Hjernevask (Brainwashed)

[Anonymous No.4212903]

Found this Norwegian documentary series on how social scientists have ignored biological explanations for social outcomes. This is the first episode on gender equality (the other episodes should be displayed in the "Related Content" box):

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/brainwashing-norway-part-1-gender-equality

And here is a summary of the controversy the show engendered when it aired in Norway:

http://eusja.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/norway-brainwashed-science-on-tv-creates-storm/

What do you think of this /sci/?

[Anonymous No.4213003]

Watched the first episode. Thought it was alright. Nothing I didn't know already though.

[Anonymous No.4213314]

Okay I think this is relevant, but I remember seeing an odd test done with chimpanzees, where they were given two types of toys. A dumper truck, that had quite a few moving parts. And some kind of rosy faced doll.

They saw that the male chimps were instantly attracted to go and play with the dumper truck, while the female chimps went and played with the dolls. I can't remember where I saw this, but if it has any reflection on us (being that we supposedly evolved from chimps) then I would say that the brain is a large factor in the differences between gender.

But I'm probably wrong.

[Anonymous No.4213943]

Watching the 2nd episode.

[Anonymous No.4213967]

Men and women are in fact very different. Thank feminist nazi cunts for our situation today.

[Anonymous No.4213978]

I'm liking Eia's choice in academics to interview.

[Anonymous No.4213983]

>>4213314
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2002-12/tau-tca121002.php

[Anonymous No.4214031]

The Nurture Assumption has been on my to-read list for awhile.

[Anonymous No.4214115]

Watching it now, but holy fuck what a terrible sounding language

>bork bork bork

[Anonymous No.4214221]

Raged so hard at the social "scientists". "But the biology is uninteresting", "the research is weak" etc. They are talking purely out of their asses not knowing the methodology or the results of research from 1980-2011. After this if I were the dean of faculty I would fire every single one of those Norwegian fucktards.

[Anonymous No.4214329]

>>4214115
>bork bork bork

But thats Swedish.

[Anonymous No.4214411]

>>4213943
link?

[Anonymous No.4214421]

>>4214411
http://www.mrctv.org/videos/brainwashing-norway-part-ii-parental-effect

[Anonymous No.4214422]

you can thank the cultural marxists and jews for this

[Anonymous No.4214443]

>>4212903

It's really great, even thou I hate how the fact he have clipped it. It's pretty obvious once you get into the sex-episode, that he messes with their answers.

[Anonymous No.4214675]

>>4214421
I'm not so sure about this one. Certainly IQ is inherited, but the differences in success between single parent and steady home is not even addressed or considered in this episode. I suppose the researcher said genetics was only 50 percent

[Anonymous No.4215947]

>>4214675
>I'm not so sure about this one. Certainly IQ is inherited, but the differences in success between single parent and steady home is not even addressed or considered in this episode.

I wouldn't expect a TV documentary to go into the intricacies of the issue. As far as the effect of being raised in a single parent home, most studies on this tend to commit the sociologists fallacy. Having children out-of-wedlock could be considered indicative of high time preferences, lower conscientiousness and lower intelligence, which are all heritable traits.

[Anonymous No.4216141]

Watching episode 3, Gay/Straight:

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/brainwashing-norway-part-iii-gaystraight

[Anonymous No.4216147]

Talking about some gay Norwegian celebrity I've never heard of.

[Anonymous No.4216181]

I read "Gay, Straight, and the Reason Why" a few months ago. I thought it was pretty informative.

[Anonymous No.4216186]

Kind of surprised that the Norwegians sociologists thought homosexuality was a choice. In this specific instance, the biological explanation is usually considered the more politically correct one.

[Anonymous No.4216210]

These Norwegian sociologists come off as a rather incurious bunch of individuals. Amazed that others would even bother asking such questions as what differentiates homosexuals from heterosexuals.

[Anonymous No.4216216]

>>4216210

They really seem proud of their ignorance too. All that seems to matter to them is their pet political cause.

[Anonymous No.4216892]

Watching episode 4, Violence:

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/brainwashing-norway-part-iv-violence

[Anonymous No.4216933]

>>4214221
That picture...
>binary tree
>retarded cartoony rocket
>e=mc^2
>graphs
HURRRR I'M SO RANDUM AND NERDYY XDD

[Anonymous No.4216954]

Talking about Richard Nisbett's work on cultures of honor.

