[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 158 KB, 251x230, 1329851576219.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2440131 No.2440131 [Reply] [Original]

>implying people are social constructs
>implying people aren't biological constructs with inputs and outputs that society can sometimes play a role in
>implying if you tried to brainwash someone to believe they were a potato they would believe it

Enjoy your denial of reality and science peoplewhobelievethis.

>> No.2440142

Oh god, my faith, what is happening!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIAql1AfSSU

>> No.2440149

MARXIST HERE, NO UR WRONG, U SEE EVERYTHING IS A SOCIAL CONSTURST, WHICH IS WHY WE NEED TO KILL MILLIONS OF PEOPLE TO "CHANGE" SOCIETY SO THAT EVERYONE WILL BE "EQUAL"

>> No.2440159

Nature vs. nurture isn't that simple, we just don't have that much knowledge about it yet from the scientific perspective. The idea that people are "biological constructs" only has a very narrow validity when discussing the science of experimental falsifiability as opposed to the science of untestable hypotheses supported through evidence. The claim that our social lives are the product of biological determinants involves some massive assumptions about the gap between genotype and its phenotypic association, with little substantive evidence to support those assumptions, especially when considering the enormous variety of traits we get into when discussing the social aspects of human behavior: keep in mind these social aspects for centuries have delineated the human from the animal in any practical and even taxonomic sense.
That being said, I understand, and to a lesser extent agree, with what you're saying, but what I deny is that science has any real say in the matter: you're pressing an ideological point, not a scientific one. Biological determinism is a compass rose on a blank map, and sociobiology is a a person with poor eyesight and shaky hands trying to draw roads based on stories about driving down them.

>> No.2440163

>Nature vs. nurture isn't that simple, we just don't have that much knowledge about it yet from the scientific perspective.
We have TONS, we're already modelling the brain and the forces that effect it. There is no blank state.

To claim otherwise is absurd.

>> No.2440166

>>2440163
Yeah, see, I already addressed this:
>The idea that people are "biological constructs" only has a very narrow validity when discussing the science of experimental falsifiability as opposed to the science of untestable hypotheses supported through evidence.

>> No.2440170

>>2440163
>we're already modelling the brain
Meaningless statement. We've been modelling the brain further back than Galen's psychic pneuma.

>> No.2440172

>>2440163
This also doesn't touch, at all, the major thrust of what I'm saying:

>The claim that our social lives are the product of biological determinants involves some massive assumptions about the gap between genotype and its phenotypic association, with little substantive evidence to support those assumptions, especially when considering the enormous variety of traits we get into when discussing the social aspects of human behavior: keep in mind these social aspects for centuries have delineated the human from the animal in any practical and even taxonomic sense.

This is why it has a narrow validity.

>> No.2440174

>>2440170
What do you mean meaningless?
This alone proves you can't think of everything as a social construct.

>> No.2440176

shut up

>> No.2440178

>>2440174
>implying that modelling the brain is anything important
>implying we haven't had brain models for thousands of years
>implying the one constant about scientific models isn't that they've all been flawed

>> No.2440179

>>2440178
>actually thinks the brain is just some magic thing you can change entirely based on what other people are telling it

lol oh wow

>> No.2440181

>>2440174
>This alone proves you can't think of everything as a social construct.
Care to explain this reasoning? I don't follow it at all. The fact that something one person says can be seen as meaningless by another person implies there is an underlying meaning between us all?

>> No.2440184

>>2440179
>doesn't understand what "model" means
Sounds like someone thinks they can creep up on the ding-am-sich.

>> No.2440185

>>2440181
>The fact that something one person says can be seen as meaningless by another person implies there is an underlying meaning between us all?
no no no

I meant the fact we can model the brain proves this.

>> No.2440187

>>2440179
... that's not what anon is arguing in that post. Are you fluent in English? Serious question.

>> No.2440190

>>2440184
>Sounds like someone thinks they can creep up on the ding-am-sich.
We know a large amount of information about how the brain works. It's stupid to think you can just use society to change people entirely. There's no such thing as a blank state. I can't believe people even believe this.

>> No.2440199

>>2440185
But that doesn't prove anything but the fact that we can model the brain. I already covered this:
>massive assumptions about the gap between genotype and its phenotypic association
You can model the brain all you want, but until you have an understanding of _this component_ of the brain having _these genetic signifiers_ while also linking them to _this trait_ and then showing a concordance of all three to _that behavior_, the model is only a guesstimate.
This is how we've been able to trace chromosomal bases to certain genetic mental disorders. But those are "large" genetic differences with a wide variety of differentiation of traits with numerous symptoms and effects. That's not the same thing as social aspects like language acquisition and shit like that. Look up and study a little bit about Williams Syndrome to get an idea of where I'm coming from.

