You're assuming that there is actually an ability and not a different result of other influences.
Morality is an illusion of the majority, however inevitable it may be given our predispositions to try to feel superior.
Intelligence is also a result of our early influences, to claim that it is somehow a person's own fault when they lack intelligence is quite a strange notion.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Turns out pointing out the other side is drinking the cool-aid is a good way of hiding your own side's flavored drink.
Huh, trying to make your own memorable quote for the next generation to parrot with no understanding is hard, who knew.You're assuming that there is actually an ability and not a different result of other influences.
Morality is an illusion of the majority, however inevitable it may be given our predispositions to try to feel superior.
Intelligence is also a result of our early influences, to claim that it is somehow a person's own fault when they lack intelligence is quite a strange notion.
Using an unverifiable thought experiment to excuse someone's actions is still insane.
Last edited by Greyblades; 04-25-2015 at 11:50.
That's lazy, if you have a problem with the theory, go to the appropriate thread and debate it.
The theory is well-developed, unlike your knee-jerk dismissal of it.
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showt...-Eliminativism
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Reading 111 posts of you and monty analysing lyrics is not what I call a good use of my time.
If it is right then you dont exist as anything but the delusion of a meat automaton, or it is wrong and you are an living, thinking, acting person.
Proving either conclusion is impossible and in both cases the indulgence of such an idea to the point of letting people off for wrongdoings will do nothing but incur existential crises and encourage more people to go "nothing matters so I might as well hurt others for personal gain"
So, no, I wont take it as an excuse.
Last edited by Greyblades; 04-25-2015 at 12:41.
That's what the people say who believe god created the earth 7000 years ago. Or the ones who believe the earth is flat.
Oversimplification, people say the same about losing all morality when you lose your religion but it does not happen.
Forgiveness for what? Trying to improve lives? Is she in jail yet?
Don't use unverifiable thought experiments to accuse people.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Come back when you finish the sargon of akkad video you blew off after 4 minutes, then you can lecture me about this.
Indeed, which is why I said it shouldnt be indulged instead of it should be banned. It is a theoretical dead end, so pointless it doesnt deserve even this small amount of attention.Oversimplification, people say the same about losing all morality when you lose your religion but it does not happen.
Spreading misinformation to make a buck probably wouldn't get her a jail sentance, it still doesnt make what she says any less full of it.Forgiveness for what? Trying to improve lives? Is she in jail yet?
Don't use unverifiable thought experiments to accuse people.
Last edited by Greyblades; 04-25-2015 at 13:05.
No, but that's one more reason to shun outlandish foods.
I wonder, if moderators are those priviledged who can violate the rules set by them:
Intelligence is inborn, thus inherited. Some people are born smarter then others. It can be developed by influences, though.Nation and Religion Bashing
This occupation, a variant of trolling behaviour, deserves special mention. It is perfectly acceptable to take issue with a government or religious grouping, but we frown upon generalised insults.
Acceptable: "I can't stand the Lilliputian government's excessive use of hemp rope against innocents"
Unacceptable: " Lilliputians are small-minded pygmies"
Just remember that Respect thing we talked about. Would you like what you wrote said about your own nationality?
Next thing you will be saying is there is no Santa.
I watched a third or half of it once IIRC but it just continued to feel like a waste of time.
It's interesting that you're still mad about this though, so mad that you bring it up in unrelated threads.
I am sorry if I hurt your feelings.
Banning religion/philosophy? Where did that one come from?
And it's not a dead end, it could be the next big step towards understanding the human brain.
But that wasn't the point, I said you can't blame her, it's not the same as saying she is right.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
“Sometimes it is [...] said that 80 per cent of intelligence is determined by heredity, 20% by environment. This statement is nonsense. Both these variables are of 100% importance; their relation is not additive but multiplicative. Asking how much heredity contributes to man’s intelligence is like asking how much the width of a field contributes to its area, and how much length contributes.” - Donald O. Hebb
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1....200700016/pdf
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Intelligence is the ability to adapt to, shape, and select environments. The broadness of this definition is part of why it is almost universally accepted by researchers and academics.
