Meanwhile Oprah’s best fried Gayle King Bumpus is getting praise of her own for keeping her cool during an interview with R Kelley:
Oprah and Gayle became best friends 43 years ago, when Oprah was just a local anchor woman in Baltimore and Gayle was just a production assistant. Gayle approached Oprah to tell her how honored she was to be working on Oprah’s team. During a snow storm, Gayle crashed at Oprah’s apartment and the two women stayed up talking all night, and have been talking every night since.
After a stressful week at work, the two women would hit the Baltimore bars looking for love in the heart of the 1970s.
Pumpkin Person 
Nah, I’m not the clearest thinker but I’m definitely a lateral thinker. Though I think intelligence only measures something like self-awareness or something. Or correlates to it to a degree.
That’s why when that Taleb guy or whatever said IQ wasn’t real, I could see where he was coming from because it’s almost like every thought is a compound made from a previously existing compound that needed some form of knowledge to stimulate its growth. That’s how I think organic thoughts derive from, actually. I don’t know, I think I get it right the first time all the time, but there’s a ceiling to how well we can answer questions, but not entirely sure where that ceiling lies and how well we’ve attained it.
I think I read somewhere that lateral thinking is about low levels of cognitive inhibition. Typically people high in openness tend to be predisposed to lateral thinking. A lot of what we do on a daily basis is not lateral thinking, it is regimented, it has to be otherwise we would never get good at it so this requires strongly reinforced neural networks in the brain that operate impeccably. The stronger these networks become the more skilled you become in whatever domain you apply yourself. Lateral thinking requires a more loose network that is comfortable entertaining all sorts of unconventional paths. In fact a lot of our lateral thinking is borne out of errors. Of course this process needs to be optimized and done very quickly and as long as those errors don’t bother you(which low inhibition will reduce the likelihood of) you will very quickly stumble on to a very novel and creative solution. Of course even the process of lateral thinking requires some structure, it cannot be all over the place all the time but in a nutshell that is how it works(based on my research). People that are often times impeccably precise but rigid and unwavering tend to be quite poor at lateral thinking. On the flip side some people put way too much emphasis on lateral thinking(they think it is the end all be all) and lose out on the other aspects of intelligence resulting in very disjointed thinking wasting a lot of time going down dead ends.
As for Taleb, he’s a fool, very much a reactionary he boxed himself into an argument he cannot win only to head off what he perceives to be the IQ absolutists and authoritarians. Of course I too am against those people but no serious knowledgeable proponent of IQ tests takes such a position yet the facts remain that IQ tests are incredibly good at measuring ones intelligence and their utility truly shines when measuring large sets of people. You cannot throw that out the window because of outliers that aren’t captured by the predictive capacity of IQ testing. I think of it this way, each one of us has an absolute potential but virtually boundless capacity. What I mean by that is that there is always room for improvement for everyone, so given enough time care and effort you can get an average IQ person to score a 120 lets say within a few years. That is assuming of course that everyone else remains static and there in lies crux of the issue. Of course no one remains static, everyone learns improves progresses(hence why tests need to be constantly normed). So your absolute potential is measured against other people(as are IQ tests btw, the score is not an absolute score but a relative one). In a way we are all improving but some do so at a rate far greater than anyone else(those are the gifted people). IQ tests are a fairly good(but not perfect) proxy for gauging that potential. Now this doesn’t mean that a 120 IQ person has a chance to become a 160 IQ person since we live finite and relatively short lives while after the age of 55 there is significantly accelerated cognitive decline. But if you take care of yourself eat well exercise practice good physical and mental hygiene and above all keep challenging yourself I think a lot of people will be surprised at what they will find themselves able to achieve. However if we completely level the playing field control for environmental influences that potential reaches its maximum and then your genes basically dictate at almost 100% what your IQ will be.
By absolute potential I mean a fixed theoretical maximum IQ that we could reach assuming everyone is exposed to exactly the same environmental conditions therefore leaving everything down to our genes and possibly random mutations and thoughts/inspirations.
As far as I know IQ tests actually do test lateral thinking(or creativity) so the two are not as divorced as most people think. The way I look at it, intelligence is a combination of processing speed, working memory, long term memory, and lateral thinking. However here is where I believe is where leaps and bounds can be made, it comes down to depth and breadth of thinking. This is what separates real genius from regular intelligent people. By that I mean how much complexity you can handle, for how long and how deep into that complexity can you go before your brain just taps out. A lot of people go mad trying to push the boundaries of this facet of intelligence. Georg Cantor a German mathematician is a famous example of this as he eventually went mad but not before he made massive strides forward in our understanding of infinity. He died in a mental institution.
I’ve certainly been to the deepest realms of thought, but it is not pleasant. Honestly, genius and madness are very much interrelated.
I can relate to that, I normally am a very robust and mentally tough thinker but I realize that everyone has their limits.
What type of stuff do you often end up thinking about, pumpkinhead?
Anything and everything, I would have thought that you would have picked up on that by now lol
At the moment, I’m particularly fascinated with, human intelligence, genetics, sociology/psychology(still think its mostly bunk but I think it is in dire need of reform so I like to keep track of it), the brain, US politics(wish I never got into it lol), statistics, law, history, and of course my main training which is physics and engineering.
Don’t confuse me with a polymath though(far from it) I just like to dabble.
What about you, what do you think about and what is your profession if you don’t mind me asking?
I like to think about ways we can adapt. Keep adapting, and you shall prosper.
I am a finance major at a business school in the United States. What about yourself?
I’m an Engineer by training but currently dabble in various investments.
Adapting is the name of the game isn’t it, you stagnate you lose.
Pumpkin’s blog is like trying to create a white room with people throwing paint all over the place. If you can envision that. Then you’re set.
and the paint slingers sometimes make some pretty good abstract art
I’ll make a bet with y’all. If we’re still alive after 2100 as an advanced species, then the Flynn effect was real. If we’re dead, and dysgenics actually did hit, then I guess I was wrong.
2 million isn’t a lot of views. There’s quite a few rap songs within the 100s of millions.
It’s a lot for a video that was only up for a couple days before being pulled for copyright violation. Luckily I found a replacement this afternoon though it will likely get pulled soon too
A person is a lot more likely to listen to the same song multiple times than watch an interview multiple times. So hundreds of millions could be a 10th or smaller in unique views.
2 million is still small, and I doubt only ten million have listened to xo tour life by lil uzi vert. Rap is still more popular than Oprah. Oprah can only make it as a reactive persona.
At least in her prime, Oprah was popular enough to be voted one of the 10 greatest americans of all time. No rapper even made the top 25, unless muhammad ali counts:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4631421.stm
MeLo listening to xo Tour Life is the funniest thing I’ve heard in my entire life. Of course rappers won’t be influential, it’s a cult dedicated to violence and red pill stuff pretty much! No doubt there’s some really good content within the music, but it’s not made for everyone. I guess everyone knows that, though, or at least I thought they did.
lol, I like a lot of music in general. Rap is just my favorite and Uzi was just an example.
Rap has beaten rock in influence in the past two years, this has been accumulating since the 90s. It’s also more influential in internet culture which is a huge thing.
I wouldnt be surprised if Drake had more middle aged white women listening to him than Oprah. He’s the current king of “Hip-pop”.
The redpill shit is half the reason it works. You cannot deny instincts.
a song worshiping oprah has 355 million views:
pill’s right that the people watch music videos over and over
but it’s interesting that the current king of hip-hop is half-jewish. Perhaps jewish IQ is so high they can even beat blacks at their own game. or maybe it’s just jewish privilege.
Delete that first one Pumpkin
So what? Humble by Kendrick Lamar has 619 million views. That’s not counting the many other ways people can hear the song. That’s 1 song an album that made number 1 in Canada, the UK, and the usa, while also winning the Pulitzer prize.
No I said “Hip Pop”. The king of rap/hip hop is Kendrick Lamar and that is undisputed. The dude has 4 perfect albums and has beat Drake multiple times as far as sales go despite how much more intelligent his lyrics are.(Usually you have to dumb down lyrics to gain a mainstream following)
Drake could be an intelligent fellow but that’s not why he is successful. He has slightly above average rap skills but a pretty decent singing voice. As everyone knows singing takes less skill than rap. He’s successful because he’s poppy.
Drake has dropped MJ’s music from his tour:
In fact Drake has a reputation. For trying too hard to be black. Pusha t got nominated for a Grammy because he called him out on his bullshit:
I remember watching Drake on DeGrassi. At the time he was just a local celeb, we had no idea he would become so famous.
Yeah dudes lasted longer than most people expected
Rappers have lived their the best and worst lives. What makes you think they wouldn’t be telling the truth?
Youtube deletes repeat wathcers after an while.
In this same poll, George Bush came 6th, ahead of oprah. So make of the sample what you like.
Which is one of the reasons the poll seems accurate. In the several years following 9/11, GWB was an absolute God in the U.S. If you criticized him even slightly you’d get lynched.
No it just makes the poll seem a relic of its time. If they did the poll again I doubt Bush would be in the top 50.
All polls are a relic of their time. I cited it to prove only that Oprah was at least at one time the most worshipped woman in American history.
If they did the poll today the obamas & trump would probably make the top 10. Both bush & bill Clinton would be out of the top 10.
And oprah would also be out of the top 10.
Oprah might still narrowly make the top 10. She’s now second only to Meeeeeesshell among living women:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1678/most-admired-man-woman.aspx
For context 3 times as many people said their friend or relative more than oprah.
That’s why making the Gallup poll at all is so impressive. You need to get millions of Americans to admire you even more than they admire their own parent, child, best friend or spouse. No easy task. And Oprah’s ranked high every year since 1988.
Thats funny, I would have thought becoming more admired than someones friend or parent was not a significant achievement.
Of course it’s a huge achievement. People give their lives to save family. The fact that people admire public figures they’ve never met more than their own flesh and blood and their spouses would be disgusting to many people
hip-hop artists have the most dark triad personalities.
Okay Pumpkinhead, I’ll describe it like this. Isn’t all knowledge going to improve further knowledge? As long as knowledge exists, and as long as we don’t forget that knowledge, we should receive new knowledge in the future. This knowledge is going to further improve our quality of life, thus achieving us better access into the future.
That is the general trend we are following but this doesn’t come without dangers. We still have yet to escape the danger the knowledge of nuclear physics first presented in 1945. We are still in the red zone with regard to that. Some(particularly on the left) claim that the study and acknowledgement of human biodiversity particularly when it applies to intelligence also falls in the category of dangerous knowledge. Add to that propaganda, misinformation, zealotry, the tendency for totalitarianism, corruption and possibly the biggest danger of all human stupidity we are still not entirely in the clear. There are pitfalls abound and inumerable ways this can all go tits up. I’m still overall an optimist but cautiously so.
Pumpkinhead, I think you’ve got a great abstract intuitiveness to ya. Keep it up, it’ll take you places.
I appreciate that, I have a very fertile mind, with things that interest me that is. You do too btw.
Pumpkin’s one funny fella.
Which pumpkin?
Person.
Ahh the OG pumpkin, yes he does have a laconic sense of humour.
I wouldn’t say it’s necessary to be more intelligent but to be more rational. People aren’t doing the right rationalizations and don’t understand how much the average person rationalizes. Damn. Real shit.
Rationality can lead someone to the moral truth. Usually, the moral truth isn’t something we’d choose to hear, but we must.
Wow, bernie 40 years ago.
I like bernie a lot. He even agrees with me on borders but sadly, the dem party has become a jim jones cult.
Bernie mentions david rockefeller obliquely. He says “2% of the population control everything. They sit on the boards of Chase Manhatten Bank, major corporations”.
For a good part of the 20th century, David Rockefeller was more powerful than most siting presidents. People who read the Devils Chessboard will know it.
Bernie Sanders would be a GREAT president.
But the number 1 issue these days is the border, which sadly he has changed his views on due to (((pressure))) from the media.
See Puppy, I have no problem endorsing a jew.
Bernie seems like a genuine Jew non-hack sophist in terms of economics. What do you make of this pp? Is he simply a hold over from the old Jewish support for Marxism in the US or has he transcended his EGI?
Sanders is/was ostensibly anti-establishment, but he’s also a cuck, and therefore would not make a good President. He would be like Trump, cucking for the establishment.
Normally I don’t allow commentless “comments” because they look like spam. Next time include a comment with the video
I see. Sorry about that.
There’s some news about SAT cheating. I can’t believe the college board gives people double time. It makes me so sad.
At least 1/3 of my private high school class took the test with some sort of an accommodation. Fortunately, the new SAT—especially the verbal sections—are more about comprehension and less about speed than they used to be, so the double time probably didn’t make a massive difference. But most of them scored about 100 points higher than they other would’ve.
The worst part about it is that the students who take the test with double time aren’t required to report it to the universities they apply to. Mandating that alone would solve the entire problem.
Could Andrew Yang have the highest IQ of any presidential candidate?
– He is East Asian
– His father had a PhD in physics and did research at IBM and GE, generating around 90 patents
– His mother is also highly educated, with a masters degree in statistics
– He did so well on the GMAT that he became the CEO of a test prep company
“I had very little going for me as a kid except for the fact that I had demanding parents and was very good at filling out bubbles on standardized tests. I went to the Center for Talented Youth at Johns Hopkins University because I did well on the SAT. I went to Exeter because I did well on the SAT. I got into Stanford and Brown because I did well on the SAT. I went to law school at Columbia because I did well on the LSAT, which led directly to a six-figure job. I even became the CEO of an education company in part because I did well on the GMAT.
great research! i had no idea.
#YangGang2020
I wonder what I’ll spend my 1000 #YangBucks on every month
It’s too bad he’s a total progressive.
Since he is for reparations, whether or not he intends to go through with it, as he will be compelled to by his cohort, obviously there will be some deduction on YangBux for white people.
His only practical high IQ position is giving people means to subsist, not even combat, after the fallout of automation. Other than that, he is thoroughly progressive, open borders, decadence-enabling liberal. Just another out-of-touch elite. Though he may not be as contemptuous towards the lower class, he definitely disregards them. He just doesn’t want them to chimpout, so need to be preemptive about this.
If hes for reparations his IQ isn’t that high.
Why?
Because hes historically illiterate and can’t work out the people that exist today shouldn’t pay for the deeds of people that existed 300 years ago. And its not like the people paying it aren’t mixed in family and genetic heritage with people that never took part!
I can see this is a sensitive topic for you. Let it be known that im sure bill gates has paid all the reparations owed on behalf of ‘white colonialist british landowners c 1700-1850’
It’s not sensitive to me at all. I just wanted to hear your argument because there have been other groups who received reparations for historical grievances.
https://dailycaller.com/2018/11/17/andrew-yang-2020-social-credit/
You need a high IQ to understand the nuances of having a social credit system and its benefits, that will totally not be corrupted.
“Unlike the Chinese system, Yang’s plan does not include using digital social credit for punitive measures.”
Like, totally.
And I seem to have overreached in my analysis. He says YangBux will be a near equivalent for reparations. But again, using that language invites a policy in that direction that doesn’t bode well for white people.
Off-topic:
pumpkinhead, re gender.
Something is “natural” if it’s socially unmediated and inevitable. Gender is socially mediated and not inevitable; gender constructs change with the times. Therefore, gender isn’t “natural.”
Read this article by Fausto-Sterling.
Also, what does everyone think about the claim that there are “male and female brains”?
(I) Something is “natural” if it’s socially unmediated and inevitable.
(ii) Gender is socially mediated and not inevitable; gender roles change with the times.
(c) Therefore, gender is not “natural” since it’s socially mediated and not inevitable.
Sexual dimorphism is the modus operandi of nature, I would assume for over 90% of species(don’t know the exact figure but I think this applies to almost all living things that are not plants or other simple organisms). Human beings belong to a class of animals that are profoundly sexually dimorphic(males are taller/larger, more hairy, different sexual organs, different hormones etc). Now this had to evolve over time and it appears that this evolution goes back hundreds of millions of years. Now unless you are proposing that just because in theory we can alter humans and make them sexually monomorphic over the span of a few million years through natural means this somehow makes gender(highly correlated with sex assuming you even subscribe to the ideas that there is a difference) a social construct then I would say that without a shadow of a doubt gender is categorically NOT a social construct. Note the words natural and millions of years. Social constructs are things we can alter with relative ease and can take virtually any form restricted only by our own imagination and are not naturally instantiated. Technology and genetic engineering may one day give us the ability to play this game but this does not change the present reality and certainly not the past. Do not confuse evolution over millions of years with social constructs even though we theoretically had a hand to play in in that evolution(well not us but our chimp like ancestors).
Also do not confuse gender role across time(which has a lot of wiggle room) with biological sex, after all we are talking about behaviour here. What does remain constant however is that this behaviour(gender role) will invariably ALWAYS fit a bi-modal distribution of male to female(as far as humans are concerned) due to our underlying genetics. In other words if we try to effeminise men(assuming that is even possible) this will have a knock on effect on women. Compare for example your grandmother to your mother, you will notice your grandmother being perhaps a little tougher overall, due to the demands of her era. Women today are hyper empathetic as are some men too, its just different times.
Now I appreciate that there are animals that are matriarchical(females are larger and dominate over males) hyenas are a good example but these are few and far between. In theory we could alter this by forcing small men to mate with large women however this would likely take many hundreds of thousands of years if not millions of years. Don’t expect to create a matriarchical society today though, not when men are significantly larger than women and possibly have a cognitive/behavioural advantage too. It would simply be impossible. The best we could do is restructure society to increase reverence for women in a purely meritocratic way. I am in favour of that particularly if this is focused on their strengths over men(they do have them) but make sure we do not do this at the expense of the strengths men have.
Which brings me to the brain which much like almost all other body parts and organs does exhibit sexual dimorphism. Male brains are 10% larger, and have more neurons(particularly the frontal lobe, 20% more in fact) while there are other subtle differences like greater interhemispheric connectivity in women and greater intra-hemispheric connectivity in men and various regions being larger in females and others in men. So to answer your question yes there IS such a thing as a male brain and a female brain, you would have to be blind not to see that.
The confusion is created primarily because the human brain is also very plastic so in theory you can alter the brain chemistry and configuration and make a male brain more female like, but don’t expect anything too major, on average the difference is virtually set in stone and would take millions of years to alter on a mass scale. We can try to force it in the short term but more than likely we would induce a mental health crisis beyond anything you can possibly imagine to the degree that it might wipe us out as a species. On an individual level though there might be a little more wiggle room which is why you get all these people playing around with social norms just because they can. Not everyone can do that, requires high openness and somewhat of a predisposition to it. We are talking about a really tiny minority here. The great majority of people are not remotely predisposed or open to this sort of thing and I don’t see how it would be a good idea to even try to change them. I think we simply have to accept this dimorphism and just focus on reducing the more egregious and negative manifestations within men AND women which at the end of the day can simply be broken down to individual aspects of character and personality. I think it is far better to view it that way than to inflame the sex wars with ideas like toxic masculinity and such.
First para: Why are you conflating “sex” and “gender”? My argument did not bring up sex; I acknowledge that sex is biological.
“do not confuse gender role across time(which has a lot of wiggle room) with biological sex”
I didn’t; they’re distinct concepts.
“Compare for example your grandmother to your mother, you will notice your grandmother being perhaps a little tougher overall, due to the demands of her era”
Proving my point.
Third para: Irrelevant. I don’t “expect to create a matriarchical society”. This is irrelevant to my argument.
Fourth para: When do features count as those “typical” of a “male-typical” brain? If you can name these features of a “typical” male brain, how many of these features does a brain need to exhibit to be classified as a “male” brain? Take the same two questions and then apply it to females.
“Why are you conflating “sex” and “gender”? My argument did not bring up sex; I acknowledge that sex is biological.”
Well gender and sex have historically been used interchangeably. It’s only recently that people have been trying to make a distinction and most that do this do so for ideological reasons. Regardless I happen to believe that there is some utility in differentiating the two but only on an academic level. First of all they are not distinct concepts, they are highly correlated, perhaps the highest correlation of biological to behavioral that we know of. Well, let me backtrack a little and say that sex is a biological classification and gender can be seen as a behavioral classification but that behavior is almost entirely dictated by the biology. So much so that the two overlap significantly when plotted on a distribution graph. They show a bi-modal distribution meaning on a scale of hypermasculine to hyperfeminine most males cluster at the masculine mean and most women cluster at the feminine mean. This is not socially constructed, it is borne out of our biology. We would have to run some kind of gulag level brainwashing camp in order to shape men to be effeminite and women to be masculine and even then we would likely only be marginally succesfull and would likely reverse once the experiment is over. So what does that mean, well it means that even though our collective behavior changes over time the changes are superficial and regardless of era there always is a disparity between men and women in terms of behavior. You can cherry pick time periods and compare men from an effeminite era(no time like the present) and women from an masculine era(perhaps stone age era) and you might bridge the gap but that is an unfair comparison. The idea is that you compare people from the same era. All you need to do is look at masculine things and feminine things people like to do and see participation rates between the sexes. Invariably you will find a strong correlation of male to masculine and female to feminine. People that like to pretend that it is all socially constructed are bat shit crazy.
““Compare for example your grandmother to your mother, you will notice your grandmother being perhaps a little tougher overall, due to the demands of her era”
Proving my point.”
I hope I have addressed this adequately above.
“Fourth para: When do features count as those “typical” of a “male-typical” brain? If you can name these features of a “typical” male brain, how many of these features does a brain need to exhibit to be classified as a “male” brain? Take the same two questions and then apply it to females.”
I’ve already named a few of the differences. Keep in mind that these are average differences. If you wish to delve into it deeper then allow me to suggest the following reading material.
