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

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Gold Donor>
31,199
23,381
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.
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,722
9,087
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".
Click to expand...
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

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,722
9,087
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".
Click to expand...
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

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
80,144
160,348
tumblr_n9531jfWew1syitgfo1_500.jpg
 
Jive Turkey

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,722
9,087
Tanoomba_sl said:
You betrayed your ignorance by showing that you think "biology" and "the brain" are interchangeable.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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

Tanoomba

ジョーディーすれいやー
<Banned>
10,170
1,439
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
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.
 
iannis

iannis

Musty Nester
31,351
17,656
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.
 
Mist

Mist

REEEEeyore
<Gold Donor>
31,199
23,381
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.
Click to expand...
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

Cad

scientia potentia est
<Bronze Donator>
25,426
49,042
Jive Turkey_sl said:
Tanoomba is the box office poison of thread debate, then?
Click to expand...
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

Jive Turkey

Karen
6,722
9,087
Mist_sl said:
versus someone that actually knows a lot about behavioral psychology, developmental psychology and educational psychology.
Click to expand...
Someone that has demonstrated they know nothing about the side they're debating against. Know thy enemy and all that bullshit
 
You must log in or register to reply here.