The Friendzone [Archive]

View Full Version : The Friendzone

Pages : [1] 2

Sinister Intents

30th May 2015, 18:50

motion denied

30th May 2015, 19:05

I think we all can agree with that, so what's the point?

Redistribute the Rep

30th May 2015, 19:07

I have seen people on this forum complaining about stupid shit like "mixed signals"

Sinister Intents

30th May 2015, 19:08

I think we all can agree with that, so what's the point?

Got pissed off because of a debate so ranted a bit

noble brown

30th May 2015, 19:10

I think a lot of cats think like this and I resonant your thoughts on them.
I will disagree on your characterization of "the friend zone" though. This is how I see it.
When a guy says he likes a woman he means it but it is a very superficial attraction. He doesn't need to know a whole lot about her personality to make that assertion. And guys will prefer physical attraction to deeper attractions. I'm speaking in general here though. Once a woman gets to know a guy she's attracted to things can go south really fast if he turns out to be otherwise undesirable. Then he gets the friend zone. That said I know there a guys and women too who look at courting and relationships in a very cold utilitarian manner. I blame capitalist culture

noble brown

30th May 2015, 19:13

I have seen people on this forum complaining about stupid shit like "mixed signals"
Explain what you mean by, "stupid shit like mixed signals"? Is there no such thing in your book?

RA89

30th May 2015, 19:32

I think a girl likes you she either sees you as a friend (similar to a sibling) or a potential romantic partner. I feel that guys think this way too. Arguably it is a friend zone.

There's been studies which show that physiologically women responded with less sexual desire their male friends than strangers etc.

This isn't the exact study I was on about but covers the issue - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3161124/

BIXX

30th May 2015, 19:33

I mean, the whole friend zone bullshit is just that. But idk I would expect that to be a given on this forum... Even though I know it isn't.

Redistribute the Rep

30th May 2015, 19:34

Explain what you mean by, "stupid shit like mixed signals"? Is there no such thing in your book?

What's usually classified as "mixed signals" is just normal behavior. And it's usually said by guys who are mad a woman won't have sex with them after they so much as smiled in their direction

Rosa Partizan

30th May 2015, 19:41

this friendzone bs is a major proof of male entitlement, like women's bodies are something that should be granted to you once you don't behave like the psychopathic asshole that you actually are and pretend to consider her a human being.

BIXX

30th May 2015, 19:41

What's usually classified as "mixed signals" is just normal behavior. And it's usually said by guys who are mad a woman won't have sex with them after they so much as smiled in their direction
Ugh... If even that.

See, if by friend zone they just meant they were sad that they weren't dating someone, that'd be one thing (and that's often what they try to pass their bullshit off as) but really they are just talking about fucking someone. Cause that's what they think a relationship with someone is.

RA89

30th May 2015, 19:47

Ugh... If even that.

See, if by friend zone they just meant they were sad that they weren't dating someone, that'd be one thing (and that's often what they try to pass their bullshit off as) but really they are just talking about fucking someone. Cause that's what they think a relationship with someone is.

So basically you make up what their intentions are and then attack them?

noble brown

30th May 2015, 19:50

I've never been afflicted by such moronic views myself so maybe this contribute to me having a difficult time believing these really are widespread perspectives held by men. I'm not saying sexism doesn't exist. Nor am I saying it's not widespread i'm talking about this particular brand of sexism. Seeing women merely as sex objects. In my experience men are overly obsessed w sex and gauge a woman's level of interest or depth of commitment by sex. But I don't think I could say that these same types of men see women as merely sex objects. But of course I don't disagree fundamentally with anything already said

noble brown

30th May 2015, 19:52

Ugh... If even that.

See, if by friend zone they just meant they were sad that they weren't dating someone, that'd be one thing (and that's often what they try to pass their bullshit off as) but really they are just talking about fucking someone. Cause that's what they think a relationship with someone is.
I think that the later is true just as often as the former but it is just speculation

Rosa Partizan

30th May 2015, 19:56

RA89

30th May 2015, 20:02

noble brown

30th May 2015, 20:08

it actually doesn't matter if the guy in question was longing either for a relationship or for a fuck, "getting friendzoned" reads as "that ***** wronged me, I deserved to get what I want, poor me, being nice and treating her right and shit, all that stuff that I don't do when I don't want to score with a woman".
Well if that's actually the sentiment involved then I would 100% agree... But how do we know this is actually the sentiment. I've been friend zoned before and I never once thought what you apparently expected me to think. Usually I just wondered, immaturely, what was wrong with me. I wonder if there aren't some stereotypical expectations invovled here? I would suggest being on guard and on the look out for these types of sentiments in men but to not a priori expect them. It may actually be counter productive in relationship building to see fire when there isn't. But don't hesitate to call people out on their shit

Rosa Partizan

30th May 2015, 20:15

Os Cangaceiros

30th May 2015, 20:21

Sinister Intents

30th May 2015, 20:24

Unreciprocated love isn't friendzone, it means they're not interested in sex or a relationship. If they're not interested, shut the fuck up and respect that person in stead of: "Wahhhh my man feels are hurt she wouldn't fuck me, but I was so nice. WAAHHH"

Rosa Partizan

30th May 2015, 20:28

noble brown

30th May 2015, 20:30

using the vocabulary of getting friendzoned has this meaning that I explained. Guys who just deal with getting rejected without all that self-pity or blaming the women for that rejections don't say stuff like "I was friendzoned". This is something for a very special yet very widespread sort of guy.
Idk how you can confidently make this assertion. You seem to assume a lot. Holding these types prejudices are a bit extremist. I guess it's your prerogative though

RA89

30th May 2015, 20:33

using the vocabulary of getting friendzoned has this meaning that I explained. Guys who just deal with getting rejected without all that self-pity or blaming the women for that rejections don't say stuff like "I was friendzoned". This is something for a very special yet very widespread sort of guy.

It's calling a spade a spade. It's hardly offensive or derogatory.

You can argue it suggests being friends with a girl isn't as good as being romantic- but realistically for guys and girls if they like someone so much that they want a relationship then friendship is the consolation and there's nothing wrong with that.

Sinister Intents

30th May 2015, 20:33

Idk how you can confidently make this assertion. You seem to assume a lot. Holding these types prejudices are a bit extremist. I guess it's your prerogative though

It's not an assumption, it's grounded in an understanding of capitalist patriarchy. We livein a society where sexism ans misogyny are directly linked to the mode of production, and tied into other institutionalized prejudices

noble brown

30th May 2015, 20:33

number of times I had sex with my male friends: 0.

Am I living under a rock or sth? Serious question.
No. He wasn't saying every one did it just that it happened a lot. Personally I haven't experienced this situation very often and I have more female friends then male but I do know it's relatively common just not ubiquitous

Zoop

30th May 2015, 20:34

I think people who complain about being "in the friend zone" just see women as walking vaginas that need to be plundered. It springs from a feeling of entitlement, which is rooted in male privilege. Being turned down insults this privilege, so they whine about it.

It isn't synonymous with unrequited love. The "friend zone" is unrequited love, but with added elements of severe assholism, misogyny, and a delusional, petulant sense of entitlement.

Os Cangaceiros

30th May 2015, 20:38

Most relationships I've had have developed in the opposite direction from this, ie I spend time with someone just as a virtue of overlapping social circles or whatever, mutual friends and the like, but definitely not in the context of "we're going out on a date", and then it eventually turns into a romantic thing. Whereas the whole concept of the OP is based on the popular notion of it turning from a romantic thing (or, at least what one party wants to be a romantic thing) into just some kind of social obligation where you're hanging out with someone but there's no kind of intimate attachment.

Honestly my best advice to anyone about interpersonal relationships is just communicate what you want and, if the other party doesn't want the same thing, cut your loses and move on. Just don't associate yourself with people who are going to make you miserable, life's too short. It's very simple advice but a lot of people seem to have difficulty following it (including admittedly myself from time to time)

RedWorker

30th May 2015, 20:40

While the behavior highlighted in the opening post is indeed sexist, this is not inherent in the term "friendzone". It is a common occurrence in interpersonal relationships that someone wants to be more than just friends and yet the other person does not want to go further. This happens to all sexes and genders all the time. While the term "friendzone" could sometimes be used coupled with sexist behavior as highlighted in the opening post, any other term also could.

It could be that the term friendzone is commonly used in disgusting "male culture", and usually used in the way described in the opening post. That does not mean that the concept itself is sexist or that all uses of the term are sexist.

In one situation, "I got friendzoned" could be used, among other words, to describe "Damn, I had to play along to try to fuck that ***** and then she didn't even want to go to my apartment, told her to fuck off and stop being a cocktease". In another it could mean: "I really liked that guy and was trying to date him, turns out he doesn't see me in the same way I see him though. Oh well.".

It's not an assumption, it's grounded in an understanding of capitalist patriarchy. We livein a society where sexism ans misogyny are directly linked to the mode of production, and tied into other institutionalized prejudices

This is like saying that using the word "woman" is part of sexist behaviour because women are believed to be inferior in our current society. While one should very well be aware of the discriminatory ways a term can be used (which applies to MANY terms that are not discriminatory in most situations), that does not mean every term which has some possibility of being used coupled with sexist behavior should be assumed to be a sexist term. All this does is make the concerns of feminists look like a joke rather than actually challenge anything.

Sinister Intents

30th May 2015, 20:43

So sexism and misogyny aren't directly linked and fomented by capitalism?

RedWorker

30th May 2015, 20:46

noble brown

30th May 2015, 20:49

It's not an assumption, it's grounded in an understanding of capitalist patriarchy. We livein a society where sexism ans misogyny are directly linked to the mode of production, and tied into other institutionalized prejudices
On an institutional level you're absolutely right. On an individual level people just are not that cognizant. And culturally it's much more implicit whereas in the 70's it was much more culturally explicit. On a subconscious level many individual men may indeed hold these sentiments just through the process of socialization within a capitalist culture but I just don't think that this type of explicit thought is generally the case. Just my opinion though

Sinister Intents

30th May 2015, 20:53

It is true that there is a key relationship between class society and discriminatory behavior. But your post replied to: "Idk how you can confidently make this assertion. You seem to assume a lot. Holding these types prejudices are a bit extremist. I guess it's your prerogative though".

Just because class society is linked to sexism, doesn't mean all terms which can be used coupled with sexism are always sexist.

I think there's a failure of communication on my part, friendzone is sexist, and capitalist class society, where women ate commodified, treated ad property and conquests, directly generates sexism. The capitalist patriarchy relies on the constant reiteration of sexism. After all sex sells, the female body is simply property in the eyes of the capitalist, not that everyone isn't dehumanized and treated ad property in some manner

RedWorker

30th May 2015, 20:59

What I, and I believe others here mean is this:

In one situation, "I got friendzoned" could be used, among other words, to describe "Damn, I had to play along to try to fuck that ***** and then she didn't even want to go to my apartment, told her to fuck off and stop being a cocktease". In another it could mean: "I really liked that guy and was trying to date him, turns out he doesn't see me in the same way I see him though. Oh well."

So while I understand your sentiment about this concept being used among sexist behavior, that depends on the situation. This term has been used innocently in countless instances.

It really depends on the context. In typical "male culture", it could very well be used in a sexist way most or all of the time, inherently tied to the view that women are like coin-operated slot machines. In another context, it may be completely different.

BIXX

30th May 2015, 22:04

it actually doesn't matter if the guy in question was longing either for a relationship or for a fuck, "getting friendzoned" reads as "that ***** wronged me, I deserved to get what I want, poor me, being nice and treating her right and shit, all that stuff that I don't do when I don't want to score with a woman".
This is a lot closer to what I wish I had said.

Like os canga whatever said earlier, if someone doesn't reciprocate feelings for you (which BTW, you have to tell them about for them to know you're interested- some guys expect girls to read their minds or some bullshit about their emotions) move on. Idk why this discussion is even needing to be had but the worst part is that there are actual users on the boars who are trying to say an opposition to the friend zone concept is actually shitty. I feel there is no real discussion to be had with people who think the friend zone exists, because realistically I doubt they will be convinced. No matter how well you argue your point. All these discussions do is put sexists on my radar- as this one is already doing.

Rafiq

30th May 2015, 22:06

Friends fuck each other all the time, that's what I don't get about this whole concept.

You hang out with someone of the opposite or same sex on and off, have a good time, become friends, have sex with that person. Then maybe it develops into some other kind of relationship or maybe it doesn't...maybe you keep doing the same shit until you meet somebody else who you start fucking or maybe you just grow apart from the other person for whatever reason.

Doesn't this happen all the time?

These were my thoughts exactly. Being sexually interested in someone while knowing full well that they aren't interested in you, i.e if the feelings aren't mutual, then the only thing that's sustaining your attraction is outside pressure. It has nothing to do with your immediate sexual desire, because it's pointless if only you're getting off by it. It's like wanting to masturbate with another person's body. This isn't just a utilitarian matter of sexuality, it is literally a case of worshiping false gods - of needing sex in order to sustain an idea of masculinity or whatever. Men don't ACTUALLY care about not being able to fuck, it is the fact that they feel it's an affront to their masculinity - i.e. that they aren't "man enough". They feel like it's an affront to them for a women to waste their time, to be something besides a good conversation to have with your buddies over a few beers.

If you're actually honest about what you want, the so-called "friendzone" couldn't even be conceived as a problem. Friends can do a lot of things uniquely ascribed to committed relationships - not just sex, but on an emotional level (besides all the conflicts of course)- and if this isn't mutually shared, then nothing could really sustain it in the first place.

The Intransigent Faction

30th May 2015, 22:33

It's not real, if you think women are like machines you put niceness tokens into and sex comes out, then you're a sexist piece of shit for thinking women owe you sex and a relationship for kindness, and friendship isn't a consolation prize.