For a more politically correct primer you can start here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences
a pretty good study that goes in depth:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3969295/
Some answers on quora:
https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-differences-between-male-and-female-brains-1
A pretty good read:
https://stanmed.stanford.edu/2017spring/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different.html
a consice list of major differences:
https://www.learning-mind.com/male-brain-vs-female-brain-20-differences/
I would avoid any newspaper or magazine articles and this also includes science mags like New Scientist(though scientific american is slightly better) they are very often PC garbage.
“Sex” and “gender” are not coextensive. “Gender” refers to sociocultural differences between the groups; “sex” refers to biological differences between the groups.
“This is not socially constructed, it is borne out of our biology.”
Developmental experiences shape the structure and function of the brain (see ref 1 below). Saying that some things are “borne out of our biology” betrays the interaction between nature and nurture.
“I’ve already named a few of the differences. Keep in mind that these are average differences. If you wish to delve into it deeper then allow me to suggest the following reading material.”
When do features count as those “typical” of a “male-typical” brain? If you can name these features of a “typical” male brain, how many of these features does a brain need to exhibit to be classified as a “male” brain? Take the same two questions and then apply it to females.
Male and female brains are a myth; sex differences in the brain are not. No one claims that there are no sex differences in the brain.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3176412/
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00677-x
I would like to stress that I claim that there is no “true dimorphism” that is obscured by genetically and environmentally induced variability. There are no “true” “male” and “female” brains out there to discover. The true nature of the brain is that its form is highly variable. This variability is created by the interaction of genes (on sex chromosomes and on autosomal chromosomes), hormones (gonadal and others) and environment, in utero and throughout life.
RaceRealist
““Sex” and “gender” are not coextensive. “Gender” refers to sociocultural differences between the groups; “sex” refers to biological differences between the groups.”
Nonsense, gender does not refer to sociocultural differences, it refers to behavioural differences. Sex dictates in large part what the gender will be(assuming we subscribe to the idea that they describe different facets of the same underlying concept). I tell you what, lets envision the perfect experiment in which we remove all notions of gender, raise children equally, no mention of male or female but likewise no ideological indoctrination. Everything else in the world exists except for things that pertain to gender or sex. Do you think that females will exhibit the same behavioural characteristics as males? Not a chance in hell that would happen. Keep in mind I’m talking on average and once we figure out the male mean and the female mean.
Regardless, I think you would be well served to read some of the links I left you. You would not be making these arguments if you had.
“When do features count as those “typical” of a “male-typical” brain? If you can name these features of a “typical” male brain, how many of these features does a brain need to exhibit to be classified as a “male” brain? Take the same two questions and then apply it to females.”
I could enumerate them but that would take me forever which is why I left you all those links.
“Male and female brains are a myth; sex differences in the brain are not. No one claims that there are no sex differences in the brain.”
If you acknowledge there are sex differences in the brain then by default one can assert with a high degree of certainty that there is such a thing as a male neurotypical brain and a female neurotypical brain. Once again i’m baffled by your assertions. It’s like you are saying there are no apples but apple like things. This is nonsensical, we are talking about averages here the very theme upon this entire blog in large part hinges upon(average IQ and brain size differences between groups). Or is it Oprah, not sure which one wins out ;P
Can we claim there is a male typical height and a female typical height? Of course we can, take the male average(5’10”) and the female average(5’4″) and there you go. If you assume at least a 1 SD difference between a random male and the average female in height you will be right about 85% of the time. Similarly with the brain. Note by male brain, people mean a male typical brain, surely you can understand this? No one claims that there is a fixed predefined male brain that fits into our skulls like a lego piece, not unless they are severely nuance impaired. How this comes about is neither here nor there, it is biologically instantiated and therefore natural thus divorcing it entirely from the idea of a social construct. Just because we are involved in this biological/evolutionary process that brings this about does not mean we have socially constructed it. A social construct is something we are by an overwhelming margin cognizant of and is very much created entirely by human design. If you say “us” and by that you mean modern humans, then “we” have been involved to some degree for the last 200k years regarding race though the behavioural mechanisms and chance elements that brought it about are entirely beyond the scope of our conscious deliberate involvement. The cognitive tracks that led to this were laid down long before primates were even around.
To further solidify what I am saying and divorce this notion of race being a social construct, what qualifies as a social construct is something whose basic function and existence is entirely fabricated in the human mind first(ie currency). Now even this construct evolves over time(as has currency) but the idea of currency is not borne out of natural processes, provided we make the distinction that we are not part of those natural processes(after all the term social construct is an attempt to differentiate society – ie a collection of modern human minds – from natural processes). Given this I doubt the first modern human sat in his cave and plotted out this grand scheme of creating a planet of different races, it all occured naturally and in large part by chance(given our tribal inclinations that go back millions of years in conjunction with geographical limitations). However there was a man(or woman, who knows) at some point in history that thought, hey wouldn’t it be neat if we could use these pieces of coin in exchange for goods instead of lugging around cattle and goods to barter with.
“Nonsense, gender does not refer to sociocultural differences”
Give me an example.
“Keep in mind I’m talking on average and once we figure out the male mean and the female mean”
Are you referring to “male and female brains”?
“If you acknowledge there are sex differences in the brain then by default one can assert with a high degree of certainty that there is such a thing as a male neurotypical brain and a female neurotypical brain”
False.
“I could enumerate them but that would take me forever which is why I left you all those links.”
Please answer the questions.
“Note by male brain, people mean a male typical brain, surely you can understand this?”
Are you saying “Male brains are in male bodies”?
Gender is a behavioural classification which is linked to biological sex and so is defined along the lines of biological sex. This classification is primary before any other one that we could conjure up as it is directly linked to real world undeniable biology and also has great utility to it. If we open it up to all sorts of interpretations then it becomes entirely subjective and divorced from reality. We can go down that route and then we will have created a social construct parallel to classical notions of gender but will have very little link to the real world and will create confusion where there need not be any.
Most people understand that there is a fair bit of variance and we usually chalk that up to character and personality quirks. The reason we do this is that these quirks are virtually infinite and also vary across time(even on an individual basis ie people evolving their behaviour and ideology in their lifetime) and if we ascribe some socially recognized gender to them we will be playing a very laborious unnecessary and unconstructive game. By that logic I could invent the pumpkinhead gender with a count of just 1 unless you feel like immitating me and join the club. So you see how ludicrous this can get which is why it is vital to have a real world link(non social construct) to these things. At the same time it is important to realize that more often than not the social constructs that stand the test of time tend to have great utility to them. It isn’t all that clear to me that opening up the gender game to any and all punters is a worth while endeavour.
There might be different sub types within the two genders but the lines are so blurry that it would be silly to try to classify them and differentiate them. At the same time why do these sub types even need to be drawn along gender lines as distinct genders in and of themselves? Finally even if we increase our sophisrtication to such a degree that we can discern these gender sub types they would still fall along the male-female dicotomy meaning that a new gender of “ploppies”, lets say could not have male and female members be interchangeable with one another. Their biology would still create a male/female difference within the floppy community. In essence floppies would better be described as a new species(albeit an imaginary one) or sub species, not a gender. So you see everything is divided into male and female BECAUSE of the inescapable reality of the underlying biology.
By linked I mean causally linked(ie biological sex is the causal driver for gender).
RR
“Give me an example.”
The Scandinavian countries have tried this experiment. When trying to push for greater equality in an attempt to create the perfect egalitarian society in scandinavian nations they observed that the sexes diverged even more than before. This implies that gender runs a lot deeper than sociocultural differences, it is biologically instantiated and dictated.
https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/scandinavian-gender-equality-myth-us-more-female-managers/
“Are you referring to “male and female brains”?”
Yes
“False.”
So you are saying that there isn’t a male neurotypical brain and a female neurotypical brain? Evidence please!
Neurotypical as in common or within range of common compared to all other distinctly divergent iterations. The links to the studies I have provided fully substantiate my position.
“Please answer the questions”
I already have and also included links that delve into it a lot deeper. If that is not enough for you then I’m sorry I’ve spent way too much time on this already.
“Are you saying “Male brains are in male bodies”?”
Yes, by a huge margin.
“I could invent the pumpkinhead gender with a count of just 1”
This doesn’t make sense.
In any case, I’ll wait for you to address my argument and answer my questions (When do features count as those “typical” of a “male-typical” brain? If you can name these features of a “typical” male brain, how many of these features does a brain need to exhibit to be classified as a “male” brain?).
“The Scandinavian countries have tried this experiment. When trying to push for greater equality in an attempt to create the perfect egalitarian society in scandinavian nations they observed that the sexes diverged even more than before. This implies that gender runs a lot deeper than sociocultural differences, it is biologically instantiated and dictated.”
This refutes my argument?
“Yes”
So answer my questions.
“So you are saying that there isn’t a male neurotypical brain and a female neurotypical brain? Evidence please!”
That’s a claim I’ve been defending this whole conversation. You need to answer my questions.
“I already have and also included links that delve into it a lot deeper. If that is not enough for you then I’m sorry I’ve spent way too much time on this already”
Where did you specifically answer my questions?
“Yes, by a huge margin.”
Any brain inside a male’s body is a male brain?
RR
“This doesn’t make sense.”
Exactly, it does not make sense any more than any other invented gender makes sense. If you claim that gender is a social construct and as such divorced from biology then it is not a great leap to go from there to inventing any gender you like.
“In any case, I’ll wait for you to address my argument and answer my questions (When do features count as those “typical” of a “male-typical” brain? If you can name these features of a “typical” male brain, how many of these features does a brain need to exhibit to be classified as a “male” brain?).”
Are you aware of normal distributions? Do you know what is meant by a normal distribution? If we consider the middle 2 standard deviations as normal brain configuration or within normal range(ie typical or not so distant from typical that it would be worth kicking up a fuss about) then roughly 70% of men would fall into that category enough so that this 70% of men would not intersect or even fall within range of the 70% of women that are neurotypical for their sex. Plotted on a graph going from masculine to feminine this would look like the back of a double hump camel. Surely you can understand this!?
More specifically males have roughly between 8-13% larger brains than women(up to 2 SD larger). Another distinct feature of men is that they have 20% more neurons in the frontal lobe implying their frontal lobe is far more neuron rich than the brain size disparity with women would imply. Men also have greater intra-hemispheric connectivity and women have greater inter-hemispheric connectivity. Beyond that certain brain regions are relatively larger for women and others are relatively larger for men. Our circuitry is also quite different with regard to how we process information. Men rely more on the frontal lobe than women enough so that IQ is correlated to the front half of the brain at a rate of up to 80% in men and a lot less for women(don’t remember the exact figure, possibly a 50/50 split). Women utilize both hemispheres for langauge whereas men tend to favor the left side. Now I have ALREADY cited all this to you a few posts back but it appears that you are trying to rile me up or something asking me to cite it again as if i haven’t(or give you evidence for my evidence?). I have also provided links with verifiable peer reviewed studies on the matter that go into this in more detail. Please don’t ask me again about this, it is getting quite tiresome.