[Anonymous No.4216962]

Kind of surprised that Nisbett claimed that Northern liberals get offended about claims that Southerners are more violent. From my experience most of them love hating on those backwards rednecks.

[Anonymous No.4216982]

>>4216186
Then you don't understand the political ideology from which gay rights came from, back then leftist ideology was blank slatist it still is to large degree, the idea was that you could choose anything and everything you wanted to be and there was nothing preprogrammed in your mind. People were only straight because the bourgeoisie wanted them to be or whatever. Today the same fags that they loved back then shit all over this idea, this is why feminist hate fags and trannies because feminism still holds to the old blank slatist bs.

[Anonymous No.4217033]

Bunch of goddess worshipping nutters talking about some mythical peaceful past.

[Anonymous No.4217040]

This isn't really worth the time watching it, sure it points out some interesting tidbits from different perspectives, but it's not something you could figure out on your own with a little bit of thought.

Thanks anyways OP, at least it's not a religion/EK thread.

[Anonymous No.4217047]

Now he's interview Steven Pinker about how violent societies were in the past.

[Anonymous No.4217084]

>>4217040
You do know that those social "scientists" thought about it on their own and got it damn wrong, because the only solid argument they can make is out of their lower intestine.

[Anonymous No.4217101]

This is starting to get rather comical.

[Anonymous No.4217165]

>>4215947
I suppose you could limit it to being all genetics and that that single parenting was just bound to happen because of their genes. I thought about that after I posted it. Yet sort of how the episode on violence showed that culture could play a role in to the "extent" to which we are violent. Sure there may be a biological root, but biological extremism is just as dangerous as cultural/environmental extremism.

I must congratulate the creator of this documentary though as it raises many questions that need to be considered and perhaps will turn the tides in what seems to be a very unbalanced field in Norway.

[Anonymous No.4217168]

[Anonymous No.4217171]

>>4217168

[Anonymous No.4217174]

>>4217047
Around what time in the video?

[Anonymous No.4217179]

>>4217165
>Sure there may be a biological root, but biological extremism is just as dangerous as cultural/environmental extremism.

The thing is that "biological extremism" is near non-existent, while cultural/environmental extremism is common within the social sciences.

[Anonymous No.4217190]

>>4217174
>Around what time in the video?

I think it was just after the half-way mark of episode 4 when he starts interviewing Pinker.

[Anonymous No.4217197]

>>4217165
In the interviews none of the interviewed authors never said "it's only genetics and biology", but an intertwine of genes and culture and that studies tend to show genes play a significant role. To listen to the ultimate skeptic about this I recommend watching Sapolsky on behavioral biology:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNnIGh9g6fA&feature=BFa&list=SP848F2368C90DDC3D&lf=list_r
elated

[Anonymous No.4217202]

>>4217179
You're right, but I was just trying to emphasize that the problem here is dogma. It's fucking scary how any of these people could ever be considered professors. The most moving episode in the series was definitely the last one I think where they cover the issue of malformed genitals. It shows clearly how cultural extremism can be quite detrimental. Watching them squirm and even still not admit that biology plays a role is both terrifying and amusing.

[Anonymous No.4217218]

>>4216982
>Then you don't understand the political ideology from which gay rights came from, back then leftist ideology was blank slatist it still is to large degree, the idea was that you could choose anything and everything you wanted to be and there was nothing preprogrammed in your mind. People were only straight because the bourgeoisie wanted them to be or whatever. Today the same fags that they loved back then shit all over this idea, this is why feminist hate fags and trannies because feminism still holds to the old blank slatist bs.

I knew there was a "political lesbianism" faction of the lesbian movement back in the 60's & 70's that was adamant that homosexuality was a choice, although my impression was that they were pretty marginal, and even more so now. As I said, blank slatism is usually considered the politically correct position on most things, but homosexuality is the exception. From my personal experience, the only thing that pisses off egalitarian leftists more than suggesting homosexuality is influenced by socialization is the suggestion that anything else is influenced by biology.

[Anonymous No.4217222]

>>4216982
>Then you don't understand the political ideology from which gay rights came from, back then leftist ideology was blank slatist it still is to large degree, the idea was that you could choose anything and everything you wanted to be and there was nothing preprogrammed in your mind. People were only straight because the bourgeoisie wanted them to be or whatever. Today the same fags that they loved back then shit all over this idea, this is why feminist hate fags and trannies because feminism still holds to the old blank slatist bs.

