist over here claiming that it's not her JOB to support her unsupportable, misconstrued, misunderstandings but that she CAN because she does it FOR her JOB... which is either transparently face saving bullshit or "clinical psych research" is special code for "washington lobbyist" these days. It's Colbert level "truthiness". "Scienceyness"

and then, even worse than that, you got tanoomba being tanoomba. Trying so hard. Wanting it so much.

Jive Turkey · Jul 25, 2014

I'm getting trolled, aren't I?

iannis · Jul 25, 2014

No. We wish Tanoomba were trolling. He really does believe it. All of it.

Mist I think started getting drawn into statements that she never meant to make but it's late on a friday night and it's the internet so what the fuck. Not that I'm accusing her of misrepresenting her beliefs... maybe over-representing them for effect. She's been getting tagteamed most of the thread, so she starts yelling louder. Makes sense to me, tbh.

Jive Turkey · Jul 25, 2014

Tanoomba is the box office poison of forum debate, then?

Mist · Jul 25, 2014

iAnus_sl said:
that's pretty much the only response left.

You've got mist over here claiming that it's not her JOB to support her unsupportable, misconstrued, misunderstandings but that she CAN because she does it FOR her JOB... which is either transparently face saving bullshit or "clinical psych research" is special code for "washington lobbyist" these days. It's Colbert level "truthiness". "Scienceyness"

and then, even worse than that, you got tanoomba being tanoomba. Trying so hard. Wanting it so much.

I have literally no incentive to teach a cliffnotes version of 200-600 level psych courses to get you guys up to speed enough for this to be a real discussion. I'm going to get trolled either way. It's just not something I feel like doing. I would literally rather mow my lawn.

Basically this thread has turned into a bunch of people who know nothing about psychology OR neurobiology besides what a quick glance at google can tell them, versus someone that actually knows a lot about behavioral psychology, developmental psychology and educational psychology.

Cad · Jul 25, 2014

Jive Turkey_sl said:
Tanoomba is the box office poison of thread debate, then?

Tanoomba's MO is to take a contrarian view and then continually double-down in retardation to get people to reply to him. He'll goalpost shift, reverse himself, and then claim he was right all along when he's shifted the goalposts so far that he agrees with you.

Its really pretty boring and transparent when you look back at it.

Jive Turkey · Jul 25, 2014

Mist_sl said:
versus someone that actually knows a lot about behavioral psychology, developmental psychology and educational psychology.

Someone that has demonstrated they know nothing about the side they're debating against. Know thy enemy and all that bullshit

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

Eeyore Enthusiast

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO

Karen

Karen

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO

Karen

Eeyore Enthusiast

ジョーディーすれいやー

Confirmed Beta Shitlord, Fat Bastard

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Correspondent / Stock Pals CEO

Karen

ジョーディーすれいやー

Tranny Chaser

Musty Nester

Karen

Musty Nester

Karen

Eeyore Enthusiast

scientia potentia est

Karen