By consequence, however, to describe such "intelligence" in either nativist or empiricist terms becomes obviously impossible.
Thus, we usually focus on specific measures of intelligence, or more precisely aptitude, which is assumed - hoped - to reflect intelligence in some way.
In short, discussing the heritability of "intelligence" is useless because "intelligence" isn't really a very useful concept in itself.
Contextual performance-based analysis, so to speak, is the only way to get at what we would like to get at, and even there, any single thing that you could think of as being affected by "intelligence" has been found to have a heritability:
between 0 and 1. Surprise!!!
And this is all without even beginning to take epigenetics, which adds a whole new layer to the problem, into account...
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
The correct answer here should have been, "my failings dont excuse yours". And you'd be right, if I had blown it off completely I would have no leg to stand on, but I didnt because I was reading the thread when it was first made. I even made three comments, two were admissions of my uncertainty and one was somewhat more substantive:
I was reading the thread back before it deteriorated to lyrical analysis and in spite of appearances I was paying attention. Even when I was still drinking the liberal kool aid the whole thing seemed like a theological dead end. The only thing keeping me from calling it out was the fact that people I considered more intelligent than me was taking it seriously, so I assumed I was just too dumb to understand.
Now that I no longer believe that smart people that agree with me on some things dont, or even cant, waste time on pointless things I find the reason for my lack of acceptance wasnt because it was too smart for me but because it was self defeating: Both possibilities of the theory are unprovable and if the automaton outcome is right then by definition there is nothing we can do about it.
A pointless grief and as you proved my assessment of it's misuse was correct. It has become an excuse to let people be assholes.
Food babe's show is full of crap and your attempt to excuse it's blatant bias with this philisophical dead end is the same sort of deflection as the people who use objectivism to excuse politicians who want to cancel welfare.
Last edited by Greyblades; 04-26-2015 at 09:10.
I do not see it as a failing not to watch an entire Sargon of Akkad video just like I don't blame you for not watching an entire Davis Aurini video.
But knowing about it will change us. And if it is right it may improve our knowledge about ourselves and how we work, and therefore help us improve and advance our scientific knowledge. Whether it is really unprovable is not something you can say with certainty, the existence of radio waves was unprovable in 1400.
You're not seeing the entire picture and that's why your assessment is wrong.
Calling women "it" could be copnstrued as sexist, but there is neither an excuse nor is there necessarily a dead end. You seem to refuse a philosophy on the grounds that you simply dislike its implications without considering its actual merit.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
I have no idea who DOH is and how he came by the conlusions. I base my assumptions on my experience of teaching quite a number of kids and young adults. Some of them "are made" to learn English and master new skills very quickly. They get the essence of the rule and its application after they've done one exercise. They retain a lasting memory of grammatical patterns and new words and can easily retrieve them from memory when necessary. Others take 5-6 exercises to get it and can't hold in memory even the simplest words. It is true, though, that by hard work and perseverance the latter can make a substantial progress, yet whatever they reach is after struggling tooth and nail, and the former do it hand over fist.
Moreover, taking my family as an example I can claim that intelligence peculiarities (like propensity to humanities rather THAN sciences) are inherited. And it can be traced in dynasties of doctors, actors, military men...
It is useless to deny that some humans have inborn talent for painting, others - for 100-meter running, still others - for baking cakes. The talent needs development, of course, but trying to make a gifted painter into an outstanding athlete would deprive the world of either.
I know that, a misspel, my bad. Try correcting Brenus' mistakes too.
The link I posted says that his conclusions are correct and why that is the case, I didn't read all of it but I copied the quote from there as well. Your experiences do not prove a lot, which is not to say they are wrong. But by the time you get to teach kids, the important part of their intelligence formed by the envionment has already passed. The way parents interact with their children in the very first years, when the brain still forms the most basic patterns and connections is apparently very important for the child's intelligence. The point about environmental factors is not that listening to Mozart by age 50 will make you gain 20 intelligence points within a year. Children already develop a sense for the patterns of their mother's language in the womb because when she talks, some of the sound waves reach down there. This just highlights that a lot of the brain's development starts early on and is still not genetic just because it might look that way when they go to school.