I knew there was a "political lesbianism" faction of the feminist movement back in the 60's & 70's that was adamant that homosexuality was a choice, although my impression was that they were pretty marginal, and even more so now. As I said, blank slatism is usually considered the politically correct position on most things, but homosexuality is the exception. From my personal experience, the only thing that pisses off egalitarian leftists more than suggesting homosexuality is influenced by socialization is the suggestion that anything else is influenced by biology.

[Anonymous No.4217224]

>>4217179
Poor choice of words on my part here too. Remove that "may." I really didn't mean for it to come across that way, but perhaps something in me did. There is no doubt of the biological role. I was just trying to show that culture still can play quite a large role in parenting and I sort of worried about the idea that parents should "relax" a bit. I have been corrected though that the biologists never claimed that biology was the sole purpose and that is true too.

>>4217197
Will do, I loved his lectures on how the genetic basis for religion.

[Anonymous No.4217235]

This program is okay, the interesting part is how ridicoules the social scientists in Norway are.

Harald Eia is good though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPLL34qobmw

[Anonymous No.4217241]

>>4217197

Just started watching it. He's definitely a good speaker.

[Anonymous No.4217299]

>>4217197
>Robert Sapolsky

I'd hug you if I could

[Anonymous No.4217308]

I totally agree. Most things "social scientists" deal with are MUCH more nature than nurture.

People really have a hard time accepting this, probably because of what the implications would be

[Anonymous No.4217310]

>>4212903

>eusja.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/norway-brainwashed-science-on-tv-creates-storm/

>"He could look naive, but he often knew more about the subjects than the scientists he interviewed, which made some of them look like arrogant ignorants. One of them fled the country, declaring that Eia had «ruined her life»."

LOLOLOLOLOL

[Anonymous No.4217338]

>>4217310
There was alot of controversy when the program aired in Norway.

The Norwegian state channel even aired a debate with alot of the people he interwieved in the series, they all looked like fools in the end, one of the females actually took back her arguments and started supporting Eia.

He is quite arrogant, yet very self ironic and funny.

[Anonymous No.4217344]

>>4217338
I would love to see that. Link?

[Anonymous No.4217351]

Isn't it obvious? They avoid nature (biological) explanations because it's "hurr sexism" or "hurr racism." And it's also scary for some people, the idea that your genes constrain your abilities without any recourse.

[Anonymous No.4217373]

>>4217344
Don't think there is one, i watched it on www.nrk.no
It's not subbed, and probably only avialable to people with a norwegian IP adresse. Also i don't bother looking it up.

[Anonymous No.4217380]

>>4217351
Why is that scarier than the idea that your culture influences you? You have no control over either.

[Anonymous No.4217398]

>>4217380
Because if it's just culture that's influences you then you can use your 'biology' to overcome that influence, BUT, god forbid, if your BIOLOGY influences how can you feel comforted in the notion that your biology can overcome its own influence without acknowledging that you are essentially a bunch of lifeless atoms that happened to coalesce into a structure that allows the subjective experience of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.4217412]

Point of order: Even if there is a significant statistical inclination for one gender to very well in same areas, it does not means we should push individuals into those areas because individual variation within the genders is so significant that initial factors are not nearly as important.

If, say, 10% of the women had the brains to become great scientists, not letting them because women should remain in the kitchen would still be logically a mistake. A single missed genius could set us back by decades.

The second factor is, of course, freedom of choice.

[Anonymous No.4217414]

>>4217412
No one ever said that. Stop trying to stir shit into the pot.

[Anonymous No.4217423]

>>4217414
There have been hints of it in this thread, and /sci/ is intensely misogynistic (in terms beyond calling women stupid).

[Anonymous No.4217444]

>woman
>fields medal

Pick one.

Deal with it, equality fags. There is NO Barrier of enterence to mathematics and you can't say that "women aren't encouraged enough" because plenty of men have excelled despise being labeled "nerds" and getting no pussy.

I seriously hate egalitarian leftists and the politically correct police.

[Anonymous No.4217452]

Dear
>>4217414
Please see
>>4217444

[Anonymous No.4217454]

>>4217197

I thought the lecture was pretty good. Although I disagree with Sapolsky's contention that Konrad Lorenz was "living in a bucket". Sure Lorenz's language is rather politically incorrect in this day and age, but the quote and the Nazi association gives the impression of genocidal intent on Lorenz's part, which is somewhat misleading. I suspect Sapolsky was trying to preemptively distance himself from genetic determinism, so thats what the Lorenz example was for, but I don't think Lorenz could fairly be accused of such a thing.