I'm sure I've seen a similar post before, and possibly on RevLeft, so I've pondered this a lot.

This term seems to be not uncommon in "PUA" circles, where it sometimes has obvious connotations of a male with a sense of sexual entitlement being told "let's just be friends", or something along those lines. However, it does appear in many cases to simply be a gender-neutral term for someone (even an asexual) desiring a relationship with someone while the person of interest does not want to go 'beyond' friendship (in other words, unrequited love). Obviously, claiming "gender-neutrality" in terminology is problematic in the context of a patriarchal society, but unrequited love is in fact experienced one way or another by all genders and sexual orientations. It's just that unrequited love of a male for a female involves a wider social context of a structural imbalance of power, and so the ways males are socialized to approach this situation in a patriarchal society are just as sexist as ways males are socialized to approach various other situations.

Maybe it implies that "if only you say or do xyz in the right way at the right time, you will get A". Probably, anyone who claims human romantic or sexual relationships are reducible to such syllogisms or formulae which they somehow came to personally discover and are willing to share *for money* is a "snake-oil salesman". Not just any snake-oil salesman, of course, but one of fundamentally sexist notions. That obviously should be opposed.

What this all does not negate, however, is that unrequited romantic feelings for a friend can be a legitimate source of psychological frustration. Lamenting being "friendzoned" is not complaining about being 'denied' something to which one is 'entitled'. It is expressing frustration at the fact of feelings being unrequited, which could imply that one feels entitled to their being requited, but does not necessarily imply this. Being upset that someone doesn't share your feelings, or even feeling hurt and/or inadequate or confused by rejection (which, granted, is not a particularly healthy response) is different from being angry at someone as though they've "wronged" you by not sharing your feelings.

Someone also mentioned "mixed signals". Keep in mind that meanings in body language are not universal and are also highly situational. Some people definitely do not interpret body language as 'easily' (or I would say, in the same way) as others. More importantly, mixed signals are a very real thing because "the game" of PUAs, in all its patriarchal ugliness, doesn't just give sexist advice to men. Women may feel compelled to send "mixed signals" in many situations, because they are strongly discouraged from being "forward" or open about their intentions while conversely males are encouraged to be outright insistent about theirs.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

30th May 2015, 23:08

Counterculturalist

30th May 2015, 23:32

I don't know why being in the friendzone is considered a bad thing. I like having friends.

Seems to me that the kind of guy that would complain about being "friendzoned" is the kind of guy who doesn't see women as worthy of his friendship.

noble brown

31st May 2015, 00:33

What should I assume about my female friend that comes to me about her being friend zoned by some one she was dating?

Antiochus

31st May 2015, 00:41

It's not real, if you think women are like machines you put niceness tokens into and sex comes out, then you're a sexist piece of shit for thinking women owe you sex and a relationship for kindness, and friendship isn't a consolation prize.

I don't think that is what the "friendzone" means. What I take it to mean is simply that women consider some men as 'friends' and some as sexual partners. It isn't mutually exclusive off course. But what is sexist about it? Men do it too off course. People have sex with those they are sexually attracted to. It would be sexist to think that women are asexual and must respond only to niceties (e.g getting flowers) and then oops be pushed into sex.

If that isn't what you meant by friend zone then I apologize.

FYI I understand that there are misogynist connotations to this since the "friendzone" is often used as a knee jerk excuse for why guys get rejected by women they are physically attracted to. Then it becomes a "girls like douchebags" type thing.

Counterculturalist

31st May 2015, 01:33

What should I assume about my female friend that comes to me about her being friend zoned by some one she was dating?

In my own experience, I've only ever heard men use the term, and it always struck me as being fraught with expectations about how women are supposed to act, expectations that could only come from someone who doesn't see women as fully human.

I would bet that, despite using a term that has become part of the popular lexicon, her assumptions about her situation differ fairly substantially from those of the average man who uses such a term. Maybe not, though. Maybe I should reexamine my own assumptions.

It's a fairly commonly held belief - admittedly by men and women - that men and women can't truly be friends, or that men and women only become friends as a prelude to sex. I see this belief as being misogynistic in origin, or at least a product of a deeply conservative and prosaic view of male/female relations. I could be wrong, though.

noble brown

31st May 2015, 01:50

You know I've been thinking about this. I think my assumption is that most men have the perspective on women as I do and therefore this statement is completely inocuous and would merely be a statement of fact. We are now just friends because she didn't wish to persue a romantic relationship. No big deal. But my underlying assumption may be wrong... Maybe most guys are thinking of women in this fashion. I'm going to ask around just to see. I will retire to think on this more

The Intransigent Faction

31st May 2015, 18:38

In my own experience, I've only ever heard men use the term, and it always struck me as being fraught with expectations about how women are supposed to act, expectations that could only come from someone who doesn't see women as fully human.

I would bet that, despite using a term that has become part of the popular lexicon, her assumptions about her situation differ fairly substantially from those of the average man who uses such a term. Maybe not, though. Maybe I should reexamine my own assumptions.

The majority of my friends are women (I wouldn't hang out with so-called "players"/"PUAs" anyway) and I've heard that term from them many times, so obviously it struck me differently.

It's a fairly commonly held belief - admittedly by men and women - that men and women can't truly be friends, or that men and women only become friends as a prelude to sex. I see this belief as being misogynistic in origin, or at least a product of a deeply conservative and prosaic view of male/female relations. I could be wrong, though.

Yeah, I'm gonna call bullshit on that one. Definitely misogynist.

Comrade Jacob

31st May 2015, 19:51

As much as sex is awesome, having a close friendship is far more important to me than sex.

motion denied

31st May 2015, 21:46

As much as sex is awesome, having a close friendship is far more important to me than sex.

why not both

Loony Le Fist

31st May 2015, 23:54

It's not real, if you think women are like machines you put niceness tokens into and sex comes out, then you're a sexist piece of shit for thinking women owe you sex and a relationship for kindness, and friendship isn't a consolation prize.

I love this point. In fact, it's the same reason that heterosexual men ask themselves "I'm so nice to her, why is she not putting out?" That kind of thinking is sexist. If men were less sexist they would just be honest about how they feel from the get go. Why put up this friend" facade, if what you feel is basic sexual attraction (I make no apologies for being a sexual being, and neither should anyone else--male or female). That's why I think it's important to show what your intentions are from the beginning. Don't be a fucking creepster and be nice to someone to get in their pants. It will tear you apart inside, and eventually you will resent that person. Some people may not appreciate your directness and that is their prerogative.

A lot of the problem is that women aren't allowed to be as honest with their feelings of raw sexual attraction because of social pressure. If we got rid of the social pressure (patriarchy) it would go along way towards people being honest about their feelings. Particularly in the US, people are repressed sexually. Ironically, it also has an incredibly high porn consumption. I think there is a correlation there.

I look forward to the patriarchy being eliminated because it would mean that lots more people will be getting laid. There's a lot of angry sexually frustrated people out there.

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 02:00

Hmm. No. The term isn't most commonly used as derogatory towards women but towards men and is male gender role policing.

The term friend zone has more to do with the failure of the men's masculinity and failure in his gender role than the female gender role expectation and comments precisely to this failing of masculinity and the male gender role. It doesn't put obligation on the woman, nor does it place the blame there...it puts obligation and the blame on the man. The woman is contrary to what you say here...not expected to deliver...she is expected to friend zone men when they fail in their gender role and friend zone is the "logical" end result of not being a real man....she is expected to deliver when somebody does not fail in their male gender role.

Men in general do not direct ridicule/hatred towards women for friend zoning other men....they direct their ridicule towards the men being friend zoned.

motion denied

1st June 2015, 02:07

BIXX

1st June 2015, 02:16

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 02:20

Nah, the friendzone™ comes from self-entitlement. Male self-entitlement, while we're at it. All the blame is on the woman, how can she not desire such a nice guy who treats her like a human being because he is so nice? Crazy man-hating women, I tell you.

Really? Because the majority of friend zone comments is directed at men and not at women. Of course the person who is said to be friend zoned may blame the woman.

But generally men don't direct ridicule and hatred towards women friend zoning but towards other men.

In fact...women are expected to friend zone in their gender role as long as a man isn't correctly functioning in his.

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 02:22

RedWorker

1st June 2015, 02:26

Wait... Are you seriously saying that this is worse for men than women, PA? Man, where were you in the misandry thread, where everyone was trying to say this or that shit was misandric. You could have just said all sorts of patriarchal bullshit is worse for men than women.

Not saying there are elements of patriarchy that harm men, but to say any of them harm men more than women is ridiculous.

You should learn to read and process information before starting irrelevant personal disputes - if you're not trolling like you commonly are. This is not even a matter of agreeing or disagreeing - this is a matter of you completely failing to understand what has been said and immediately jumping to attack someone.

Patriarchy includes male gender roles and female gender roles. Male gender roles, they're supposed to be strong, female gender roles, they're supposed to be weak. So men may make fun of other men for being weak - as part of sexism that is structurally against women. In the same way they make fun of each other for having been "friendzoned", while promoting the female gender role about she being the 'gatekeeper' who needs to accept or reject men.

BIXX

1st June 2015, 02:40

What I am saying is that it is patriarchy enforcing behavior on men and not on women and that it is male gender policing and not female gender policing...whether you want to believe it or not.
But this is obviously false. Not saying that male gender policing isn't involved but that it has a lot more to do with female gender policing and bigotry toward women.

You should learn to read and process information before starting irrelevant personal disputes - if you're not trolling like you commonly are. This is not even a matter of agreeing or disagreeing - this is a matter of you completely failing to understand what has been said and immediately jumping to attack someone.
FOR Someone who claims not to be able to read minds you seem sure to know exactly what my motivations are./sarcasm

Also, given the content of my personal dispute with PA (which the posts in this thread had nothing to do with until you brought it up) it is highly relevant: sexist bullshit.

Patriarchy includes male gender roles and female gender roles. Male gender roles, they're supposed to be strong, female gender roles, they're supposed to be weak.
No shit dude.

So men may make fun of other men for being weak - as part of sexism that is structurally against women. In the same way they make fun of each other for having been "friendzoned", while promoting the female gender role about she being the 'gatekeeper' who needs to accept or reject men.
However the way PA says this (if this is what they meant) acts as if the whole friendzoning thing affects men worse than women, which if again, ridiculous. Because the friend zoning bullshit is, by a massive majority, a term used against women to imply men are owed relationships and sex. I do agree that male gender policing could be/probably is involved, but to say that it is the primary function of the friend zoning bs, then no, you and PA are wrong.

RedWorker

1st June 2015, 02:45

No more replying to the troll who attempts character assassinations and painting other people as desired through manipulation, in this case part of a supposed plot to paint PhoenixAsh as a misogynist which dates back to other threads. He will try to paint it as something relevant but it's just a cheap trolling excuse; if he was on a Nazi forum, he'd try to paint whoever as an anti-racist. Sexism or misogynism has nothing to do with this, it's only the chosen pseudo-topic adaptive to environment as a vehicle for personal attacks. Back to the ignore list with this user. I suggest others to do the same. I do not know about PhoenixAsh's reputation, but if we are to rely on PC's accusations to judge it then I'm guessing it's perfectly clean.

P.S. I hate to feed the troll, my motivation was just to defend PhoenixAsh from nonsense.

Counterculturalist

1st June 2015, 02:57

What I am saying is that it is patriarchy enforcing behavior on men and not on women and that it is male gender policing and not female gender policing...whether you want to believe it or not.

Is it that simple though? You've never heard someone criticize a woman for "friendzoning" a man? This, too, is an example of gender policing: it's an attempt to force women into a kind of asexual role where they reward nice people with sex, instead of sleeping with people that they want to sleep with. As well as stemming from a strictly elemental conception of male/female relationships as only encompassing sex. We can speculate that some women's choices of sexual partners are influenced by patriarchal gender norms, of course, but getting carried away with this kind of speculation becomes problematic.

By the way, every time I type the word "friendzone" I feel like I'm losing a handful of IQ points.

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 02:59

But this is obviously false. Not saying that male gender policing isn't involved but that it has a lot more to do with female gender policing and bigotry toward women.

Well no. The statement is not obviously false just because you say so. You actually have to make an argument that shows that the friend zone comment is not directed primarily towards men and that the onus for the friend zone is placed within male behavior.

You can't do that.

Also, given the content of my personal dispute with PA (which the posts in this thread had nothing to do with until you brought it up) it is highly relevant: sexist bullshit.

Your personal dispute is hinged on the fact that you are in fact a massive hypocritical and reactionary troll rather than any sexist bullshit.

However the way PA says this (if this is what they meant) acts as if the whole friendzoning thing affects men worse than women, which if again, ridiculous.

Nope. I am saying...as I have said from the start...that it is male gender policing and not female gender policing.

The rest of it belongs squarely in your own assumptions....and again...is mainly expressed by you in service of your agenda of starting drama before you tail it off again for your usual donning of the victim mantle in another sub forum.

Because the friend zoning bullshit is, by a massive majority, a term used against women to imply men are owed relationships and sex. I do agree that male gender policing could be/probably is involved, but to say that it is the primary function of the friend zoning bs, then no, you and PA are wrong.

It is massively NOT used against women but against men...and that is where you are wrong and why you understand fuck all about patriarchy.

Within the patriarchal concept the woman is supposed to guard against inefficient men. In fact it is an expectation and obligation of female gender behavior to not deliver except to men who are performing in their gender role (You know...the whole lock and key analogy...which you should be aware of and understand).

Men are ridiculed for being friend zoned. Women are not ridiculed for friend zoning. Woman are not generally criticized by men for friend zoning other men.

Two facts:

1). women are expected to friend zone.
2). when a man is being friend zoned...it is his fault. He is to blame. It is his behavior that caused him to be friend zoned.