I think you two need relationship counseling.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
You missed the conceptual point, which is that you can't partition "discrete influences" of heredity and environment. Environment determines heredity and heredity determines environment. What this means is that there is a possibility of the hereditary endowment of an individual transforming itself such that the individual goes from good painter and bad [soldier] (i.e. someone who has characteristics that make them well-suited to becoming a soldier/undergoing the training regimen to become a soldier) to a bad painter and a good soldier within one, or even within the same, generation. If you totally ignore epigenesis and interactional elements, then you would be limited to imagining such a transition over multiple, possibly even many, generations.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Last edited by Montmorency; 04-26-2015 at 13:05.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
It doesn't cancel what I have said. The environment is really important, yet if there is no original base to develop from, this development will lag drastically or will not take place. Unfortunately, some parents don't see it making their kids do things they are not fit for. As a result, everyone suffers- the kid, the parents and (oh, I know it for sure) the teacher.
Are you fishing for a vacancy? Do you have a diploma of a long distance relationship advisor?
I didn't miss it, I wanted to flesh out the environmental side. I will admit that the formulation was not optimal when I said "not genetic", what I meant was more like "not entirely genetic".
My point was that to blame everything mostly on genetics always seems a bit lazy as in there is nothing we can do, when in reality there is probably a lot that can be done to at least mitigate the effects of bad genes. There are even certain influences that can affect our genetic makeup IIRC. I'm not sure whether this affects intelligence but stress can apparently affect the genes of future generations so even genetics aren't entirely beyond our influence.
http://www.healthline.com/health-new...or-life-072914
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...ons-genes.html
Are you a monarchist or am I reading too much into that?
And you can blame people even less for being stupid if it's genetic.
Stop hating on the food babe already.
No, I just tried to help.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Lol, so neither of you read my post.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I did, except the part in spoilers, I have work to do and I'm a slow reader. I'd also have to look up what epigenesis is exactly.
You may call it a summary but I'd have to look up half the technical terms mentioned therein and would find myself 3 hours later wondering why I didn't get any work done. Maybe you could summarize in one or two sentences what exactly I did not understand about it. You mean the part about IQ developing a lot between age 3 and 12? (see, now I partially read it instead of working...) What's a correlation of 0.5 again, I thought I mentioned somewhere that I'm bad at statistics?
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
OK, executive summary:
1. You're talking about the importance of the interaction of genes with environment, or VExVG.
2. I'm acknowledging that and adding that there are indeed many such factors to consider, such as niche selection, and gene-gene interaction, but more importantly than all of that is that epigenetics provides a layer completely beyond this analysis, essentially making even the idea of multiplicative relationship between genes and environment outdated.
3. Epigenetics is "the study of...heritable changes in gene function that cannot be explained by changes in DNA sequence".
4. The consequence of epigenetics is that, to put it crudely, the environment can change how your genes act without actually changing the genes themselves.
5. Dutch Hunger Winter case study.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Eh, thanks, but that was also in the links I posted. I forgot that they called it epigenetic inheritance in the second link, but it's pretty much in there:
So to return to the actual topic, the actual intelligence of the food babe is hard to judge from commercial material and even if she is not very intelligent, it is not her fault, whether it is based on genetics or environmental influences doesn't even matter a lot since she cannot influence either. You might claim that she can influence or change her environment, but that only works if she already has the required intelligence to realize that this change is necessary.For the first time, genes chemically silenced by stress during life have been shown to remain silenced in eggs and sperm, allowing the effect to be passed down to the next generation.
The finding, obtained from detailed DNA scans in developing mouse eggs and sperm, backs up mounting indirect evidence from statistical studies that the genetic impacts of environmental factors such as smoking, diet, stressed childhoods, famine and psychiatric disease can be passed down to future generations through a process called epigenetic inheritance. Many geneticists had considered this an impossibility.
Genes can be switched off by altering DNA through a chemical process called methylation, in which enzymes respond to environmental factors by marking genes with methyl groups that prevent them from working.
And that's why you should eat your veggies.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Didn't get this one.
Didn't get this one either.
Did you find in my post any words of blame? I rather feel pity for the people (mainly kids) who are forced (mainly by their parents) into occupations they are not fit for.
Many a time did I see them suffer.
Assistance is accepted from the authorized persons only. And we need consent of the second party anyway.
There is so called Olbanean Language - a jargon of Russian-speaking internet users:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padonkaffsky_jargon
The most prominent features of it are deliberate misspels (the words are spelt the way they are pronounced) and spelling words in the sentence together.
Why I brought this up: when a person using Olbanean encounters a very long piece of reading which he is reluctunt (or too lazy) to digest he says: Didn'tgetthrougitbecausemanyletters or (as an option) Didn'tgetthroughitbecausewarandpeace.
Vitiate Man.
History repeats the old conceits
The glib replies, the same defeats
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Monty, you are the last person here who should say TL:DR.
Great, I leave to give ironside the high degree of thought he has earned and I come back to find the thread turn into Husar and Montmorency's... I chose to call it a chamber of mutual admiration for the sake of civility.
You accused my words of being like those of people "who believe god created the earth 7000 years ago. Or the ones who believe the earth is flat." over the implication of not reading a thread. The disapproval was as clear as your self awareness is lacking.
Yes it will change us, as you have shown us it will make us try to excuse someone for being a con artist. I think I will take my chances of a better society where people think thier choices are thier own, thier lives are not essentially predestined, thus pointless, and don't consider a person wasting the national-racial demographic with the greatest potential in the world by becoming a shill for alternative milk an inevitable outcome.But knowing about it will change us. And if it is right it may improve our knowledge about ourselves and how we work, and therefore help us improve and advance our scientific knowledge. Whether it is really unprovable is not something you can say with certainty, the existence of radio waves was unprovable in 1400.
And you are so convincing and unremitting in you attempts to correct it.You're not seeing the entire picture and that's why your assessment is wrong.
Put down the placard, Brianna Wu, I was reffering to the show not the woman. I refuse the philosophy because it's effects on supposedly intelligent beings repulses me.Calling women "it" could be copnstrued as sexist, but there is neither an excuse nor is there necessarily a dead end. You seem to refuse a philosophy on the grounds that you simply dislike its implications without considering its actual merit.
Last edited by Greyblades; 04-27-2015 at 19:20.
No.
A worthwhile discussion of an interesting mental phenomenon based on actual philosophy and science is not comparable to some dude making a video about how bad he thinks women are, that was my point.
How do you know that she is a con-artist? Can you prove it?
Thanks.
Exactly, but being repulsed by something does not make it wrong.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
That you still think that is even close to an accurate assessment of his video is why I will keep giving you grief when you complain about people not attending to your latest attempt to use other people's words in place of your own arguments.
Lets see, 500,000 subscribers on youtube plus a book that screams pseudoscience that has had at least 2,273 buyers willing to write reviews, yet she backs it up only with a degree is in computer science and a grasp of chemestry comparable to lobotomised toddler.How do you know that she is a con-artist? Can you prove it?
This mastery of science most egregiously encapsulated by her thinking nitrogen is both not present in the atmosphere and has detrimental effects.
Its also covered here.Originally Posted by Food Babe
Her show is a textbook example of exploiting a population's ignorance of chemestry for cash, whether she is also ignorant is speculation.
Beware the man who only says what you wish to hear, for reality is cold and will not bend to accomidate delusion.Thanks.
Nor does your apparant desire to believe everything montmorency says, to the point of thanking him whenever he makes your argument for you, make it right.Exactly, but being repulsed by something does not make it wrong.
Last edited by Greyblades; 04-27-2015 at 21:05.
You are mad because I post proof and sources for my claims?
Well, if you think that's the right way to go about it...
Nono, whether she is not ignorant is speculation. What happened to in dubio pro reo?
Wow, I had no idea you're this jealous.
"Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu
Bookmarks