[Anonymous No.4217461]

>>4217452
Yay for chronological non-linearity! Oh wait, no...

[Anonymous No.4217466]

>>4217461
I merely set the spear before the charging horse, good sir.

[Anonymous No.4217509]

>>4217452

Except >>4217444 isn't saying what you are implying it is.

[Anonymous No.4217517]

>>4212903

Jews - 1
Norway - 0

It's easy running a "great country" when you have indefinite wealth through oil. Problem? Just throw more money at it.

As soon as their oil runs out it's going to be a frozen shithole again.

[Anonymous No.4217616]

>>4217412
Think about the pressures against homosexuals being homosexual, yet they still go that route. It is unavoidable.

[Anonymous No.4217709]

>>4217616
just because homosexuality isn't a concious choice doesn't mean it's unavoidable.

If you have a gay identical twin your chances of being gay are 50%. Compare this with something truly heritable like shizophrenia.
If you have a schizophrenic identical twin your chances of developing schizophrenia are 89%.

[Anonymous No.4217895]

>>4217709
That doesnt mean that the environment doesn't account for both. Then environment can affect different individuals differently. The genetic differences which are held responsible for symptoms are not causes, but simply causes of different responses to the same environment.

[Anonymous No.4217980]

>>4217235
>Harald Eia is good though.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPLL34qobmw

heh.

[Anonymous No.4217993]

>>4217709
the fetal environment which mean transcriptions factors provided by the mother it has very little to do with society and the like.

[Anonymous No.4218085]

As an anthropologist I'm super interested in this. Watching the first episode now but I have slow internet....

[Anonymous No.4218695]

>>4218085
Its not your internet that is slow, that page omg.

>In norway atm,
> cannot watch this show unless buffer for a week
>Going to check out NRK webpage brb

[Anonymous No.4219346]

checkin' it out.

[Anonymous No.4219368]

>>4217993
except that external environmental inputs to the mother are very much determined by socioeconomic factors. bad food, poor quality air water/etc. not to mention increased stress hormones on the fetus for poor mothers.

[Anonymous No.4219455]

>>4217993
>>4219368
Biology is pretty much shit to compare when it comes to humans, because who can actually calculate the influence of implementing somthing like consciousness on the brain...
They are like false positives. You are looking at "exaggerated" peaks of data.

[Anonymous No.4219480]

>>4213314

We evolved alongside chimps, not from them.

That is all. Carry on.

[Anonymous No.4219543]

>>4219368
>except that external environmental inputs to the mother are very much determined by socioeconomic factors. bad food, poor quality air water/etc. not to mention increased stress hormones on the fetus for poor mothers.

Yes, but how much of the variance for social outcomes within developed nations can be attributed to these specific factors?

[Josh !XNEnISRlcw No.4219566]

>>4216216
Ugh. Do not want.
Anyone who's watching it mind giving the rest of us a summary? I don't have much time

[Anonymous No.4219585]

Watching episode 5, Sex:

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/brainwashing-norway-part-v-sex

[Anonymous No.4219592]

>>4219585

off to a good start...

[Anonymous No.4219659]

>>4219585

seemed like the video cut off a bit early.

[Anonymous No.4219668]

ugh. The video is loading a minute every five minutes. The rest of my internet is fine. Anyone else having htis problem?

[Anonymous No.4219676]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR0p4dyvH-k&t=2m9s

[Anonymous No.4219747]

Does Norway not have real scientists to interview? This show makes it seem that they only venture in social sciences.

[Anonymous No.4219771]

oh god that article is a hell to read

the structure of the sentences are way beyond fucked up

[Anonymous No.4219774]

>>4217616
Most homosexuals come from households where homosexuality is seen as equal.

Here's a link showing how often the adopted children of homosexual parents turn homosexual.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16613625

[Anonymous No.4219780]

>>4219774
>Most homosexuals come from households where homosexuality is seen as equal.
[citation needed]

I knew I was attracted to boys and not girls when I was 5, before I even knew what gay meant. I think you're wrong, and I think n=77 is much, much too small to be worth anything.

[Anonymous No.4219786]

>>4219780
Oh look when presented with facts homosexuals get all buttflustered and defensive as if science hadn't proven their experiences and wrong!

[Anonymous No.4219788]

>>4219780
>as 5, before I even knew what gay meant. I think you're wrong, and I think n=77 is much,


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20642872

how about this one ??