Hence why there are volumes written on how men should behave to avoid the friend zone. There is no volume written about how women friend zone from the perspective of female behavior. In ANY explanation of the friend zone and why it occurs...it occurs because of MALE failure in behavior patterns...not in the failure of female behavior.

That alone should be evidence enough why it is primarily male gender policing.

Hermes

1st June 2015, 03:00

Really? Because the majority of friend zone comments is directed at men and not at women. Of course the person who is said to be friend zoned may blame the woman.

But generally men don't direct ridicule and hatred towards women friend zoning but towards other men.

In fact...women are expected to friend zone in their gender role as long as a man isn't correctly functioning in his.

Do you have any sources for this, though?

I've never heard a single man laughing at or ridiculing another man for getting friendzoned, whereas I constantly see, as well as interact with, other men who will continually blame the woman for friendzoning the man.

RedWorker

1st June 2015, 03:05

Do you have any sources for this, though?

I've never heard a single man laughing at or ridiculing another man for getting friendzoned, whereas I constantly see, as well as interact with, other men who will continually blame the woman for friendzoning the man.

Like I said, it completely depends on the context. In one situation it could mean one thing, in another the other. There's no need to exclude either possibility. There's this comedy series popular in my country in which the friendzone (and related concepts) comes up sometimes and men are ridiculed by other men for failing to evade the 'friend zone'. PhoenixAsh's analysis holds up with the behaviour I have observed in mainstream sources; on the other side, I do not recall seeing a woman criticized for putting a man in the 'friend zone'. That said, it may be a possibility that I, in my limited experiences, have not encountered. Of course, I have seen women being portrayed as coin-operated slot machines, but not coupled with the 'friend zone' term.

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 03:15

Is it that simple though? You've never heard someone criticize a woman for "friendzoning" a man?

I think I answered this when I said:

Men in general do not direct ridicule/hatred towards women for friend zoning other men....they direct their ridicule towards the men being friend zoned.

and

Of course the person who is said to be friend zoned may blame the woman.

But generally men don't direct ridicule and hatred towards women friend zoning but towards other men.

The primary focus point of the "friend zone" is the man who is friend zoned. Secondary the woman. The "friend zone" concept is directed at a failure to perform as is expected in their gender role by the man in question.

It is not directed at the woman for not delivering. It is in fact expected of a woman to gate keep. The concept of friend zone is not designed to police her behavior.

This, too, is an example of gender policing: it's an attempt to force women into a kind of asexual role where they reward nice people with sex,

But not enforced by the "friend zone" concept. In fact...the friend zone concept is blamed on "being nice"...which is frowned upon in male gender roles.

Hence why men don't think " nice"; " cute"; "pretty" etc. are compliments they should get in public where other men are around from a woman.

Friend zoned men will obviously blame the woman for being friend zoned and not see their masculinity....but men in general will blame the friend zoned men....and they will blame his inefficiency to perform in his gender role...and logically expect women to friend zone men who do not perform in their gender role.

instead of sleeping with people that they want to sleep with.

Yeah...a woman's "want" doesn't feature heavily in patriarchal gender role conceptions.

As well as stemming from a strictly elemental conception of male/female relationships as only encompassing sex. We can speculate that some women's choices of sexual partners are influenced by patriarchal gender norms, of course, but getting carried away with this kind of speculation becomes problematic.

And yet it is still the driving idea and concept behind patriarchy. But that concept is only "awarded" to men who behave in their gender role. Men who do not perform in their gender role are not to be awarded privilege...do not deserve that privilege and are in fact seen as "non men" and very very low on the hierarchical ladder.

By the way, every time I type the word "friendzone" I feel like I'm losing a handful of IQ points.

Well...you are a member here...it can't have far to go :P :P

BIXX

1st June 2015, 03:55

PA, let me show you the kind of person who generally uses the term friend zone.

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/

Specifically in the following:

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/380m5t/a_mans_commitment_is_worth_way_more_than_sex/

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/37y164/men_shouldnt_expect_sex_from_relationships_with/

And on the r/Friendzone subreddit...

http://www.reddit.com/r/Friendzone/comments/374ikm/the_phantom_i_mean_friendzone/

I could find much more, but the claim that the term friendzone isn't used to vilify women as a primary function, is clearly wrong. Even liberals like the salon magazine fucking can tell, and salon is total shit.

The general attitude of your average "friendzoned" asswipe:
9614

While intended as a joke, I find it very representative of most men who are "friendzoned" and their attitudes towards women.

#FF0000

1st June 2015, 03:55

Hmm. No. The term isn't most commonly used as derogatory towards women but towards men and is male gender role policing.

That's an interesting aspect to it and I think you have a point w/ the gender role policing, but a lot of people use the term in describing their own situation and their frustration with it, and their frustration with the woman putting them in "the friend zone".

Friend zoned for non jackasses = "I was attracted to her, tried to attract her, she didn't see me as more than a friend. Guess we're incompatible since she's not attracted to me."

That's what you might think you're saying when you use the term, but using "Friendzone" is a lot like saying "SJW" -- you immediately sound like a tremendous manchild.

BIXX

1st June 2015, 03:56

Are you seriously going to deny that its about making women into some sort of villian for not fucking any dude who thinks he deserves her vagina?

(Not directed at you red)

The Disillusionist

1st June 2015, 03:58

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 04:00

#FF0000

1st June 2015, 04:02

The Disillusionist

1st June 2015, 04:09

lmfao this post holy shit

Refute it. I dare you. Pretending that everything about our culturally screwed-up relationship dynamics boils down to men just being jerks is counterproductive. I mean, that's a large part of it, but the fact is, in order to survive, humans have developed reproductive strategies that make us all assholes, at least by the common cultural standards of today. If that isn't recognized, then this entire discussion is just trying to stick a bandaid on cancer. Idealism isn't going to get us anywhere.

#FF0000

1st June 2015, 04:25

Refute it. I dare you.

how bout you back up your Pop-EvoPsych101 assertions first. The fact of the matter is that people's behavior and preferences are a lot more complicated than that finding "the genetically ideal mate", because people have different ideas of what 'ideal' is. I don't know if you talk to many people about this sort of thing, but if you were to ask folks about their preferences when it comes to the opposite sex, you'd find a huge array of varying preferences and standards, many of which are in direct contradiction to social "standards of beauty".

Frankly I have a hard time understanding how anyone who has any amount of lived experience with people in general and the opposite sex in particular can put forward that model of how relationships work in modern society.

Pretending that everything about our culturally screwed-up relationship dynamics boils down to men just being jerks is counterproductive.

It's a good thing I don't think that, then.

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 04:26

Are you seriously going to deny that its about making women into some sort of villian for not fucking any dude who thinks he deserves her vagina?

(Not directed at you red)

Yes. Because that is not how it works.

I know you need to keep it at Hungry Caterpillar level because otherwise it gets to complicated for you...but patriarchy is actually much more complex than "hur-dur blame women".

So let me try and explain it to you one more time in easy words.

The friend zone concept is used primarily to focus on male gender behavior. Patriarchy dictates that women will respond to male gender behavior and that being a gender typical male will award you sex.

Conversely women are expected to be a "good lock" in which only the "right key" will fit (which forms an analogical basis for a whole range of concepts...such as why men who sleep with a lot of women are doing what they are supposed to...and women who sleep with a lot of men are sluts).

In other words. Women are expected to sleep with men who function in their gender role.

Being friend zoned as a concept speaks of the inefficiency of men to actually fit their gender role. You didn't get the girl to have sex with you. So you obviously fail as a man. Hence why men who get " friend zoned" are awarded with pity, ridicule, or are simply no longer seen as real men or have their masculinity questioned. It is their failure in behavior that got them there...and they did something wrong in order to get friend zoned.

This is the reason why men don't blame women for friend zoning other men. They may do so if these men are close friends...and usually to their faces only. Or they may do so when they themselves are often friend zoned. But in general those who blame women are mainly those who are friend zoned. The reason why these men blame the women that friend zone them is because of it their masculinity is brought up to question.

That may have sparked a subculture on the internet of friend zoned men complaining about women and venting their anger. But that is a restoration attempt of the questioning of their masculinity and a direct result of their gender role being in question.

The Disillusionist

1st June 2015, 04:29

how bout you back up your Pop-EvoPsych101 assertions first. The fact of the matter is that people's behavior and preferences are a lot more complicated than that finding "the genetically ideal mate", because people have different ideas of what 'ideal' is. I don't know if you talk to many people about this sort of thing, but if you were to ask folks about their preferences when it comes to the opposite sex, you'd find a huge array of varying preferences and standards, many of which are in direct contradiction to social "standards of beauty".

Frankly I have a hard time understanding how anyone who has any amount of lived experience with people in general and the opposite sex in particular can put forward that model of how relationships work in modern society.

It's a good thing I don't think that, then.

Yeah, everyone is their own unique snowflake, looks don't really matter, and everyone has a special true love waiting out there for them, etc, etc... This sounds nice, and I actually believe it to some extent, but the fact of the matter is that there are definitely statistical trends that people follow, both in modern society and more traditional cultures. Trends and tendencies do not equal laws to any degree, but they do reveal some things about human behavioral leanings.

G4b3n

1st June 2015, 04:37

The Disillusionist

1st June 2015, 04:47

It seems your contribution to this discussion would fit much better in an "anthropology" forum populated by quasi-white nationalists. Your assertions, rather than being drawn from any real substantive studies, are drawn for bourgeois romantic ideals fabricated to make masculine males feel as if they are objectively the center of the human experience and not just the center of the bourgeois patriarchal narrative. But in reality the latter is all they amount to. Do some women confirm to this narrative? Sure. But on an individual level, human attraction is much more complex than the ungrounded simplistic nonsense you are spewing. And crying "anthropology" doesn't give basis to this nonsense in any form.

:rolleyes: Major eye roll here... The word "bourgeois" barely even means anything on this site anymore, because people apply it to anything they don't agree with. Also, nationalism and modern anthropology don't mix in the least. Modern anthropology opposes attitudes of superiority among both races and genders. Personally, I also don't believe in nations or borders, and even if I did, it wouldn't have any relevance to this discussion... Anyway, it is literally, peer-reviewed, published, substantive studies that I'm talking about here.

I don't like it any more than anyone else, but cross-culturally, masculine males tend to have it pretty good. I don't think that's the way it should be (naturalistic fallacy... google it, I'm tired of explaining it over and over again), but thorough, verifiable research demonstrates that that's the way it is right now.

Also, you can't separate individuals from the group. Individuals are unique, but collections of individuals are pretty statistically predictable. To believe otherwise is just idealism.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050704/full/news050704-6.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1689051/pdf/9633114.pdf

https://labs.psych.ucsb.edu/roney/james/other%20pdf%20readings/reserve%20readings/gangbehav.pdf

http://www.bashour.com/faces/documents/Bibliography/PDF/Penton-Voak,%20I.%20S.%20--%20Female%20preference%20for%20male%20faces%20chan ges%20cyclically%20--%20Further%20evidence.pdf

I know, it's only true science if you agree with it. :rolleyes: But, this is serious research that has been done.

#FF0000

1st June 2015, 05:02

:rolleyes: Major eye roll here... The word "bourgeois" barely even means anything on this site anymore, because people apply it to anything they don't agree with. Also, nationalism and modern anthropology don't mix in the least. Modern anthropology opposes attitudes of superiority among both races and genders. Personally, I also don't believe in nations or borders, and even if I did, it wouldn't have any relevance to this discussion... Anyway, it is literally, peer-reviewed, published, substantive studies that I'm talking about here.

I don't like it any more than anyone else, but cross-culturally, masculine males tend to have it pretty good. I don't think that's the way it should be (naturalistic fallacy... google it, I'm tired of explaining it over and over again), but thorough, verifiable research demonstrates that that's the way it is right now.

Also, you can't separate individuals from the group. Individuals are unique, but collections of individuals are pretty statistically predictable. To believe otherwise is just idealism.

http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050704/full/news050704-6.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1689051/pdf/9633114.pdf

https://labs.psych.ucsb.edu/roney/james/other%20pdf%20readings/reserve%20readings/gangbehav.pdf

http://www.bashour.com/faces/documents/Bibliography/PDF/Penton-Voak,%20I.%20S.%20--%20Female%20preference%20for%20male%20faces%20chan ges%20cyclically%20--%20Further%20evidence.pdf

I know, it's only true science if you agree with it. :rolleyes: But, this is serious research that has been done.

The first two studies you've linked were based on self-reported activity with small sample sizes (52 people? Really?). The latter ones aren't much better. And beyond this, all you've shown is that people find different people/behaviors/traits attractive in different circumstances, to which I say: no shit. To go from what these studies to the laughable model you presented (basically the alpha male-beta male model) is a tremendous leap. It doesn't logically follow.

Yeah, everyone is their own unique snowflake, looks don't really matter, and everyone has a special true love waiting out there for them, etc, etc...

Good thing I didn't actually say any of these things. Looks do matter to an extent -- but people's actual preferences change and deviate from the social standard of beauty all the time, and even grow to find someone physically attractive based just on how much they like them.

I think you would be shocked to know that there are people out there who are poor, fat, living with disabilities, or aren't conventionally attractive, but have hella active and fulfilling relationships and sex lives.

#FF0000

1st June 2015, 05:04

Yes. Because that is not how it works

It does, sometimes. Like I said before, you made a good point and the friendzone concept is used as male gender role policing. It is also used by men who are frustrated at a woman or women for rejecting them. It can (and I think is) both things at once.

The Disillusionist

1st June 2015, 05:11

The first two studies you've linked were based on self-reported activity with small sample sizes (52 people? Really?). The latter ones aren't much better. And beyond this, all you've shown is that people find different people/behaviors/traits attractive in different circumstances, to which I say: no shit. To go from what these studies to the laughable model you presented (basically the alpha male-beta male model) is a tremendous leap. It doesn't logically follow.

Good thing I didn't actually say any of these things. Looks do matter to an extent -- but people's actual preferences change and deviate from the social standard of beauty all the time, and even grow to find someone physically attractive based just on how much they like them.

I think you would be shocked to know that there are people out there who are poor, fat, living with disabilities, or aren't conventionally attractive, but have hella active and fulfilling relationships and sex lives.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20822287

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1559901/

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.495.1474&rep=rep1&type=pdf

I could do this all night, the number of studies done on this stuff is overwhelming.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about the alpha-beta male idea. I HATE that. Masculine males aren't better in any way, they are just statistically more likely to have sex with more women. Again, naturalistic fallacy.

Also, you obviously didn't read about WHICH people/behaviors/traits women tend to find attractive in different circumstances, which was the main point.

Finally, yeah, individuals make all kinds of decisions, and lots of different types of people have good relationships. I never argued against that. I'm in a great relationship, and definitely am not a "masculine male". That still doesn't change the fact that there are significant statistical trends that people tend to follow. The exceptions of the minority do not change the trends of the majority. I could just as easily say, "I trained my dog to play dead, therefore all dogs know how to play dead" despite the fact that statistically, most dogs do not know how to play dead. That is how statistics work.

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 05:17

It does, sometimes. Like I said before, you made a good point and the friendzone concept is used as male gender role policing. It is also used by men who are frustrated at a woman or women for rejecting them. It can (and I think is) both things at once.

The fact that it is also used against women is not in dispute here nor ever was. But it is primarily a male gender policing issue and primarily directed at them...how it is directed at women is the end result of that.

The Disillusionist

1st June 2015, 05:20

I realize now that I'm being a bit rude in this discussion. I stand by my argument, but I could have made it more tactfully. I haven't slept in a couple of days, and should really get off of the internet...

Hermes

1st June 2015, 05:23

An interesting meta-analysis of this issue, can also be found online elsewhere for free:

http://emr.sagepub.com/content/6/3/229

--

that is, the debate between #FF0000 and Disillusionist.

#FF0000

1st June 2015, 05:28

I could do this all night, the number of studies done on this stuff is overwhelming.

Again, more studies based on self-report and tiny sample sizes. And even so, these studies don't back you up. You said that women actively seek out "masculine" or "aggressive" males when ovulating, while remaining in a stable relationship with the more passive and stable "nice" guy. All that these studies have shown are that women tend to find other men with certain traits more attractive while ovulating, which is nothing new or surprising, but from which you can't say that women's "typical" behavior during this time is to cheat and have a child with a more masculine or aggressive male while having the more passive one raise it. That's absolutely absurd.

Anyway, I wasn't talking about the alpha-beta male idea. I HATE that. Masculine males aren't better in any way, they are just statistically more likely to have sex with more women. Again, naturalistic fallacy.

The model you presented is exactly the alpha-beta male idea -- that women look for relationships with "nice" guys, but for sex with "aggressive" men. And it's absurd and has no basis in reality.

Also, you obviously didn't read about WHICH people/behaviors/traits women tend to find attractive in different circumstances, which was the main point.

I did, and I don't think it matter all that much, especially when the meaning of masculinity changes so drastically across cultures and sub-cultures. Nor do I think it matters when the sample sizes of the studies are so small that the statistical significance of the findings can be massively overblown, and the methodology flawed in that it's based on self-reporting with no apparent action taken to mitigate the problems inherent in self-reporting.

The Disillusionist

1st June 2015, 05:29

An interesting meta-analysis of this issue, can also be found online elsewhere for free:

http://emr.sagepub.com/content/6/3/229

--

that is, the debate between #FF0000 and Disillusionist.

Here's an analysis of that meta-analysis.

http://christopherjferguson.com/Emotion%20Review.pdf

#FF0000

1st June 2015, 05:32

The fact that it is also used against women is not in dispute here nor ever was.

Actually you did dispute it. I directly quoted you when you did, in fact.

But it is primarily a male gender policing issue and primarily directed at them

I don't think you can support the claim that it's "primarily" used in that way since so many men use it, like I've been saying, to describe themselves and their own situations, and it's extremely common to find people framing "friendzoning" as something women inflict, unjustly, upon men.

The Disillusionist

1st June 2015, 05:36

Again, more studies based on self-report and tiny sample sizes. And even so, these studies don't back you up. You said that women actively seek out "masculine" or "aggressive" males when ovulating, while remaining in a stable relationship with the more passive and stable "nice" guy. All that these studies have shown are that women tend to find other men with certain traits more attractive while ovulating, which is nothing new or surprising, but from which you can't say that women's "typical" behavior during this time is to cheat and have a child with a more masculine or aggressive male while having the more passive one raise it. That's absolutely absurd.

The model you presented is exactly the alpha-beta male idea -- that women look for relationships with "nice" guys, but for sex with "aggressive" men. And it's absurd and has no basis in reality.

I did, and I don't think it matter all that much, especially when the meaning of masculinity changes so drastically across cultures and sub-cultures. Nor do I think it matters when the sample sizes of the studies are so small that the statistical significance of the findings can be massively overblown, and the methodology flawed in that it's based on self-reporting with no apparent action taken to mitigate the problems inherent in self-reporting.

https://books.google.com/books?id=eREk6ZyDC9YC&pg=PA92&lpg=PA92&dq=women+extra-pair+copulations+ovulating+study&source=bl&ots=3WzHx2QzsV&sig=DNFpMWmvoMPI_XzY2iZ9TmlXYW8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=M-BrVd-2MMq0oQTVl4O4Ag&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=women%20extra-pair%20copulations%20ovulating%20study&f=false

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/webdocs/pillsworth_haseltonARSR.pdf

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/papers/downloads/haselton_gangestad.pdf

http://scholarship.depauw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=studentresearch

Here are some studies that cover infidelity more specifically. (Seriously, I could do this all night). The traits that women tend to be attracted to more when ovulating are specifically associated with higher-levels of testosterone, both presently and during development. That is the part that you missed. And this is cross-cultural. Cross-culturally, women tend to be more attracted to men with broader jaws, thicker brow-ridges, and other signifiers of higher levels of testosterone when ovulating. Their changing preferences are not just arbitrary, they have a pattern.

#FF0000

1st June 2015, 05:37

Here's an analysis of that meta-analysis.

http://christopherjferguson.com/Emotion%20Review.pdf

This analysis is more a critique of meta-analysis as a means to settle scholarly debates and controversy. In the first paragraph, Christopher Ferguson says that the meta-analysis in question was well done. I don't think this was intended to be a rebuke at all.

The Disillusionist

1st June 2015, 05:46

This analysis is more a critique of meta-analysis as a means to settle scholarly debates and controversy. In the first paragraph, Christopher Ferguson says that the meta-analysis in question was well done. I don't think this was intended to be a rebuke at all.

Sigh.... fine... then here's a more recent, statistical methods based response...

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/comm/haselton/unify_uploads/files/Gildersleeve,%20Haselton,%20Fales%20(2014)%20reply %20to%20Wood%20et%20al.,%20Harris%20et%20al.%20psy ch%20bull%20.pdf

Overall, the research done on this subject is far too expansive to be dismissed that easily. We're talking about thousands of researchers globally studying this stuff...

#FF0000

1st June 2015, 05:48

(Seriously, I could do this all night)

Of course you can, because anyone who wanted to could dig up a wealth of literature on almost any given subject of study like this.

The traits that women tend to be attracted to more when ovulating are specifically associated with higher-levels of testosterone, both presently and during development. That is the part that you missed. And this is cross-cultural. Cross-culturally, women tend to be more attracted to men with broader jaws, thicker brow-ridges, and other signifiers of higher levels of testosterone when ovulating. Their changing preferences are not just arbitrary, they have a pattern.

I'll accept this for argument's sake but you still seem to misunderstand what my biggest problem with all of this is -- that it does not support your initial post at all. All my problems with the studies aside, none of them actually support what you posted in the first place.

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 05:53

Actually you did dispute it. I directly quoted you when you did, in fact.

no, you didn't...you quoted me answering this question:

Are you seriously going to deny that its about making women into some sort of villian for not fucking any dude who thinks he deserves her vagina?

Read that sentence. Or should I highlight the words that warranted the answer I gave?

Are you seriously going to deny that its about making women into some sort of villian for not fucking any dude who thinks he deserves her vagina?

I don't think you can support the claim that it's "primarily" used in that way since so many men use it, like I've been saying, to describe themselves and their own situations, and it's extremely common to find people framing "friendzoning" as something women inflict, unjustly, upon men.

I already did explain why this happened.

Now...as to your claim "so many men" is not a qualifier for any refutation. Nor is what you personally find common a qualifier. (It is very common for me to see more cows and sheep than chickens for me. Therefore my conclusion is that there are more cows and sheep than chicken in the world.)

Friend zone existed as a term and concept for a very long time before forums like Reddit, Wizardchan, 4chan, etc. started talking about it. Which you now use as a basis to say that there is a communication shift in your opinion. But what cultural significant groups are on those forums and how representative are they of men in general?

#FF0000

1st June 2015, 05:58

Overall, the research done on this subject is far too expansive to be dismissed that easily. We're talking about thousands of researchers globally studying this stuff...

Yeah, because this Evo-Psych stuff is some of the most controversial stuff in science right now. There's tons of back-and-forth on these subjects, on all sides.

And I'm going to say this again, even if one accepts the Ovulation Shift hypothesis, which I'm gonna do just for the sake of argument, it does not back up your initial statement that the "typical strategy is to marry the "nice" or non-genetically-ideal guy, but sleep with the aggressive guy when ovulating, thus securing you the more robust genes of the aggressive guy while allowing you access to the paternal care of the more timid nice guy".

You cannot reach this conclusion just by showing that women find certain traits more attractive during ovulation.

The Disillusionist

1st June 2015, 06:10

Of course you can, because anyone who wanted to could dig up a wealth of literature on almost any given subject of study like this.

I'll accept this for argument's sake but you still seem to misunderstand what my biggest problem with all of this is -- that it does not support your initial post at all. All my problems with the studies aside, none of them actually support what you posted in the first place.

I didn't make any claims about human behavior in my first post that haven't been supported by the articles I've linked. Research has revealed that women are not only attracted to those different traits while ovulating, they are more likely to act on that attraction. This results in a system in which women tend to favor mating with masculine men when most fertile, even when they are already married (and as I mentioned, they are most likely to forego birth control during this time as well.) Of course this stuff is self-reported, because scientists can't ethically observe this stuff directly, but even accounting for the inherent error likely in self-reporting, the results are still statistically significant.

Other studies show that when women are during less-fertile stages of their cycle, they are more attracted to more feminine faces, and that for longer-term relationships, women tend to favor those more feminine faces. More feminine faces are associated with lower levels of testosterone, which is also associated with lower levels of aggression. Thus, women tend to favor less-aggressive men for long-term caring relationships, while they tend to favor more-aggressive men when they are most fertile. This has been reported to often result in extra-pair copulatory behavior, or "cheating". Of course, the data suggests that men cheat significantly more often, so I'm not trying to demonize women here. People have minds of their own and aren't completely controlled by their biology anyway.

But, my final tongue-in-cheek conclusion was that people are basically just self-serving assholes all around. Some groups just have more power to assert their assholishness than others. Life is easier if you see things that way.

Edit: In response to your comment: "You cannot reach this conclusion just by showing that women find certain traits more attractive during ovulation." The attraction patterns weren't the only things discussed in those articles I linked. They also discussed behavioral patterns that were statistically linked to those attraction patterns.

#FF0000

1st June 2015, 06:10

no, you didn't...you quoted me answering this question:

Are you seriously going to deny that its about making women into some sort of villian for not fucking any dude who thinks he deserves her vagina?

Read that sentence. Or should I highlight the words that warranted the answer I gave?

Are you seriously going to deny that its about making women into some sort of villian for not fucking any dude who thinks he deserves her vagina?Yeah I'm not seeing it -- it looks like you're still dismissing the idea that the term is commonly used outside of the way that you think it's "primarily" used.

Now...as to your claim "so many men" is not a qualifier for any refutation. Nor is what you personally find common a qualifier. (It is very common for me to see more cows and sheep than chickens for me. Therefore my conclusion is that there are more cows and sheep than chicken in the world.)
The thing is that you're relying on the very same thing, insisting that the term is primarily used in one way because that's what you've seen. Neither of us are being especially scientific about this, nor can we be, since I don't think there's any actual research on this kind of thing, and for the fact that we're talking about the meaning of a word, which is a nebulous thing in its own right and subject to change across time and location. We both know this.

Friend zone existed as a term and concept for a very long time before forums like Reddit, Wizardchan, 4chan, etc. started talking about it. Which you now use as a basis to say that there is a communication shift in your opinion. But what cultural significant groups are on those forums and how representative are they of men in general?Actually that isn't the only basis I'm judging the term on. I heard about the "Friendzone" when I was maybe 14 or 15 when the other boys in school were talking about it and "Ladder Theory" which, I think, is where the "friendzone" term comes from in the first place. You can go to the site and you can see how the term is used and how men who are relegated to being a "cuddle *****" are maligned, but also how women are called "dishonest *****es" for ignoring the "nice guy".

Aside from that site, though, I'd most often hear boys talk about "the friendzone" in a "woe is me" sort of way, complaining that women are too superficial to appreciate them, or something.

Either way, I'm saying that it's pretty clearly used both ways. Not that you're wrong.

#FF0000

1st June 2015, 06:15

I didn't make any claims about human behavior in my first post that haven't been supported by the articles I've linked. Research has revealed that women are not only attracted to those different traits while ovulating, they are more likely to act on that attraction.

Here's the thing -- "more likely" does not make such behavior typical. This is the same pitfall that racists fall into when they try to talk about "black criminality". They point out that most criminals tend to be black, while ignoring (among other things) the fact that criminal behavior is the exception and not the rule among every ethnic or racial group, including black americans.

Of course this stuff is self-reported, because scientists can't ethically observe this stuff directly, but even accounting for the inherent error likely in self-reporting, the results are still statistically significant.I'm not surprised in the least that this is the case, because the sample sizes were consistently so small. Like, when you're trying to do something like a Gallup poll on people's political affiliation, you can get away with using a tiny sample size and using that data to make a prediction about the entire US population, but with something like this, it's just begging for false positives. With something like this, a smaller sample size just increases the chance of a result that is "statistically significant", even if it isn't actually true.

BIXX

1st June 2015, 06:20

your point? Because you do realize this addresses nothing nor refutes anything I have said, right? In fact...most of it actually proves what I have said in the above posts. I suggest you go reread the links.

Second link, claiming that their niceness being rejected by women is terrible, cause its worth way more than sex.

Third link, claiming that men should expect sex from women- essentially the premises of the friendzone.

Fourth link complaining that after all his good qualities she won't have sex with him.

Those all point toward the friendzone being used against women primarily. Again, I never said it doesn't involve male gender policing, just that the role you you assign male gender policing in ragrds to the friendzone is vastly disproportionate to the actual violence it is used to justify against women.

The Disillusionist

1st June 2015, 06:30

Here's the thing -- "more likely" does not make such behavior typical. This is the same pitfall that racists fall into when they try to talk about "black criminality". They point out that most criminals tend to be black, while ignoring (among other things) the fact that criminal behavior is the exception and not the rule among every ethnic or racial group, including black americans.

I'm not surprised in the least that this is the case, because the sample sizes were consistently so small. Like, when you're trying to do something like a Gallup poll on people's political affiliation, you can get away with using a tiny sample size and using that data to make a prediction about the entire US population, but with something like this, it's just begging for false positives. With something like this, a smaller sample size just increases the chance of a result that is "statistically significant", even if it isn't actually true.

That's actually a good point. I would argue that in the case of the black criminality argument, the statistical tendency of black men to be more likely to be criminals is not a problem with statistical analysis itself, because the statistics are pretty clear... black men are more likely to be criminals, in the legal sense. The real issue is an issue of context, which statistics alone can't reveal. Black men are more likely to be sentenced as criminals, not because they commit more crime, but because the justice system unfairly targets them. The statistics that I'm citing about women tending to behave in certain ways do not reveal the entire context, no statistics ever do. To make the issue clearer, more research must be done.

As for sample size... how big does it need to be? Here's an article with a sample size of 238:

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.495.1474&rep=rep1&type=pdf

It's really difficult to do massive, large-scale sampling on research projects like these, because they require vastly most labor and time to set up. However, if done right, a sample of 50-100 people can be fairly representative of the population that those people were selected from. They have entire college classes in how to pick representative samples for efficient research... it's exhausting.

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 06:43

[/I]Yeah I'm not seeing it -- it looks like you're still dismissing the idea that the term is commonly used outside of the way that you think it's "primarily" used.

Here we go then:

Are you seriously going to deny that its about making women into some sort of villian for not fucking any dude who thinks he deserves her vagina?

>> Any dude

1).
No, it is not about "any" dude. When it is used against women it is about a specific dude. OR it is used about a specific group of dudes. Invariably always the ones being friend zoned. And that happens...most commonly and predominantly...by the ones who are being friend zoned.

2).
Women, contrary to what some of the weekend-feminists here think, are not expected to sleep with just any men in patriarchy. In fact women are, again contrary to what come of the weekend-feminists here think, not expected to sleep with a lot of men at all. They are expected to sleep with specific men. Men who are prescribing to a gender role. Women are however expected to not sleep with men who are undeserving and not prescribing to gender roles. The friend zoning is in fact what is expected of female behavior.

>> its about making women into some sort of villian for not fucking any dude

1). No, it isn't. The friend zone is invariably the end result of a failure of male gender role behavior and directly addresses the gender role behavior of a man and draws it into question. The end result of failing to perform toward the gender role, which traditionally maintaining would result in sex, is not having sex.

So IT isn't about making women into the villain.

2). The woman is behaving as expected by patriarchy. It is the man who failed to perform up to standards.

3). All "literature" on how to avoid being friend zoned deals with the issue of male behavior. It explains friend zoning from the perspective of male behavior. It sees the solution in male behavior. It does not in any way shape or form address female behavior as anything else other than a result of this male behavior.

4). Some men direct their anger towards women for being friend zoned. They do so in an attempt to re-establish their dominance and gender role within male hierarchy. If you spend some time analyzing what is being said...the status within male hierarchy features heavily in the narrative of this, invariably, population of being friend zoned men (AND therefore a statistical misrepresentation by definition) in one shape or another as what is being violated by the friend zoning women. Hence why they go on and on and on about alpha, beta etc.

5). That some of these friend zoned men band together is a logical outcome of internet culture in which the topic will feature heavily.

And this...

You just totally stated that I rejected that it was used in both ways a post ago....which already flew in the face of previous statements I made on the issue. But in this post you are goal post shifting from totally rejecting it...to me rejecting it's usage as "commonly".

#FF0000

1st June 2015, 07:06

Black men are more likely to be sentenced as criminals, not because they commit more crime, but because the justice system unfairly targets them. The statistics that I'm citing about women tending to behave in certain ways do not reveal the entire context, no statistics ever do.

Yeah, and that's only part of it. Even if racism wasn't an issue and every convicted person of color was truly guilty, it still would be false to say that people of color are more prone to crime because criminality is still rare behavior, you know what I mean?

As for sample size... how big does it need to be? Here's an article with a sample size of 238:

I think what really needs to be done on things like this is a serious longitudinal study, since we're talking about something we're going to try to extrapolate to almost 4 billion people.

However, if done right, a sample of 50-100 people can be fairly representative of the population that those people were selected from. They have entire college classes in how to pick representative samples for efficient research... it's exhausting.

Yyyyeah but it better be a pretty well-done study, and even then it's prone to bias. I mean, you probably saw in the news recently about how that study that concluded that chocolate aids weight loss turned out to be totally fabricated, and all it took was a small sample size (tiny, actually -- 28 people),

#FF0000

1st June 2015, 07:07

Here we go then:

Are you seriously going to deny that its about making women into some sort of villian for not fucking any dude who thinks he deserves her vagina?

>> Any dude

1).
No, it is not about "any" dude. When it is used against women it is about a specific dude. OR it is used about a specific group of dudes. Invariably always the ones being friend zoned. And that happens...most commonly and predominantly...by the ones who are being friend zoned.

2).
Women, contrary to what some of the weekend-feminists here think, are not expected to sleep with just any men in patriarchy. In fact women are, again contrary to what come of the weekend-feminists here think, not expected to sleep with a lot of men at all. They are expected to sleep with specific men. Men who are prescribing to a gender role. Women are however expected to not sleep with men who are undeserving and not prescribing to gender roles. The friend zoning is in fact what is expected of female behavior.

>> its about making women into some sort of villian for not fucking any dude

1). No, it isn't. The friend zone is invariably the end result of a failure of male gender role behavior and directly addresses the gender role behavior of a man and draws it into question. The end result of failing to perform toward the gender role, which traditionally maintaining would result in sex, is not having sex.

So IT isn't about making women into the villain.

2). The woman is behaving as expected by patriarchy. It is the man who failed to perform up to standards.

3). All "literature" on how to avoid being friend zoned deals with the issue of male behavior. It explains friend zoning from the perspective of male behavior. It sees the solution in male behavior. It does not in any way shape or form address female behavior as anything else other than a result of this male behavior.

4). Some men direct their anger towards women for being friend zoned. They do so in an attempt to re-establish their dominance and gender role within male hierarchy. If you spend some time analyzing what is being said...the status within male hierarchy features heavily in the narrative of this, invariably, population of being friend zoned men (AND therefore a statistical misrepresentation by definition) in one shape or another as what is being violated by the friend zoning women. Hence why they go on and on and on about alpha, beta etc.

5). That some of these friend zoned men band together is a logical outcome of internet culture in which the topic will feature heavily.

And this...

You just totally stated that I rejected that it was used in both ways a post ago....which already flew in the face of previous statements I made on the issue. But in this post you are goal post shifting from totally rejecting it...to me rejecting it's usage as "commonly".

tl;dr

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 07:09

tl;dr

Yup...that is basically what it concluded of you not doing...selectively...so thanks for illustrating that ;)

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 07:18

Yeah, and that's only part of it. Even if racism wasn't an issue and every convicted person of color was truly guilty, it still would be false to say that people of color are more prone to crime because criminality is still rare behavior, you know what I mean?

Eh no. The rarity of criminality has nothing to do with it.

Based on your words there and the situation you describe:

"More prone" means literally that they are "more inclined"...so the rarity of the behavior is irrelevant...if and when a certain group displays more of it...they are more prone towards it. So the refutation makes no sense what so ever.

The ONLY argument making sense here is that it can't be said they are more prone because we don't have the comparative figures here to make that conclusion based on the situation you sketch.

#FF0000

1st June 2015, 07:22

You just totally stated that I rejected that it was used in both ways a post ago....which already flew in the face of previous statements I made on the issue. But in this post you are goal post shifting from totally rejecting it...to me rejecting it's usage as "commonly".

okay I lied I did read this but I'll respond to just a couple points right now.

I didn't move any goal posts. I said that your initial point was good but that people use "the friendzone" as male gender-role policing but that people just as often use it against women, and so that it's not really fair to say it's "primarily" one or the other.

3). All "literature" on how to avoid being friend zoned deals with the issue of male behavior. It explains friend zoning from the perspective of male behavior. It sees the solution in male behavior. It does not in any way shape or form address female behavior as anything else other than a result of this male behavior.

I mean this just isn't true because a lot of the writing about "friendzoning" takes the angle of it being something inflicted upon men by women (the Ladder Theory does both). Like I said, some of it is "woe is me" crybaby nonsense from awkward dudes who can't get it in and is about how women are dishonest and cruel for saying they want "nice guys" but passing them over for more assertive men who aren't as "nice".

If you'd like I'll give you the irrelevant point of whether or not you dismissed the other conception of the term, though.

#FF0000

1st June 2015, 07:24

Eh no. The rarity of criminality has nothing to do with it.

Based on your words there and the situation you describe:

"More prone" means literally that they are "more inclined"...so the rarity of the behavior is irrelevant...if and when a certain group displays more of it...they are more prone towards it. So the refutation makes no sense what so ever

Maybe i didn't communicate it clearly or you didn't understand me. I was trying to get across that it doesn't follow to label crime (as example) as "normal" behavior for a certain population based on the supposed fact that more criminals are of that population, especially when criminal behavior is an extreme outlier.

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 07:25

Second link, claiming that their niceness being rejected by women is terrible, cause its worth way more than sex.

Third link, claiming that men should expect sex from women- essentially the premises of the friendzone.

Fourth link complaining that after all his good qualities she won't have sex with him.

Those all point toward the friendzone being used against women primarily. Again, I never said it doesn't involve male gender policing, just that the role you you assign male gender policing in ragrds to the friendzone is vastly disproportionate to the actual violence it is used to justify against women.

Uhuh. Yeah I read your silly links.

Yet all of these are from friend zoned men. All of these deal with the perception of male gender hierarchical status in the deeper context. And none of these are actually made representative of how men use friend zone because of the subsection you are quoting.

So they do not point towards the friend zone being used primarily against women any more than a close up picture of a sheep points towards sheep being the prevalent creatures in the meadow.

Armchair Partisan

1st June 2015, 10:07

This is only anecdotal evidence, but it doesn't seem like gender policing to me - most of the time I've seen the term used, it was part of a sympathy circlejerk, often accompanied by a joint commiseration over the tendency of women to be a cocktease, lead people on etc. ("Aww man, I got friendzoned by this chick, even though I was so nice to her!" "Sucks to hear, bro...") I've never seen the term used as some kind of veiled insult against one's masculinity. If you say you got friendzoned, you don't get contempt, you get sympathy from other like-minded men. You're already fulfilling your gender role by expecting to have sex with every girl you come across and being outraged when they don't reciprocate your interest - what gender role is there to police?

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 10:35

The male gender role is quite a bit more complex than "getting laid" or "the expectation of sex" in fact...it doesn't actually feature all that much in the gender role patterns that are enforced beyond the fact that men are expected to be sexually active (with women).

That is because sex is seen as a privilege awarded for assuming the gender role and a logical extention of that gender role rather than a part of the gender role itself.

Failure to get sex is an outcome related to failure to perform the expected role...and...a vital component which seems to be entirely forgotten...the continuation of the relationship by the man regardless.

Because that is what friend zone is...a continued relationship where the man accepts (begrudgingly or not)
a platonic basis (whether this is done in the hopes of future sexual components to that relationship or not).

The vocally complaining men are usually and often repeatedly unsuccessful in either starting or maintaining longer term relationships (Hence why these subjects feature very disproportionately on certain websites) or are often the ones being dumped.

A LOT of confusion stems from the misuse and overuse of the word and applying it to being rejected in general. THAT is not what friend zone is however. Friend zone is the continued relationship between two partners regardless of the fact that one of these had or has different intentions.

And while rejection gets you sympathy...which usually is paternity on its own in male gender roles...The continuation of such a relationship (which makes it friend zone) is heavily frowned upon and rewards scorn and pity.

That said the term itself is applied with a variety of meanings...and of course is under going definition transformation. The term in the Netherlands for example was indicating a situation in which the premisse was romantically inclined and initiated from both sides but not delivered upon by one side without a clear rejection and continued and deliberate vagueness on its status.

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 11:42

..ok connection back...so part II

If you read the threads about friend zone...fe in the links PC provided...a large percentage don't actually deal with friend zone situations but with rejections and discontinuations of the relationship.

The posts that do deal with friend zone situations or former friend zone situations invariably boil down to this defense:

1). I did everything right
2). She didn't recognize my displayed gender role behavior
3). I am alpha
4). I certainly am male...see my dominance

This is classic psychological defense behavior aimed at reassertion towards the group and an attempt to maintain standing by giving excuses. The woman is not blamed explicitly for the friend zone...the woman is blamed for not correctly assessing the gender role behavior....which was obviously there (according to these men) in order to wipe away the blemish to the failure of the gender assertion.

But it is again important to remember that th term friend zone is over used and is in fact a continued relationship.

Rejection, which can and at one point or another does feature in friend zone situation, is not the same. Rejection will always nett sympathy...regardless of gender....and will always involve the group placing blame on the other person...for being assholes, misleading, taking advantage of, etc. This is no different between men and women...just watch the appropriate forums.

Also predominantly featured on both sides of the gender line is the same above defense along gender role lines:

1). I did everything rights
2). They did not interpret it correctly
3). I am male/female
4). I belong at the top of social hierarchy

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

1st June 2015, 12:25

A few years ago i would have said this was a specific straight male thing. But the concept seems to have passed into popular consciousness as I have heard women use the phrase to describe their relationship both towards men and other women. Regardless of who uses the term, the intent is the same. There is an entitlement issue at work that spans both genders in this instance imo, obviously men more than women but I wonder what this phenomenon will look like in a few decades.

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 12:58

That is a good point actually.

Although as far as I am aware this has always been the case (both genders using equivalent terminology). That said there are cross cultural barriers.

The term "Friend zone" is English and adopted as a foreign term in many languages. Dutch and German do not have their own translation of the term although conceptually similar terms in their own language describing something that is similar. In Dutch that would be roughly translated as "stringing along".

The question then is whether or not the same definition is used or that the definition varies cross cultures and nations and has a variety of definitions.

I do not agree with the label entitlement but rather think it more accurate to speak of an incongruity between gender role generalized expectations and reality.

IF you act feminine then you are awarded with a boyfriend/sex/romance. Men are supposed to like feminine women.
IF you act masculine then you are awarded with a girlfriend/sex/romance. Women are supposed to like masculine men.

It doesn't work that way of course. It is the delusion of patriarchy.

The own behavior is seen as flawlessly fitting the gender pattern...but the repone is not what it was supposed to be. Hence the other is to blame...failing to do so means you are threatening your own social hierarchical standing.

Mr. Piccolo

1st June 2015, 12:59

The friendzone concept strikes me as a product of the further commodification of sex in our society. People are increasingly feeling like romance is a total exchange. "I do xyz therefore I should get the mate I desire." Its not dissimilar from a simple "payment for goods and services" transaction. I "paid for the service so why should I not get what I paid for?"

Both men and women today seem to have absurdly high standards for potential mates and feel entitled to only the "best" and they become angry and upset when they don't get what they want. It reeks of a type of narcissism being bred in modern capitalism.

Rafiq

1st June 2015, 17:47

Anthropologically speaking, women tend to seek out aggressive, testosterone-laden males to mate with on a short term basis, while they are more likely to seek out less-aggressive males to either be with on a long-term basis as friends or romantic partners, in order to secure their care and resources for their children. A typical strategy is to marry the "nice" or non-genetically-ideal guy, but sleep with the aggressive guy when ovulating, thus securing you the more robust genes of the aggressive guy while allowing you access to the paternal care of the more timid nice guy.

Of course, let us begin by assuming it is true that women prefer more masculine men, as a general rule. This is something no one can deny. The problem here is that it is a meaningless observation that tell us nothing about how present standards of sexuality are biologically based. Surely it is observable that it involves biological mechanisms (as the act of picking up shit involves the hands) but it PROVES absolutely nothing. That is because sexuality is grounded not in biologically based mechanisms, it is something that is learned. it is not outside of biology, but again this is tautological because neither is your asshole from which you use to shit. What separates man from animal is man's ability to make sense of shit in a way that makes him separate from his asshole, i.e. man in his infinite social complexity is merely burdened with it, like Adam fallen from Eden, no longer defined by his biological existence AT ALL. What makes someone a human is by mimicking other humans - the vestiges of our biological development are merely tools through which our social dimension is expressed. Even that which persists irregardless of the various relative historic symbolic sexual orders, does not exist because it is innate, but because it forms a part of each and every symbolic order in a different way.

And with each relative social order, sexuality with regard to reproduction is expressed through gender relations, or sexual relations. Masculinity is not a trans-historical, universal notion that has taken on the same characteristics. One is reminded how some evolutionary psychologists tried to make an explanation of why women prefer taller men, and it turns out that in some primitive societies women prefer men around the same size as they are. History is the bane of the evolutionary psychologist for these reason - because a mere analysis of sexual standards of in pre-capitalist societies absolutely shatters their drivel to pieces, and puts them off their coordinates. The fact of the matter si that testosterone, estrogen, i.e. and the behaviors "associated" with it are only predictable and definite insofar as they fulfill, and exalt a pre-existing socially based framework of gender. What constitutes an "aggressive" male, for example? And why is it "aggression"? What you consider aggression, most would call confidence, and confidence inspires sexual legitimacy, i.e. That it is normal, within the confines of sexual standards, etc.. There are so many complex psychosexual mechansims at play here that it's fucking outrageous... HOW this aggression is going to be expressed, has no biological basis, and to attempt to conceive this in evolutionary terms is so reductionist, so barbarous and vulgar that absolutely nothing of importance can be wrought out here.

What's the underlying problem here? Evolutionary psychologists, on an anthropological level, consider our capitalist society to be beyond any meaningful evaluation or consideration in a scientific sense. Our means of life, and so on, exist in SPITE of civilization in their eyes. For example, let's make a quick observation here: obviously these "evolutionary" mechanisms are supposed to have a practical use. The trouble is the reality that women DON'T seek out more masculine men for "more robust genes" because women don't have a spontaneous inclination to, for example, avoid contraceptive methods when sleeping with them. Women don't have sex with them for reproductive purposes, the have sex with them for reasons that are practically explainable within the confines of our given historical totality! For example, because they exalt already pre-defined sexual relations, which entail the sexual subservience of women, because they're (more "masculine" men) straight to the point, and so on. But why isn't this respected in itself by the evolutionary psychologists? The idea that there's some subconscious mechanism that drives women to reproduce when all they want is their weekly orgasm is beyond stupid. Of course it's entirely possible that women are more plainly horny when ovulating, but this is meaningless. In addition, this kind of behavior has not been recorded in pre-capitalist societies, or any of the primitive societies wherein the "evolutionary" mechanism was supposed to mean shit.

Finally, to the cliche'd middle class women's marital preferences of whom I'm sure you're referring to here (because, frankly, marrying the "nice guy" isn't something that's going to be recorded in American ghettos or Brazilian favelas) has absolutely nothing to do with any regard for whether they are "genetically ideal" or not in a hunter-gatherer society, but because on average our society is in short supply of "genetically ideal men", and men who are financially secure, adjust to the "real world", one that can help guarantee the overall stability of a family environment WITHIN capitalism and not within a hunter-gatherer society, will probably on average not be big attractive men, because most people on average aren't big attractive men. However, if a "masculine man" can conform to these qualifications, then absolutely zero differences as far as preferences will go here. It just happens to be that most rich men probably aren't big douchebags. So this is entirely conceivable solely from within the framework of relative, capitalist standards, it's entirely tautological what you're saying. It all rests on the already false premises that all behaviors have to have their grounding, somehow, in biological mechanisms considering the "soul" isn't real (big surprise!).

This is statistically observable, women are significantly more likely to seek out more masculine males, and to have affairs and one night stands (and to forgo condoms or other birth control while having those one night stands) while ovulating.

This is absolutely nonsensical! Now you'll have us believe that women somehow have some kind of innate evolutionary mechanism that allows them to forgo contraceptive methods, of which did not exist in any form in hunter gatherer societies where our "nature" was being created? I'd love to see evidence which suggests women are more likely to forgo condoms and birth control in one night stands while ovulating, this is the dumbest fucking thing I've seen all month. Skip the rest of my post if you want, and just give me the evidence here. Apparently men forgo condom use too for the same reason while fucking an ovulating women, not because it just feels better all around of course, but because they actually want to have kids.

So the "evidence" you provide us is the obvious, tautological reality that women have affairs with men who are more attractive than they're husbands during a time wherein they are significantly more horny (but the language to express this heightened sexual drive has no biological basis at all, i.e. women may as well be rubbing their clits against a rock without it). That isn't evidence, and there are far better explanations than yours in this regard that any child could conceive. It's the mere fact that today, within our PRESENT symbolic order, and not a hunter-gatherer society, cheating has its grounding in definite complex sexual-structural mechanisms, it is implicit within the very act of marriage in capitalist society itself and one hundred years for psychology has showed us that it cannot be reducible to some kind of uncontrollable BIOLOGICAL mechanism. It's within the crevices, and niches of such behavior that evolutionary psychologists simply could not even approach. It's supposed to be such a huge surprise that people have affairs and cheat in marriages, violating such "sacred bonds" when the reality is that within capitalist society people do not marry to satisfy their sexual desires and needs in the long term, but for primarily worldly reasons. It has nothing to do with how "natural" it is, it is simply that people's sexual desires even within hypersexualized capitalism are so vast and complex that marriage cannot fulfill them. There are too many variables in for "Cheating", i.e. a desire to escape from an unhappy relationship, revenge for an unfulfilled sexual life, concerning relations of power and so on.

Other studies show that when women are during less-fertile stages of their cycle, they are more attracted to more feminine faces, and that for longer-term relationships, women tend to favor those more feminine faces. More feminine faces are associated with lower levels of testosterone, which is also associated with lower levels of aggression. Thus, women tend to favor less-aggressive men for long-term caring relationships, while they tend to favor more-aggressive men when they are most fertile. This has been reported to often result in extra-pair copulatory behavior, or "cheating". Of course, the data suggests that men cheat significantly more often, so I'm not trying to demonize women here. People have minds of their own and aren't completely controlled by their biology anyway.

Studies have shown that women don't change their preferences for attraction when in a long term relationship with a "masculine" man, and don't have a heightened sense of attraction to them either during fertility. Which suggests that women are overall more attracted to more "masculine" men regardless of whatever time of the month - what studies confirm, for example, that women will seek out more "feminine" looking men during less fertile stages when already with a more "masculine" looking man? None! And again with the ambiguity regarding "aggression" is meaningless. No studies show women prefer more violent men as a controlled variable, but women might certainly prefer more masculine men. That is because definite connotations are associated with femininity and masculinity considering assertiveness and confidence, each of which play a part in fulfilling pre-defiend gender roles.

It's fucking disgusting that for such a complex phenomena as the so-called "friendzone", not only are we dealing with an already obnoxious idea, we're being fucked over twice as hard with pop-evolutioanry psychology entering the room with more garbage internet cliche's. No biology will never serve as an explanation for the reality that some women don't prefer having sex with men they find unattractive. Each historic epoch has definite standards of sexuality which uniquely reproduce the conditions of life and production, and hunter-gatherer societies were merely one of those epochs. There is no "natural" pre-defined sexual attractiveness that is divorced from its practical application (both ideologically - consequentially of a symbolic order - and materially) in a given epoch.

The Disillusionist

1st June 2015, 18:10

like Adam fallen from Eden

Wait, is this just literary puff, or are you a creationist? Because that would explain sooooo much.

Also, I didn't make any arguments in my posts that weren't directly supported by research. I didn't just make up the idea that women are less likely to use birth control while ovulating, that's the result of a study. A self-reported study, true, but a statistical study nonetheless. I'm not the one asserting this, the women who participated in the study are.

Also, you've written all kinds of very large words against my posts, but none of them are backed up. So you don't think women seek out men for their robust genes... that's a nice opinion, but unless you can provide significant studies that refute the mountain of evidence that says they do, that opinion doesn't mean anything, despite its visual aggressiveness. This evidence is, by the way, cross-cultural. Meaning, poor women living in Latin American barrios tended to respond in the same way as middle class American women, with regards to these specific issues.

I know that you don't really believe in science, but the evidence is very clear that humans are animals, directed by their biologies as well as their psychologies. As a result, science is not directly opposing Marxist theories, or protecting capitalism, is it simply providing a broader base of knowledge that social theories must work within, or they are useless. For example, if social scientists were not aware of the fact that humans have a biological necessity to consume food, our economic theories would make a lot less sense...

There is, quite obviously and quite demonstrably, a pattern of sexual attractiveness that spans culture and history. Cultural variation does not mean that that underlying pattern is not present. Also, the reasons behind extra-pair copulation ("cheating") do vary.... but that isn't an argument against the fact that there is a pattern.

Oh, and finally, the increased likelihood of foregoing condoms while ovulating is more of a fun fact than a structural issue, it doesn't really have any impact on the big picture either way. As I said, it has been shown to be a real phenomenon, but I don't know the context as to why. My guess would be that as women are more likely to be more highly aroused during ovulation, they simply aren't as likely to think about it. But whatever the cause, it does coincide nicely with the rest of the research. Women may not be consciously adhering to ancient evolutionary practices, but they ended up following them anyway...

Oh, and #FF0000, after rereading our discussion I see what it is exactly that you were talking about with your objection to the word "typical". When I said that short-term mating with more aggressive males while forming long-term relationships with more passive males was a "typical" strategy, I didn't mean that it was the strategy of the majority, I just meant that it is common enough to have a statistically significant presence. It isn't THE typical strategy, it's A typical strategy. Obviously there are many other typical strategies as well, many of which are much more common.

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 18:18

Not littering your posts with such large variances in text size would make them so much less strenuous to read and more understandable. And a shame really because while I often disagree you do say a lot of interesting stuff which now...I really need to force myself to read. Pffff.

