[ 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: 89 KB, 500x792, no shame.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5604782 No.5604782 [Reply] [Original]

Are there books based on or discussing current current popular culture and its trends?

All men/women I see are either with oversized glasses or red pants, yoga pants on girls, hitler youth haircut on men, same generic shoes, even the same attitudes and interest.

I don't want to look like a special snowflake by saying this, I just want to see more insight on the topic. I already know that dressing differently, since all of them are doing it, is comforting themselves to others, just like everyone wore the same-looking apparel back in the days.

>> No.5604785

Those are called "trends." Every generation has them. Get over yourself

>> No.5604793

You're right OP, you're the only unique person on the planet

>> No.5604816

>>5604782
You sound like and Idf.

>> No.5604833

>>5604785
These trends are getting more and more desperate. Girls dye their hairs or go half naked only to get noticed in the ground where all people dress differently, she exemplifies her appearance exactly because that the people dress differently. Otherwise, she would be hardly noticed. But how far can people go, and I mean all the people, the popular trend?

>>5604793
I am not unique; I too seek comfort and don't dress in a way that is too far off.

>> No.5604836
File: 42 KB, 600x600, 12.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5604836

What is it with /lit/ and tight clothing

>> No.5604842

It's all advertising. That's all fashion trends are. Corporations know how to control what the masses buy, through ads.

>> No.5604871

believe it or not I think the whole yoga pants phenomenon is about comfort for women.

>> No.5604877
File: 76 KB, 310x350, Headache.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5604877

>>5604782
The people at the sauna in my gymnasium are funny. The majority of the young people act the same. If alone, they sit and listen to some stupid popular music or horrible electronica mixed with rap at a really high volume so that everybody hears (w/ or w/o headphones) and if in a group, they talk to eachother very loudly with a lot of cursing and about sex or food or sex and food. The old people are either really quiet but many of them always lay down and spend a long time in the sauna, talking to other old people about work, money, and vacations. They are more prone to make small talk with strangers.

>> No.5604881

>>5604871
>male feminists

>> No.5604895

>>5604782
I boned this girl. No lie. I recognize her mom and half-sister.

>> No.5604900

>>5604881
*tips fedora*

>> No.5604933
File: 49 KB, 640x640, 1319773906342.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5604933

>>5604782

>Dat sexy posture
>dat shape

>>5604895

dude, wtf...lucky
tell details

>> No.5604952

>>5604933
Heh, I fucked her too. Name's Kate, her mom's called Angela. Forgot the sisters name though...

>> No.5604954

>>5604952
Nope. Not even close.

>> No.5604966

>>5604954
Not sure what she told you but believe me, Kate was the best piece of ass I ever had in Wisconsin.

>> No.5604968

>>5604952

I know her too! I fucked her dog on a cruise to panama

>> No.5604972

>>5604877
Yeah, most young people tend to listen music, which is mostly hip-hop, banging electro, or pop, when being by themselves, without some friend group or a single friend hanging around. Sometimes they get out their phone and play the next trending games. Even discussion matter is the same school problems, music, games... Older people mainly talk loudly what their heard on the TV about politics, each with different opinion that they hold on to, about their jobs, wives.

>> No.5604976

>>5604952
Yeah I fucked her too on a plane from Austin.

>> No.5604981

>>5604895
>>5604952
>>5604968
>>5604976
I'm the girl in OP's pic. I didn't fuck any of these guys and I don't have a dog.

>> No.5604985

>>5604972
> people listen to music and talk about everyday shit
STOP THE PRESSES

>> No.5604989

>>5604981
No shame at all, eh Kate? Why would you lie like that?

>> No.5605002

Morning radio on top 40 stations. Celebrity gossip magazines and sites. Entertainment news media. Reality tv is a great window into contemporary pop culture also

>> No.5605020

>>5605002
>you realize that becoming asocial is the best thing you had done

>> No.5605033

>>5605020
Le wrong generation meme

>> No.5605113

>>5605033
>I have nothing to say, so I will respond with a /mu/ maymay

How generation matters in that post? Whatever the generation, there were always popular trends changing each other.

>> No.5605291

>>5604782
That is a nice park. I'd sit the fuck out of that bench over there. M-M.

>>5604933
She's built like a penguin.
>>5604952
Kate looks like a penguin.
>>5604981
Nice butt, Kate. Wanna sit the fuck out of that bench sometime? ;)

>> No.5605522

>>5604833
lol in the early 19th century girls would DIE because it was trendy/cute to have a wet clingy dress like a nymph and gils would catch cold

this century has nothing on 'desperate'

learn sum fashion history dude before you get all down on girls in crop tops (which is another trend that comes in and out of fashion, see what Ingrid Bergman is wearing in the opening of Notorious)

>> No.5605538
File: 110 KB, 770x904, Giovanni_Battista_Moroni_009.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5605538

damn, 21st century fashion sure is the peak attention seeking! (speaking of red pants, OP)

>> No.5605551

>>5604871
(((((I think it's about girls with no butts wanting to feel like they have an ass))))) and comfort

>> No.5605561

>>5605291
>Wanna sit the fuck out of that bench sometime? ;)

>lewd butters trying to hit on Katey.

>> No.5605564

>>5604972
Nonody plays app games except for teenage girls and middle aged women. They are snapchatting of on social media. I'm talking to you on my phone right now. Old faggots need to get over themselves. If I don't want to talk to you about the weather it's not because I'm "brainwashed by my phone" that you could send an email on if I paid you, it's because you're a milquetoast casual and small talk is an awkward illusion.

>> No.5605567

>>5605538
>dat dickpocket bulge
what a weird shape too.

>> No.5605570

>>5605551
Don't women with no ass wear those jeans that come with more or less the shape of an ass to be filled?

>> No.5605571

>>5605564
>Those typos

Of course. I submit posts all day but the one that goes "HEY LOOK AT ME I'M ON A PHONE" is absolutely riddled with errors. It's like how anyone who corrects grammar on this site inevitably fucks up in their own post.

>> No.5605577 [DELETED] 
File: 23 KB, 400x555, 307585_282522218430396_4446030_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5605577

>>5605570
lol idk, I'm just lowkey bitter because as someone with an ass, I realized as a teen that I look vulgar/slutty in yoga pants/leggings and flat ass girls look cute/can feel better about being assless

>> No.5605586

>>5604782
read the treatise on elegant life by balzac. serious answer

>> No.5605589

>>5605577
>As a fattie I mistakenly believe you give a shit about me

lol

>> No.5605596

damn op, you're so fucking unique and special. you're so much better than all these trend-hopping posers. please enlighten how to be as free and unrestricted by trends and fashion as you

>> No.5605600

>>5605589
I'm underweight. :(

>> No.5605613
File: 108 KB, 495x212, contributing_2_Zeitgeist.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5605613

>> No.5605614

>>5604877
what have I told you about using the internet granddad?

