View Single Post

Default 

July 10th, 2012, 15:44
Originally Posted by blackcanopus View Post
As I said before, you think that genes or hormones work like small volume controls. Sometimes it works that way, but most of the time it doesn't. You have numerous genes on your Y chromosome that have functions other than lowering or increasing testosterone and some of them affect personality. The other problem is that you rely on exceptions to prove your point. You rely on 'biological abnormalities' (a male with low testosterone values).
Please provide me with the evidence that the genes on the Y-chromosome affect personality. I also wish to know what personality theory you use to make a such statement. I also want the quantified data on the base-rates you base "abnormalities" on. Remember that I have the education to read articles in advanced psychology and I have personality psychology as one of my specializations so do not hold back.

Originally Posted by blackcanopus View Post
Again, I see that you have a very human-centric way of thinking. You put human at the center of the world, like it's special and meant for greatness. A very religious way of thinking, too.
No. Right back at you; you apply a very specific branch of dogma here and you do so poorly. I know the philosophic branch you seems to be influenced by and the kind of overraction you did here is what I would expect from someone who haven't really thought this whole thing through. Let me put it out for you:

To speak about humans isn't in itself "human-centric thinking". The fact that humans as a species have a wealth of accumulated knowledge that no other animal have and the fact that humans seem to have a level of abstract thinking that no other animal is mere black & white facts. Pointing this out is no mere human-centric than pointing out that a dog have enhanced smell compared to most other species is "dog-centric".

What you do is to confuse statement of these facts with religions "we were made to rule the animals and the world". That's do not follow from anything I mentioned so far. The reason why you even made that association is on your side.

Now what's even worse is the context in which you made this pharagraph; you did it as a way to morally reject another fact; that part of humans evolution is based on transition of information. You use a red herring as a rhetoric and I question why. It's dishonest to those you speak to to attempt to derail a topic like that.

Originally Posted by blackcanopus View Post
But I still don't see how it explains breaking free from the genes. Your genes allow you to have a society, to talk and to use those tools. The fact that you wear eyeglasses or warm clothes means that you haven't been able to break free of them and you need tools to diminish/enhance their effects. Even using those tools (an airplane?) does not make you free from the genes. A small spider-ling has the ability to stretch a piece of it's thread and fly. A crow has the ability to use tools very effectively. Our methods may be more elaborate, but in the end it's the ability which has been given to us by our genes. You are not breaking free from your genes by using Insulin. You have malfunctioning glands and you use Insulin (a product of the genes) to correct it, make it the way it was intended to be. How is it breaking free from the genes, while you are using a product of those genes to make your body work the way it was meant to work by those genes?
We will break free from our genes one day, perhaps when we are cyborgs with electronic brains, no genitals and no genes.
I believe the reason you have problems with this is because you are using a false dichotomy, either genes or environment and if someone thus takes a step towards the latter they reject the former. This is false. My stance have a couple of labels, including reciprocal determinism. The host communicate with it's surroundings and it's nature is centered within that interaction. So when I speak about non-host stuff such as passed information you believe I say no to the host. It's not in our genes to fly to the moon. We might have the genes to be capable of abstract advanced thought, but the process behind flying to the moon is rooted in 9000 years of evolution when it comes to tools and accumulating knowledge during which time the human species itself haven't changed much.

Originally Posted by blackcanopus View Post
I am sure the problem of 'Male Gaze' will not exist in that day. But as long as you are a Homo sapiens and you have some of your organs, you are a slave to your genes and you can't blame men for buying games featuring hot female characters.
I believe I stated clearly that attraction isn't what I speak about.

Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind. - John F Kennedy
An eye for an eye, and soon the whole world is blind. - Mahatma Gandhi
The world is my country. To do good is my religion. My mind is my own church. This simple creed is all we need to enjoy peace on earth. - Thomas Paine
JemyM is offline

JemyM

JemyM's Avatar
Okay, now roll sanity.

#76

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,017
Send a message via ICQ to JemyM Send a message via MSN to JemyM