It’s not about “inventing genders”. The claim is that gender roles change with the times.
Are you aware that naming average differences doesn’t constitute answers to the questions that were posed to you?
RaceRealist
“It’s not about “inventing genders”. The claim is that gender roles change with the times.”
Gender roles evolve through time but this doesn’t mean that they fluctuate wildly from one end of the spectrum to the other nor does it mean male and female gender roles alternate from masculine to feminine or are interchangeable somehow. Males and females co-evolve through time but one thing remains fairly constant a behavioural disparity between their respective behaviours(what we would broadly class as masculine and feminine) and this is borne out of the underlying biology.
“Are you aware that naming average differences doesn’t constitute answers to the questions that were posed to you?”
How so? If I say that an apple is a round object that varies from 2.5 inches in diameter to 4 inches ranges in colour from green to red has a texture and taste that ranges from x to y etc, would that not be enough to differentiate it from an orange or is an apple no different to an orange because they are both round and are similar in size? By that reasoning a northern grey wolf is no different to a mountain lion because they both have four legs fangs and are roughly the same size and weight and hunt the same food. Or that a dog is no different to a mountain lion because some dog breeds are roughly the same weight while completely disregarding the fact that the average dog is only 1/3 to half the weight of a mountain lion. The difference lies in the details, nature is full of variability how do you not see that?
I have enumerated several distinct differences between the average male and female brain such that a trained eye could discern if a particular brain belongs to a male or a female probably with an accuracy over 90%(trained brain surgeon using various techniques or through MRI). What more do you want? There aren’t parts of the brain that men have and women don’t if that is what you are asking(though it may be possible, we don’t know yet). The difference is in the configuration and how it is used.
I hate to sound mean but you are frustratingly narrow minded and probably poorly informed on the subject. You keep insisting that I answer your questions but you have yet to answer my questions, you demand evidence from me yet you provide none yourself and still you have the temerity to claim that mine is a “just-so” position to take. I don’t think you understand how debate works, I make a claim you refute it with evidence or sound well articulated reasoning then I get to refute your claim in a similar fashion and back and forth it goes until we reach a conclusive end. You have done nothing of the sort, instead you sit there and shoot down my every comment with a one liner and no evidence and insist I give you evidence even though I’ve done that and then some. Who made you the lord emperor of philosophical and scientific inquiry?
RR
In fact so confident am I that male brains are sufficiently different to female brains(colloquially referred to the “male brain” and the “female brain”) that I propose the following method of working it out to an accuracy greater than 99%. All you have to do is enumerate the variables that show an average difference, and do a probabilistic analysis that a particular brain would have a certain profile. For example what is the probability that a female would have at the 50th+ percentile on all those variables(probably numbering more than 10)? Very very unlikely!
The logic is as follows, for each successive variable the probability is reduced by a huge factor such that by variable 3 or 4 it should be quite conclusive that we have a male or female brain on our hands. So for example the likelihood that a female brain weighs the same as the average male brain is something like 1 in 20. That should be enough but given male brains vary as well lets continue. Then you take relative size of specific regions where it is shown that there is a difference and so on and so forth. I would guess that even the probability that a female brain would score an average tabulated score of all the variables at the 30th percentile for men is less than 1%.
RR
I just realized that the the link you provided was articule by Daphna Joel(apparently just her no co-authors not even a study just her citing cherry picked studies with poor methodolgy LOL bloody joke)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3176412/
Daphna Joel is a certifiable crackpot, I mean come on man, what planet are you living on.
When we say male brain and female brain we aren’t saying one is an airplane and the other is a car, we are saying SUV to Sedan. Men are just as human as women, in fact chimps have very similar brains to humans, much of the same structures if not all the same structures, the major difference is in the overall size and relative size of some regions. All mammals share great similarity in brain structures! So women have a human brain just like men but quantitatively, qualitatively, and functionally they are distinctly different enough that we can conclusively say that one is is a “male brain” and another is a “female brain”.
“Gender roles evolve through time but this doesn’t mean that they fluctuate wildly from one end of the spectrum to the other nor does it mean male and female gender roles alternate from masculine to feminine or are interchangeable somehow. Males and females co-evolve through time but one thing remains fairly constant a behavioural disparity between their respective behaviours(what we would broadly class as masculine and feminine) and this is borne out of the underlying biology.”
I never made the claim that they “fluctuate wildly from one end of the spectrum to the other”; P2 says that gender roles change with the times (a factual statement).
“I have enumerated several distinct differences between the average male and female brain such that a trained eye could discern if a particular brain belongs to a male or a female probably with an accuracy over 90%(trained brain surgeon using various techniques or through MRI). What more do you want? There aren’t parts of the brain that men have and women don’t if that is what you are asking(though it may be possible, we don’t know yet). The difference is in the configuration and how it is used.”
OK, so if one has a 8-13 percenr bigger brain are they a man? If it’s 8-13 percent smaller are they a woman? If that same 8-13 percent bigger brain has 20 percent more frontal neurons in the frontal lobe, is that a male brain?
Note that you have not answered my original questions; you’re just stating average differences.
If you can’t give me a definitive answer, just say so. Note that discussing X sex has Y percent difference on average does not answer my question.
“I have enumerated several distinct differences between the average male and female brain”
None of which answers the questions I have posed to you.
You need to provide arguments for your claims; stating X brain is Y on average compared to Z brain is irrelevant and does not answer the questions posed to you.
“In fact so confident am I that male brains are sufficiently different to female brains(colloquially referred to the “male brain” and the “female brain”) that I propose the following method of working it out to an accuracy greater than 99%.”
Doubt it’d replicate.
“we can conclusively say that one is a “male brain” and another is a “female brain””
So when do features count as those “typical” of a “male-typical” brain? If you can name these features of a “typical” male brain, how many of these features does a brain need to exhibit to be classified as a “male” brain?
RR
You seem to have a one track mind on this.
“P2 says that gender roles change with the times (a factual statement).”
You just repeated the assertion that I made and added “a factual statement” in the end, well done!
“I never made the claim that they “fluctuate wildly from one end of the spectrum to the other””
Then what is your claim exactly? If there is always a distinct difference between male and female behaviour despite the evolution of our roles over time(as there should be given the impact new knowledge has on our perspective on the world, not only do sex related behaviours evolve but behaviour across the entire spectrum of social interaction evolves over time) then what is the issue here. Obviously there is some underlying quality that will not allow the gender roles to be reversed or for them to equalize. Case closed.
“OK, so if one has a 8-13 percenr bigger brain are they a man? If it’s 8-13 percent smaller are they a woman? If that same 8-13 percent bigger brain has 20 percent more frontal neurons in the frontal lobe, is that a male brain?”
I have explained how this works, it’s not just one thing its many many things and once you account for them all you will be hard pressed to find a female brain even reaching the 1st percentile of men(on a scale of the neurotypically male brain). This reveals a disparity and shows that male brains strongly tend to a particular configuration and female brains tend to a different configuration. Ergo male brain and female brain.
“Note that you have not answered my original questions; you’re just stating average differences.”
I have, you simply won’t accept it. I take it your understanding of a male/female brain is one that is hinged upon the idea that there is a fixed predefined characteristic that all men have and no women have(like a lego piece that only fits male skulls and will not fit in female skulls). That is probably the most myopic pedantic and child like way anyone has ever addressed this issue. Of course you won’t come out and say it outright because you want to play this stupid cryptic game of pretending there is something that i’m not getting all the while ignoring the abundance of evidence and substantive argumentation that I have presented.
The question as you should have posed it(your way is idiotic because my response definitively answers your question) if you have any hope of catching me out should have been;
Is there a feature in the brain that all males have but no females have?
Answer to that is No as far as we can tell though we may be proven wrong in time. However this does not negate the possibility that there is such a thing as a male brain and a female brain and in fact there are enough differences that we could predict with a high degree of certainty if a particular brain belongs to a male or a female. This is enough to categorically state that there is such a thing as a male and a female brain.
Now for the final time, the features that count as typical of a male typical brain are;
“More specifically males have roughly between 8-13% larger brains than women(up to 2 SD larger). Another distinct feature of men is that they have 20% more neurons in the frontal lobe implying their frontal lobe is far more neuron rich than the brain size disparity with women would imply. Men also have greater intra-hemispheric connectivity and women have greater inter-hemispheric connectivity. Beyond that certain brain regions are relatively larger for women and others are relatively larger for men. Our circuitry is also quite different with regard to how we process information. Men rely more on the frontal lobe than women enough so that IQ is correlated to the front half of the brain at a rate of up to 80% in men and a lot less for women(don’t remember the exact figure, possibly a 50/50 split). Women utilize both hemispheres for langauge whereas men tend to favor the left side.”
Also males have different brain chemistry to women and are affected by different hormones.
Let’s cut through the bullshit:
In the third comment in this thread, I presented the following argument:
(I) Something is “natural” if it’s socially unmediated and inevitable.
(ii) Gender is socially mediated and not inevitable; gender roles change with the times.
(c) Therefore, gender is not “natural” since it’s socially mediated and not inevitable.
Note how I bolded P2; you agree with P2. Do you object to P1? If not, you must accept the conclusion of my argument.
“However this does not negate the possibility that there is such a thing as a male brain and a female brain and in fact there are enough differences that we could predict with a high degree of certainty if a particular brain belongs to a male or a female. This is enough to categorically state that there is such a thing as a male and a female brain.”
So answer my questions.
“Now for the final time, the features that count as typical of a male typical brain are”
So a brain in the body of a woman that is 8-13 percent larger and has 20 percent more neurons in the frontal lobe is a brain of a male?
Again: citing average sex differences does NOT answer my questions.
In any case, even if I accept that you answered question 1, you’ve yet to tell me how many features a brain must have to count as “male-” or “female-typical.”
“Also males have different brain chemistry to women and are affected by different hormones.”
Sex-typical behavior feedsback into shaping endocrine expression. Thus, gendered behavior and experience can have a direct influence on the endocrine system. Recurring developmental experiences shape the function and structure of the brain. Sex differences are the product of multiple causal factors during development; not hormones/chromosomes alone. So hormones have no direct and isolated function outside of a gendered world; the whole system matters (and I mean THE WHOLE SYSTEM).
RR
You must be shitting me. Are you pulling my leg here? Can you be any more fixated on your nonsensical stance? Alright, one more round I guess.
First of all, you need to state your claim clearly. Let me give you some help.
Answer the following questions:
1. Do you believe that gender is a social construct?
2. Are you using the word “natural” as the exact opposite of a social construct?
3. By “socially mediated” do you mean now, in the past, the distant past or on some grand evolutionary scale and is this social mediation done consciously or subconsciously? In other words is it an emergent social mediation or a deliberate one?
