Utopia Talk / Politics / Seb

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Apr 25 10:41:09 Is it fair to summarize your position, that niether culture or biology effect human behavior to any relevant degree?
Seb Member	Tue Apr 25 14:09:47 No. And the contrary is a typical vapid, meaningless statement of the type you deploy as a squid deploys ink. Neither culture nor biology allow you to predict an individuals behaviour in any meaningful way, and so are largely irrelevant for things like decisions to grant asylum etc. Is it your position that an individuals behaviour is determined by biology, and that this is strongly correlated to race, allowing meaningful predictions of individuals behaviour based on their race?
Pillz Member	Tue Apr 25 14:23:40 So there is no thing as ingrained behavior or thought patterns, people can and do change depending entirely on their surroundings? That's what you believe? At what # of rapes of European women by African and Middle Eastern migrants will you change your mind? Oh wait, you want. You'll blame it on this European rape culture that nobody can find.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Apr 25 14:59:28 "Neither culture nor biology allow you to predict an individuals behaviour in any meaningful way," Seb is officialy a fucking retard. Case closed.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Apr 25 15:08:58 >>Neither culture nor biology allow you to predict an individuals behaviour in any meaningful way<< And people do not believe what they say they believe" I am not talking about individuals, the everlaps between gender, race etc. are so broad that it would be statistically unsound to assume that a person you meet is representative for their specific group. You should always treat people like individuals. The claim is just garbage. Biology and culture are the two things that act as a blue print for our behavior. But once you have that theory finished that negates all the science around biology behavior, behavior and culture. I want to read it!
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Apr 25 15:16:31 Global warming will lead to more droughts or storms, can you say that this specific drought or storm was because of global warming? No? Then does that mean global warming is not real? The theories have no predictability or use? You see to how low you have lowered the bar?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Apr 25 15:19:44 It is funny that you write "no", when I indeed summarized you positions correctly. You think culture nor biology matter for predicting behavior. This is how dishonest a discussion with you is, even when I am obviously correct, you wont agree to it. You are poison man, poison.
obaminated Member	Tue Apr 25 15:38:30 Uh oh, nim is doing the cr habit of as many posts in a row as possible.
Seb Member	Tue Apr 25 15:55:26 Pillz: "So there is no thing as ingrained behavior or thought patterns, people can and do change depending entirely on their surroundings?" Can you explain to me how you derived that conclusion from what I wrote? Nim: "And people do not believe what they say they believe" I know you think that's a hilarious put down, but it's a well known result. Or, to put it another way, people rarely act and behave in a way that is consistent with the beliefs they profess to have. "I am not talking about individuals," Yet the entry points to this discussion is always about applying your dodgy notions to aspects of policy which does mean individuals. "You should always treat people like individuals." In which case, what possible relevance does any of this attempt to spot patterns in races, or religions, or concoct dodgy pseudoscientific mechanisms to explain that religion and culture is some kind of product of the genetic make up of a race and shaped by evolution? "Biology and culture are the two things that act as a blue print" Again, be specific. A blue prints specifies exactly the lay out for a building. If biology and culture act like a blue print for what we think, then you are arguing that actually you can make accurate predictions on an individuals behaviour based on the culture they come from and their biology. So either you don't actually believe what you say you believe, or you are failing to adquately convey what you believe. Again, earlier, you said genetics and evolution - that's not the same as biology. A non genetic, environmental factor can alter your biology - I could give you a massive dose of stress hormones for example. In extremis because we exist only as biological entities it is almost tautological to say biology and behaviour are linked. If on the other hand you mean genetic profile, as you implied in the other thread, that's a very different proposition. So like i said in the opening post, the problem with evaluating your statement is that it is so broad as to be meaningless. You argue I am negating the science - we've already established in the "too long to read" qujotes from the sources your source cited, the issue is you simply don't understand, and are drawing incorrect conclusions, about what the science actually means. "can you say that this specific drought or storm was because of global warming?" Actually, a colleague of mine does indeed work on climate event attribution and it is possible to say with some degree of accuracy whether some specific events would not have happened without climate change. I can dig out his publications - one was in nature I think - if you are interested. "Then does that mean global warming is not real?" Ultimately, we are dealing with a different kind of system which is observable and amenable to analytical understanding. This is not the case - we don't actually know how the workings of the brain give rise to things like consciousness and decision making - so drawing a comparison with a complex, chaotic system where the mechanisms are at least understood to one where they are not is spurious comparison. "when I indeed summarized you positions correctly" You didn't though, and the fact that you think you did just shows how little you understand the implications of your stated position. cf. blueprint for example.
Seb Member	Tue Apr 25 16:01:23 RE beliefs, simple behavioural economics result: If people prefer A to B, and Prefer B to C, they should prefer A to C. Many, many studies have shown situations where people expressing the first two then go on to prefer C to A. People are utterly inconsistent in behaving according to their beliefs on even simple things, let alone complex things. There are massive studies going on now to try and work out a consistent and acceptable "moral" choices for driverless vehicles - various implementations of the trolley problem - that are tying to grapple with this problem that people do not in practice behave or respond according to the beliefs they profess, and are wonderfully blind to that fact. You yourself being a great example. You probably think you are not far right, but the logical follow through of what you are arguing for here implies either you are illogical, or you must necessarily believe in master races and untermenchen, The fact is you probably won't act in a way that is in accordance with your beliefs, even though you think those beliefs are backed up by objecive science.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: