/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4815160]

What is your opinion about evolutionary psychology?

I've read a few things about it and found it very interesting, but I've also read that it's not taken seriously by the academy.

Is it worth checking? What works do you recommend?

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.4815174]

Would The Alphabet Versus the Goddess, be considered evolutionary psychology?

[Anonymous No.4815184]

>>4815160
>Is it worth checking?
No.

[Anonymous No.4815191]

Not a bad idea, but one with serious methodological problems.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/evol-psy/
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/problems.html

>>4815174
It is considered junk. See Algeo, John. "The Awful Alphabet." American Speech 76.4 (2001): 427.

[Anonymous No.4815225]

>>4815191
>http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/epfaq/problems.html

Thanks anon.

[Anonymous No.4815252]

it's not accepted by real scientists because evopsych's claims are often unfalsifiable and have very low standards of evidence.
much of it is just guesswork and borders on pseudoscience, if it hasn't already crossed that line.
it's trash.

[Anonymous No.4815274]

>>4815252
Although older work in evo psych is guesswork at best and pseudoscience at worst, modern approaches can provide some valuable insight for how things like certain cognitive functions have developed. However, such insight is only valuable when taken in conjunction with empirical evidence.

[Anonymous No.4815392]

It's obvious, if you have a brain (uhm). The mind evolved as but a calculator; there is no inherent as has commonly been preached, as such would be completely contrary to the feasibility of evolution. Nietzsche hit the nail on the head with his proposed lone instinct, that "Will to Power" he referred to.

[EvolaKid !vKJYJAzBlI No.4815444]

theres nothing wrong with evolutionary psychology. It pisses off leftists because it makes a good case for enthno nationalism, rape, and why men find feminism disgusting

[Anonymous No.4815479]

>>4815444
>rape
Seriously dude, being edgy to get controlled reactions is extremely pathetic delusion.

[Anonymous No.4815488]

>>4815392
Uh I like Nietzsche as much as the next guy but lots of people who came after him had better ideas about the mind, like cognitive neuroscientists. Getting so hung up on one man's ideas is foolish.

[EvolaKid !vKJYJAzBlI No.4815497]

>>4815479
>Seriously dude, being edgy to get controlled reactions is extremely pathetic delusion.

discussing humanity's biological inclination towards rape is edgy
but discussing Marx isn't?

>Thornhill and Palmer suggest that theory and research in evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology can help to elucidate the ultimate (evolutionary) causes (as opposed to primarily proximate causes) of rape by males in different species, including humans. They argue that the capacity for rape is either an adaptation, or, a byproduct of adaptative traits such as sexual desire and aggressiveness that have evolved for reasons that have no direct connection with the benefits or costs of rape.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_evolutionary_psychology#Rape_and_attraction_to_aggression

[Anonymous No.4815639]

>>4815488
Foolishness is making mountains out of molehills. Radiation from MRI scans is frying men's brains.

[Anonymous No.4815661]

>>4815497
You are such a fool and someday it will bite you on the arse. Such is how the world works.

[EvolaKid !vKJYJAzBlI No.4815698]

>>4815661
>You are such a fool and someday it will bite you on the arse. Such is how the world works.
>can't contest a point
>resort to name calling

[Anonymous No.4815803]

>>4815698
Sure bro.

[EvolaKid !vKJYJAzBlI No.4815814]

>>4815803
rekt

[Anonymous No.4815823]

>>4815814
lmao

[EvolaKid !vKJYJAzBlI No.4815829]

>>4815823
rekt

[Anonymous No.4815836]

>>4815829
Not him, but every topic you post in devolves into near constant shitposting, half of which is contributed by you.

Stop posting. You are actively making the world a worse place.

[Anonymous No.4815837]

>>4815829
Hello!
I don't come here often but I see that you are to be filtered from now on.
Thank you for shitposting, and goodbye!

[EvolaKid !vKJYJAzBlI No.4815840]

>>4815837
now this is shitposting

[Anonymous No.4815848]

>>4815829
You'll be stamped out by your own retardation bro. Honestly, I was just warning you. There's actually profound psychology behind that whole victim blaming bit, it's not a notion to be cast off so lightly. We humans are connected to each other in ways your little mind is incapable of detecting, and it makes for the realisation of such nightmares as yours. Your belief will mold reality. Here, watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAmEdT2HnF0 Derren Brown utilises this phenomenon.

[EvolaKid !vKJYJAzBlI No.4815864]

>>4815848
>, I was just warning you
ooo so scared

>There's actually profound psychology behind that whole victim blaming bit,

most of the time the victim is partially to blame.

>We humans are connected to each other in ways your little mind is incapable of detecting
>i have no argument
>herr your little mind
right.

[Anonymous No.4815868]

>>4815864
Pathetic.

[EvolaKid !vKJYJAzBlI No.4815872]

>>4815868
>Pathetic.
So does this mean you concede defeat?

[Anonymous No.4815874]

>>4815444
This post, OP, is everything you need to know about the discredit of evopsych's just-so stories: Political hackery with an academic veneer.

[Anonymous No.4815906]

>>4815444
There more truth to this than people'd think. The problem is that it completely discredit the notion that biology doesn't plays an important role in shaping human behavior, which in turn would discredit parts of feminism and blank slate notions of intelligence. It's the left trying to protect itself, and this is coming from a leftist.

[Anonymous No.4815915]

>>4815906
>and this is coming from a leftist.
>being a leftist
>why

[Anonymous No.4815922]

>>4815906
No, the blank slate is just the only sensible theory of mind there is. Again, all else stands completely contrary to evolution. Irrational stimulation is amongst the most ridiculous concepts ever conceived of.

[Anonymous No.4815933]

>>4815906
>it completely discredit

It *doesn't* discredit anything because it hasn't falsified anything.

[Anonymous No.4815946]

>>4815922
>blank slate
>babies are born with cognition
>uncontacted peoples and isolated societies are often more similar to 'civilized' peoples than not
>sexuality exists even when repressed by society
>children adopted by high IQ parents often have lower IQs and dissimilar interests and behavior than the biological children of those same parents
It just seems unlikely

[Anonymous No.4815954]

>>4815933
That's the nature of evolutionary biology, isn't it? You can't apply the scientific method to test something that already occurred and took millions of years to occur.

[Anonymous No.4815955]

>>4815933


at the least, it falsifies the notion that any sort of observed inequalities are *necessarily* the result of some form of conspiracy or malfeasance.

[Anonymous No.4815966]

>>4815946
I'm AnDoctuir here [http://www.debate.org/forums/Science/topic/39535/] and give thorough explanation. Honestly, it's good reading.

[Anonymous No.4816006]

>>4815966
How do you explain transgenderism? A person groomed by culture and society to be one gender, choosing, often at the cost of social ostracization, to be another? What, other than an inherent biological impulse, would cause someone to do that?

[Anonymous No.4816046]

>>4816006
It's a product of calculation same as everything else. Take Bradley Manning, for example: a child starved of attention who makes a woman of himself in order to get it. And hey, he'd just decided he'd chop his dick off. What harm in outing highly classified government documents while he was at it? That'd surely buy him some attention too.

[Anonymous No.4816057]

>>4816046
And very feminine boys in general tend to have very beautiful mothers. They're basically trying to match their mothers for father's attention in this big scary world.

[Anonymous No.4816076]

>>4816046
>>4816057
Oh wow. And I thought evolution psychology was unfalsifiable. Far-reaching conclusions full of assumptions with literally no evidence.

[Anonymous No.4816084]

>>4815906
Description doesn't necessitate prescription.

[Anonymous No.4816093]

>>4816076
Click into the link I posted and read. These is no other sensible theory of mind.

[EvolaKid !vKJYJAzBlI No.4816094]

>>4816076
>Oh wow. And I thought evolution psychology was unfalsifiable. Far-reaching conclusions full of assumptions with literally no evidence.

No that is just leftists shaming tactics

[Anonymous No.4816097]

>>4815160
I actually have a degree in biology and my thesis was on a new model of hominid evolution that favored a coastal development rather than the prevailing savanna theory. I was a graduate student in a genetics lab but I dropped out. Anyway, the problem with evolutionary psychology is that it can't usually be proven either way. Theories are essentially speculation and as such are unfalsifiable. Even most aspects of contemporary psychology have troubke standing up to the rigors of scientific evaluation, that's why most universities treat it as a humanity or at best a social science like anthropology or sociology, rather than ad a hard science like biology or chemistry. That's not to say it doesn't have merit it just doesn't lend itself readily to scientific empericism.

[Anonymous No.4816110]

>>4815444
>>4816046
>>4816094

Why the fuck is there so much /pol/ in my /lit/ tonight?

