Search results

Should we get into the incentive/reward structures of publishing papers as a professor of a university? Just because you do one study that shows some barely-significant correlational link, that doesn't do anything to put in dent the reliably reproducible effects of...

My point is that while there may be minor biological differences in forebrain function between the genders, this still varies so massively from individual to individual that any generalizations you can come to few a few percentage points greater propensity towards A or B between the genders are...

Just because you can't suppress basic physiological needs 100% doesn't make this statement any less fucking nonsensical:

Society is broadly targeted pervasive brainwashing every minute of your life. That's the whole fucking point of society.

Chimps in the wild. AKA: chimps living in a chimp society with other chimps. I'm willing to bet they're incentivized and rewarded for emulating the social behaviors of the other females. Because that's what we do, we reward girls (both overtly and covertly) with both material rewards and...

What is your point here? My point is that the better the quality of the training, which is conveyed via language, the more able a subject is to suppress their natural flight response. So yes, language CAN influence your instincts, making mkopec's point look fucking retarded.

How are you connecting 'we all have an instinct to eat' all the way to 'gender differences in biology cause different occupational choices between the genders.' There's literally dozens of logical leaps you'd have to make to get from point A to point B there. Meanwhile, you're right that...

This is the entire basis of military training, to influence, via language and skill development, to override one's flight response in the face of a dangerous enemy. Also, all you're doing is arguing that we still have some instincts. And no one is arguing that we don't have instincts. WHAT...

Regardless, you still haven't established even a correlational link between obesity and economic development, as per your original point.

Comparing different definitions. You linked a South Korean paper using their own health ministry's definition of obesity, which is 25 BMI, where the CIA Factbook uses 30 BMI if you look under their Definitions page. So if you want to compare across cultures you need to use the same definitions...

Also why are poor people most likely to be obese? You know, the poor, aka people who have done the worst at responding tosociety's incentive structure? EDIT: Quoted the wrong post.

The World Factbook Actually no, your logic sucks. Obesity is not positively correlated with economic development. A bunch of countries way fatter than us are barely even devleoped at all. Meanwhile, there's South Korea, sitting down there at 7.7% and if you looked at just the girls it...

Then why are South Korean schoolgirls able to starve themselves for their looks? Oh right, because their society tells them that if they want to find a job when they graduate, they better look like all the other thin, pretty South Korean girls.

Well, you've gotten to the heart of this argument. One side believes that unconscious, biological urges are the driving factor in occupational choices, even occupational choices that revolve solely around forebrain functions. Basically purely Freudian psychoanalytic theory. And there's just...

What? Seriously, what?

Pretty much all of Freudian psychoanalytic theory is considered complete bunk by mainstream modern psychologists, so thanks for your input. Specifically, psychoanalytic theory is THE MOST LACKING IN EMPIRCAL DATA of all major psychological framework theories.

Then I kill your ants and the sun still rises. I've disproved your theory. Now you need a new one. However, your theory was useful for a while, while it made accurate predictions. This is exactly how science started. See this: Why Einstein will never be wrong It's an interesting...

He'll get better.

It 100% has to be a cable/monitor issue. I mean technically the external connector on the video card-to-cable connection could be fucked but I've literally never seen that happen.

You don't know much about science. A theory is valid so long as it CAN be used to make accurate predictions of observable phenomenon and CAN'T be invalidated by contradicting evidence.

That was a study of adult brains. Brains are highly plastic and shaped mostly by experience.

I did watch it, and it's the very definition of correlational data. You have one guy saying "all SOCIETIES have this in common, therefore BIOLOGY" without actually pointing to a biological mechanism. And another guy saying "1-day old boys looked at this object funny a few percentage points...

This is seriously like one step away from arguing with a creationist.

None of you has actually come up with a theory for how the results in the documentary demonstrate any kind of causal relationship at all.

This is an incredibly stupid line of argument and any anthropologist would tell you that you're a fucking moron.

The question wasn't what instincts we share with chimpanzees, it was a question of what instincts we've lost.

How is it proof of biological influences that the more complex and advanced a society is, the more a certain behavior exists? You haven't even demonstrated that biology is one of your variables. It actually lends itself to social forces being more of a factor. 'Gender Oppression' or...

How? You haven't actually brought ANY viable evidence of these biological assumptions. You also haven't brought any evidence that contradicts my argument. You've attacked the structure of my argument, which is fine, but yours is even shakier, and has no real overarching theory AND no real...

You realize it doesn't make the opposing argument any stronger either so it's at best a complete fucking wash, but you CAN extrapolate by taking instincts and behaviors shared by all other modern primates and comparing them to human instincts and behaviors. I mean neuroscientists and...

The documentary this whole conversation has been about. I'm just pointing out how retarded their arguments are, and the rest of you have helped make my case for me.

Except the evidence in your 'great documentary' is one study about what object a fucking 1-day-old looked at funny, and the other one is a study showing parallels across other cultures and saying that because something is parallel across cultures it must be biological, which is just a fucking...

That's A LOT better than making guesses based on what object a fucking 1-day-old looked at funny, when they were probably just responding to the expectations of the experimenter.

This all started from lendarios asking a retarded and unanswerable question.

It is not as absurd as saying you can distinguish and separate human biologically-driven behaviors from socially-driven behaviors without looking to other primates.

You know this then hurts your biological/evolutionary argument by saying you can't find a baseline for comparison? If you can't make some assumptions about primate biological behaviors without the influence of complex human society, then your biological/evolutionary argument has absolutely...

No, obviously chimps diverged from a shared common ancestor. But we can make certain extrapolations.

And other primates. So we can extrapolate what biological instincts that early humans would have had.

But we do know what instincts the primates we evolved from had. Is this going over your head?

I've gotta catch up to Araysar somehow. /postfarm

We have no real way of knowing what instincts pre-civilization humans had, or evolutionary-link era humanoids. But we do know what instincts other primates have, so I pointed to primate instincts that have gone extinct or been drastically altered via the evolution of language, which was your...