Leaderboard

Where do you get your information from?

He mentioned women worth marrying, none of the stuff you just mentioned makes that woman worth marrying. Being physically attractive alone is not enough reason for me to marry someone. A virtuous woman would not be squandering her youth and high SMV riding the carousel for a decade. As far as having lots of potential suitors goes, well we have access to lots of potential women if we want to lower our standards. Women aren't exactly rare. Finding virtuous women is whats difficult because people tend to not be virtuous and this is true for both genders. I will continue to speak the truth and be virtuous. If I meet a virtuous woman to be with great, if not oh well. If a woman decides she doesn't want to date me because i don't want to sign a one sided agreement she isn't for me and likely isn't virtuous or understanding in the first place.

I think that most people agree that murder of humans is wrong. They accept this at the very least because they consider themselves to be human and don't want to be murdered. So they accept the condition that they won't murder in return for not being murdered. The key question is not really whether murder is "wrong," unless you want to be pedantic. The question is: what is the definition of human? Everyone has a different defintion and exceptions to the rule. But arbitrary exceptions are not logically defendable. Personally, the only clear line I can see is living human DNA. If it's genetically human then it's human. Everything else has fuzzy boundaries in my mind. So a zygote doesn't get the special class of human. At what point do they upgrade? At a certain number of weeks? What is the justification for that? Is a preborn baby a different class than a born baby? Should a baby be considered non-human? At what point does a child get protection from murder? If they're low functioning mentally, at what point are they no longer human? What if it varies over time? A baby doesn't have the same mental function as a 10-year-old. What if you suffer a brain injury and your IQ drops from 120 to 60? Are you no longer a human? If the parent of a child is a psychopathic criminal and it can be proven that the basis for it is genetic, should the child be killed? What if they're from a different, "less civilized" culture? It seems slavery was accepted in the past because some people were considered to be a lesser form of human, or non-human. I have questions. If you start creating exceptions, the complexity is endless.

My beautiful amazing wife wrote a book that many could benefit from reading. Several people from the community were involved. Phil Johnston designed the cover. Cheryl Hulseapple edited the book. And several others helped by reading and providing useful feedback in the writing process. Thank you so much to those involved! Amazon wouldn't let me post my review of the book, on account of being the author's husband, but I thought I would share it here: Get the book here for $0.99! On a personal note, to you, from me. I've had a lot of conversations with people about therapy over the years, as a member of the boards. There are a lot of legitimate questions and reservations people have around therapy. I've noticed too that many people have had an attitude of "I know I probably should, but eh..." and don't get around to it. Let this book help you make that decision. It doesn't feel good to be conflicted about this. Or to know that you should try it, but don't act. I doubt I would be blissfully married, have a great career I am very motivated in, and be expecting a child of my own at the end of the year if I hadn't got into therapy. I would probably still be unemployed/underemployed, depressed and anxious all the time, not living my values, and playing video games every day. I don't know for sure where I would have ended up, but it scares me to think about. Plus, cool book cover, right?

An entire field of science gone with one assertion. https://infogalactic.com/info/Behavioral_epigenetics

Personality and IQ are mainly genetic BUT both can be greatly changed by environmental variables. For example, people with personality disorders often get it from their parents. (And not necessarily Disorder A gives child Disorder A but some work like A -> B -> A -> B etc) BUT if they were adopted to another family there is a decent chance they would break the cycle. Also personality can be changed such as a healthy normal type of personality could be changed by abuse as a child. Also environmental changes could be a depressed low energy person discovers a job that constantly engages them and rewards them in such a way they are not often depressed anymore. Their personality changed from the environment they put themselves into. A narcissist put into a position where they are obviously not the best at hardly anything will change them (its actually the only real way to cause a drastic change to a narcissist personality type). IQ is mainly genetic but if a child grows up in an environment where IQ pattern recognition is not used they can lose potential IQ, bad diet can lose potential IQ, along with some other environmental factors. You can't gain IQ though like if your genetics give you a potential IQ of 120 max then you will be 120 or below, and that will be determined by environment.

Your statement is painfully obvious. The saying "life liberty and property" has been the simplest and most popular way of describing negative rights for over 200 years. Do you live in a cave? If so, stop looking at the shadows on the wall, there is a world out there.

There was a wall of text and your response portrayed your inability to compete both in the free market and dating market. I blame low testosterone.

Your posts are gibberish. I blame brain damage.

Stefan leaves no doubt about where he stands. Personality is genetic, eh? "BIGGEST MISTAKE EVER" is the perfect title for that assumption. Genes and DNA are important, but not for the reasons most commonly assumed. Most importantly, genes/DNA relate to predispositions, not causes. Genes/DNA do not determine anything. The more skeptical suggestion coming from some quarters is that IQ tests measure one's ability to do IQ tests, not intelligence. I obtained my MBA from one of my country's top MBA schools. During one of our lectures, our highly regarded strategy lecturer described a kind of intelligence that is able to see the big picture, and makes decisions within the context of that big picture. A person with this ability is not typically able to explain how he arrives at his decision, as it is based on the subconscious weaving together of many threads. He just "sees" the answer. IQ tests do not really measure this dimension of intelligence. I obtained a very high score for my IQ test... but this does not mean anything to me. I know someone else who's obtained a very high score, and he's just an autistic nut-job. In fact, I suggest that IQ tests typically tend to the autistic end of the intelligence spectrum, and not the big-picture end where intelligence really most counts. I've read somewhere that Richard Feynman, among the brightest physicists of our time, obtained a very average score in his IQ test. But I can see where high-IQ folk would be predisposed to the "it's-all-in-the-genes" hooey... they can claim their high score as their own, because it's etched into their very genes, and not their environment. Stefan does great work in his videos, with his preparation and articulate presentations. But he is clearly wrong with his belief that "personality is genetic". "Because genes" is the reactive flip-side of the "because God" argument.... both are wrong. The strange death of Europe (an awesome video, btw) can be attributed to this pathological duality. God is dead, but in its place is a sterile secularism that just continues to feed the ignorance. With their implicit genocentric assumptions, Europeans are unable to see the groupthink that informs them. They think that the assumptions informed by their groupthink is "just" the way that "reality" "is". To reframe this in the narrative of Buddhism, Europeans are "seeing the world from their own level" and assuming these illusions to be real.