>> No.5605625

http://essays.quotidiana.org/hazlitt/fashion/

>> No.5605628

>>5605564
I always hear the old faggots at my gym complaining about young people on their phones listening to music. Even the older women laugh at them as they complain and drool all over the hot 19 year old girls that won't give them the time of day.

>> No.5605740

>>5604782

The trend today is to be part of the trend

Hipsters are dead

>> No.5605755

>>5604836
#trend

>> No.5606080
File: 887 KB, 768x574, 1391127763948.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5606080

There are cultural criticism articles and books published every year. Don't really know how to help you.

The blandness and conformity has reached an acute point of saturation, to the point of parody. I see so many guys with the same hitler youth haircut, wayfarers, interest in photography, etc. Ditto for women.

Also, why is everyone constantly dressed for a job interview with a trendy advertising firm?

>> No.5606120

>>5604782
You've clearly got your thumb on the pulse of the zeitgeist.

>> No.5606122
File: 487 KB, 500x373, 1334688278505.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5606122

>>5604782

>> No.5606134

>>5604782
Pull your head out of your ass.

I have an undercut, which by the way is the name not hitler youth. You know why? Because I like the way it looks. Not because I want to be noticed, not because its popular, but because I just fucking like it and it looks good on me. You assume WAY too fucking much about other people.

>> No.5606143

>>5605564
>small talk is an awkward illusion.

It's a gateway to more interesting conversation. You're just mad because you don't know how to get from A to B.

>> No.5606146
File: 52 KB, 305x475, 9781584351085.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5606146

This is what you're looking for.

>> No.5606154

>>5606143
No, boring middle aged people are mad because I don't care about what their kid does or what the ambient temperature is in the five minutes I'm near their judgemental asses. I'm sorry to hear that you're retarded.

>> No.5606164

>>5606154

Narcissism is too common to be so proud of it.

>> No.5606181

>>5606134

I don't have an undercut

Thank fuck

>> No.5606184

>>5606164
I don't know what you believe you are accomplishing but it's retarded and I have a more active social life than you. Stop being a contrarian autistic sack of shit for ten seconds of your life and accept that most people in 2014 don't want to pretend they give an iota of one fuck what total strangers or their distant coworkers on break think about X topic that had been talked to death.

>> No.5606218

>>5604871
I think that women should be treated like human beings. I realize that's a controversial opinion.

>> No.5606219

>>5606184
>and I have a more active social life than you.

Do you realize how insecure this sounds? And I don't think you're in any position to assert what "most people" want since you admittedly don't care about them.

>> No.5606220

i never go outside cause im a NEET, i dont really notice trends outside of the internet, the one thing i alwasy do notice though are the phone zombies.
Ive never owned a cellphone, cause im a loser with no firends and ho am i going to call anyways?
But i see them everywhere, people looking down at their phones, texting or pretending to text, young people dont do small talk anymore they look down at their phone screens.
I like to imagine what it was like before the prevalence of cell phones and people were actually forced to make conversation.

>> No.5606228

you guys actually think you're better than others because you have a different haircut?

>> No.5606232

>>5605625
thanks

>> No.5606236

>>5606220
They're having more interesting conversations with their more interesting long distance friends, dipshit. I'm not surprised to know that you don't have any friends.

>> No.5606238

>>5606219
>Read past what I say to assert delusions I never spoke

Par for the course. I'll give you points for trying, now back to your shitty eventless life that produces such a worthless, annoying little autistic shit as to make your last few posts like you're winning some epic argument and physically turning me into your hallucination.

>> No.5606241

>>5604833
Are you 12 years old?
"Modern culture is so degenerate, I wish everything was as pristine and pure as it was in the 50s
Times change, adapt or die.

>> No.5606245

>>5604782

The internet plays a big role. Messages and trends received through the process of communication digested by those looking for the next big social hit. The immediacy of digital technology through which we're all engaged with social-media endorsing messages through its bombardment of text and pictorial information. People looking to fit in and orchestrate a wide community based around whatever's happening, whatever's groovy. Tune in but act as if you're tuned out.

I'd insist it's been this way for a long time but now we can freely exchange information at the drop of a baseball bat we're seeing things in clear view.

>> No.5606246

>>5606236
Don't you know that if you don't care about boring strangers that you see for less than 30 seconda that you're an insecure narcissist?!?

>> No.5606248

>>5604836
>What is it with /lit/ and tight clothing
rape... ups this is not /pol/

>> No.5606250

>>5606236
lol, did i hit a nerve?

>> No.5606255

>>5604877
Wow dude, you're so enlightened. Good thing you don't participate in culture like everyone else. Stay pure.

>> No.5606261

>>5606250
What gave it away?

>> No.5606270

>>5606250
You could not be a more predictable or pointless person. This is exactly why you've been sentenced to a life of being alone and confused.

>> No.5606278

>>5606270
sorry, didnt hear you, just got a text

>> No.5606282

>>5606228

No, but I don't like undercuts because it inevitably look as if somebody is taking inspiration from a source that I don't think is worth-while. I personally associated them with footballers like Joey Barton.

There's nothing wrong with taking inspiration from others but when you're wearing your haircut like that you're a glowing sign. We all live in the 21st century so let's not act as if we can be complete individuals but along those lines it's important to assess your own position in a wider context of a society dominated by media and cultural messages. Your haircut becomes an endorsement of a specific brand of living which may or may not perfectly reflect you dependent on who you are and what else you do.

Just like when you go for a job interview and they tell you to look a certain way. Not doing so gives off all kinds of messages just as doing so gives off the message you presumably want it to.

>> No.5606283

>>5606278
Legitimately laughed out loud. Enjoy your anime porn, you mad retard.

>> No.5606284

>>5606220
>Ive never owned a cellphone, cause im a loser with no firends and ho am i going to call anyways?
>not even neet but tfw

>> No.5606292

>>5606238

Why the fixation on projecting an "active social life" to anonymous people on the internet? Does pretending that internet people have "eventless" lives (compared to you, of course) somehow work to justify your disproportionate rage?

>> No.5606294

>>5606220
Cell phones are good mobile Internet and anime/manga machines. Wi-Fi is free.

>> No.5606299

>>5606292
Don't tucker yourself out little guy, you've got a big day of shitposting ahead of you tomorrow.

>> No.5606303
File: 12 KB, 220x330, 220px-Rebelsellcover.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5606303

Good book about counter cultures. Bit dated but it explains a lot of the phenomenon you are looking for.