[Anonymous No.4219799]

>>4219786
What are you talking about? Nothing cited so far has contradicted anything he said.

[Anonymous No.4219802]

>>4219786
so obvious I'm not even going to rate you.

>>4219788
That's more like it. It'd be good to see further research done.

[Anonymous No.4219890]

>>4218085

Alright so I watched this last night and I suppose these are my thoughts.

This show is extremely biased and definitely intends to make the "social scientists" (again, as far as I can tell they're all psychologists, which basically explains all you need to know) like idiots. I'm not sure if those he interviews are purposefully stupid or it just worked out that way, but a huge reason that their argument looks bad in this doc is because they're not all that smart themselves. However their argument itself isn't horribly wrong.

This first man, Richard Lippa, proves nothing with his argument that 'if this was culturally oriented it would vary across cultures'. As far as I can tell his survey largely deals only with Western influenced societies, all of which share many of the same origins or influences on lifestyle. So immediately that argument can be thrown out the window, there's tons of room for culturally determined factors to come into play and his research does little to disprove that.

Diseth's research is again completely irrelevant in disproving that culture plays a large part. After nine months a child will have had plenty of contact with society and its parents which dictate its social experience. While yes these children are in fact biologically not necessarily male/female or whatever, the parents know of this and therefor will unintentionally influence and put their own biases on them.

Simon Baron-Cohen produces probably the most arbitrary and useless study of anyone in this doc. Somehow its assumed that a child less than a day old has the cognitive abilities to decide whether it likes supposed male/female things and that can be understood by which it looks at longest. There's extremely poor science done in this study. A year old child also might stare at the ceiling for just as long as any of the pictures, what does that mean?

---

[Anonymous No.4219896]

>>4219890

The thing is, you can see that he have cliped it to make them look like retards. In one shot they're talking, and then he says something, and then when we're back at the scientist they are infuriated by something he said and really worked up. What happen between the shots?

I think it's most obvious in the homo episode.

[Anonymous No.4219910]

>>4219890

con't

Finally Anne Campbell is really the only person here I see that produces any legitimate evidence. However these biological factors she speaks of would have been derived from a social and cultural context. As well her theory assumes that because it would make sense for evolution to produce these biological traits, it is so. However it seems to me to be just as likely that the nurturing and caring of offspring but hominids could just as easily be another culturally learned trait. It makes sense that if you are raised by your mother in a particular manner, (i.e. typical motherhood) then you would be apt to raise your own offspring in a very similar manner. The alternatives are essentially to abandon the offspring and do nothing to care for them, which would lead in almost always death...so obviously its just as plausible that its culturally beneficial to inherit these traits from those surrounding you.

As well the two "questions" he poses to each separate group are different. To the first he's asking them if there are biological differences between males and females, the obvious aside. He's asking them that if you picked up a female and male brain, would they be any different? And the obvious answer is no. Anyone will agree with that. However then he shows the first group's answers from specifically posed aspects of his question to the second group, who of course react because the video that they're being shown makes it seem that the first group is ignorant of biochemistry.

And from that essentially springs the entire issue. But I suppose the final verdict is that there are both aspects, both biological and cultural. The cultural aspects play a large part outside of the womb, and little (but some) in it. The biological aspects play a large part in the womb, but little (perhaps less is a better word) outside of it.

[Anonymous No.4219940]

>>4212903
>Mfw he showed that blonde bitch those interviews with real scientists and she tried to justify her opinions

[Anonymous No.4219945]

man when that bitch and the other norwegian dude were showed some actual science they just stuttered, trying to justify themselves, calling the others frenetic

pathetic

[Anonymous No.4219953]

Is this like that time when those BBC guys misquoted scientists to disprove climate change?

[Anonymous No.4219955]

>>4219910

>He's asking them that if you picked up a female and male brain, would they be any different? And the obvious answer is no. Anyone will agree with that.

Dear sir I would like you to look at this after a 5 second google scholar look at sexual dimorphism in human adult brain:

http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/6/490.short

[Anonymous No.4219962]

>>4219955
picking up a brain and looking at it is a whole world different from " in vivo magnetic resonance imaging"
what are you trying to say here?

[Anonymous No.4219970]

>>4219890
>However their argument itself isn't horribly wrong.
But they can do nothing to scientifically substantiate their argument. It's simply a belief they hold.

>As far as I can tell his survey largely deals only with Western influenced societies,

In the video he says that he received results from numerous asian countries and te results were all very similar.

>Somehow its assumed that a child less than a day old has the cognitive abilities to decide whether it likes supposed male/female things and that can be understood by which it looks at longest.
The central assumption is simply that the baby will look the most at the source of stimulus it is most interested by. Simon Baron Cohen had also done research which showed that girls who had been born with higher testosterone levels than normal have the same pre-disposition to interest concerning systems rather than people that males do.

[Anonymous No.4219977]

>>4219962
Nice backpeddling.
>are there any differnces between the male and female human brains
>no of course there aren't
>what about these significant differenes in brain structure
>Oh well of course THOSE differences, but you weren't asking me about THOSE differences

[Anonymous No.4219987]

>>4219977
god i love it when people misquote other people to prove a point

[Anonymous No.4219993]

>>4212903
His daughters are really pretty.

[Anonymous No.4219997]

>>4219993
creepy

[Anonymous No.4220005]

>>4219987
You're welcome to point out how I've paraphrased you incorrectly.

[Anonymous No.4220019]

>>4219993
>His daughters are really pretty.

hmm.... i might give this documentary a watch...

[Anonymous No.4220033]

>>4219993
>His daughte­rs are really pretty. 

hmm.... i might give this documentary a watch...

[Anonymous No.4220074]

>Social Scientist
>Host shows scientific experiments done via scientific method. They prove the point. They're made on newborn babies and explain difference via hormone levels.
There is no scientific proof of this. My hyptohensis the is no difference. Since can't prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.4220091]

Cambridge does a 9 years study on gender difference from fetuses to newborns to now 8 year old children.

Norwegians say : THAT IS NO SCIENCE!

[Anonymous No.4220101]

>>4217709
>nigga never heard of gene expression
wtfamireading???

[Anonymous No.4220126]

>>4217517
I've lived in Norway for 20 years and I'd hardly call it a great country. Its a decent place if you're an uneducated underachiever since you'll be able to maintain a high standard of living no matter what you work as. Its a terrible place if you want to make something of yourself and really put in the effort. If you are smart/hard working/wealthy/successful there is no limit to the shit you have to take here. People will hate you for being "above average" in anything. Tax records are even made public so everyone can look up your name and see how much money you make and then do their best to make you feel bad about it.

[Anonymous No.4220155]

>>4219962
>picking up a brain and looking at it is a whole world different from " in vivo magnetic resonance imaging"

So you think that MRI does not allow you to look a brain? What the fuck are you even trying to say?

[Anonymous No.4220260]

>>4220126
I am growing up in Norway at the moment, and will start on University next year.
I more or less agree. I am litterally afraid to speak up because it will end bad, and the "social meme for fun" is making fun other people for not being average enough. That means laughing at people for either being better in some way(attempts at fashion) or worse(janitors).

[Anonymous No.4220376]

>>4220126
Shit's true. In Norway, the retards can just surf trough life. You don't exactly fell encouraged to work when idiots probably will get further in life than you.

[Anonymous No.4220644]

>>4220126
>If you are smart/hard working/wealthy/successful there is no limit to the shit you have to take here.

Not if you're an athlete, reality star or other form of entertainer. They're treated as Gods.

[Anonymous No.4220923]

Watching episode 6, Race:

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/brainwashing-norway-part-vi-race

[Anonymous No.4220957]

heh...

[Anonymous No.4220969]

Norwegian thinkers sure have strong opinions on what things should be considered interesting.

[Anonymous No.4221028]

This is becoming something of a trope.

[Anonymous No.4221050]

Another good choice. The 10,000 Year Explosion was a great book.

[Anonymous No.4221054]

>>4220644

[Anonymous No.4221073]

>>4221054

http://super-economy.blogspot.com/2010/02/spirit-level-is-junk-science.html
>There is a new book called The Spirit Level, which claims to prove that most social problems are directly caused by income inequality. So if people in the U.S are more obese than Swedes, it is because middle class Americans they are stressed because they earn less than rich Americans, and eat more (not joking). The “proof” for this is cross country correlation between inequality and various measures.

>As a social science student, I am taught to take causality seriously. If you want to argue that inequality causes obesity, you have to actually prove it. Correlations are not scientific proof.

>From a theoretical perspective, social problems cause inequality, or are often both caused by deeper ills. In fact it is difficult to think about a social problem that does not cause inequality! Low level of human capital makes your more likely to not take care of your health and causes low income. Bad norms cause crime and low income. Drug use causes problems and low income. Family disruptions causes social problems and low income. And so on.