4. How do you define a social construct?
5. Do you believe that there is no such thing as a female brain or a male brain? If so do you think that in theory we could take any random female brain put it in the body of an average heterosexual male and this person would behave no different to any other male? Lets pretend by some technological magic we could do this, just ignore the fact that a female brain is designed for a female body and it’s distinctly female body functions as opposed to male body functions.
6. Do you think that sex and gender are different and why? What exactly does gender mean to you?
As for this:
“(I) Something is “natural” if it’s socially unmediated and inevitable.
(ii) Gender is socially mediated and not inevitable; gender roles change with the times.
(c) Therefore, gender is not “natural” since it’s socially mediated and not inevitable.
Note how I bolded P2; you agree with P2. Do you object to P1? If not, you must accept the conclusion of my argument.”
I do not agree with any of those statements. Not P1 nor P2 and not P3.
“citing average sex differences does NOT answer my questions.”
Of course it does, you’re just refusing to accept that it does. You’re a very special kind of stubborn aren’t you.
“So a brain in the body of a woman that is 8-13 percent larger and has 20 percent more neurons in the frontal lobe is a brain of a male?”
I would seriously suggest that you take the time and fully and properly read my comments. You are troublingly off track and fail to understand some very critical points.
If a brain in the body of a woman that exhibits the following characteristics all averaging to the 25th percentile of what constitutes a neurotypical male brain then I would be willing to concede that this woman has a male type brain. Note that I am not saying that no woman cannot have a male-like brain but on average female brains are different enough to male brains that we can comfortably assert that there is such a thing as a male brain and a female brain. So even if you find a woman that has such a brain this does not change the fact that on average most men have male type brains and most women have female type brains.
1. Her brain is 13% larger than the average female brain.
2. Has 20% more neurons than the average woman in her frontal lobe.
3. Language center is in the left hemisphere instead of both hemispheres.
4. Her IQ correlates at 80% with the front half of her brain rather than a 50/50 split like most other women.
5. Has more intrahemispheric connectivity than interhemispheric connectivity.
6. Certain brain regions have a relative size that fits a male profile instead of a female profile. I can’t remember the names of these regions you can look them up in the links I gave you, there’s quite a few of them.
7. Has a brain that is wired with male cognitive patterns instead of female cognitive patterns. Men and women think differretly and this is instantiated at a very young age.
8. Her brain chemistry is that of a male. Though males and females both have the same neurotransmitters they operate differently in the brain and come in different doses.
9. Has a brain that is wired to respond to male hormone profile instead of female hormone profile.
10. Her brain is not wired to handle the menstrual cycle or other body changes/functions that occur inside a female body but rather those that occur in a male body.
There are likely more factors but these are the ones that I can remember. If a woman exhibits all these qualities averaging even at the 25th percentile of men I would be happy to concede that she possesses a male type brain. Thing is there is not a chance in a million that you will find such a woman. Unless you think that the rarest of exception bucks the trend and it all goes out the window, in which case I would seriously feel sorry for you.
Now please try to understand what I am saying and stop playing dumb with a very straight forward concept.
“1. Do you believe that gender is a social construct?”
What I believe is irrelevant; my argument identifies gender as socially mediated.
“2. Are you using the word “natural” as the exact opposite of a social construct?”
I’m using the word “natural” as explained in P1.
“3. By “socially mediated” do you mean now, in the past, the distant past or on some grand evolutionary scale and is this social mediation done consciously or subconsciously? In other words is it an emergent social mediation or a deliberate one?”
Why not both?
“4. How do you define a social construct?”
A concept based on the collective views of groups/societies.
“5. Do you believe that there is no such thing as a female brain or a male brain?”
What I believe is irrelevant.
“If so do you think that in theory we could take any random female brain put it in the body of an average heterosexual male and this person would behave no different to any other male?”
That brain would have gone through the socialization/developmental trajectories and so, would still behave like a woman. This has to do with development and feedbacking in regard to socialization/development that I described in my previous response.
“6. Do you think that sex and gender are different and why?”
I’ve stated it countless times: sex is biological, it is natural; gender is a social construct, it changes with the times.
They are different because one is based on biology and the other is based on societal views of what X is.
“I do not agree with any of those statements. Not P1 nor P2 and not P3.”
Interesting. You said:
do not confuse gender role across time(which has a lot of wiggle room)
Gender roles evolve through time
(And note that I was not confusing “sex” and “gender”. It seems like you’re conflating the two concepts when I am not. You’re equivocating.)
What’s wrong with P1? You agree with P2, you’ve said as much.
““So a brain in the body of a woman that is 8-13 percent larger and has 20 percent more neurons in the frontal lobe is a brain of a male?”
I would seriously suggest that you take the time and fully and properly read my comments. You are troublingly off track and fail to understand some very critical points.”
Well?
“on average female brains are different enough to male brains that we can comfortably assert that there is such a thing as a male brain and a female brain.”
In virtue of what?
So in the case of a brain having (1)-(10) in a female body, you would say that they would have a male brain?
Remember this?
““Are you saying “Male brains are in male bodies”?”
Yes, by a huge margin.”
and my reply to this was “Any brain inside a male’s body is a male brain?”
So according to you, that hypothetical brain showing your (1)-(10) would be a female brain since it is in a female body.
I have answered all of your questions. Now actually answer mine:
When do features count as those “typical” of a “male-typical” brain? If you can name these features of a “typical” male brain, how many of these features does a brain need to exhibit to be classified as a “male” brain?
You need to state when features count as typical of X brain and how many of these features X brain needs to be exhibited in order to be a “male or female brain.”
RR
You really are not a very bright person. You should try not to waste so much time on these things it will get you nowhere. The number of logical fallacies I have found in your above response are so many I’m losing the will to live when contemplating a response. I suspect you have some right brain deficiencies unable to bridge concepts and ideas correctly or to take a step back and look at the issue holistically in the correct way. I hate to be mean but unfortunately I’m at my wits end with you but in the hope that this might rattle your brain into gear and get you to understand your fallacious, partial, pedantic and frustrating way of thinking here are a couple of examples.
1.
“When do features count as those “typical” of a “male-typical” brain? If you can name these features of a “typical” male brain, how many of these features does a brain need to exhibit to be classified as a “male” brain?”
You keep asking me this question and I keep answering it yet you come back at me with the same question completely ignoring my response not even addressing my response and hammering the same question again. What is your brain damage man? I have answered your question, if you think it is not satisfactory the onus is on you now to explain to me why it is unsatisfactory before you pose it again. So in the interest of getting us out of this ridiculous stalemate you have boxed this conversation in, tell me….what is a hypothetical example of what would constitute a typical male feature in your mind so that I can gauge what it is you are looking for?
Also stop answering a question with “irrelevant”, that is often what halfwits say when they don’t know the answer or feel that answering will give the game away. I’ve asked you a question, answer it, and elaborate if you think that a yes or no is not enough. Mind you, you did answer the question further down in an unrelated part of your response but for some reason you did not want to answer it directly when asked so we might have to add short term memory problems to your growing list of issues. The question related to whether gender was a social construct in your mind.
Another small somewhat trivial but highly indicative example of how whoefully out of depth you are(despite your desparate attempt to sound intellectual), is the following.
2. You used the following response of mine,
“I do not agree with any of those statements. Not P1 nor P2 and not P3.”
To claim that I am contradicting myself,
“Interesting. You said:
do not confuse gender role across time(which has a lot of wiggle room)
Gender roles evolve through time”
However that is not a contradiction since,
a) I have rejected P1
b) I reject this part “Gender is socially mediated and not inevitable” of P2
As such I also reject P3 and do not agree with P1 nor P2 and not P3.
I will ignore the plethora of other mistakes/misconceptions in your comment and given how spartan your responses are and your clear inability to adequately answer my questions(and attempt to put this coversation on some kind of teleological track), lets keep it simple, answer the question I posed in 1.
What in your mind would hypothetically constitute a typical male feature(s) enough that it would differentiate it from a female brain and as such warrant the description of a “male brain” as opposed to a “female brain”?
This gets funnier and funnier.
“You really are not a very bright person”
Fallacy.
“You should try not to waste so much time on these things it will get you nowhere”
You’re the one who writes book-length responses when answering two simple questions (telling me the features typical of “male-” and “female-typical” brains and how many features that are typical of each “brain” one needs to have to count as “male-” and “female-typical brains.”
Talk about wasting time.
“The number of logical fallacies I have found in your above response are so many”
Quote each fallacy, name the fallacy, and explain how it’s a fallacy.
“You keep asking me this question and I keep answering”
You’ve not answered it: again, even if I accept that you answered question 1, you have not answered question 2 (how many of the features in question need to be exhibited by a brain to be “male or female”?
Point out each fallacy that I’ve committed. If not, retract your statement.
“if you think it is not satisfactory the onus is on you now to explain to me why it is unsatisfactory”
I have numerous times.
“what is a hypothetical example of what would constitute a typical male feature in your mind so that I can gauge what it is you are looking for?”
Feature X is typical of brain Y iff it is typical of brain Y; that is, the feature brain Y must have distinctive feature X in order for there to be relevance to the claim that there are two types of brain. Then when You have named the features indicative of the type of brain, you must state how many of those features are needed to be a “male-” or “female-typical brain.”
You are positing that two kinds of brains exist. What evidence exists for the claim? And, again, no: average differences do not constitute evidence for the claim that there are two kinds of brains.
“that is often what halfwits say when they don’t know the answer or feel that answering will give the game away”
There is no “game”, my beliefs are irrelevant. If I don’t believe what I’m writing, it’s irrelevant to the arguments that I am making. If I do believe it, it is also irrelevant to the arguments I am making. Why does it matter what I believe about this?
“The question related to whether gender was a social construct in your mind.”
My argument established it.
“a) I have rejected P1”
Why?
“b) I reject this part “Gender is socially mediated and not inevitable” of P2”
So “Gender is [not] socially mediated and not inevitable” but, You: “Gender roles evolve through time”?
“your clear inability to adequately answer my questions”
hahaha
Are there male- and female-typical hearts as well?
RR
Now it appears that your line of thinking is as follows(despite the fact that once again you failed to properly articulate and fully flesh out this position leaving it up to me to decode it);
It seems that in your mind the genetic code for a human brain is universal for males and females and that different hormonal and developmental experiences alter the brains such that by adulthood they exhibit average differences. Unfortunately once again this shows how little you understand of the issue at hand. Recent studies show that these brain differences are encoded in our DNA. Also the hormones are encoded in our DNA the development is an emergent quality of the DNA differences of males and females. Finally at the end of the day the fact remains there are male and female differences in the brain. This is enough to claim that there is such a thing as a male brain and a female brain. Why, because we see it, how it came about is irrelevant. Even if it had nothing to do with DNA the fact remains it is a distinct phenomenon in nature to which we give the label “male brain” and “female brain”.