>> No.5606310

>>5606164
I don't think narcissism is that common and I certainly don't think it is or has been on the rise. If you think so, tell me what evidence you think you have. I like Mark Liberman's posts about Twenge's narcissism study (starting here):

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4069

>> No.5606327

>>5606134
Yes, it do like it myself, too. But there is something in the way that half the hip youth is rocking the same haircut, that what you found nice is now almost a joke. Once you didn't associate it with obnoxious, conceited people, now you can't but be seen as the same as them. It became repulsive. We all cut our hair while taking notice of what people around will think to some extent, but there are exceptions for me of what I find nice and what I should wear knowing what others wear. And this I speak because I believe that formerly people didn't take much care about their looks, little entertainment provided them with bigger attention spans, so they would like to appear themselves interesting in the amount of knowledge in some subject, activity he posses. Now it feels like it is all about deceiving others to think that you are special, to be superficial. Look at /fa/: the whole board is based on this.

>>5606146
Also thanks

>> No.5606328

>>5606299
>you've got a big day of shitposting ahead of you tomorrow.

You've definitely given me a good model to work with:

>I don't know what you believe you are accomplishing but it's retarded and I have a more active social life than you. Stop being a contrarian autistic sack of shit for ten seconds of your life and accept that most people in 2014 don't want to pretend they give an iota of one fuck what total strangers or their distant coworkers on break think about X topic that had been talked to death.

>> No.5606333

EVERYONE LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ALL MY FRIENDS, LOOK AT MY BEAUTIFUL WIFE, LOOK AT MY BEAUTIFUL HOME, LOOK AT MY BEAUTIFUL CHILDREN, I AM AN ACTIVE MOBILE UPWARDS YOUTH, YOU ARE A LOSER, I HAVE THE GOOD LIFE I SHOW YOU IN MY FACEBOOK PHOTOS, HA HA HA HA HA
NOTHING IS EVER WRONG IN MY LIFE.
I AM REALLY THE THING I PRESENT TO YOU AS I AM BEING
HA HA HA HA

>> No.5606343

>>5606310
He's just too retarded to realize that the phone is a communication device
>>5606328
The only reason you're so butthurt is because I'm right about you despite having no way of actually knowing this and it infuriates you, so you keep throwing delusions at the wall hoping something will "sting". Just stop posting.

>> No.5606348

>>5606184
>CLAIMS TO HAVE A MORE ACTIVE SOCIAL LIFE
>CAN'T INTO SMALL TALK

AUTISM SPEAKS

>> No.5606353

>>5606333
See? Just insanely mad over nothing an too legitimately autistic to understand anything anyone is actually saying.

>> No.5606369

>>5606348
And now that you realize that you suck at arguing you're going to samefag and act like a massive retard, thinking that will somehow refute any of the points raised, or make up for your pathetic waste of an existence.

>> No.5606373

I know some 4channers' behavior seems really autistic (perseverating, poor communication skills, poor social skills, stereotypy, etc.), but I don't think we should be calling posters pejoratively autistic just because we disagree with them.

>> No.5606400

>>5606310

I'm a reader of language log, actually, and am familiar with this post. The big takeway isn't that narcissism isn't on the rise, it's that using textual analysis to "diagnose" narcissism is incredibly shoddy and inefficient. It's more of a criticism of methodology than a counterfactual.

But for the record, I don't think narcissism is on the rise or that it's a "millenial" problem, and I was being pithy rather than stating a scientific fact that I have evidence for, but I do believe that narcissism, in the original pre-DSM sense*, is incredibly common. Perhaps more unchecked in the baby boomer generation than the current gen.

(*"He's a man in a glass box, unable to connect. He thinks the problem is people don't like him, or not enough, so he exerts massive energy into the creation and maintenance of an identity: if they think of me as X...

But that attempt is always futile, not because you can't trick the other person-- you can, for an entire lifetime, it's quite easy. But even then, the man in the box is still unsatisfied, still frustrated, because no amount of identity maintenance will break that glass box.

If the other person is also in a glass box, then you have a serious problem. If everyone is in their own glass box, well, then you have America.")

>> No.5606424
File: 48 KB, 1358x542, erkerj.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5606424

>>5606369
>you suck at arguing you're going to samefag

That's not me. It looks like you come across as insecure to more than one person on the internet.

>> No.5606453

>>5604782
Her body is too long and legs are too short, also manly hands.
2/10 wouldn't, nice ass tho

>> No.5606486

>>5604877
>they talk to eachother very loudly with a lot of cursing and about sex or food or sex and food.

Well, this is the basis of all life. When you're young, you're a savage. You are learning the carnality and embracing the banal. And you have yet to fully reap the fruits of your actions. This is the stage where you learn.

A few rare one go through their personal existential 'storms' in a much more calm and observant state. These are mislabelled as introverts, though they do have introverted qualities. These rare few ones are intuitively attuned to their actions and their consequences, and they are not so easily pulled or pulled to by their contemporaries' latest fascinations and their collective rituals.

>> No.5606496
File: 10 KB, 314x226, talkingHeads1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5606496

>>5606333

THIS IS NOT MY BEAUTIFUL HOUSE
THIS IS NOT MY BEAUTIFUL WIFE

>> No.5606510 [DELETED] 
File: 1.23 MB, 200x260, butter_selfie_vid.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5606510

>>5605291
Would you bone that penguin with your strap on butter?

>> No.5606530
File: 65 KB, 600x540, gray.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5606530

>>5606080
>The blandness and conformity has reached an acute point of saturation, to the point of parody.

not sure if troll, or just incredibly stupid. You are just saying that because it is the generation you currently live in, so of course you see it out on the street. Just like people in the 40s would be saying about zoot suits, or European aristocrats in the late 17th century would be saying about French fashion . Plus, you have confirmation bias.

>> No.5606536

>>5606510
I wouldn't put showing herself naked bellow her, but Butters is a giant amazon so that pic isn't convincing.

>> No.5606544

>>5606220
>Im a neet and I don't talk to anyone or have any friends
>omg why don't people make small talk these days. Conversation is a dieing art am i right guys?

the mental gymnastics some of you autists go through is amazing

>> No.5606549

>>5606400
I agree with you. I think little-n non-DSM narcissism is fairly common (and often quite healthy). I think I've only met one DSM-style narcissist, and he was a borderline case (still very toxic).

I posted the language log post just to suggest that I don't think anyone will find evidence that narcissism is on the rise. I post in a very preemptive manner on /lit/ and all of 4chan, because any little door to a subject usually leads all the fuck down the hallway.

