/lit/ - Literature

Dawkins said that this is one of those books where it's all entirely BS is it's all correct and revolutionary.

>>14279662
You got an amendment for that shitpost, m8?

>>14279662
lmao. the nerds cant even handle some delicious straight poultry sandwiches, its over

>>14279662
>THIS BOOK IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY FULL OF SHIT
You got a source for that bro?

I've really enjoyed reading the 1st half so far.

>>14279668
pardon?

>>14279662
Wait, bongs refer to this as anything other than nonsense? Seriously? It's OBVIOUS garbage, Time Cube tier.

>>14279786
>Seriously? It's OBVIOUS garbage

>>14279860
I've literally only seen söÿ pseuds express the slightest respect for this garbage book. It's like Fraser or Campbell in that respect, smoothbrain faux-intellectualism that no actual scholar takes remotely seriously.

>>14279864
>why yes, I am an actual scholar, how could you tell?

>>14279864
>Fraser or Campbell
>smoothbrain faux-intellectualism

>>14279786
>Seriously? It's OBVIOUS garbage
>>14279864
>no actual scholar takes remotely seriously

>>14279662
>asaad/shapiro-let thinks right temporal lobe activity isn't involved in auditory hallucinations, despite the scans showing otherwise as far back as the 80s
>mcgilchrist-let thinks humans developed hemispheric lateralization of brain function after first existing undivided, even though it's ubiquitous among non-human animals
OH NO NO NO NO

>>14279970
>>14279972
Tardbros, *any* source will tell you that. You can even look it up on their Wikipedia pages. The Golden Bough for example was *never* accepted among serious scholars, and now less than ever. Likewise, Jaynes contradicts basic facts of neurology and history alike.

Not even the same anon, this is just pathetic.

it's a fascinating little book if you don't take it too seriously and approach it with an open mind

>>14280076
>You can even look it up on their Wikipedia pages
See >>14280056

>>14279864
>actual scholar
>>14280076
>serious scholars
can't believe that this kind of appeal-to-authority idiocy happens on a board devoted to what's supposed to be an intellectual topic. "serious scholars" generally reject anything that contradicts their pre-conceived notions because they're human just like the rest of us. peer review sting ops have proven that the academics aren't some bastion of objectivity, they're just as biased as the common man. look at the history of sociobiology/evolutionary psychology, and you see it plain as day. the aforementioned field is literally just ethology (study of animal behavior as adaptive traits) applied to humans (animals like any other). the tabula rasa concept is incompatible with any decent understanding of biology, yet it persists, because the notion of inherent potential and tendency scares them like it does most people. "serious scholars" aren't divinely inspired and you're ignorant for deferring to them instead of referring to the facts

>>14280076
If you can't be bothered to copy-paste italicized text from somewhere else, don't pull that bullshit with the asterisks, it's obscene

>>14279747

>>14280275