That said (mod decision/per-announcement hence bold and colored):

if this debate splinters of in this direction for long I am thinking about splitting it from the "friend zone" thread to a thread of its own

Reply to posts below.

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 19:16

Ok. Reply on posts.

Human behavior is driven by biological principles. Like it or not.
These principles are extremely complex and can not (yet) be placed in a behavioral prediction matrix or translated in easy formula's. They can however be extremely generalized to offer an explanation for certain patterns of behavior....which means that they will be true on populations but rarely on individual levels.
Social norms are both a reflection of biological nature as well as a reflection of socio-economic reality....and can be highly contradictory to biological principles to serve a socio-economic agenda specific to an...as Rafiq calls it...epoch. (And consequently the opposite of this sentence is also true).
Social norms put limits to natural human behavior and restrict it based on what the current socio-economic realities demand and enforce role patterns that either highlight or restrict certain aspects of natural behavior with often damaging consequences.
The underlying biological principles that drive human behavior still remain the same however...hence the enforcement of behavior being often damaging.
Trends in behavior can be established for any given epoch. Trends are valuable only in so far as they are general or in so far they have been defined and contextualized if they become more specific.

You can not simply say that women prefer a more masculine male even though there are trends that seem to indicate that. Rafiq highlighted as to why that is the case. Masculinity does not have a fixed and above all timeless definition and is often culturally variable within a certain epoch depending on socio-economic realities across cultures world wide and even within cultures that are in close geographical vicinity.

That said there is a biological principle at work...the biological principle that indicates a trend, cross culture and cross history, that predispose humans (in general) to not only seek mates but also seek mates that suit specific criteria which are trend wise based on a best survival principle within an available pool.

That survival principle is not a constant but changes over time and is dependent on what the epoch requires, what the social norms require, what the individual requires, what is available.

Translate that to a generalization rule and you will get that the trend is to chose mates who are predisposed to certain genderized behavior patterns because these genderized behavior patterns are indicative of social and economic success within that given era/epoch.

As the socio-economic realities change so does the genderized patterns of behavior. While it would fe. make sense for men to be aggressive in hunter gatherer societies with much conflict or external threats to the group...it makes less sense in societies where there are little to no external threats and in societies that require social cooperation and interaction and diplomacy. Hence the level of aggressiveness is refined in the male gender behavior or discouraged or curbed...and the level of communicative skills is increased, stimulated and more awarded.

That said...socially enforced gender norms always serve a social-economic agenda and are almost always either extensions of natural behavior or attempts to root out unwanted behavior patterns. On women this often translated in repression of sexuality while on men this often translates in repression of showing emotional behavior patterns.

This however does NOT make the biological impulse and needs disappear. It limits, restricts and seriously hampers the display of such behavior...and maybe necessitates their occurrence towards channeling them to be expressed in different ways and forms.

As Rafiq indicates...there is a good question of whether or not marriage (and more general...monogamy) is a dictated or a natural behavior. As to the concept of cheating...which is a highly subjective and seriously loaded term...there is good question whether this is because partner choice is dictated by gender behavior and enforced social norms or individual choice.

I am absolutely not sure about the ovulation comment. I can say however that it makes sense for men and women to look for quick and easier partners during a time when they need them for whatever reason. Women and men tend to find that more easily in partners that are more assertive, willing and prone to opportunity and who are less likely to seek long term commitment.

Rafiq

1st June 2015, 19:20

Also, I didn't make any arguments in my posts that weren't directly supported by research. I didn't just make up the idea that women are less likely to use birth control while ovulating, that's the result of a study. A self-reported study, true, but a statistical study nonetheless. I'm not the one asserting this, the women who participated in the study are.

Again, it is absolutely ridiculous to suggest this. What study confirms this? Show it to us. The fact of the matter is that women don't have sex for reproductive purposes, and that is the ultimate contradiction of evolutionary psychology: It posits that women have sex for this or that reason, i.e. for better genetic fitness, to secure a better life for their kids, and so on, but these are practical issues that don't need some kind of innate biological mechanism to enforce, and that - let's assume they were true (and there is no reason not think they are) no longer have any medium of applicability in capitalism. The fact of the fact of the matter is that evolutionary psychologists, pseudo-Darwinist and the irk do not regard capitalism as having affirmative implications with regard to sexuality, their reductionism is completely unsubstantiated by the so-called evidence which they provide to back it up:

So you don't think women seek out men for their robust genes... that's a nice opinion, but unless you can provide significant studies that refute the mountain of evidence that says they do, that opinion doesn't mean anything, despite its visual aggressiveness. This evidence is, by the way, cross-cultural. Meaning, poor women living in Latin American barrios tended to respond in the same way as middle class American women, with regards to these specific issues.

There is no evidence to suggest that women seek out men for their genes, no. The so-called "Evidence" does not confirm this, it just might confirm that women prefer men with certain, definitely observable attributes - but for these to be conceived in evolutionary terms is nothing more than ad hoc. There is no way to "test" for the drive for evolutionary fitness in today's society, or any society, because what women want in the immediate sense already overrides what genetic implications it will have for their kids. So no, women don't seek out men for their "robust genes", they seek out men to satisfy certain sexual desires, of which since the dawn of contraceptive methods, dare I say since the dawn of modern society itself, are not linked to any reproductive implications. You claim that the evidence is "cross-cultural": But provide us with the evidence that women responded in favelas "in the same way as middle class American women"! The fact of the matter is that no counter-evidence is necessary to negate what is already a negative. That is to say, the studies don't confirm the conclusions that they attempt to wrought out, alternative conclusion from thsoe same studies are possible when taking into account other considerations, or completely doing away with the vulgar biologically reductionist assumptions that they have from the get go when conducting the studies. Not that it's an issue of "bias", but moreso an issue of having a limited imagination. They assume that this is the only possible theoretical constraint from which we are able to work with, i.e. and proceed to vulgarize the results of their data.

It's not a matter of opinion: for fuck's sake, a few nice numbers and all of a sudden we're given divine law. The fact of the matter is that it is NOT an opinion that women do not seek out men FOR their robust genes, because this is an unproveable assertion, furthermore, an assertion that is linked to definite ideologically based assumptions that have no scientific basis. If you were able to find the exact genes which determine that women are biologically predisposed to this, this would indeed constitute something that is worth taking note of - until then, it is merely vulgar speculation, not something supported by evidence. For someone who claims to know anything about evolution, you should know that there is no intentional drive for genetic fitness, because there is variability in what constitutes genetic fitness in different ecological settings: for animals mates have adapted to PREFER this or that trait which, consequentially has led to greater genetic fitness, but this is accidental, it doesn't actually entail some kind of innate mechanism which regards the well being of offspring. Because sexual drive in organisms is something that is linked to their immediate implications for the organism itself.

But in any case, genetic fitness has practical applications for a respective ecological settings. The shell of a turtle might protect it, and so on. We also know that sometimes there is absolutely no practical application, i.e. a kind of vestigial, inconsequential sexual drive can develop like preferring this or that arrangement of colors on the feather of a bird - which has absolutely no implications for "genetic fitness" at all, and therefore could not possibly regard the well being of offspring (besides increasing its ability to in turn mate with other creatures, but this is a tautology, it would employ circular reasoning - for example, the mutation which made blue feathers or whatever more attractive in the first place would have to be regarded).

Because we can conceive these, however, in terms of their practical application in ecological settings, we need to recognize that humans are not genetically predisposed to live in any kind of ecological setting, because from the biological has the human entered into the domain of the social, which trivializes the biological as a mere mechanism through which a social dimension is expressed. So if you're going to say that women prefer men that are more "genetically fit", you're going to have to explain to us how this has a practical application in our society: why would they prefer this? Furthermore if your little theory held up for a second, we would assume that more "genetically fit" males in the biological sense would on a higher average be able to impregnate the soccer mom, and we'd see a strikingly high proportion of "nice guys" raising the kids of attractive men, as you said. But this doesn't happen: Instead, women will have kids with the "nice guys" regardless of the affairs they'll have with more sexually attractive men, who they usually never have kids with.

So to conclude, women do not seek men regarding their "genes" at all. In fact genes are a vestigial triviality with regard to capitalism. You could claim that women don't seek dumber men because they don't want dumb kids, right? But to claim that "intelligence" has a genetic basis would already be racism. considering that Women seek men in approximation to standards of sexuality that reproduce the social order.

I know that you don't really believe in science, but the evidence is very clear that humans are animals, directed by their biologies as well as their psychologies.

The mere linguistic composition of this sentence disproves this notion. "Humans are directed by their biologies". This suggests a fundamental separation between what constitutes a "human" and its "innate biology", meaning the divide that recognizes the latter does not determine the former is already present ideologically. If we can question something, it has no innate basis. I do not even "innately" have a predisposition to have two arms, because I can have them mutilated at will. Of course, evolutionary psychologists will deem this a "disorder", but humans are nothing but a compilation of disorders, legitimate or illegitimate socially. What this demonstrates is that evolutionary psychology is inherently metaphysical, and you might replace "their biologies" with the soul, or with demons, and it would make little difference. Biological, and psychological mechanisms have a practical use. Considering there has never been a definite social formation which was more constitutive of "their biologies" than another, and considering psychological mechanisms do not exist in a vacuum and have a definite systemic function, the reference point for this practical use cannot be conceived in terms of vulgar biological determinist ecology fetishism but in approximation to respective historic epochs.

Humans being directed by their "psychologies" is a meaningless statement because their psychological constitution has no basis in their genetic constitution in any meaningful sense, but their respective social orders. An animal has a habitat, which no matter where you take it, needs it in order to express its behavior and survive the "best" way. Humans, however, don't have a natural habitat, or ecology. My point is that you're excluding this social dimension, history, form the domain of scientific evaluation. This is why evolutionary psychologists will usually talk about how "baffled" they are by the miracles of humans, it is where the god of the gaps comes in, it is where all their spiritual epiphanies are conceived - the social, ideological dimension that shatters their reductionist nonsense.

There is, quite obviously and quite demonstrably, a pattern of sexual attractiveness that spans culture and history. Cultural variation does not mean that that underlying pattern is not present. Also, the reasons behind extra-pair copulation ("cheating") do vary.... but that isn't an argument against the fact that there is a pattern.

The reason these philistines love prattling about "culture" is because they assume there is some kind of relevance to the word: They use it to support the narrative that these characteristics are innate and eternal, when in fact what they deem as "cultural variation" is often times usually solely aesthetic. The sexual symbolic order is the same anywhere that capitalist modernization has taken afoot, anywhere where capitalist relations are in place. You claim there's a pattern of sexual attractiveness that spans culture and history, but what's hilarious is that there hasn't even been a definite standard of sexual attractiveness in the history of capitalism that has been alike in any two decades. During the 1990's, very skinny women with large breasts were more sexually desirable, and this isn't true in 2015. Again, I challenge you to provide evidence for this pattern of sexual attractiveness wherein women "seek out more aggressive males" during ovulation in pre-capitalist societies. I'm calling your bluff, and I challenge you to provide evidence for these patterns in pre-capitalist societies. Was there a "friendzone" in the middle ages? Was there a "friendzone" in antiquity? For fuck's sake, there wasn't even a "friendzone" two hundred years ago. In fact the term itself has its origins in the 1990's. Before modernity, platonic love was considered the most pure, the most socially acceptable and praisable kind of love. Being able to control one's beastly inclinations was part of the medieval facade of chivalry, in fact. Platonic love, non-sexual love, did not function in the manner you describe.

That is because present sexuality is the summation of an entanglement of sexual antagonisms and complex social, psychological dimensions. Eroticization is a very specific, complicated thing, and the "Friendzone" is something very specific to modernity. You provided a biological explanation, and I call you out on it saying it's absolutely worthless and irrelevant in understanding its specifialiteis. That's why. I don't care how many renegades can try and make "Marxism" compatible with this, it is still wrong. And before you go harking about how I need to provide "studies" to confirm my rebuttal, remember that I am destroying the theoretical foundations that lead to the conclusions of those studies, and therefore it would be nonsensical to regard "empirical data" here, because it has ambiguous implications. The data, in other words, doesn't equate to the conclusions wrought out from it.

Women may not be consciously adhering to ancient evolutionary practices, but they ended up following them anyway...

And now we strike the crux of the metaphysical vulgarity of the logic of the pseudo darwinist barbarian: Even if such a correlation was found, which I highly doubt (What studies confirm that women on average are MORE LIKELY to forgo contraceptive methods during ovulation then when they're not?) it would not support the "following" of any genetically shaped practices, it would require further inquiry about other possible variables, and so on.

The fact of the matter forgoing contraceptive methods wouldn't even have any basis in some kind of innate drive to have kids anyway. I love this childish approach to sexuality anyway though. This idea that people are spontaneously inclined to sex i the "heat of the moment" inspires a lack of critical thinking on not only personal experience, but the notion as a general rule - sex is learned, how one expresses their sexuality, how one "woos" women, how women are supposed to respond and react to being "seduced", and furthermore how they seduce all of this is learned. Every single innate biologically based sexual drive can be satisfied through masturbation - and not only does masturbation require immense fantasy to fulfill desire that is socially grounded, so does sex. That is because sexuality is refined on a social level. Sex without fantasy is impossible for this reason - so to claim that women spontaneously "cheat" because of some kind of innate biological mechanism betrays a sense of gross philistinism and an infantile, almost satire-like notion of sexuality. Take fantasy away, and cheating would be infinitely less desirable.

