Search results

Seriously? Come on, dude, Steffie is the embodiment of dishonest argument. In fact, he uses many of the exact same argument "techniques" I see repeatedly on threads like this (erecting strawmen, exaggerating or distorting his opponent's point for effect, making big deals out of small tangents...

What goal post did I move, pray tell?

Peter Joseph destroys some obnoxious asshole here. Weird, that guy kind of reminds me of you guys.

Relevant:

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. 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...

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

"Uggh" is right. Still, this made me chuckle:

They met up, Elliott was supposed to make a poster for Guthrie, she felt "creeped out" by him and decided not to use him for the poster. They continued to keep in touch through Twitter, apparently without issue. Guthrie got pissed at the guy who made the "beat the shit out of Anita Sarkeesian"...

It's even less surprising when we actively ignore what we DO know.

Ramen poutine: Coloring Book for Grown-ups

"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...

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)...

Ha ha what an idiot.

I`m not touching any of this with a ten-foot pole.

Like most wild assumptions, your interpretation of my claim to have studied something is wrong. When I say "studied", I mean "I had to learn about it and was held to a high standard of understanding" exactly the kind of thing we're talking about. I don't know about the States, but when you get a...

I studied how the brain learns. I studied the developmental stages an infant's brain goes through as it becomes bore capable of responding to and being shaped by the environment. I studied how language acquisition works. I studied brain plasticity. I'm not claiming to be an expert...

From indulging in a pleasurable activity, in this case: Eating. We all have the luxury of being able to partake in activities we enjoy. It's one of the benefits of living in modern society and being able tot ake your survival for granted. In many cases, people indulge too much in these...

What was I wrong about? For primitive man, survival was a priority. For us, it's more or less a given. You can't say that the drive that pushed men to hunt is still relevant today, and you certainly can't prove it. Until we were able to grow food in large quantities to feed large groups of...

People learn through exposure. They see society functioning around them, they learn how society works and what is expected from them. The "mimicry" theory of learning has lost a lot of popularity because it's extremely limited in its ability to explain much learning. Why would you? Even humans...

Thanks for the update on your "feels", now with added anecdotal evidence! No kids are raised in a vacuum. They are constantly, constantly exposed to societal expectations, long before they are able to realize it. Yes, that includes toddlers. Parents buy kids toys they expect them to play with...

I didn't say "mimic'd", I said "learned". And no, my explanation allows perfectly well for "universal" similarities. There's nothing about similar behavior being displayed in different cultures that disproves that behavior is learned. Because that's not how the brain works.

A biological predisposition towards greater physical strength does, in fact, translate into being better suited for societal roles that depend on physical strength. Bravo.

None of these necessarily demonstrate "instinctual" behavior. Two men can get into a fight because they'll lose face if they don't. Let the other guy take the girl and you're a pussy. Of course you could argue that this behavior developed as a result of competition between males playing an...

Bears are not capable of high level thought. Can we stick to talking about humans, please? HUMANS, born and raised in a civilized society developed by and for humans, will behave the way civilization teaches them to behave. We learn to speak, read, and write. We learn how to interact with others...

I'm not going to rag on you because you're a reasonable guy. Heck, you agree with the fundamental principle but take issue with degree, which is more than I can say for many people here. Just remember that what you "think" isn't as valid as what can be proven, and in the end everything we've...

Sure, but the role they play is negligible compared to the influence of the environment. Except, of course, according to some people'sfeels. What are you talking about? You don't have to be manipulative and controlling to impose "those" behaviorism methods! It happens by default! We have no...

You're talking about behavior that developed out of NECESSITY. Individuals in Paleolithic era Africa didn't have many options when it came to eating to survive. We, on the other hand, have nothing but options. Our dietary habits are, for the most part, in our hands. Because we have the freedom...

Was anybody ever denying that men are physically stronger than women? Or, you know, could this be yet another in a long line of strawmen? Try again.

Actually, that argument "omits" nothing of the sort. Even though there are biological reasons the genders have evolved to behave certain ways, those biological forces are currently all but meaningless compared to the effects of the environment on a developing brain. All anyone has done to claim...

Wow, I don't remember the last time anyone missed a point by so wide a margin, peppered with several inaccurate assumptions to boot! Well done. We live in a developed society and, presumably, all of us have regular incomes. We accommodate for our hunger on a daily basis. We plan for it every...

Thanks for yet another example of arguing based on "feels". Biological differences are more of a factor because youfeelthey are. Social factors and biological differences are interrelated and inextricable because youfeelthey are. Nicely done. Nothing mystical about it. I mean, I guess it...

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...

Neuroscience is not "mysticism", my friend. It's a science and it explains a hell of a lot. "Dollars and cents" is not a scientific study. The fact that advertisers are trying to target people's instincts and believe they are succeeding actually doesn't prove anything, ESPECIALLY since our...