Scivillage.com Casual Discussion Science Forum

(Feb 20, 2019 03:50 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]Francis Galton coined the term but that was a long time ago, dearie.

Most everyone understands now that it’s a combination of both and we now know that you can even alter your gene expression.

Some of the newer larger samplings indicate that it’s about 60% genetics vs. 40% environmental but that depends entirely on what you’re looking at. There are some conditions that are influenced by both and others that are primarily environmental or primarily genetic. Take something as simple as height for an example, it’s primarily genetics, but there are certain environmental factors that can contribute, e.g., childhood diseases, diet, etc.

It’s just like the left vs. right brain myth. You’ll still find self-help gurus peddling that shit but they operate together. Just-so stories sell.

Wow, you have to go all the way back to 1875 in a vain attempt to shore up your ridiculous straw man that nature and nurture, what, only have mutually exclusive influence? You really think the nature/nurture dichotomy means only one or the other occur? Galton didn't even claim that. "He concluded that the evidence favoured nature rather than nurture." But "Galton recognised that cultural circumstances influenced the capability of a civilisation's citizens, and their reproductive success." (wiki)

So brava! You just keep proving that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what you're talking about. You're arguing a straw man completely of your own making. And since you keep comparing nature/nurture to right/left-brained, you would think it would be fairly obvious that neither was ever considered mutually exclusive. It's not like the latter ever implied a effective hemispherectomy.

Use your brain, moron...both hemispheres.

You, my dear, are nothing but a faker fox. You don't know shit. You just pull shit out of your ass, throw it, and hope it sticks.

Edit: First of all, you lied. You did say that you did have an academic background in psychology, but as it turns out, you just watch a lot of Jordan Peterson videos.

Oh, and the so-called straw man wasn't of my making. The author of the article, in which you’re referencing the "nature vs nature" bit from does have a Ph.D. in psychology. He’s also a recipient of the Mensa International Award for Excellence in Research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Barry_Kaufman

Like it or not, the human alpha male is a myth.

(Feb 20, 2019 06:05 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]You, my dear, are nothing but a faker fox. You don't know shit. You just pull shit out of your ass, throw it, and hope it sticks.

Edit: First of all, you lied. You did say that you did have an academic background in psychology, but as it turns out, you just watch a lot of Jordan Peterson videos.

Oh brother...more of this old trolling you have NEVER even attempted to support. Here, here, etc..

You always do this when you have ZERO argument to support your latest bullshit. I just showed you how you misrepresented Galton (the guy YOU cited), and you have no other arguments left. Just lies, insults, and mindless appeals to authority.

Again, use your brain for something more than an abacus.

Quote:Oh, and the so-called straw man wasn't of my making. The author of the article, in which you’re referencing the "nature vs nature" bit from does have a Ph.D. in psychology. He’s also a recipient of the Mensa International Award for Excellence in Research.

You mean this?

Even though the most cited and well-known philosophers and psychologists of all time were those who took extreme views on key debates of their time, including the nature–nurture debate, more moderate, integrative stances are more likely to be correct (Simonton, 1976, 2000a). In only the past quarter century, scientists across numerous fields—such as behavioral genetics, neuroscience, developmental psychology, personality psychology, and positive psychology— have amassed a large body of empirical findings that suggest the origins of greatness are far more complex than any single approach will capture (Marcus, 2012; Shenk, 2011; Kaufman, 2013).
- https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bea...-practice/

Most extreme views were criticized in their own time.

John Locke's An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690) is often cited as the foundational document of the "blank slate" view. Locke was criticizing René Descartes's claim of an innate idea of God universal to humanity. Locke's view was harshly criticized in his own time. Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 3rd Earl of Shaftesbury, complained that by denying the possibility of any innate ideas, Locke "threw all order and virtue out of the world", leading to total moral relativism. Locke's was not the predominant view in the 19th century, which on the contrary tended to focus on "instinct".
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_ver...the_debate

Or admitted as hyperbolic: "I am going beyond my facts and I admit it, but so have the advocates of the contrary and they have been doing it for many thousands of years."

So where does Kaufman actually say the nature/nurture dichotomy is a myth? O_o

Quote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Barry_Kaufman

Like it or not, the human alpha male is a myth.

Mindless appeal to authority. You have no actual arguments.

You know what, Syne? Instead of pretending to be some kind of prestigious alpha male online, you should probably get out there and socialize. I'm guessing that you're in your mid 40's and still single. Supposedly, you're semi-retired but living in an apartment with a roommate. 