[EvolaKid !vKJYJAzBlI No.4816124]

>>4816110
>Why the fuck is there so much /pol/ in my /lit/ tonight?

its not /pol/ its truth

[Anonymous No.4816129]

>>4816124
>its

Learn you're grammer.

[EvolaKid !vKJYJAzBlI No.4816138]

>>4816129
>Learn you're grammer.
>resorting to childish corrections of auto-correct

[Anonymous No.4816154]

>>4816138
You're still posting.

Every post you do just encourages more shitposting (half of which you contribute). You make the world a worse place by posting. So stop.

[Guy !8kpbyeHl/E No.4816160]

>>4816154
that's what your mom said, kid

[EvolaKid !vKJYJAzBlI No.4816163]

>>4816154
>You're still posting.
yes I am.
>>4816154
>Every post you do just encourages more shitposting (half of which you contribute). You make the world a worse place by posting. So stop.

>maxium butthurt. you also fail to make any points

[Anonymous No.4816164]

I think its one of those things that's probably true but you can't prove it. It makes sense, but unless you can pinpoint a gene and prove it says "behave like X" its not going to be proven.

[Anonymous No.4816184]

>>4815954
Actually you sort of can, and they do all the time. For example there's no way to absolutely know why humans adopted bipedalism but the leading theory taught in text books is that it allowed for a better field of view as the forestation receded and it allowed for an altered version of heat loss arguably helping large brain development.

[Anonymous No.4816203]

>>4815922
Blank slate theories are pretty much bullshit. We have a century of seperated twin and adoptive studies suggesting that it's just not true. You're born with most of your potential skillsets, they can be fostered or hindered but it never was a blank slate.

[Anonymous No.4816209]

>>4816164
Even if you can pinpoint a gene it rarely stands up, consider the rise and fall of XQ28

[Anonymous No.4816219]

>>4816203
Read here:>>4815966 I debunk your twin studies.

[Anonymous No.4816227]

>>4816219
And the blank slate does not apply to physical attributes btw. Nobody is denying that we're born with inherent strengths or weaknesses, just that there is are no irrational responses to stimuli such as "see tits, get erection". It's all secondary to calculation.

[Anonymous No.4816251]

>>4816209

Yeah, psychology in general is one of the most difficult fields, and I don't mean to learn, but to actually prove. Consider the working memory model. Its all very well, but no physical evidence, the evidence you can show on a monitor or by reading graphs just isn't there. There's no mechanism in the brain anyone can point to and say "that's the phonological loop".

[Anonymous No.4816302]

>>4816219
You don't debunk them. You cast doubts and offer unprovable alternative explanations.

[Anonymous No.4816309]

>>4816219
There's nothing in there that debunks twin studies. The findings of those studies suggest that seperated twins have more in common than they do differences. Twins show a higher rate of homosexuality than do other siblings, and left handedness is usually found in one of a pair of twins. In fact science now believescthat all left ganded people were once twins in tge wombcand that their sibling died andcwas absorbed by them. All of this supports a genetic model of expression. The only really valid argument is in homosexuality, that's more likey caused by environment, even inutero enviroment ( see feminization of progressive male children)

[Anonymous No.4816315]

>>4816309
sorry for the typos I'm on a phone

[Anonymous No.4816351]

>>4816302
There will always be an infinity beyond anything we hold in mind. That doesn't, however, mean that we should abandon all reason. My appeals to Ockham's Razor as regards the evolution of the mind and my explanations as regards the eerie similarities of separated twins with reference to real and testable phenomenon render my explanation more sensible than the geneticists.

[Anonymous No.4816383]

Thanks to Steven Pinker I got really into behavioral ecology which is a ridiculously cool branch of biology. Animal fighting, mating strategies, how animals decide to slack off and depend on the foraging skills of their peers... human sociobiology/evolutionary psychology is limited by the experiments it can do, although the popsci speculation (a la Pinker) is entertaining to read, the foundational stuff done with other animals is the real bread and butter.

[EvolaKid !vKJYJAzBlI No.4816396]

Evolutionary Psychology has sparked an enormous amount of empirical research covering nearly any imaginable topic, including issues as diverse as language, morality, emotions, parental investment, homicide, social coercion, rape, psychopathologies, landscape preferences, spatial abilities, or pregnancy sickness (see, for example, Buss 1999, 2005; Barkow et al. 1992 for an overview).