>> No.2440201

>>2440190
>We know a large amount of information about how the brain works.
Large is relative. Not most of how the brain works, not fully. Just large compared to what we used to know about the brain.
>It's stupid to think you can just use society to change people entirely.
Why do you want to use shit to change people entirely? I want people to be free of tyranny, and social forces alone can achieve that.
>There's no such thing as a blank state. I can't believe people even believe this.
There's such a thing as a black slate. One example off the top of my head is a blank slate.

>> No.2440202 [DELETED] 

>>2440190
Most people don't argue tabula rasa any more in any serious academic context, to my knowledge.

>> No.2440210
File: 41 KB, 386x387, 1325030780036.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2440210

>>2440199
>the model is only a guesstimate.

LOL I guess assembly language is a guesstimate as well. I guess the changes we do to the brain of a rat which makes it move a different way or THINK a different way is a guesstimate as well...

>This is how we've been able to trace chromosomal bases to certain genetic mental disorders. But those are "large" genetic differences with a wide variety of differentiation of traits with numerous symptoms and effects. That's not the same thing as social aspects like language acquisition and shit like that. Look up and study a little bit about Williams Syndrome to get an idea of where I'm coming from.

I'm not even talking about genetics. Genetics just sets the initial conditions, I'm talking about the adult brain and how different things effect it. It's just a complex machine like anything else.

>> No.2440214

>>2440201
>and social forces alone can achieve that.
And how do you do that? By forcing people to do things against their will. That's all you want to do, you tyrant.

You're basically saying "bawww im being enslaved by people that don't like me"

>> No.2440216

>>2440210
>I guess the changes we do to the brain of a rat which makes it move a different way or THINK a different way
Why do you keep bringing up peripheral points that I've already covered?
>the gap between genotype and its phenotypic association, with little substantive evidence to support those assumptions, especially when considering the enormous variety of traits we get into when discussing the social aspects of human behavior: keep in mind these social aspects for centuries have delineated the human from the animal in any practical and even taxonomic sense.

And to say "genetics" plays no part in it is... I don't even know what the hell you're arguing any more. The "social constructs" theory doesn't necessarily negate a mechanistic view of human beings, either...
If we are "biological constructs," than genetics has everything to do with it.

>> No.2440223

>>2440216
>If we are "biological constructs," than genetics has everything to do with it.
I never said it didn't. I said genetics sets the initial conditions of the brain.

>The "social constructs" theory doesn't necessarily negate a mechanistic view of human beings, either...
lol how exactly?
You guys believe everyone is a blank state, logic doesn't matter and you can get everyone to believe whatever you want them to believe and your goal is to make everyone "equal".

>> No.2440225

>>2440210
The best part about this argument is that I already said I agreed with you. All I'm quibbling with you about is that science does not have any real substantive evidence to say on the matter, at least not yet. It's all theoretical, things like assembly language and Game Theory, or it's tentative and does not directly correlate to human social functions, findings like the rats you're talking about.

>> No.2440230

>>2440225
>All I'm quibbling with you about is that science does not have any real substantive evidence to say on the matter
WHAT?

If we can change a rats brain what makes you think we can't change a humans brain?

If we can use certain drugs to change what a human thinks what makes you think it's not a complex machine with it's own limitations?

>> No.2440229

>>2440223
>You guys believe everyone is a blank state
That's not what I believe, and I think you're misguided if you think many sociologists or psychologists accept tabula rasa. I only think so, to be honest, I don't know what the consensus is on it, but I don't trust you to enlighten me on that point, considering how vehement you've been.

>> No.2440232

>>2440201
Respond to my post faggot.

>> No.2440236
File: 32 KB, 323x500, The_Blank_Slate.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2440236

ITT: Sociopathic idiots that don't believe in biology

>> No.2440248

bump

>> No.2440249 [DELETED] 

>>2440230
>If we can change a rats brain what makes you think we can't change a humans brain?
don't be stupid mate rats don't have immortal souls and free will

>> No.2440252

>>2440230
>If we can change a rats brain what makes you think we can't change a humans brain?
don't be stupid mate rats don't have immortal souls and free will

>> No.2440254

>>2440249
>don't be stupid mate rats don't have immortal souls and free will
so funee trol

>> No.2440256

>>2440230
>If we can change a rats brain what makes you think we can't change a humans brain?