I read Laura Kipnis's pretend review of Lunbeck and Kluger's books on narcissism, said review really being a semi-coherent diatribe against Christopher Lasch's characterization of narcissism, and more generally about what she perceives as the fluidity of the definition and pathology of narcissism. I think her examples are narrowly selected according to her thesis (that is, I don't think she crafted her thesis according to the evidence, and I'm not even convinced that she read thoroughly from the sources she cites throughout the article), and I further think that the diagnostic traits of narcissism and even the battery of wider public perceptions of narcissism have been consistently functional enough to make narcissism a thing worth talking about. I do agree with Kipnis's sentiment that the charge of narcissism can be used as a scourge against anyone and everyone, as it suits a yellow press hack's needs.

Your lastpsychiatrist quote doesn't sound any different than the description of an NPD person's unfillable narcissistic supply. It's a more literary-sounding description of what seem like the real cyclical motivations of the true narcissist.

>> No.5606557

>>5606400
Hi Alone :^)

>> No.5606560

>>5606544
I have a pretty active social life, and I can definitely sympathize with someone being disinterested in small talk. I do small talk, but I don't actually enjoy it. It's just socially functional. On our first date, my gf was very clear about disliking small talk.

I don't conflate small talk with joking around or riffing or other informal kinds of conversation. It's not that conversation has to be "deep" to be interesting. It can be funny, for example. It's just that small talk is rarely little more than maintenance conversation. It's used to grease the social wheels, not to be interesting.

>> No.5606567

>>5606549
Are there any good critiques/responses to Lasch's book? I recently read it and would be interested in a second view.

>> No.5606571

>>5606567
seconding this, I have my own ideas but I'd like to hear some outside opinions

>> No.5606575

>>5606530
I wish we would walk like in that picture, keeping modest appearance with some standards that is. Look how everyone manages to look different. I imagine people back then, yes, will judge each other, but costumes project a good impression about the guy no matter the small nuances which, I believe, become so interesting to notice.

Now I don't care about a group of diversely tattered people. They manage to look the same no matter their tattoos and hair color.

>> No.5606584

>>5606575
Shut the fuck up.

>> No.5606597

>>5606567
I don't know. You could read the Kipnis article (Harper's August 2014), even though I don't think it's well argued. I've only browsed The Agony of the American Left, which I think has some insight into the failings of radicalism (eg iirc, that black radicalism appeals primarily to young males, which doesn't bode well for having a unified left that includes women and people over the age of 35), but for left criticisms of the left I prefer Paul Goodman and Harold Cruse's The Crisis of the Negro Intellectual. My protracted encounter with a full-on NPD guy (who was very successful in convincing people around him that he was nice, intelligent, morally upstanding guy) is pretty much the only thing that makes me interested in narcissism qua narcissism, although from time to time I read things that counter the society-is-in-the-gutter decline-and-fall-of-the-west narrative that crops up so often in op-ed journalism and comes out of the mouths of coworkers.

>> No.5606614

>>5606584
>that will surely show him

>> No.5606621

Just get over the nostalgia.

>> No.5606622

>>5606614
Dude you're just bitching and I refuse to believe you are so retarded as to believe that laughable pile of shit post about people looking the same. It's the definition of le wrong generashun Fallout 3 fedora tipping faggotry and there is no way you are this thick and annoying.

>> No.5606629

>>5606622
His post was kind of silly, but there is something interesting about how oddly alluring uniformity can be.

>> No.5606633

Not being an elitist is the new elitism

>> No.5606642

Individuality isn't worth the money for me. I'll take my cheap mass manufactured goods. Though I have been meaning to get into thrifting clothing.

>> No.5606656

>>5606597
>My protracted encounter with a full-on NPD guy (who was very successful in convincing people around him that he was nice, intelligent, morally upstanding guy)

This sounds very interesting. Do you mean he wasn't upstanding etc? Was he hiding something?

>> No.5606806

>>5606622
>check out how many words 4chan taught me

>> No.5606876
File: 108 KB, 579x523, 10430509_508465052620808_8327732418272774334_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5606876

>>5606400
>If everyone is in their own glass box, well, then you have America
Oh man that hits home really hard. Who are you quoting?

>> No.5606882

>>5606806
Hey guess what: you're actually on 4chan, RIGHT NOW! Wow! How nuts is that! :smh:

>> No.5606893

>>5606622
>there is no way you are this thick and annoying.

you have no idea

>> No.5606908

>>5606876
the last psychiatrist

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/

get ready for a world of feels

>> No.5606914

>>5606908
>http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/

Is this the blog of that alcoholic psychiatrist guy or am I thinking of someone else?

>> No.5606927

>>5606914
no that's the one. his book of pornography seems to take up all his time nowadays.

>> No.5606934
File: 97 KB, 468x484, 1375066317253.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5606934

Plebs gonna pleb.

>> No.5606943

>>5606486
>Well, this is the basis of all life. When you're young, you're a savage. You are learning the carnality and embracing the banal. And you have yet to fully reap the fruits of your actions. This is the stage where you learn.

Rousseau! You're back from the grave. Please don't kill any more of your children. I know you love Sparta but please.

>>5606255
Thanks buddy

>> No.5606952

>>5606927

Ah, cool. I was sick a few months ago and spent a few days trawling through his posts. He's pretty funny. I'm curious to see what his pornographic efforts entail, considering I'm trying to write a novel which deals with the same thing and he's always sorta reminded me of me. But yeah, he must be taking it pretty seriously if he was updating all of the time and then just suddenly stopped one day. Has he ever mentioned how progress on it is going, do you know?

>> No.5606962

>>5606952
he mentioned it in one post, called "how i am doing," or the like. i think it should be near the first page.

>> No.5606974

>>5604842
show me adverts for this style

>> No.5607052

>>5606962

Ah, not sure how I missed that. That was pretty underwhelming, I thought he was doing a porn addiction-inspired scientific thesis based around the contents of his alcoholic psychiatrist life, not some vanilla erotica novella.

>> No.5607062

OP here

>thread now contains few discussions, book recommendations, posts leading to quality blogs that I now look forward on reading more.

Thank you

>> No.5607077

>>5606656
I remember one day he was talking at length about a woman's body, some woman he met at a bar. He was marveling at how this girl made his gf jealous, and then he talked at length about her tits and ass and admired how "slutty" she seemed to be. He instantly switched over to saying, "I was at my internship today and the mom volunteers are so young, they're like my age, and they're wearing yoga pants and their asses just look . . . ohhh. And their tits. If I worked in a high school, I would just be paralyzed all day. I wouldn't be able to move; I'd just be staring all day long. I could never work in a high school."

Not long later, to the same interlocutor: "You don't understand, Matt. I could NEVER work in a high school. Do you know what I mean? I wouldn't be able to get any work done."