For instance, Margie Profet (1992) has argued that pregnancy sickness—a set of symptoms like food aversion, nausea, and vomiting that some women experience during the first three months of pregnancy—is an adaptation for protecting the embryo against maternal ingestion of toxins abundant in natural foods by lowering the typical human threshold of tolerance to toxins during the period of the embryo’s maximum susceptibility to toxins. Irwin Silverman and Marion Eals (1992) have argued that from an evolutionary point of view the male advantage in spatial abilities usually found in psychological experiments does not make sense. Although hunting, the primary task of our male ancestors, clearly required spatial abilities, no less is true of gathering plants, the primary task of our female ancestors. In order to be efficient foragers, our female ancestors must have been able to encode and remember the locations of thousands of different plants. When Silverman and Eals designed spatial tests that measured subjects’ ability to recall the location of items in a complex array or objects in a room, they found that women indeed consistently recalled more objects than men did, and recalled their location more accurately.

David Buss has argued that there are major differences between males and females regarding mate choice and jealousy that are evolved responses to different selection pressures (see, for example, Buss 1992, 1994, 2000; Buss and Schmitt 1993). For instance, he reasoned that because men need to guard against cuckoldry, while women need to guard against losing their mate’s economic resources, men should be concerned more by signs of sexual infidelity than about the loss of their partner’s emotional attachment, while women should be troubled more by cues that signal emotional infidelity than by signs of sexual infidelity. Buss et al. (1992) asked males and females from the USA, Europe and Asia whether they would be more distressed by sexual or emotional infidelity:

[Anonymous No.4816398]

>>4816351
I'm confused, geneticists argue that twins have those eerie similarities because they are genetic traits. It goes against the blank slate theories. What are you trying to say?

[EvolaKid !vKJYJAzBlI No.4816399]

OPPONENTS OF EVOLUTION PSYCHOLOGY GETS BTFO
>>4816396
cont.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/evol-psy

[Anonymous No.4816430]

>>4816351
I would also invoke Ockham's Razor: it's more likely that twins raised in separate environments are so similar because there's a biological component to behavior. That's the simpler, and cleaner explanation.

[Anonymous No.4816432]

>>4816396
>For instance, Margie Profet (1992) has argued that pregnancy sickness—a set of symptoms like food aversion, nausea, and vomiting that some women experience during the first three months of pregnancy—is an adaptation for protecting the embryo against maternal ingestion of toxins abundant in natural foods by lowering the typical human threshold of tolerance to toxins during the period of the embryo’s maximum susceptibility to toxins. Irwin Silverman and Marion Eals (1992) have argued that from an evolutionary point of view the male advantage in spatial abilities usually found in psychological experiments does not make sense. Although hunting, the primary task of our male ancestors, clearly required spatial abilities, no less is true of gathering plants, the primary task of our female ancestors. In order to be efficient foragers, our female ancestors must have been able to encode and remember the locations of thousands of different plants. When Silverman and Eals designed spatial tests that measured subjects’ ability to recall the location of items in a complex array or objects in a room, they found that women indeed consistently recalled more objects than men did, and recalled their location more accurately.

These aren't psychological factors

On a related note, women are also better at seeing a wider range of colors on the spectrum as a result of foraging and needing to see the subtle differences in shade between a poisonous berry and an edible berry.

[EvolaKid !vKJYJAzBlI No.4816439]

>>4816432
>On a related note, women are also better at seeing a wider range of colors on the spectrum as a result of foraging and needing to see the subtle differences in shade between a poisonous berry and an edible berry.

ALMOST LIKE WOMEN WERE GATHERERS IN THE PAST???

[Anonymous No.4816461]

>>4816439
Good job on getting the point, was it the word foraging a synonym of gathering that gave it away?

[Anonymous No.4816519]

>>4816430
No it isn't. It's a retarded explanation that invokes an infinity of superfluity. Ockham's Razor is a weighing of probabilities, not mouthfuls.

[Anonymous No.4816524]

>>4816398
I propose a better explanation. Just give a read through that thing I liked to. Hit Ctrl + F and search "AnDoctuir" and go where it instructs.

[Anonymous No.4816525]

>>4816439
How do you test this proposed explanation though?

[Anonymous No.4816540]

>>4815639
>this post
It is clear that people who only read Nietzsche are 12 years old.

[Anonymous No.4816544]

>>4816519
>an infinity of superfluity

All of my what
Top kek

[Anonymous No.4816547]

>all caps to attract my attention
You lack the intelligence for meaningful consideration of what you're positing as truth.