>If The Spirit Level wants to make extraordinary claims (middle class people become more likely to die if the rich grow richer) they need extraordinary evidence. But they have no evidence at all, just correlations. That is why no one in scientific circles takes this book very seriously.

[Anonymous No.4221091]

[Anonymous No.4221117]

>>4221091

Looks like Eia is distancing himself from Lynn. I guess that goes outside his comfort zone.

[Anonymous No.4221123]

>>4221073

Did you actually read the book? They give in depth explainations as to how they think it's largely related to social hierarchies.
This ties in with work which shows negative emotional and health effects on various animals at the bottom of social hierarchies (and yes they made sure they had the causation the right way around).

tl,dr: nobody like being at the bottom. When you have a more ruthless, stratified society, what do you expect?

[Anonymous No.4221139]

Another good choice.

[Anonymous No.4221148]

Social Scientists want to believe in the way the world should be rather than the way it is.

[Anonymous No.4221171]

Ignorance is bliss.

[Anonymous No.4221192]

Pretty good episode. I'll give Eia credit for going as far as he did.

[Anonymous No.4221195]

People used to be far more equal, all poor basically and things were worse off.

[Anonymous No.4221213]

>>4221054
WTF I didn't know Japan was more equal than Norway, Finland or Sweden

[Anonymous No.4221225]

>>4220969
I can see this becoming a regular image on /sci/...

[Anonymous No.4221239]

I dunno.

I'm transgender and even though I've never actually lived the life of a girl, I still feel as if I'm more of a girl than a guy inside.
I mean, doesn't it go back ancient times? Women are weaker than men, and they need to care for a baby. Men are stronger and hunt, plan and organize things.
Thus, men become stronger or smarter and women become able to socialize and be nurturing.

So really, a transgender girlfriend would give you the best of both world, minus the awful emotional problems.

[Anonymous No.4221245]

>>4221239
pics please

[Anonymous No.4221246]

>>4221073
>As a social science student
Stopped reading right fucking there.

[Anonymous No.4221252]

>>4221245
This is /sci/, not /soc/... so no.

[Anonymous No.4221262]

>>4221239
If I knew one that were available around me, I'd totally hit on her. But, basically, I only leave the apartment to go to work.

[Anonymous No.4221313]

Oh dear lord, his daughter is a straight 10/10.

[Anonymous No.4221347]

>>4221313
she's like 10 out of 10 years old you pedophile...

[Anonymous No.4221354]

So wait, are some TV shows in Norway broadcast using both Norwegian and English, in the same programme, without any subtitling?

[Anonymous No.4221365]

>>4221347
You knew what kind of site this was when you got here.

[Anonymous No.4221386]

>>4221365
It's only some friendly teasing, friend.
I'd also like to be the little girl and have you ravage my insides.

[Anonymous No.4221398]

>>4219890
>Diseth's research is again completely irrelevant in disproving that culture plays a large part. After nine months a child will have had plenty of contact with society and its parents which dictate its social experience. While yes these children are in fact biologically not necessarily male/female or whatever, the parents know of this and therefor will unintentionally influence and put their own biases on them.
>not paying attention to the programme

They have malformed genitals and therefore no distinct gender. Jesus Christ.

[Anonymous No.4221507]

The interesting thing is, that this inevitable leads to racism. If genetics play an important role, the different races, or whatever you want to call them, must also differ.

Also, somebody has to take some good pictures of his daughters, I fell in love. She certainly has good genetics, would love to spread these...

[Anonymous No.4221524]

social "scientists"

[Anonymous No.4221530]

>>4221507
>She certainly has good genetics, would love to s̶p̶r̶e̶a̶d̶ corrupt these...

[Anonymous No.4221587]

I'm a sociology student and this is one of the most overlooked and serious problem in social sciences.

Fully biologist models are retarded , but in the social sciences fields even partly biologist integrators are ignored.

Try getting a research grand with biologist factors integrated.

Ideology interference is to some extent present in all sciences but much , much more so in social sciences .

[Anonymous No.4221594]

>>4221507
>this inevitable leads to racism. If genetics play an important role, the different races, or whatever you want to call them, must also differ.

I don't see how this must lead to racism, if by racism you mean "kill all the Jews and niggers".

[Anonymous No.4221630]

So they reject science for mumbo jumbo?