He was incapable of listening to music or watching a movie without getting up and doing something else. Either activity, for him, was designed only for displaying to someone else his social worth. He listened to music on his own maybe twice while I lived with him, and I'm not sure that both those times weren't ostentatious efforts to show the rest of us that he was artistic, thoughtful, soulful, whatever. If he watched a tv show or movie alone (which was very rare), he'd get up and pace, seemingly to do something else, like check on something in his room or in the kitchen. The pacing would be relentless. He was incapable of being alone with his thoughts; he didn't even seem to like to sleep, and I suspect he was regularly on Adderall. He would stay up until 2 or 3 am and then get up as early as 5 or 6 am. As soon as he finished one job, he'd go out to the bar, bring his current gf home (he had several in a short period of time), fuck as loudly as he could, because he didn't want other people not to know that he was fucking, eventually go to bed, and wake up for his other job a few hours later.

He didn't just talk about himself a lot. He regularly said self-aggrandizing things about himself and criticized others while doing it. So if someone mentioned a skateboarder, he would talk about how that style of skateboarding is an inauthentic kind of skateboarding, and that his style of skateboarding (downhill) was the most pure kind of skateboarding. Then he'd describe all the people who complimented his and his friends' downhill skateboarding. If someone worked with him, they did their job shittily, while he did his job great, and everyone, from the boss to the customers, all talked about how good he was at his job. He exaggerated the number of jobs he had, and if he did an odd job once (like walking someone's dogs a couple of times), he would say that he was also "a dog walker" & "a professional dog trainer." He put words in other people's mouths, which I fully realized when he ascribed a full paragraph to a 3rd grader who, according to him, would not shut up about how insightful and helpful NPD guy was & how the 3rd grader just now saw the error of his ways.

>> No.5607081

>>5604871

i actually agree, not completely, because they are still scandalous and girls definitely dont mind the attention

but they are comfy as fuck. i mean there is a reason people who practice yoga seriously wear them, they are soft and stretch to any position you get in

it's an easy way for girls to get the best of both worlds, they look comfy, their outfits are easy to assemble, and they get to flaunt their asses, all in one article of clothing

yoga pants are the shit

>> No.5607104

>>5607077
And no, he wasn't very intelligent, although he had certain traits of intelligence, such as decent oral communication abilities (he talked incessantly) and the ability to think on his feet. But all of this was for the sake of a very narrow range of pursuits (almost always getting people to fill his narcissistic supply because it could never be filled). I don't think it's hard to convince people that you're intelligent, at least some people. The rest you can discredit (as NPDs are wont to do) and cut out of your life.

He was also racist and an evolutionary psychology ("women are good at THIS; men are good at THIS; I read it somewhere") kind of guy, but that stuff is so common that it's unremarkable. He was the kind of guy to do a ching-chong approximation of a Japanese person's language, or to go on at length about how ugly "an old Jewish lady's" legs were, and then do an "old Jewish lady" voice that had no relation to any Jewish woman he ever met. He was so eager to have people like him, though, that in other contexts he was friends with lesbians and pocs. I think he had typical Bay Area white liberal values, but seemingly not because he held those values, but because they fit his me vs. them identify politics. Like, Piedmont was disgusting because they annexed from Oakland, but his primary complaint was that they "stole" the culture of Oakland, meaning, in his case, the latte foam art and first Friday gallery walks. He didn't care about the actual implications of Piedmont, white flight, gentrification or what-have-you; he cared that people who didn't pay taxes in Oakland could still benefit from his latte art.

>> No.5607108

>>5607081
My gf wears yoga pants because she does a lot of dance and yoga, and also because they're comfortable. I don't think she thinks too much about them being sexy, but I don't think there's really anything wrong with people wanting to be sexy.

>> No.5607112

>>5607104
>pocs

HAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh fucking man. "people of color". Holy fuck. That is so much worse than the other ones. That is such a gem of modern retardation. I know every nigger who utters it slaps themself for letting things get this bad.

>> No.5607117

>>5607112
That was a valuable, coherent contribution. Thanks.

>> No.5607121

>>5607104
>evolutionary psychology ("women are good at THIS; men are good at THIS; I read it somewhere")

since when biochemistry is 'evolutionary psychology'

wtf is 'evolutionary psychology' anyway

that guy seems more clever than you right now

>> No.5607123

>>5607117
At least you're tolerant! And I mean, they're even of color! How nice of you, tolerating those icky people of color. You're quite noble to advocate for them even though they are obviously just like us and should therefore be seld-evidently "normal".

>> No.5607142

>>5607121
Wtf is 'look it up yourself'

Biochemistry is frequently invoked in evolutionary psychology papers. How is that even controversial. Evolutionary psychology might be controversial, but I don't see how biochemistry being implicated with it is.

>> No.5607149

>>5607123
Your sarcasm doesn't make it clear if you think I'm intolerant and bigoted or too tolerant and not seeing the error of my ways for thinking that black people are inferior.

>> No.5607158

>>5607149
lol I totally misnegated

>> No.5607167

>>5607142
>evolutionary psychology
eww
you probably don't even get how disgustingly pseudoscientific it sounds
serious, it's not something to mention in polite society

>> No.5607170

>>5607167


>evolution stopped at the head

>> No.5607176

>>5607167
Yeah, it is pseudoscience. That was my point.

>> No.5607229

>>5607167
And although I unequivocally agree with you that it's pseudoscience, in my experience, this sort of rhetoric is completely accepted in "polite society."

>> No.5607281

>>5604981
I'm the guy who took the picture. I fucking know the girl in that picture doesn't come to 4chin.

>> No.5607296

>>5607281
SD or MN?

>> No.5607302

>>5607170
Actually there are extremely cogent arguments for this as far as behaviour is concerned. For example, it is vastly more efficacious that somewhere along the line we merely became aware rather than "awareness" being a sum of cultivated feelings, and that since then we're basically just minds born into bodies (this would accommodate further evolution without necessitating a change in mind to go along with each change in body etc. - and then it's quite obvious that pretty much all of our behaviour is learned)

>> No.5607312

>>5607302
>awareness isn't just the sum of cultivated feelings

I do not believe you

>> No.5607317

>>5607312
Oh, so your computer is feeling all the things going on inside it right now? Lay off the porn, anon, imagine how ashamed it must feel!

>> No.5607319

>tfw you start to empathise with your computer

>> No.5607322

>>5607317
>implying computers and brains are even comparable

You're just assuming the brain is a computer

>> No.5607325

>>5607322
No, actually that's you. I'm pointing out that there's something emergent there which is this special sort of awareness I'm talking about.

>> No.5607345

>>5606353
>consumerism is not bad
when, and how, did /lit/ get to this point?

>> No.5607361

>>5606642
lol thirfting doesn't automatically make you non conformist, most thrift stores carry the same stuff from Target and the Gap, maybe just a couple years older, but not always (at least around me :( ))). Not to discourage you, it's great, but it's not the one true path to total uniqueness or anything.

>> No.5607381

>tfw nonconformists aren't even communists, just nonconforming because "muh nonconformism"

>> No.5607396
File: 20 KB, 224x346, 10000 year explosion.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5607396

>>5607302


except no.

>> No.5607409

>>5607396
>posts pic of a book
>no

>> No.5607429

>trends
>no living in a cave with your books and your toughs

>no you have to live with this degenerate society

>> No.5607435

>>5607345
>consumerism is bad

SMH

>> No.5607450

>>5607435
It is.
>>>/biz/

>> No.5607598
File: 23 KB, 260x333, chimpanzee politics.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5607598

>>5607409


indeed, have another book. qualitative effects of evolution and natural (and unnatural) selection wrt to behavior, capacities, and other attributes is a foregone conclusion, the only quibble is exact details.

>> No.5607619

>>5607429
>reading notes from the underground
>thinking UM is right
jesus what is wrong with you

>> No.5607666

>>5607598
Actually I'm about 5 chapters through the first book you posted and it's quite farcical. Oh, some farmer selected for tameness in foxes, as if tameness is purely the result of some number of genes, and within 5 generations had domesticated foxes. Really? This dude is trying to tell me that he sectioned off some super, and I mean SUPER complicated collection of stimuli and irrational responses to those stimuli, and within 5 generations he had a lovely playful robot. No, retard. This is where that more efficacious theory of a certain loose-minded, primarily calculating consciousness comes in. Ockham's razor. Dogs form closer bonds with humans than cats do simply because it's of greater necessity for them, they being less mobile. If instead you wish to put everything down to irrational response to stimuli, you stunt evolution's growth infinity times over.

>> No.5607677

>>5607666
666
Evolution debunked.

>> No.5607703

>>5607170
but how it's named, it should be 'the evolution of human mind' or something, it's hardly the field of psychology

>>5607176
you still don't get it

the science which you mention (and which you without any reason attribute to that person) is questionable but the biology data behind it were proven quite well

your idea of falsely understood equality when you completely ignore data which you dislike is truly pseudoscientific

so you basically blame that person in your own sin

>>5607229
i meant among intelligent people

>> No.5607723

>>5607703

picture of breasts with tamestamp

>> No.5607729

>>5607703
I'm not sure which data I'm supposed to be ignoring. You're reading a lot into a small portion of an extemporaneous post or two.

>> No.5607733

>>5607723
kitty is a virgin :3

>> No.5607735

>>5607723
God you are the worst.

>> No.5607766

>>5607735

you love me kitten. put the tripe back on, that coy shit won't work. photograph of shriveled prunes with timestamp.

>> No.5607769

>>5607729
i'm annoyed because i dislike that feminist bs which tries to make women become second men forfeiting our original nature. the nature of both genders differs objectively and it differs past purely social differences, that fact shouldn't be denied or silenced. and i think men and women should complement each other, not compete like feminists (which hold the same idea as you, that men and women differ only because society taught them) want. i don't mind that the borders of genders shift but i definitely don't like the way of lie which feminists chose. also why do people even think that equal rights have to suppose equal tastes and abilities

>> No.5607781

>>5607703
Like, I can only guess what you mean. Do you mean that sex differences as attributed to evolutionary psychology are pseudoscientific, but that sex differences attributed to biochemistry are not? Which sex differences are you speaking of? I have no idea.

Anyone who claimed to have read this or that saying "men are better at spatial thinking" and "women are better at language" is talking out of his ass and gets the side-eye from me. Even that famed data-fabricator and scientific racist Cyril Burt claimed that psychometric sex differences are negligible.

And since I'm not purporting to practice science, can my post be said to be "truly pseudoscientific"?

>> No.5607783

>>5607766
I'm not kitten, I'm just tired of you cyberstalking kitten and I'm tired of dumbass trips.

>> No.5607787

>>5607769
Don't worry, kitty. There will always be a place for you standing alongside the stove in my kitchen :3

>> No.5607797

>>5607769
I don't think that for people to be equal they must be like white men. On the other hand, if we're talking about IQ and g, I think there's way too much doubt cast on both to say that there's no statistical or scientific controversy, that it's a done deal like a heliocentric (pls don't nitpick and bring up the barycenter) model of the solar system.

>> No.5607798

>>5607769
And you're definitely on the right board to complain about "feminist bs."

>> No.5607801

>>5607781

i think that the very phrase 'evolutionary psychology' is almost an oxymoron, i clearly said the evolution of mind isn't the field of psychology

also you completely ignores statistics

>> No.5607807

>>5607797
>I think there's way too much doubt cast on both to say that there's no statistical or scientific controversy

imo that controversy is artificial
may be i use my skepticism in a wrong way there...

also about statistics, it can take into account social difference

>> No.5607817

>>5607807
I don't understand how the controversy would be artificial. There's a line that can be traced from Godfrey Thomson to Leon Kamin and Jeffrey Blum to Cosma Shalizi (to name a few) that shows the controversy is pretty consistent. Many contemporary psychometricians are very reluctant to associate g with intelligence as Spearman did.

>> No.5607818

>>5607807
You sound like a silly frightened girl right now, kitty.

>> No.5607822

>>5607801
You're being vague again. I don't know what I'm supposed to be ignoring. You're not saying anything specific, just saying I ignore this or that when you don't know what I've ignored or not (or what I've read and what I simply don't know about existing).

>> No.5607843

>>5604833
It's less extreme today than it was even 25 years ago. You have the historical perspective of a goldfish. A dead one.

>> No.5607844

>>5607807
And I'd like to know how I ignore statistics (what statistics) when at least four the people I posted (Burt, Thomson, Kamin, and Shalizi) are all stellar statisticians.

>> No.5607851

>>5607807
>>5607801

ugh, who the fuck gave this rancid airhead cunt permission to post

god i miss onion ring...while she never once showed us her lopsided avocados, at least she didn't sound like an idiot in every post

tragic...all the smart ones jumped ship and now the deadweight has fucking sunk us.

>> No.5607856

>>5607851
The same nonentity who gave you permission to post.

Are you that shitposter that starts the threads about his "girlfriend" and complains about "that fucking faggot janitor"? You sound like him.