[Anonymous No.4816555]

>>4816540
I have an IQ of 140+, mate, and I'm privy to psychology you wouldn't even dream of being real. Geneticists are trying to make themselves relevant where they are in fact largely useless.

[Anonymous No.4816559]

>>4816519
Oh god, this is too much

[Anonymous No.4816567]

>>4816396
>>4816399
"Just-so stories."
>argued

[Anonymous No.4816568]

>>4816519
>that invokes an infinity of superfluity
It really doesn't. If darwinian evolution can determine skin color, height, and every bodily function, it can also determine cognitive functions. The brain is just another organ like any other. Why is this so difficult for you to acknowledge? We don't know the extent to which biology plays in determining thinking, but it's more just not at all.

[Anonymous No.4816571]

>>4816567
>evolutionary biology in general, not just psychology
How do you falsify something that isn't repeatable?

[Anonymous No.4816575]

>>4816097
>my thesis was on a new model of hominid evolution that favored a coastal development rather than the prevailing savanna theory.

Cool

[Anonymous No.4816579]

>>4816559
Do you even know what it means? The evolution of man was infinitely unlikely. It shouldn't have happened, but it did, and the same goes for everything else. That, however, does not mean that you can add willy-nilly to the unlikeliness of an occurrence, which is what irrational stimulation amounts to ---basically the theory that there was a congruous evolution of mind for every evolution of physicality. Wrong. We wouldn't exist. The mind and body evolved separately, the mind as a calculator and the body as its tool.

[Anonymous No.4816580]

>>4816519
Holy shit

[Anonymous No.4816583]

>>4816580
nice and funny meme you made there! :)

[Anonymous No.4816584]

>>4816396
One problem with trying to reconstruct the growth of the mind from Pleistocene materials is that you would need to know what varieties of mental equipment Stone Age minds already possessed. Even if a plausible-sounding story can be told about how some piece of behavior would have helped early hunter-gatherers survive and reproduce, it may well have become established earlier and for different reasons. Darwin underlined the temptations here when he wrote about the unfused bone in the heads of newborn humans and other mammals, which makes their skulls conveniently elastic. One might conclude that this trait evolved to ease their passage through a narrow birth canal, but it seems to result from the way vertebrate skeletons develop. Birds and reptiles hatch from eggs, yet they, too, have these sutures.

Textbooks in evolutionary psychology have proposed the hypothesis that the fear of spiders is an adaptation shaped by the mortal threat posed by their bites. In other words, we are descended from hominid wusses who thrived because they kept away from spiders. The idea is prompted by evidence that people may be innately primed to notice and be wary of spiders (as we seem to be of snakes). Yet there is no reason to think that spiders in the Stone Age were a greater threat to man than they are now—which is to say, hardly any threat at all. Scientists who study phobias and dislikes have come up with several features of spiders that may be more relevant than their bites, including their unpredictable, darting movements. Natural selection would have played some role in the development of any such general aversions, which may have their origins in distant species, somewhere far back down the line that leads to us. But that’s another story, one that evolutionary psychologists have less interest in telling, because they like tales about early man.

[Anonymous No.4816585]

>>4816568
See here:>>4816579
It really does. The geneticists point of view is that we're born with the whole world inside our heads already, evolution altering that along with the organism's physicality. It's ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.4816586]

>>4816559
>>4816580
gr8 meme joke, keep it up

[Anonymous No.4816587]

I'm in the second semester of the second year in my Psychology course and I've never heard about evolutionary psychology.

[Anonymous No.4816592]

>>4816584
Indeed, the guilty secret of psychology and of behavioral economics is that their experiments and surveys are conducted almost entirely with people from Western, industrialized countries, mostly of college age, and very often students of psychology at colleges in the United States. This is particularly unfortunate for evolutionary psychologists, who are trying to find universal features of our species. American college kids, whatever their charms, are a laughable proxy for Homo sapiens. The relatively few experiments conducted in non-Western cultures suggest that the minds of American students are highly unusual in many respects, including their spatial cognition, responses to optical illusions, styles of reasoning, coöperative behavior, ideas of fairness, and risk-taking strategies. Joseph Henrich and his colleagues at the University of British Columbia concluded recently that U.S. college kids are “one of the worst subpopulations one could study” when it comes to generalizing about human psychology. Their main appeal to evolutionary psychologists is that they’re readily available. Man’s closest relatives are all long extinct; breeding experiments on humans aren’t allowed (they would take far too long, anyway); and the mental life of our ancestors left few fossils.