Now if you had any sense in you, you would have focused this debate on whether these differences are hardwired instead of rejecting the idea that there is a male brain and female brain(as clearly there is). Unfortunately even then you would be wrong if your claim was they weren’t hardwired;
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/47449029_The_Genetics_of_Sex_Differences_in_Brain_and_Behavior
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/01/190102112842.htm
So it appears that the X and Y chromosomes do dictate brain differences in males and females. Ergo it is hardwired via direct genetic effects.
RR
Here you respond with irrelevant and socially mediated.
“1. Do you believe that gender is a social construct?”
What I believe is irrelevant; my argument identifies gender as socially mediated.”
While here you say it outright, that you believe gender is a social construct.
“I’ve stated it countless times: sex is biological, it is natural; gender is a social construct, it changes with the times.”
LOL so which is it, irrelevant or is it a social construct? You also refused to acknowledge that by natural you mean non socially constructed implying that socially mediated means socially constructed in your mind and so by the laws of deduction, you think that gender is a social construct. Yet you refused to admit that in one instance and fully articulated this position in another instance. You’re a fool!!! It is infuriating to me that people with such low self awareness to realize how intellectually unqualified they are get online and waste people’s time with their ill concieved ideas poorly thought out argumentation and inept methodology and thought process. Yet I’m sure you will find some king of way to sideline how many own goals you scored how much you have failed in this argument and fire back with some other inane response(probably posing the same question again as if nothing I said registered).
RR
Finally the way in which gender roles(e.g. how men behave today compared to how they did 500 years ago in as much as that differs from women) evolve through time is a partial social construct(or partially socially mediated as you say) but gender dichotomy is not. This difference is more or less fixed and is dictated by our genes. When people refer to gender they are referrring to this dichotomy and not the various iterations this dichtomy can take.
This is obvious to the simplest of people and i did not want to insult your intellect by stating it but at this point I feel that your case might be a lot worse than i thought. There are HUGE gaps in your understanding so i would suggest humility as a remedy and a possibly a way to start addressing those gaps. Thinking that your stance and mode of thinking is impeccable will only deepen the issue for you.
“genetic code”
“encoded in our DNA”
“Also the hormones are encoded in our DNA”
DNA is not a “code.”
“So it appears that the X and Y chromosomes do dictate brain differences in males and females. Ergo it is hardwired via direct genetic effects.”
There are no “direct genetic effects”; you’re presuming gene-determinism, but it’s the whole developmental system which leads to these differences, and again:
Sex-typical behavior feedsback into shaping endocrine expression. Thus, gendered behavior and experience can have a direct influence on the endocrine system. Recurring developmental experiences shape the function and structure of the brain. Sex differences are the product of multiple causal factors during development; not hormones/chromosomes alone. So hormones have no direct and isolated function outside of a gendered world; the whole system matters (and I mean THE WHOLE SYSTEM).
“What I believe is irrelevant; my argument identifies gender as socially mediated.”
While here you say it outright, that you believe gender is a social construct.”
Doesn’t mean that they’re my beliefs; my beliefs are totally irrelevant to this discussion. Discuss my arguments, not what I believe. My argument identifies gender as a social construct; the argument is sound. You’ve not stated why you reject P1, you accept P2.
“waste people’s time with their ill concieved ideas poorly thought out argumentation”
Identify an error in the argument provided to you. You accept P2, as I’ve shown. You’ve only said that you reject P1 but have not provided any rationale.
“probably posing the same question again”
You’ve yet to answer it.
You’ve not pointed out any fallacies in my previous response. You only have claims, no arguments.
“is dictated by our genes”
Genes don’t “dictate.” Nice outting yourself as a gene-determinist.
“There are HUGE gaps in your understanding so i would suggest humility as a remedy and a possibly a way to start addressing those gaps”
You’ve yet to refute my argument.
“Are there male- and female-typical hearts as well?”
YES!!!!! You bleeding twit!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9444167
https://www.sharecare.com/health/heart-disease/article/womens-heart-vs-mens-hearts
haha dude you don’t know anything about physiology.
Women have smaller hearts (and smaller coronary vessels), which pump less blood per beat, meaning that their heart has to beat faster than a man’s to match a man’s cardiac output (Haward, Kalnins, and Kelly, 2001; Prabhavathi et al, 2014). Since women have smaller hearts, they have a smaller stroke volume—meaning the amount of oxygenated blood that the left ventricle releases is less than that of men who have bigger hearts and therefore bigger stroke volumes. Women have a higher heart rate than men (Lufti and Sukkar, 2011), but this is not enough to offset the lower stroke volume. Therefore, each time a woman’s heart pumps, it delivers less blood and oxygen to the muscles. Furthermore, women have 12 percent lower levels of hemoglobin than men (Murphy, 2014). Hemoglobin is a protein in the red blood cells (which women have fewer of) that transports oxygen to the blood. Since women have lower levels of hemoglobin and lower levels of red blood cells, then, less oxygen gets carried to the body’s tissues—muscles included.
This does not mean that there are “male and female hearts.” Again, like with the brain, average differences do not constitute “typical-X.”
RR
“This gets funnier and funnier.”
More like tragic!
“You should try not to waste so much time on these things it will get you nowhere”
“You’re the one who writes book-length responses when answering two simple questions (telling me the features typical of “male-” and “female-typical” brains and how many features that are typical of each “brain” one needs to have to count as “male-” and “female-typical brains.”
Talk about wasting time.”
…and here we go again with the same question as predicted even though I have answered it many many times already. If you took the time to properly read and comprehend my responses and responded in a thoughtful and deliberative manner we would not be having this conversation still. Instead you double down on your obsessions convinced somehow(god knows how) that your pseudo-intellectual approach has merit(utterly delusional).
“Quote each fallacy, name the fallacy, and explain how it’s a fallacy.”
I already have you utter moron, can you read!? Another comprehension impaired individual.
…and yes brain differences are the reason for a justified differentiation of a male brain to a female brain culminating in the colloquial “male brain” and “female brain”. A wolf can be differentiated from a mountain lion along the same lines of reasoning even though they both are mammals have four legs weight roughly the same and eat the same food.
“You keep asking me this question and I keep answering”
“You’ve not answered it: again, even if I accept that you answered question 1, you have not answered question 2 (how many of the features in question need to be exhibited by a brain to be “male or female”?”
I have answered ALL your questions! Wake up, wake up, wake up!!!!!
“Point out each fallacy that I’ve committed. If not, retract your statement.”
I have with several already if I do any more I might lose my mind from the sheer stupidity you are exhibiting and no I am not going to retract my statement because it is true.
““what is a hypothetical example of what would constitute a typical male feature in your mind so that I can gauge what it is you are looking for?”
Feature X is typical of brain Y iff it is typical of brain Y; that is, the feature brain Y must have distinctive feature X in order for there to be relevance to the claim that there are two types of brain. Then when You have named the features indicative of the type of brain, you must state how many of those features are needed to be a “male-” or “female-typical brain.””
Give me an example you bleeding moron!!
“You are positing that two kinds of brains exist. What evidence exists for the claim? And, again, no: average differences do not constitute evidence for the claim that there are two kinds of brains.”
No I am not doing that if by two kinds of brains you mean an airplane to a boat. I am saying that the male typical brain is like an SUV to a Sedan when compared to a female typical brain. How hard is that to understand man, I have cited all the reasons why and what qualities of the male brain are responsible for this difference. Do you accept there are different kinds/types of apples or is an apple just an apple? If you accept there are different kinds of apples then if you are a sane person(I’m starting to suspect that you are not) given all the evidence you must accept there are different types of brains with two major and distinct classes, male and female brains.
“There is no “game”, my beliefs are irrelevant. If I don’t believe what I’m writing, it’s irrelevant to the arguments that I am making. If I do believe it, it is also irrelevant to the arguments I am making. Why does it matter what I believe about this?”
You are stupid!!!!! I am asking you what your position is, what your belief is, what stance you are making on the matter what your argument is so I know what exactly it is that I need to respond to.
““The question related to whether gender was a social construct in your mind.”
My argument established it.”
No it didn’t, not clearly enough and even if your argument established it answer the bloody question you tit!
“a) I have rejected P1”
Why?”
Very poor definition and far too vague for the purposes of our discussion. Also see below.
“b) I reject this part “Gender is socially mediated and not inevitable” of P2”
So “Gender is [not] socially mediated and not inevitable” but, You: “Gender roles evolve through time”?”
Because intra-gender behaviour involves some level of social mediation(partially socially constructed) but gender DICHOTOMY does not, it is genetically determined and is very hard to alter. A 1967 Ferrari is still a sports car and belongs to the same class of car even though one can point to differences compared to a 2019 ferrari(similarly with a 1967 SUV compared to a 2019 SUV, different types of cars evolving through time but still maintaining their class differences). When people refer to gender they are talking about this DICHOTOMY not some arbitrary behavioural shift through time(which likely effects both genders equally or near equal and thus never EVER fully bridging the gap between the genders). I have already addressed this in my subsequent responses but it appears comprehension and reading ability is incredibly dire in your case.
I’m done with you man, you are either trolling or you have some serious cognitive issues.
“DNA is not a “code.”
https://notpoliticallycorrect.me/2018/07/15/dna-is-not-a-blueprint/”
You’ve quoted a blogger’s opinion as some sort of valid refutation of my statements? You are beyond help, stay away from idiot bloggers(except for pp) or you will lose what is left of your critical thinking ability.
“There are no “direct genetic effects”; you’re presuming gene-determinism, but it’s the whole developmental system which leads to these differences, and again:
Sex-typical behavior feedsback into shaping endocrine expression. Thus, gendered behavior and experience can have a direct influence on the endocrine system. Recurring developmental experiences shape the function and structure of the brain. Sex differences are the product of multiple causal factors during development; not hormones/chromosomes alone. So hormones have no direct and isolated function outside of a gendered world; the whole system matters (and I mean THE WHOLE SYSTEM).”
Holy crap, where did it all go wrong for you man? Gene determinism? How else do genes operate, what is their purpose then. Are you saying that if we use the genetic CODE of a rabbit to clone it there is a chance that this rabbit will turn out a turtle? Every single facet of human physiology and by extension aspects of behaviour(at varying degrees) is in large part determined by our genes. There is some element of chance and environmental effects but not much while the developement process is also determined by genes. Meaning that genes are the end all be all for all intents and purposes.
“Doesn’t mean that they’re my beliefs; my beliefs are totally irrelevant to this discussion.”
What?? I am asking you what your argument is you twat, why would you be making an argument if you did not believe it? Are we getting hung up on the word believe now? This is not a philosophical discussion, stay on point.
“waste people’s time with their ill concieved ideas poorly thought out argumentation”
” You accept P2, as I’ve shown.”
No I don’t and I’ve explained why, what is your brain damage?
“You’ve only said that you reject P1 but have not provided any rationale.”
I have, learn to read!
“You’ve not pointed out any fallacies in my previous response. You only have claims, no arguments.”