Epigenetics is an attempt to factor in the environment in determining which genes are expressed (phenotypic plasticity). Phenotypic plasticity means that an organism with a specific genetic inheritance (genotype) can have many possible phenotypes, depending on the environmental pressures and which genes are switched on or off subject to these pressures. As such, epigenetics is as intractably genocentric as any of the other Neo-Darwinian paradigms. And as such, it is based on the same, flawed assumptions: It is unfalsifiable (you can make it up as you go along, but just be sure to rely on evidence and assumptions that cannot be proved nor disproved... eg, natural selection "makes sense", but it is ultimately neither provable nor disprovable, particularly when you factor in important topics like entropy (next point)); It fails to properly account for entropy (this is a serious topic that Neo-Darwinism refuses to take seriously, even though it has respectable audiences in other areas, such as systems theory); It fails to account for the "technology" or the "computer" that "processes" said genetic "information." In broader terms, if someone wants to rely on a particular narrative, then that narrative has to be consistent through and through. Information processing (genes) requires a computer... but there ain't no such thing in any biological system anywhere, never has been, no semblance thereof. If someone can show me how this technology works, I might be more receptive, but I'm not holding my breath. ... and so on. Epigenetics is based on the same fairy-floss foundation that characterizes the rest of the Neo-Darwinian, genocentric narrative. I cover some of the finer detail in my opening post of June 23 in the Science and Technology section, under "Has science become unscientific?" Bottom line, epigenetics, including behavioral epigenetics, is exactly the same, useless, sloshing, deterministic swill, devoid of any kind of compelling axiomatic framework (for a good example of a solid, axiomatic framework... Isaac Newton).

Well, off the top of my head: - the only whites who survived the plague are the ones who were smart enough to isolate themselves. They passed on their genes leading to an IQ increase in the average population. - the only bacteria who survive anti-biotics are those who are resistance. They pass on their genes leading to an increase in bacterial resistance. - women - when given the choice - prefer to mate with taller men. Taller men make more babies, leading to an increase in the average height of the population. 3 concrete examples. Entropy is a measure of randomness, and often used for predictive analysis (such as systems theory), not descriptive analysis (such as genetics). The reason that they don't take it seriously is because it is irrelevant to studying actual genetic makeup. There will always be a 100% chance that your genes are your genes, and are what they are, because you can map out the exact sequence. You are equating gene expression with computation. What is the basis for this? Why do you consider genes to be information? Why do you consider gene expression to be a technology?

Argument from authority is not an argument. Also, your assumption that I get my science from magazines is not only unfounded (since you can't possibly know that), but I think you're smart enough to know that you're just saying that to attack my credibility instead of addressing my argument. Not that it matters, but I used to be in pre-med if it makes you feel that I am now good enough to speak to. As for you labeling me an opinionator, surely you can point out what my opinion is? Reflection much? I'm calling your vision of science to task with 3 solid examples, 1 argument, and 3 questions. If you're so sure you're right, surely you can point out where I'm wrong? I'd be happy to answer this, but one thing at a time. You made a claim, and I made a counter-argument which you have yet to address. Ball's in your court, not mine.

With all due respect, I only address questions that I regard as serious. In the climate of armchair-theorizing that this topic seems to draw out of the wood-work, this decision is my call.

So the reason why you won't address my 3 concrete examples, 1 argument, and 3 simple questions is because "you don't regard it as serious" ?

It has been my experience in other forums that armchair theorists typically overwhelm these conversations. By armchair theorists, I mean those who obtain everything that they know about science from weekend newspaper magazines and television science docos. That is not intended as an insult, but merely to emphasize the point that the sorts of issues that are typically raised by casual opinionators do not provide traction for serious conversation. Take shirgall's opening post, as a counter-example. He seems to know what he's talking about, and so far, he's been providing me with something to bite into. I welcome comments from those who know what they're talking about, or who have serious questions that they want serious answers to. And responding to armchair trolls, butthurt that their naïve vision of science is being called to task, is definitely not something that I intend to waste time on. Now in having cleared the air, think about what you are asking in this question of yours. What do YOU think genes/DNA do? What models do you have in mind, that make living things happen? In epigenetics, for example, references to switching genes "on" or "off" is an infotech concept that relates to some manner of data processing. What do YOU infer from that?

I appreciate your serious questions, but we now venture into territory that requires familiarity with other topics that can hardly be covered adequately in a forum such as this. And seeing as my most recent comment is in moderation (hidden), well... I don't know that this forum is conducive to the sort of serious, wide-ranging conversation that the topic deserves and needs. How familiar are you with neural plasticity (Norman Doidge was a pioneer), systems theory, quantum physics, etc? They all flow into this. You are welcome to contact me directly if you are interested, but I don't think that this topic will survive this forum. Just sayin'