[Anonymous No.4816599]

>>4816575
Thanks, I really do think it makes more sense and takes into account a lot of modern findings regarding human health, tge spread of Homo sapiens et al. The problem is ciastal regions are dynamic making it difficult to find physical evidence in support of the theory.

[Anonymous No.4816607]

>>4816585
I don't buy your explanation. No one is arguing that EVERY physical evolution is concurrent with a similar cognitive evolution, we're just arguing that environment played a role, however large or small, in that cognitive evolution. You do accept the notion of cognitive evolution, right? If so, how else did it evolve other than environmental pressure? And if it evolved as the result of environmental pressure, then it has to serve a physical function, otherwise cognitive differences between animals wouldn't exist, and neither would inherent drives like sexuality and various emotions.

[Anonymous No.4816626]

>>4816579
I know what it means, the problem is that it's in every way proven wrong. Your mind isn't a seperate enity and neither are your thoughts. The brain/mind and the body aren't mutually exclusive and there's no evidence to suggest they are. There is a lot of evidence to the contrsry though, hence the aforementioned adoptive and seperated twin studies. Oh, and chaos theory breaks down under biological scrutiny, it's actually more likely that we or at leadt living organisms should be here. Recent ice studies et al. which call into question the protoplasma pool theory, have shown that amino acids naturakly bond to form chains and protiens, even under the worst of conditions, consider the bacteria that have coded out cytosine and replaced it with whatevers available that will bond to guanine. "An infinity of superfuity" I liyetally lol'd

[Anonymous No.4816635]

>>4816607
There actually aren't any stark cognitive differences between animal and human psychology. A dog is a man's best friend, right? Dogs show incredibly similar psychology to us. And you're not arguing that EVERY blah, whatever, but you do realise this must go on for the entirety of evolution, right? not just for humans, right?

[Anonymous No.4816636]

>>4816626
You're not a very intelligent person, are you?

[Anonymous No.4816638]

>>4816555
>I have an IQ of 140+,
I already knew you were twelve stop trying to convince me!

[Anonymous No.4816640]

>>4816638
All right, this thread bores me. Learn that you're retarded please mate.

[Anonymous No.4816645]

>hur durr we were all born with the entire worlds inside our heads

Which is exactly what the twin studies would seem to suggest if you've got an incredibly small mind btw.

[Anonymous No.4816647]

>>4816519
My fucking sides are in orbit

[Anonymous No.4816648]

>>4816645
The mind as but a calculator fixes this however, allowing for evolution

[Anonymous No.4816654]

>>4816647
Mate, I really don't give a fuck that retards are trying to control that which is above their heads by making jokes about it. It amuses me if anything.

[Anonymous No.4816668]

>>4816654
How is that above anyone's head? It's not exactly profound. The funny part is your heavily thesaurised language and the fact that superfluity and infinite mean essentially the same fucking thing. I'm glad you're amused though, I know I am.

[Anonymous No.4816672]

>>4816636
Do you have a follow up for that or are you just ranting?

[Anonymous No.4816682]

>>4816668
Superfluity means "the unnecessary" actually retard, and you can have more or less of the unnecessary. It's over your head because you don't realise that's it's a perfect description of irrational stimulus.

[Anonymous No.4816686]

>>4816672
I was just expressing myself.

[Anonymous No.4816687]

>>4816682
Again:>>4816645

[Anonymous No.4816709]

>>4816682
an unnecessarily large amount of something as in like an infinite amoumt both used here to mean superflous essentially.

[Anonymous No.4816739]

>>4816709
"Infinity" and "unnecessary" don't mean the same thing, retard.

[Anonymous No.4816753]

>>4816739
Superfluity doesn't mean unnecessary it means an unnecessarily large amount if something. Sort of like an infinitevamount of something. They're both words that mean "too much to the point of excess."

[Anonymous No.4816774]

>>4816753
Sure bro, lmao

[Anonymous No.4816818]

>>4816753
No, please stop being pedantic. It means, strictly, "unnecessary", and is frequently used to emphasize the amount of something. "An infinity of superfluity" is a little redundant in its emphasis, but it's not wrong, just emphasizing that there's an infinite amount of useless shit.

>/lit/ - Semantic Arguments

[Anonymous No.4817099]

>>4815191
>It is considered junk. See Algeo, John. "The Awful Alphabet." American Speech 76.4 (2001): 427.

Wow. This is you don't read pop history, kids.