I have! So now you get to dicate what constitutes a valid argument? Tell me why they are not valid. You see that is how a reasonable discussion goes.
“Genes don’t “dictate.” Nice outting yourself as a gene-determinist.”
WTF is that supposed to mean? Of course genes determine, are you right in the head?
I realize now that you are trolling, well good for you, you are not only wasting my time but you are wasting your time as well. Fantastic, another win for humanity!
I know me and RR just recently “made up” but I will admit he is a terrible debate partner.
surely there are ‘more able’ debate partners for you if i am not up to snuff for you, e h melo?
Oh of course. Pumpkin has become better than you. He understands concepts pretty easily and he’s started relying on a more scientific epistemology.
Because he and I can communicate more efficiently we don’t constantly argue about the same things and we find middle ground more often.
I don’t know what’s wrong with you, but you have very poor reading comprehension. Many users have pointed this out. I think you just convince yourself that were being fallacious when we make statements like this, but it showcases low self awareness.
There’s a lot wrong with me but reading compression isn’t one of the things wrong with me.
“Read compression”
Jesus.
It’s called “phone typo.”
Santo dio!!! Porca miseria!!!
Emo rap is the best way to introduce yourself to the genre.
I have a theory regarding Jewish achievement. It doesn’t explain all of the achievement, in fact it may just explain a small fraction of it but nevertheless. Core to the Jewish religion and identity is this idea that they are the chosen ones, god’s special children so to speak. Now most people today aren’t even religious let alone subscribe to such an idea, at least they don’t do it in public unless they are an anachronistic religious zealot. However this little idea can be incredibly powerful in maintaining one’s resolve motivation and general mental health. Not only does it help the individual psychologically but it also creates an aura around that person as far as other people are concerned. It is an incredibly powerful psychological crutch and anyone who has any sense in them has to believe in themselves in such a way even though in today’s world it is often considered narcissistic. The Jews were very clever to introduce this idea into their culture but what is even more astonishing to me is that they got a huge percentage of the world to buy into it(except for the muslims of course).
Of course every nation creates their own mythology with regards to their origin and identity and more often than not it touches on similar ideas. However consider this, they were the originators of abrahamic religions that at least half the population of the world subscribes to and they are right at the center of that as the chosen ones. This had to have had an effect on some level certainly on a historical context. When the chips are down and you’re in complete dispair having this idea at the back of your mind suddenly kick in can give you a significant edge. Which is why it always baffled me how hard people are trying to extinguish any sense that anyone would have any elevated idea of themselves as some sort of cardinal sin. I mean as long as you don’t bang people over the head with it and don’t extend it beyond what is realistic(ie dunning kruger effect) is it that wrong to believe in oneself even if it touhces on the mythological?
At the end of the day genes are what matters most as we see with the IQ difference between Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews despite having the same religion but this is just something to think about. Maybe that is why Black people despite not having a particularly impressive history to draw inspiration and motivation from are trying so hard to create a unified identity and are so heavily invested in identity politics. Even though I personally reject identity politics and believe that real self belief must be borne out of the individual and not dependent on some grand narrative of a collective identity, nevertheless I realize the utility of these things and that perhaps the fact that we are ineherently social animals to such a high degree is the reason why such ideas are still so prevalent to this day. It might even be impossible to divorce ourselves from this if we have any hope of retaining and maintaining our respective cultures. I think there is at least some value in that.
Just-so stories
Well IMO the societies that have had the most robust cultural axioms have been the most succesful over time(outside of the genetics behind it all of course) so in that respect I think this has/can be one more facet of what is required to create a robust civilization and healthy optimally orientated individuals. Not saying bring back religion or start instilling delusions of grandeur in people but if done properly I think it can work. In fact I think it has, Greeks, Romans, Enlightenment Europe, Jews, western civilization as a whole and other great civilizations have had at their core the ideal man in mind and thought that this potentially existed inside of them. I don’t see any other way anyone could ever achieve anything if they don’t have this as a core belief.
Doesn’t change the fact that you’re just storytelling.
How is that a fact when you haven’t produced any justification for your contention?
How many times does this nonsense have to be debunked?
It’s an ad hoc hypothesis, a just-so story.
Do you think there are any just-so stories or will you defend any and all just-so stories?
1. What theory or evidence are adaptionist hypotheses attempting to “save” from falsification? NS? LOL. If true, what keeps these “just-so stories” from being independently verified?
2. My contention is not necessarily that adaptionist hypotheses are not ad hoc. My position is that their status as ad hoc does not remove them from science’s scope of explanation. I agree that there are many bullshit theories within EP and EB, that doesn’t warrant an abandonment of the fields as there are no real epistemic concerns, or at least none from the arguments you’ve provided, which I’ve demonstrated multiple times.
That last part hits close to home, Pumpkinhead. Rest assured, you’re doing good work over there.
RaceRealist
What in particular do you disagree with?
LOADED Which part exactly?
If you are referring to this,
“I don’t see any other way anyone could ever achieve anything if they don’t have this as a core belief.”
By anyone I mean any set of people(nation, ethnicity) and by anything I mean anything of real significance.
If you are referring to the Ashkenazi Sephardic disparity well at this point that is just a fact though it shouldn’t bother any individual it is a group average.
As for for black people, I kind of don’t blame them for their strong advocacy, though I think it has reached the point of ridiculousness by now while society is overindulging in the whole racism/oppression narrative. Any racism or oppression worth talking about was left behind during the 60s and 70s. I might go as far as to say that today the tables are somewhat turned given how slavishly some white people are taking on this white guilt and supposed privilege.
Yes, Pumpkinhead, you are on the right track. However, I think that race is a huge issue today. People are becoming segregated from the outside world. Insulation is the key to stopping Malthusian threats and rest-assured, that’s the way they tackled it.
LOADED
Well the idea of race is and always has been a huge issue, the question is how do we go about addressing it. Back in the day we would slaughter each other but hopefully by now we have managed to learn a thing or two and figured out how to address it in a more sophisticated way. By a huge margin racism is all but gone compared to the 60s or even before then. What remains is paranoid crazy people reading too much into things and trying to create tension where there is none. Keep in mind that some people think that racism will only truly be gone when there is full racial mixing. Well that is preposterous, racism basically amounts to having hateful feelings towards people of another race. We can achieve that(and mostly have) way before we even begin to fully integrate. There is simply no need to fully integrate and personally I find it quite preposterous that some people are advocating for that. I think it is equally as totalitarian as those that advocate for zero mixing and want racial purity.
(1) Ad hoc is Latin “for this.” The hypothesis is proposed “for this” observation, and the hypothesis makes no testable predictions.
(P1) A just-so story is an ad-hoc hypothesis.
(P2) A hypothesis is ad-hoc if it cannot be independently verified of the data it purports to explain.
(P3) Adaptationist hypotheses cannot be independently verified.
(C) Therefore, adaptationist hypotheses are just-so stories.
(2) All just-so storytelling “disciplines” need to go. All ad-hoc hypotheses need to go. Selectionist explanations are inherently ad-hoc. EP is one of the worst offenders.
(P1) Scientific theories make claims or predictions that can be shown to be false.
(P2) Theories that warrant confirmation and only confirmation cannot be shown to be false.
(C) So a theory that can be only confirmed and not falsified is not scientific but pseudoscientific.
1. Ad hoc is used to save a falsified hypothesis. If we take Ad hoc to mean any hypothesis used to explain an observation, this would encompass all hypotheses not just adaptionist ones.
P3 is what I’m asking you to substantiate.
2. I’ve already showcased how to falsify or make novel predictions with selectionist hypotheses
Pumpkinhead
When I was in high school, that’s the future I envisioned to be the one to truly purge all ills. It’s funny, because I took on the edgy high schooler trope, which would now be an edgy liberal one: nihilist, misanthrope, rationalist, egalitarian, atheist, and humanist. Now I’m completely against miscegenation (which I interpret as mixing of populations, not statistically insignificant set of individuals).
Billy
Diversity is our strength.
So by definition miscegenation and open borders makes us stronger.
QED.
Go back to school.
Race Realist
I have put quite a bit of thought into this, using everything I know from psychology, history and sociology. I could flesh it out for you further if you like but you do realize that I tend to write long responses so perhaps if you tell me what you disagree with and I can provide you with the evidence/data that I have used to support my hypothesis.
“If we take Ad hoc to mean any hypothesis used to explain an observation, this would encompass all hypotheses not just adaptionist ones.”
Why?
“P3 is what I’m asking you to substantiate.”
Hypotheses are independently confirmable iff they generate testable predictions of novel facts. Hypotheses that don’t generate testable predictions of novel facts are just-so stories.
“I’ve already showcased how to falsify or make novel predictions with selectionist hypotheses”
How would you test the hypothesis that trait X is an adaptation?
The argument in (2) is sound and applies to adaptationist (selectionist) hypotheses.
1. Because all hypotheses attempt to explain a phenomena. Is that not how you define it?
2. Again substantiate P3. You didn’t answer my question. Why can adaptionist hypotheses not make novel predictions?
Refer to Winther 2009
Billy
I have always held the position of freedom of association but realize that we are inherently tribal(quite often for good reason) so I think that were it not race we would divide ourselves with something else. Point being that each person and by extension each group is often highly invested in self preservation(culture and genetics). As long as we don’t end up killing each other over this I see no reason why we just can’t all get along depsite being different. At the same time I think it is a bad idea to force a high achieving group to mix with a low achieving group, even if there is no genetic reason for this disparity(lets pretend there isn’t) there will invariably be culutre clash and a regression to the mean between the two cultures which might serve one group but it is to the detriment of the other. So I will fall short of saying that I am against miscegenation but do hold the position that these things need to be addressed very carefully without strong monolythic advocacy. When left to their own devices people tend to make the right decision for their people and humanity as a whole.
The Social Justice Warrior
“Billy
Diversity is our strength.
So by definition miscegenation and open borders makes us stronger.
QED.
Go back to school.”
I hope this was meant as a joke…? You do realize that what you wrote is an oxymoron. Miscegenation and diversity are antithetical concepts. How can you have diversity when we all become one?
His shtick is to mock SJWs by pretending to be one, however the contradiction was likely unintentional
“I have put quite a bit of thought into this, using everything I know from psychology, history and sociology.”
It’s still ad hoc; the “bit of thought” you put into this is irrelevant.
“if you tell me what you disagree with and I can provide”
I disagree with just-so storytelling.
All religious myths are just-so stories.
I also see no justification for attempting to divorce ‘genes’/biology from environment. Interactionism refutes such simplistic gene-determinist assertions. Each level of the development system interact with each other one. Genes interact with genes; gene networks interact with gene networks. They interact with the environment (social, cultural, ceulluar) and so partitioning “genes” from “environment” and making heritability estimates does not suffice for complex biological systems.
pumpkinperson
Right well that is what I initially thought but then at times it seems too convincing. Looks like he’s going full method on this one, Colbert style. Kudos!