Go on, little buddy. You can do it. You have enough knowledge now. You should be able to put it to good use. 

See you later. Be good.

(Feb 20, 2019 10:10 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]You know what, Syne? Instead of pretending to be some kind of prestigious alpha male online, you should probably get out there and socialize. I'm guessing that you're in your mid 40's and still single. Supposedly, you're semi-retired but living in an apartment with a roommate. 

Go on, little buddy. You can do it. You have enough knowledge now. You should be able to put it to good use. 

See you later. Be good.

Still trying to distract from your complete lack of argument, huh?

I don't think I've ever claimed to be an alpha male (but please, do show us if you know otherwise), as an alpha male would feel no need to, and I'm not disgruntled about their existence even if I'm not one. I just accept reality. Bettering yourself is an unending goal.

The self-appeasing fantasies you have about me are cute though. Maybe you should pay your husband a little more attention.

I’ve no idea what you’re fucking problem is and I could care less. That’s not what I’m here for.

This is supposed to be a casual and relaxed atmosphere where we layman can ask questions, share stories, information, or articles, but you keep attacking people. It’s not fun anymore.

If you want to be the big alpha bully, then by all means, go right ahead, but from here on out, I’ll completely ignore you.

(Feb 20, 2019 11:14 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]I’ve no idea what you’re fucking problem is and I could care less. That’s not what I’m here for.

This is supposed to be a casual and relaxed atmosphere where we layman can ask questions, share stories, information, or articles, but you keep attacking people. It’s not fun anymore.

If you want to be the big alpha bully, then by all means, go right ahead, but from here on out, I’ll completely ignore you.

You're the one who has initiated all the attacks, especially of late...even across multiple, unrelated threads (including word of the day). If you don't like disagreement, go play on your highly-curated and ideologically homogeneous social media (where you don't run the risk of working on your biases). You are not just asking questions, sharing stories, information, or articles. You are making claims and then getting pissy when anyone has the temerity to refute them. And instead of having the intellectual honesty to either defend your point or admit you don't know what you're babbling about, you instead launch into personal insults and attacks...only to then play the victim (as if everyone's memory is actually that short, or you're really that delusional).

You started it, dipshit. If you don't like it, quit starting it. Easy. You seem so lacking on self-awareness that you don't even realize the self-fulfilling prophecy you create for yourself.

No one is bullying you by refuting your unsupported claims...or calling you on your unsupported and trolling lies. And how many times have I advised you to just put me on ignore if you can't handle simple disagreement? Dozens. By all means, finally take my advice. And you don't fool anyone by just talking to others about me either. And expect to receive a ton of shit for being weak-willed and dishonest when you inevitably renege.

Got it? Good. I expect to be held incommunicado by you from here on out.

To summarize...

(Feb 19, 2019 10:58 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]https://greatergood.berkeley.edu/article...alpha_male

(Feb 20, 2019 02:29 AM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]There was never a nature vs. nurture debate. It was pop-shit.

(Feb 20, 2019 06:05 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]The author of the article, in which you’re referencing the "nature vs nature" bit from does have a Ph.D. in psychology. He’s also a recipient of the Mensa International Award for Excellence in Research.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Barry_Kaufman

By Scott Barry Kaufman on May 22, 2013

Even though the most cited and well-known philosophers and psychologists of all time were those who took extreme views on key debates of their time, including the nature–nurture debate, more moderate, integrative stances are more likely to be correct (Simonton, 1976, 2000a). In only the past quarter century, scientists across numerous fields—such as behavioral genetics, neuroscience, developmental psychology, personality psychology, and positive psychology— have amassed a large body of empirical findings that suggest the origins of greatness are far more complex than any single approach will capture (Marcus, 2012; Shenk, 2011; Kaufman, 2013).
- https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/bea...-practice/

So SS cites Kauffman, then claims "There was never a nature vs. nurture debate", then cites Kauffman again, only to be shown that Kauffman himself said there was a "nature–nurture debate", and then she melts down and throws a little temper tantrum.

What a relief to be free of that kind of self-contradicting nonsense and subsequent emotional breakdown and lying.

Now if only MR had the will to follow her lead.

(Jan 5, 2019 01:40 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]Something about your shitty demeanor makes me not want to respond to you any more. So be it.

(Dec 10, 2016 02:02 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: [ -> ]And a word of advice: if you keep treating posters here with disrespect they will probably quit responding to you.

Promises, promises.