[Anonymous No.4221687]

HURR DURR

[Anonymous No.4221730]

>>4220126
Does that apply to weird people, or just to how rich you are and stuff like that?

[Anonymous No.4223122]

>>4221213
Because it is not. Everybody has a stupidly high salary but life costs are stupidly high too. So in percents of GDP the difference is not high but in absolute numbers it is.

[Anonymous No.4223151]

egalitarianism ftl

[Anonymous No.4223173]

>>4221687
yup

[Anonymous No.4223430]

>>4221730
Please some norwegian person answer that.

[Anonymous No.4223748]

Watching episode 7, Nature vs Nurture:

http://www.mrctv.org/videos/brainwashing-norway-part-vii-nature-vs-nurture

[Anonymous No.4223782]

lolwat?

[Anonymous No.4223807]

Again with this.

[Anonymous No.4223814]

UGH. MALFORMED GENITALS.

[Anonymous No.4223826]

>>4221239
You genetically male, though.

[Anonymous No.4223870]

The last episode cut off a bit early. How annoying.

[Anonymous No.4223991]

>>4221507
But thats not true at all. The 'races' are just different phenotype expressions. If gene X is associated with wealth/success/big dick/whatever, but there are no easily noticeable way to tell if a person has X or gene Y, it is hard to identify (and thus marginalize) those people with gene Y.

Of course the moment a study comes out saying '80% of black people have gene X' people will probably start being racist assholes, but still.

[Anonymous No.4224888]

>>4223748

This is so backward. That homo-researcher (as his title actually was), said that a biological explanation was dangerous because then people would be set out to get rid of gays.
How the fuck would you possible change this? Mandatory gene-therapy?
The explanation that you are brought up this way however, is what's really causing problems for homosexual people. e.g. gay teachers influencing children and whatnot.

I believe a gay man could be turned straight with theory just as likely as I could be turned gay. This is not very fucking likely at all.

[Anonymous No.4224934]

>I DON'T CARE THAT THERE IS EVIDENCE REFUTING MY DOGMA BECAUSE THAT IS UNINTERESTING RESEARCH AND THE PEOPLE WHO CARRIED OUT THAT RESEARCH ARE "FRENETIC", WHATEVER THAT MEANS.

Social science.

[Anonymous No.4224990]

I hate that damn bitch at the end who thinks one should just leave these babies with unclear gender as they are. Yeah, leaving with a mess downstairs so they can't even take a piss without soiling themself sounds like a brilliant fucking idea.

[Anonymous No.4225369]

>>4224990
It´s incredible how they basically tell people who are affected by these things themselves, like victor or the gay people, that they are wrong.

It´s nearly like they believe that gay people, blacks and women are inferior and so they have to defend them and hide the truth. I´m shocked, but at the same time I recognize these ideas of forced equality and forbidden questions in my country, Germany, as well.

[Anonymous No.4225737]

christ, social science has really gone to shit.

[Anonymous No.4225795]

>>4224990
something wrong with ambiguous genitalia? people won't figure out how not to piss themselves?

[Anonymous No.4226702]

>>4225795
Its as wrong as having any other birth defect. They aren't operated upon because someone thinks they are less human, they are operated upon in hope of being able to give them a reasonable normal life.
Have you seen the documentary? Stuff is deformed beyond any hope of normal bodily functions. You can't "learn" ways fix that stuff.

The social science bitch at the end thinks we should just stop that, tell the kids, "You will never be able to have sex, and barely be able to take a piss, but hey, that's fine because we have taught society to love and respect you just as much. Well, *platonic* love that is. At least you didn't have to be a man or a woman!"

Yes, that sure sounds like Utopia.

[Anonymous No.4227502]

[Anonymous No.4229394]

Marathoned the show. Can't say it told me anything about science that I didn't already know, but exposing the depth of stupidity of many sociologists and gender studies people is a worthy endeavour. Hopefully some Norwegians have had their misconceptions corrected as a result of this series.

[Anonymous No.4231392]

old thread is old

[Anonymous No.4231459]

>>4231392
Old but pure gold.

[Anonymous No.4232516]

>>4231392

Are you trying to keep it alive?

[Anonymous No.4232535]

>>4217338
>There was alot of controversy when the program aired in Norway.

>The Norwegian state channel even aired a debate with alot of the people he interwieved in the series, they all looked like fools in the end, one of the females actually took back her arguments and started supporting Eia.

I'd hope someone could sub this and upload it to YT.