RaceRealist
“I also see no justification for attempting to divorce ‘genes’/biology from environment. Interactionism refutes such simplistic gene-determinist assertions. Each level of the development system interact with each other one. Genes interact with genes; gene networks interact with gene networks. They interact with the environment (social, cultural, ceulluar) and so partitioning “genes” from “environment” and making heritability estimates does not suffice for complex biological systems.”
Ah finally something I can respond to. First of all I did not say that it wasn’t highly complicated and we don’t know the whole story yet. However regardless of how complicated it gets one thing remains fairly undeniable, take two of exactly the same set of genes, alter one section of the genes in just one set and for the same environmental conditions you will get a different outcome. In a simplified abstract sense this is irrefutable.
Also what exactly does suffice mean? Are you looking for 99.9% accuracy or would 99% or 95% suffice. Does 80% render it absolute hogwash? Like I said it’s very complicated but AFAIC anything over 60% is worth talking about.
Pumpkinhead I’m looking for a mechanism that explains what you’re arguing. What’s the a priori justification for privileging genes over any other developmental variables?
RR
Because they dictate to a degree between 50% and 80%(some cases almost 100%) what the phenotype will be. On average I would say it probably sits at 70% though that could be taken to almost 100% if we control for the environment. I would say by sheer majority genes earned that “privilege”. This is a well established fact in the scientific community, surely I didn’t need to spell this out for you?
Also sex is determined at conception by the sperm depending on whether it carries an X or a Y chromosome. As such genes determine sex by almost 100%. This is basic elementary stuff, surely you know this? Are you one of those people that think that sex is determined in the womb(15th week or some other foolishness)? There are other environmental effects during gestation and I guess you could say they are part of the process but not to such a degree that they can override the underlying genetics.
You know sometimes I think it was a big mistake to differentiate gender from sex. Maybe we are far better off getting rid of the idea of gender entirely and simply having sex (male, female, undetermined), the behavioural classifications of masculinity and femininity and some people’s(tiny minority) inclination to want to identiy with the opposite sex, no sex at all or invent their own sex(ie by in large crazy people). I think this gender stuff is far too complicated and it is frying people’s brains.
“Because all hypotheses attempt to explain a phenomena. Is that not how you define it?”
Some hypotheses are “better” than others; some hypotheses explain what they purport to explain and only what they purport to explain so they are just-so stories; other hypotheses make successful predictions of novel facts and are not just-so stories.
“Again substantiate P3. You didn’t answer my question. Why can adaptionist hypotheses not make novel predictions.”
Because they are inherently ad-hoc. The conclusion for adaptationist hypotheses is known in advance; so, as I’ve been saying, the just-so storytellers work backward in order to form a “coherent” narrative that justifies the conclusion (the existence of the trait).
How would you test the hypothesis that trait X is an adaptation?
1. Your logic is circular. Adaptionist hypotheses are ad hoc because they cannot be independently verified. They cannot be independently because they can’t make novel predictions. They can’t make novel predictions because they are ad hoc. That’s what you just said. So you don’t have any justification for P3?
Even assuming that the genetic signatures for drift and selection are identical, that would still not be the same as assuming the conclusion (that’s it’s an adaptation). Trait X cannot be an adaptation until it has been proven to facilitate fitness in OEE A. This is the only thing I can imagine you meaning, because the existence of the trait is not what’s being investigated when we make adaptionist hypotheses.
“Dinosaurs originally evolved feathers for insulation in cooling temperatures.”
Where in the above hypothesis have I assumed my conclusion?
2. Refer to Winther 2009. Would you like a link?
Which part of the comment is just so story?
I mean
RR, what part of the comment written by pH is just so story.
“The conclusion for adaptationist hypotheses is known in advance; so, as I’ve been saying, the just-so storytellers work backward in order to form a “coherent” narrative that justifies the conclusion (the existence of the trait).”
And it’s adaptationist hypotheses that are circular.
““Dinosaurs originally evolved feathers for insulation in cooling temperatures.””
Just-so stories.
Dude, just answer the question: how would you test the hypothesis that trait X is an adaptation? That you can’t answer it is telling.
I’d suggest giving my previous response a second read. I don’t think you quite absorbed what I was saying.
1. Your quote does not answer the question. Where do I assume the conclusion in the feather hypothesis? It should be easy to point out.
You still haven’t justified P3 for me either. Is it’s supposed “circularity” why?
2. The thesis I cited already answered that. If you think it is irrelevant to your point then explain.
The conclusion is known in advance. That’s the problem.
Here’s the argument:
(i) A just-so story is an ad hoc hypothesis; a hypothesis is ad hoc if it’s not independently verified of the data it purports to explain.
(ii) The hypothesis that trait X is an adaptation is independently verified iff it successfully predicts a novel fact, meaning an observation not used in the construction of the hypothesis that would be expected if the trait were an adaptation and unexpected if the trait were a byproduct.
(iii) No prediction of this nature is possible because the hypothesis that trait X is an adaptation is underdetermined by all possible observations because there are no hallmarks of adaptation.
(iv) Selectionist hypotheses cannot be independently verified because they’re inherently ad hoc.
(v) Selectionist hypotheses are just-so stories.
Re Cleland: a “smoking gun” refers to novel evidence. Winther showed novel predictions but they’re not predictions of natural selection (natural selection makes no predictions) and they’re not adaptionist predictions in the EP/selectionist sense.
Now, answer the question: How would you test the hypothesis that trait X is an adaptation?
(PP, post this comment not the one above it.)
I’m sorry for the late response I only recently saw this.
1. In reference to point iii:
Did you not just recently post a Hallmark of adaptation to a cooked diet? If a trait facilitates a function this raises the probability of it being an adaptation. That is what NS predicts.
2. I’m aware what Cleland means by a “smoking gun”. She gives logical support to the contention that historical science is equal if not more empirical than experimental science.
NS predicts that a traits fixation is due to non random exogenous factors.
It predicts that the trait in question facilitates a function that increases efficeincy in an environment
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-012-9414-3
Read this article.
3. So now you’re only against EP again?
If you do respond I’d suggest putting it on a newer post by pumpkin.
(i) Trait X and Y are correlated. NS is then invoked to explain why trait X is the cause of fitness and trait Y is the correlate. But to explain why X over Y, the ToNS needs to predict that trait X moves to fixation when deconfounded from trait Y. So for the ToNS to predict the fixation of phenotypes, it needs to predict the trajectory of every phenotype in each environment—but since there are no laws of selection this is not possible. The ToNS needs to predict the outcome to explain it; so X is the cause of trait T, but it is also consistent with the theory that Y is the cause of trait T. The ToNS does not predict either outcome.
(ii) Hypotheses need to predict novel facts; there are no hallmarks of adaptation so the claim that trait T is an adaptation is underdetermined by all possible observations.
(iii) I am against all selectionist ‘speculation.’ Read Evolutionary Psychology as Maladapted Psychology (Richardson); What Darwin Got Wrong: Why Evolutionary Psychology Won’t Work (Wallace); and Adapting Minds: Evolutionary Psychology and the Persistent Quest for Human Nature. The objection is for EP hypotheses which are necessarily adaptationist hypotheses (even their byproduct explanations are just-so stories, too).
1. No adaptionist theory inherently excludes a free rider from fixation. They only seek to explain the original trait in question. The normal methodology in adaptionist hypotheses does not use epistemic tools from NS other than the general conditions laid out. Adaptionist hypotheses do not attempt to explain whether NS occured(this is a separate question)they attempt to explain the specifics of the scenario. Creating natural histories is equivalent to combining multiple concepts and theories to explain an integrated phenomena, this is normal in all science.
Subsequently you don’t have to deconfound anything. As an example, the Theory of Gravity predicts that supermassive objects will collapse in on themselves, it states nothing on which objects. NS says nothing on which traits or which exogenous factors. It just describes an interaction between two variables. It doesnt have to predict every variable no more than Gravity has to predict neutron/electron degeneracy pressure or the energetic output of nuclear fusion in reference to it’s effect on stellar bodies.
2. Every heterogenous case of natural selective history is a novel fact generated from NS. Fodor’s argument is not about what we can know. It’s not epistemic. You and Fodor have both admitted this. With that in mind let me ask you this question: If I can differentiate coextensive traits and make accurate accounts of natural history, why does it matter that NS can’t?
If I had to guess I’d say it doesn’t as Fodor’s argument is more about the credit we give NS not necessarily it’s validity.
3. Quote me some relevant arguments. Most I’ve seen have all been either spin offs of the god of the gaps argument or a strawman presenting shoddy science as inherent to EP not to the shoddy scientists themselves.
I’ll be waiting but I have a feeling it’s just going to be the same old shit. And don’t you dare start with the dualism!
4. How do their responses refute the criticism of sober, block, and kitcher? In fact I don’t think they ever responded back block and kitcher.
I don’t really agree with sober but the point of this article was to prove that there is absolutely no difference between NS and every other well accepted scientific theory.
I also like how Diez and Lorenzano say “that Sober’s and other response to F&PP [are] correct” when F&PP responded to most of them:
https://www.academia.edu/2652045/Piattelli-Palmarini_and_Fodor_Replies_to_our_critics
Masterpiece.
Pumpkin, do you think it takes any intelligence to be a good criminal? Or is it all about psychopathy? I could understand if it was a mix of both, imo.
I think it all comes down to the fact that whenever we sense fear, we create something new. We only create to solve solutions or to add aesthetic value. Think really hard. These reductionist answer might be the ultimate solution.
Puppy what is the iq needed to be a blogger?
Higher than yours.
Pumpkin can you please estimate my IQ?
I scored 119 in the iqtestdk.
Scored in the 500’s on the sat reading practice tests.
Freshmen in high school.
15
5’8 feet tall
130 pounds
Aspergers
Mom is a teacher for autistic kids.
Dad is an accountant.
Mexican
Focus on getting good grades, kid. You’ll know how smart you are by junior year.
Do you have a big head as Oprah*
Governments are the strongest entities on the planet. They must have really high IQs to work for one. Especially since you literally hvae to adapt all the fucking time.
Psychopathy degrees as well..
Pill, Elite= Isra-Elite, Elite= El. El is the original Hebrew Supreme God
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_(deity)
El= Cronus from Greeks=Saturn from Romans. Ancient and the current Elite Jews worship the planet Saturn. Which is why their holy day is Saturday. Day of Saturn. Contrast this with Christianities holy day Sunday, day of the Sun. Ahem Crowley in March Pumpkin Ahem cough cough. em excuse me.
Why Saturn you ask? I asked the same question and it led me to this documentary
I have been studying the original ancient Hebrew literal word for word bible translation. Our world is controlled by some genius intelligent star worshiping mf’s
What is really interesting is that El, Ya-whey, Saturn, whatever name you want to put on the Judaism god. he is technically considered the King of the Gods, however he is considered lower than, primordial, abstract gods like “Chaos”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_primordial_deities