>> No.5607896

>>5607817
>I don't understand how the controversy would be artificial.

it's like with supposed equality of races (yes, i question it too, to a less extent though, that's really questionable), when scientists have a strong public demand for something some of them will have more attention to the data which public like (i.e. cherry pick) or at least try to make the area more vague adding supposed controversy

>>5607844
>And I'd like to know how I ignore statistics (what statistics) when at least four the people I posted (Burt, Thomson, Kamin, and Shalizi) are all stellar statisticians.

you mentioned thomson, kamin and shalizi after that my post which you quote, lol

and also you mentioned burt not as a statistic but as a psychometrist (statistics is a part of any scientific research but making people to take some tests isn't a purely statistical research)

also what do you exactly want from me? to name drop links to biochemical and statistical articles? i'm pretty sure you can do it as well as me, it's not like i'm writing an article there

google the something like following, you will find plenty of them
articles about biochemical differences between males and females
statistical differences between males and females

>> No.5607918

>>5607896
I mention Burt before.

>> No.5607945

>>5607896
And I mention Burt in light of his research about sex differences. I don't know why you ask what I want from you when you started replying to me first in your vague elliptical way. I'm not going to google general subjects to try to confirm a bias I don't have and have no reason to have. If you wanna pull that Pioneer Fund bullshit, that's fine.

And you're still being vague as fuck. Even your "biochemical differences between males and females" go unnamed. I've never seen any /pol/-style scientific racism meme stand up to scrutiny. I absolutely never see white supremacists engage sincerely with critics of g and the validity of IQ. At best, I've seen (not on 4chan) people with a vested interest in g, but not necessarily in white supremacy, try to engage, albeit unconvincingly or by reasoning past a critic's points.

You were kind of a hold-out for me on an extremely short list of trips worth engaging with, but I don't think so anymore, not after your "I question it too" comment.

>> No.5607950
File: 92 KB, 764x938, 1409645013668.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5607950

>>5604836
>tfw you will die alone

>> No.5607957

>>5607950
this

>you will never have sex

>> No.5607961

>>5607950
You guys are gross. Maybe that's why you have trouble forming healthy relationships with females.

>> No.5607962

>>5606218
Women are human beings. The real question is whether human beings deserve respect.

>> No.5607966

>>5607961
It's probably something else.

>> No.5607968

>>5607961
at least we're not normalfags. we've got that going for us.

>> No.5607971

>>5607962
I don't know about "deserve," but showing "respect" is, I'm sure, more functional than not showing respect.

>> No.5607975

>>5607968
Yeah, that's true. At least you're not normalfags. You've got that, uh, going for you.

>> No.5607979

>>5607971
What do you mean, more functional?

>> No.5607981

>>5607966
Must be. Has to be. Please God make it something else.

>> No.5607989

>>5607979
I mean that showing respect (which is a pretty nebulous term, but let's go with it) will lead to healthier familial, romantic, and peer relationships, will correlate to success to a limit, and is less likely to get you arrested. The only one I've seen any data for is the last one, and I'm really, really tired of looking for sociological data (etc.), but if I put in the old college try, I wouldn't be surprised if I was right about the former two.

>> No.5607995

>>5607989
Refreshingly practical.

But on an executive level, doesn't disrespect have a possible reward in it, as well?

>> No.5608093

>>5607995
I could imagine that it would! Psychologists have theorized that one of the primary reasons people bully others is because doing so boosts one's standing among peers. I read a decent article about it last week and I'm paraphrasing imperfectly, but the article said that the audience is very important to a lot of bullies.

>> No.5608096

>>5607945

omg
dem internet discussions
ok, i will name drop too if it's the only way you like to discuss
doreen kimura for instance or diane halpern (two women btw), these two wrote books with some advanced researches on the subject
i hope you spare me from providing links on ordinary effects of testosteron/estragen etc... you seem already know that

as for the racial question, i know it's kind of taboo, i already said that it's a strong taboo where we know beforehand which results we should have. i'm not racist here but skeptic (i'm quite a skeptic generally). you seem to know the question (or you simply pretend?) and if so you should know that the equality of racial cognitive abilities was questioned by some brave scientists for decades. wiki has a good article about that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence with a lot of sources and many different approaches to the question, but if you already know it, i dunno what's the question? i don't try to prove something here but merely mention it as yet another social demand taboo (which you clearly illustrated with your reaction)

>> No.5608108

>>5607856

No, that's Stan (satan). He alternated between head reeling insight and wanton shitposting. Which was usually an indicator of what he was on that particular night. Judging by the other thread, he seems to be near black-out drunk tonight.

>> No.5608222

>>5608096
Kimura argues several sex differences in cognition cliches from a biological pov (and has taken Fraser Institute money while doing it), but studies in sex differences in cognition have been contradictory and the differences calculated are negligible at best. The differences aren't large enough or consistent enough to make any generalization one might make practical. She also absolutely makes evolutionary explanations for differences. She doesn't make a convincing biological case for why the outcomes among blacks and Asians are different than those for whites. Butthole jpg meme-posters like to pretend that, eg., Cavalli-Sforza is on THEIR side and make passing references to his work as if it supports their white supremacy, although this isn't so

http://anthrogenetics.wordpress.com/2010/03/31/what-does-cavalli-sforza-say-about-biological-basis-of-human-race/

And they like to post Deka's ancient 1994 paper that is heavily indebted to Cavalli-Sforza, as if they know what the allele loci do, as if genomes are being compared to genomes, as if they know what question Deka, et al., are asking, and as if they know what their conclusions (of this incredibly minor and unimportant paper) were.

As for Halpern, she doesn't say what you seem to be suggesting you think she says. She's much more even-handed and she'd be the first to admit the contradictory evidence and the small effect sizes.

"Skeptic" is a code word for your garden-variety crypto-racist. Cool. Glad you've mastered the art of the dog whistle.

It's kind of hilarious that you're calling Spearman, Binet, Terman, etc. "brave scientists" when being racist was and is a widely accepted thing, even in science.

It's ridiculous that you're linking the wiki article. Why don't you explain to me how g is anything but tautological? Or why the Flynn effect has had the largest effect on supposedly culturally unbiased tests such as Raven's, that is, tests that are supposed to measure abstract cognitive skills? You're still vaguely referencing differences, but you're not being specific about anyone's claims. Maybe you shouldn't speak as if anyone who doesn't agree with your "brave" position about sex or race & cognitive abilities is lacking cleverness if after six hours you're still unable to write anything more convincing than posting a wikipedia link, a name of one person who agrees with you, and the name of another who does not, unless you're really saying that sex differences in cognition are small and not useful for making generalizations, in which case I'd say so what (and I know you're not saying that, anyway).

>> No.5608229

And have you read Shalizi? Here is a sort of annotated Shalizi, although I don't think you'll read it; it's not a wikipedia link, after all:

https://www.stormfront.org/forum/t961108/

>> No.5608243

Ugh, it's useless having a conversation with you. With most 4channers, you know they're gonna make big claims and dig in their heels and offer nothing, but you make these overtures to knowing something and having something to say, and then you do the same fucking thing. Do you really think you're different from any other bigot on /lit/?