I already covered this. Several times now.

>The claim that our social lives are the product of biological determinants involves some massive assumptions about the gap between genotype and its phenotypic association, with little substantive evidence to support those assumptions, especially when considering the enormous variety of traits we get into when discussing the social aspects of human behavior: keep in mind these social aspects for centuries have delineated the human from the animal in any practical and even taxonomic sense.

Here, let me help you with some key terms here:

phenotype - comprehensive grouping of an organism's traits and characteristics

genotype - genetic makeup of an organism

>massive assumptions about the gap between genotype and its phenotypic association
Do you understand what this means? It means we can't always tell for sure what parts relate to what in how the machine works. Just because we know how to press buttons inside the rat's brain doesn't mean we understand how the buttons' wiring works inside the machine.

>especially when considering the enormous variety of traits we get into when discussing the social aspects of human behavior:
When looking at the phenotype of a human being, if we include the social, as you intend to when you make the claim: "people are biological constructs with inputs and outputs that society can sometimes play a role in", what you have done is made the phenotype INCREDIBLY BIG. This complicates further the problem we already have with genotype---->phenotype.

>> No.2440257

>>2440256
>keep in mind these social aspects for centuries have delineated the human from the animal in any practical and even taxonomic sense.
We have known for centuries now that our social relations are vastly different from that of other animals, with apes and possibly dolphins coming even marginally close to us in complexity. But now you're
going to suggest that rats approach it, too. And that's not true.

You are not understanding the point that the social is not the same as the physiological because you're pushing an ideology and not critically analyzing this scientifically. Just because we can make a monkey fucking tapdance by juicing its brain with a car battery doesn't mean we've discovered tapdancing is something humans do because we're like monkeys.

>> No.2440258

>>2440178
>>implying the one constant about scientific models isn't that they've all been flawed

Sure and I guess the computer you're using just randomly popped into existence...

How do you idiots exist?

>> No.2440261

>>2440256
>Just because we know how to press buttons inside the rat's brain doesn't mean we understand how the buttons' wiring works inside the machine.
That's not what we're doing at all.
We're showing the exact paths and how every part of the rats brain effects other parts.
We're mapping the rats brain and explaining how it's a complex system.

>> No.2440265

ITT:
>Nature
>Nurture
>Pick one.

Idiots.

>> No.2440269

>>2440236
>posting Steven Pinker as if he doesn't wildly speculate on all sorts of shit and misunderstands natural selection at a fundamental level with many of his findings
>still arguing tabula rasa when not one person has actually argued we're a blank slate
>I've argued quite a few times in this thread that we're not a blank slate, just that the complexity of social constructs vs. biological constructs is still open for quite a bit of debate and it needs a hell of a lot more research and experimentation to be a fully sound proposition due to its complexity

I'm glad I have to leave. Bye.

>> No.2440273

>>2440258
10/10 troll. Oh my god.

>> No.2440276

>>2440258
Creative process is fundamentally unscientific. You have to design something, then criticise it using things like scientific knowledge.

>> No.2440277

could someone recommend good reading on evolutionary biology and psychology

>> No.2440279

>>2440232
>>2440214
>And how do you do that? By forcing people to do things against their will. That's all you want to do, you tyrant.
No, you do that by not forcing people to do things against their will.

>> No.2440280

>>2440277
inb4 Emil recommends Buss.

>> No.2440281

>>2440269
>>posting Steven Pinker as if he doesn't wildly speculate on all sorts of shit and misunderstands natural selection at a fundamental level with many of his findings

Wrong.

>> No.2440283

>>2440279
>No, you do that by not forcing people to do things against their will.
Then what exactly do you consider tyranny?

>> No.2440284

>>2440283
I consider tyranny to be tangential to the discussion at hand.

>> No.2440285

>>2440276
>>2440273
>make a scientific model of a computer
>actually make the computer
>it works

>LOL IT'S NOT REAL, ALL SCIENTIFIC MODELS ARE WRONG

>> No.2440290

>>2440285
>make a scientific model of a computer
Hold up. What do you think this means?

>> No.2440294

>>2440284
>tangential
Whatever.

Do you want to use "social forces" to change people?

>> No.2440295

>>2440294
No.

>> No.2440300

>>2440285
Stop trying to argue. You've obviously never studied science.