>> No.5608247

>>5608229
>>5608243
are you a bot?

>> No.5608290

>>5608247
Yes.How very astute of you to notice. You're the first one. Are you a bot? That can be the only explanation for your ability to detect my presence here.

>> No.5608359

>>5608243

you blame me in what? i didn't promise you to reveal anything. i only expressed my annoyance about people who think that the sex differences in cognition and personality are merely social. imo it's pretty self evidential that they are not even without biochemistry and special researches. how about the lack women in math/tech departments of universities even though they often have (i admit it) unfair educational advantages over males from our society which caters to feminists? it's their fathers and mothers taught them in childhood they shouldn't love math and technology? how about the clear difference in games etc since childhood then? do you think it's mother and father force their daughter to play with dolls instead of toy cars programming her socially? that's bs. huh, i wouldn't be surprised if somebody tried to prove that it's parents fault, like they buy only dolls for girls and poor girls play with them when they actually would prefer a boy's toy. regardless that girls of former times made their dolls themselves.. oh it's their mothers taught them how they were taught initially by oppressing cavemen

i didn't even want to discuss it in detail, it's you made me, i answer you only because i'm trying to be polite and try to explain that i have a basis for my point of view... instead of reading 'childe harold's piligrimage'

also i dunno how you even read my posts, you blamed me firstly in racism, now that i deny evolution of mind and human behavior... i just said that's a question of biology, not psychology, and kimura was a biologist who specialized in psychology, psychobiologist

>> No.5608364

>>5608359
(umad bro?)

>> No.5608365

>>5604782
Marcuse
Adorno
Jameson

>> No.5608368

I unironically hate niggers.

>> No.5608369

>>5608359
You speak English as a second language?

>> No.5608378

>>5608369
yes

>> No.5608400

>>5608359
Actually all of that stuff you just sperged is very easily explained in terms on just plain ole psychology/making use of one's physiology - that is, it's all simply a matter of playing to one's strengths, and those strengths are then strengths WITHIN a given society

>> No.5608436

>>5604782
The best way is to read contemporary cultural magazines
I go to an art school but I still don't know that many
Khole is a really good one
Oyster mag has the right topics but not good writing
Read Roger Ebert
Stuff like that

>> No.5608872

>>5608364
annoyed that i allowed him to drag me in a stupid discussion, and with a person who read my posts in a rather strange way. half of the stuff which he wrote (especially ramblings about racial iq and g) it's his replies to something which i didn't even say, he argues with somebody from his past or his idea of me

>>5608400
dude
you blame me in being vague while you are yourself vague as f
i didn't want to attack your posts, but i am not even sure how i should understand this one, unless you think that the little children make a conscious choice to play to their strengths. their behavior is biologically caused
i begin to strongly suppose that you don't have any biological background

>> No.5608890

>>5608369
kitty's a russian

>> No.5608901

>>5606908
Just spent the last two hours on this. I don't know what to feel. Any other blogs /lit/ recommends?

>> No.5609138

>>5608290
i like you be my friend

>> No.5609166

>>5606080
>Also, why is everyone constantly dressed for a job interview with a trendy advertising firm?

much Mad Men

>> No.5609168

>>5609166
*muh

>> No.5609279

>>5608872
I "strongly suppose" you haven't read the sources you cited. You've admitted to having a preconceived notion about cognitive differences between the sexes and races as if that makes you different from the rest of 4chan, as if you've found some bold new idea backed up by SCIENCE and STATISTICS, but you're too shy to actually delve into the science, as if it would be difficult for you if you were half as educated on the subject as you pretend to be. And from the outset, you want to make some point about SOMETHING that you're incapable of defining or qualifying, until it turns out to be old-fashioned bigotry (surprise). You call evolutionary psychology a pseudoscience (it is), but then you cite an author who makes arguments about sex differences in cognition and development from an evolutionary perspective. And you seem to think saying, "What do you want from me?" has any bearing in a conversation. If you make a claim, however wishy-washy, if someone asks you to justify the claim, it's clear what they want from you. Can you really not see how g or boilerplate arguments (Cavalli-Sforza's work) about genetic variation would be relevant to a discussion of sex and race differences in cognition? Just don't have the conversation if you don't want to have the conversation. You don't have to justify your preconceived "skeptical" bigotry. The rest of 4chan makes no effort, so why should you, in whatever completely half-assed way you do?


Your toy argument is hilarious, though. You've found the smoking gun. Toys are really in no way culturally determined. I won't deny there possibly being some evidence that girls inherently prefer dolls more than boys (I'm doubtful. Would these be clinical tests on feral children or some kind of anthropological data or what?), but that doesn't mean that men and women perform consistently differently on tests of cognition in any significant way, and it doesn't mean that the doll stereotype isn't heavily reinforced and overdetermined by culture. Perhaps someone with a biological background, such as yourself, can give a biological explanation (since biology is so important here) for why girls prefer dolls more than boys?

>> No.5609340

>>5609279
whoever you are, lets take this into a vacuum;
I= have no education beyound highschool
you= i don't know but I assume you do

okay so now we are in a room suspended in time and space, and everythings blearingly white. (Im shit at writing so bear with me)

Me:So from my understanding, you claim that men and women are cognitively the same?

You: No, I claim that theres no science to back up the claim ...(I lose track at this point because Im a doofus with a 6th grade reading level)

Me: okay so here's where Im at; you claim that gender/sex/whatever doesnt effect cognitive ability/brain make-up, yet the numbers say that more men enroll in hard mathy science courses and do better in these subjects. Whats causing this difference?

you:easy! its becuz culture (and something about bigotry? idk)

god: So how can we test these theories out?

You and I simutaniously: You can't!

god: *smirks wisely*

You: *looks at me passionately*
me: *leans in for a kiss*

>> No.5609347

>>5609279

honestly i don't even feel any need to speak with you

despite i had to ignore this autism which i wasn't even interested to discuss (otherwise i would be on sci) at the very beginning, i politely explained you my personal opinion in several different ways, then when you began to urge me to give links i mentioned a couple of scientists who you already knew (you realize how autistic it on your side to ask me to give you links to people who you already know, in a discussion like that?)

then, they both, especially kimura who i like more stated the cognitive differences between sexes. and yes i read them

i got some complete bullshit from you, was blamed to be racist, your posts never even tried to be clear what exactly you wanted to tell with all these supposedly smart-sounding phrases, you never tried to think logically of my or your arguments and i not only suppose that you don't have a biological background, but that you cannot think clearly and logically too (or at least you cannot formulate your opinion and understood others'). overall you seem as a some psychological student who would better learn how to actually discuss answering opponent instead of writing something barely related

now you can answer me and i will let you the last word because it seems it's important for your ego