Rafiq

1st June 2015, 19:29

In summarizaiton, the only way for evolutionary psychologists to sustain their ideas is to admit that they think it is only with the introduction of capitalism that human nature has been able to express itself in a way that was previously "restricted" or not possible. Like ideas of chivalry, for the past three or four decades ecology fetishism has replaced religion as the spiritual aroma of capitalism - that the idea that we are just animals, that we mimic the great apes, has taken hold in the cultural, and ideological edifice of our societies. evolutionary psychologists think they're so sly and cynical when observing this kind of behavior, but what they don't know is that every gym-bro, every douchebag at the bar, every 'aggressive male' one way or another consciously adheres to, and buys into vulgar darwinist ideas. They think they're observing something which humans, as animals too preoccupied with their superficial evolutionary drives, cannot spontaneously conclude themselves, but the reality is that this ecology fetishim has already replaced religion in today's society.

The whole phenomena of the "alpha" and "beta" males in pop culture reflects this. People are infuriated by being in the friendzone not because their sexual desires are halted, but because they believe in such (fake) cynical metaphysical pseudo-Darwinist ideas themselves!

RA89

1st June 2015, 19:43

Has anyone here read Sex At Dawn?

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 19:44

Every single innate biologically based sexual drive can be satisfied through masturbation.

no comment yet on the rest of your post...but I need to highlight this statement.

This is complete and utter bullshit and completely ignores the fact that people are social creatures who need intimate connections with others and have a psychological and biological necessity and imperative to do so.

This means that masturbation is ONLY a satisfier of lust and perhaps alleviates psychological tensions. It is however NOT a satisfactory alternative to intra human intimacy nor a satisfying replacement of it.

Sorry...but this statement misses any basis in fact on a very obvious level.

Rafiq

1st June 2015, 20:04

no comment yet on the rest of your post...but I need to highlight this statement.

This is complete and utter bullshit and completely ignores the fact that people are social creatures who need intimate connections with others and have a psychological and biological necessity and imperative to do so.

There is no innately "biological" necessity to do so, however. There might be a biological predisposition that makes humans uniquely social animals, but ultimately my point is that sex is something learned, has a strictly socially malleable dimension to it. In other words, the biological can only be conceived as a tool to facilitate a wider social reality. Think of the relationship between the psychological and the social - the social proceeds the psychological as the biological might proceed the social, but then stems a world of its own.

There is no biological drive to have sex with others, or in other words, sexual drive cannot be reduced on a biological level. Surely biology is involved in facilitating sexuality, but you don't automatically become equipped with knowing what to fuck, how to fuck and what that means for your identity by merit of your biological constitution. What we deem as a "raw sex drive" CAN indeed be fulfilled through the direct act of masturbation, and I further elaborated by saying EVEN THIS is contingent upon fantasy, upon social realities.

Rafiq

1st June 2015, 20:09

Sinister Intents

1st June 2015, 20:47

This thread exposes the individuals with internalized sexism and misogyny and certain people's posts just disgust me

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 20:47

There is no innately "biological" necessity to do so, however. There might be a biological predisposition that makes humans uniquely social animals, but ultimately my point is that sex is something learned, has a strictly socially malleable dimension to it. In other words, the biological can only be conceived as a tool to facilitate a wider social reality. Think of the relationship between the psychological and the social - the social proceeds the psychological as the biological might proceed the social, but then stems a world of its own.

There is no biological drive to have sex with others, or in other words, sexual drive cannot be reduced on a biological level. Surely biology is involved in facilitating sexuality, but you don't automatically become equipped with knowing what to fuck, how to fuck and what that means for your identity by merit of your biological constitution. What we deem as a "raw sex drive" CAN indeed be fulfilled through the direct act of masturbation, and I further elaborated by saying EVEN THIS is contingent upon fantasy, upon social realities.

Yes actually there is a biological drive towards sex and it is one of the behavioral patterns that is not learned but instinctive....people.instinctively know how to have sex and know they do so with an available partner preferably above masturbation. Explain to me how you think humans would exist otherwise. Every animal knows how to fuck from birth and through an inatinctive drive to sexual exploration.

What you also completely ignore is the fact that social influences psychology but the reverse predates the social ...and psychology is as much if not more a facto of biology.

These two statements are nor subjective opinion. They are proven fact.

Rafiq

1st June 2015, 20:50

Yes actually there is a biological drive towards sex and it is one of the behavioral patterns that is not learned but instinctive....people.instinctively know how to have sex and know they do so with an available partner preferably above masturbation. Explain to me how you think humans would exist otherwise. Every animal knows how to fuck from birth and through an inatinctive drive to sexual exploration.

Yes, now? Tell me, was losing your virginity a pleasant experience? Not only are you not born knowing how to have sex, the sexual drive never translates into reality. The fantasy never meets the reality. Of course people prefer intimacy, prefer having a partner than masturbating. What this has to do with instinct is however beyond me. You ask me to "explain" how humans would otherwise exist, and I tell you that our social complexity had virtually rendered all of our biological predispositions to this or that behavior a vestigial structure. Even in the gorilla, if it's raised by humans it won't be able to fuck any female gorillas when released into a troop. This is a well documented phenomena.

Any idiot knows that humans have no notion of how to have sex when they're born. They may as well be digging holes and fucking the ground if this is how they learn.

Armchair Partisan

1st June 2015, 21:17

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 21:24

Haha, no. I'm too embarrassed to recount the silly and very mistaken ideas I had about having sex when puberty started to kick in, but... no.

And yet people with no previous education have managed to do so and figuere it out for themselves since the start of humanity.

The idea that sex is a socially motivated behavior and above all learned is ridiculous beyond measure and disproven by the mere existence of humanity in itself let alone the volumes of reproducible evidence to the contrary.

The fact that you had misconceptions about sex or strange ideas would not have withheld you from a drive towards sex, the drive towards sex and intimacy with a partner not the fact that you would have figured it out on the basis of that instinct alone.

In fact it is instinctive behavior in all animals triggered by biological impulses that occurs without learning and trough self initiated behavior. Ergo by biological imperative.

Armchair Partisan

1st June 2015, 21:44

And yet people with no previous education have managed to do so and figuere it out for themselves since the start of humanity.

The idea that sex is a socially motivated behavior and above all learned is ridiculous beyond measure and disproven by the mere existence of humanity in itself let alone the volumes of reproducible evidence to the contrary.

The fact that you had misconceptions about sex or strange ideas would not have withheld you from a drive towards sex, the drive towards sex and intimacy with a partner not the fact that you would have figured it out on the basis of that instinct alone.

In fact it is instinctive behavior in all animals triggered by biological impulses that occurs without learning and trough self initiated behavior. Ergo by biological imperative.

Well, uh... I learnt how sex works through social means. Porn, sex ed, and the like. That I could probably have learnt it just by trial and error matters little, since nobody does that. Kids aren't supposed to have sex with anyone, after all, and unless someone has the misfortune of catching the attention of a child molester they don't learn it through biology first. Thus our approach to sex will differ a lot from the hypothetical example of isolated humans trying to stick parts of their bodies into each other until they notice a positive reaction.

Antiochus

1st June 2015, 21:50

Most people learned sex by.... having sex. Do you think there was porn 200 years ago?

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 21:54

Yes, now? Tell me, was losing your virginity a pleasant experience? Not only are you not born knowing how to have sex, the sexual drive never translates into reality. The fantasy never meets the reality.

What the fuck are you talking about? Fantasy and quality? These are completely irrelevant for the fact that people have an instinctive sexual nature and drive to have sexual intercourse with one another. Those are separate issues all together.

Fantasy and quality are completely and utterly irrelevant and have zero to do with the fact that it is biological imperative that drives people towards sexual intimacy....and that they instinctively do seek that intimacy and instinctively know how to go from that drive to having a successful copulation....because that is all that biological drive entails.

Your added precursors are completely irrelevant.

the sexual drive never translates into reality. The fantasy never meets the reality.

I really don't agree with the precursor "never" since I have had many sexual encounters which basically met the fantasy or exceeded the fantasy. But I am willing to give you the likelihood that that doesn't count for everybody. Maybe my fantasies are just very realistic.

Of course people prefer intimacy, prefer having a partner than masturbating.

They not only prefer it but it is an instinctive biological drive towards it...that can not be satisfied by masturbation.

What this has to do with instinct is however beyond me.

Well so much is extremely obvious...so tell me...how did people start having sex? Who taught them to have sex...the first humans. Did some alien entity explain how it works? What drove them to have sex with each other in the first place? Since they are not born with any drive to sexuality...there was absolutely NO precursor or initial drive to even have sex in the first place...unless, according to your narrative, it was whispered into the ears ;)

Don't be ridiculous.

You ask me to "explain" how humans would otherwise exist, and I tell you that our social complexity had virtually rendered all of our biological predispositions to this or that behavior a vestigial structure.

This is a non statement...that actually completely fails to address the issue and is observably untrue.

Even in the gorilla, if it's raised by humans it won't be able to fuck any female gorillas when released into a troop. This is a well documented phenomena.

But not predisposed on that function being vestigal nor on the inability to have successful copulation....nor is it a general phenomenon that counts for all free males.

But I am sure you can provide many links.

Any idiot knows that humans have no notion of how to have sex when they're born. They may as well be digging holes and fucking the ground if this is how they learn.

You don't really understand how biological imperative works and what it actually means do you? Because the level of ignorance here is actually surprising.

Biological imperative is the ingrained need to survive. every organism is born with that drive. This includes the drive to seek out a mate for sexual intercourse. This is an instinctive drive that every animal will display including humans....even if they grew up segregated from human society. This drive will lead to the need to have sexual intimacy in humans. That need to sexual intimacy will lead to the instinctive sexual exploration of the partner....and that will lead to figuring out what goes were without prior teaching. The initiation however is instinctive knowledge...

Without that innate drive species would utterly fail to reproduce. Without the instinctive imperative and drive toward the need for sexual intercourse with another human being there would be no reproduction at all.

The fact that society has provided alternatives does not withstand that every human born is born with this biological imperative...whether they are able to act on it or not.

That does not negate that sexual behavior has a learned or restricted component. And that experience and fantasy play a part in sexual experience. But the biological drive towards sex is present from birth...as is the biological drive to seek out a suitable mate/partner and sexual intimacy.

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 21:59

Well, uh... I learnt how sex works through social means. Porn, sex ed, and the like. That I could probably have learnt it just by trial and error matters little, since nobody does that. Kids aren't supposed to have sex with anyone, after all, and unless someone has the misfortune of catching the attention of a child molester they don't learn it through biology first. Thus our approach to sex will differ a lot from the hypothetical example of isolated humans trying to stick parts of their bodies into each other until they notice a positive reaction.

Uhuh. I am sure. How did the first humans learn? Why did they initiate sexual intercourse? How did they find out how it worked? Why do humans want sex? Why is sex a pleasurable experience? What is the influence of hormonal secretion on sexual drive?

Etc. Answer those questions and you will find out that whether or not children are supposed to have sex does not withstand the fact that even children growing up in isolation display innate sexual behavior towards others. That is biological imperative. A biological drive towards sexual behavior towards and with others.

Most people learned sex by.... having sex. Do you think there was porn 200 years ago?

Well...yes...actually.

But the intention still stands. Every creature will have a biological imperative that will lead them to initiate sexual exploration at one time or another and through initiating that they will learn by doing. The drive however is innate.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

1st June 2015, 23:36

This thread is a riot.

Concerning the term itself, keep in mind I'm a venerable dreadnought at 26, and I live in God's own country, Croatia (or is Gods Own Country Croydon? I don't even know anymore), but I have never heard the term used in a context other than entitled self-pity on part of men. It does carry some connotations at failing at "traditional" gender roles, but then that entire milieu (the people most likely to use the term) has a strange relation to gender role, wanting to see them enforced while abjectly failing to adhere to them (men are supposed to be steely-eyed killers fakers, not manchildren having cry-wanks).

However, it's not a gender specific thing... lots of guys have female friends who would probably prefer to be more than friends, but aren't deemed of sufficient quality by the guys to be date-able.

Ah, yes, I remember college. Not a day passed without me inquiring about the fertility of my female friends And oh god, the Punnett squares I had to make every evening, it was maddening. Thankfully I found a woman who is a shrill harridan who constantly demeans me and who I do not find to be attractive at all, but she is fertile and I believe my sons will have strong chins and will all get doctorates in evolutionary psychology, improving their chances to mate through the handicap principle.

I mean, the only way someone who is presumably of average intelligence could write something like this is if they were, a) literally a space alien, in which case, welcome, admiral Tfear, I hope you find Earth enjoyable, or b) so into evo-psych they mistake simplified models of how certain animals choose their mates for the actual thought process of humans, social and historically-determined primates. This is tantamount to a physicist genuinely believing an electron consciously evades areas of high potential.

Most people learned sex by.... having sex. Do you think there was porn 200 years ago?

Yes. Pornography has existed for about as much as human civilisation has, which makes sense: we humans have an irritating tendency to scrawl things related to our interests everywhere, and sex is a nearly universal interest. There is also the matter of inter-generational teaching of sex and things related to sex.

I don't think it makes sense to argue over whether sex is biological or cultural, as if you could have a man without culture. Yes, presumably our more remote primate ancestors had sex and no culture. The sort of sex they had was also quite different from the sort of sex we have. But if you take a modern human and isolate him from culture, you don't get a Robinsonian savage who lives by his animal instincts in splendid isolation from the corruption of civilisation, you get a poor animal that can't really function.

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 23:51

I don't think it makes sense to argue over whether sex is biological or cultural, as if you could have a man without culture. Yes, presumably our more remote primate ancestors had sex and no culture. The sort of sex they had was also quite different from the sort of sex we have. But if you take a modern human and isolate him from culture, you don't get a Robinsonian savage who lives by his animal instincts in splendid isolation from the corruption of civilisation, you get a poor animal that can't really function.

To an extend it doesn't. But if the entire premise of the debate is going to be reduced to yet another variation of nature vs nurture and sweeping statements like this one are made as a means to disprove the other position:

Every single innate biologically based sexual drive can be satisfied through masturbation.

then we obviously have departed any sanity in the arguments...for however much there is left on this site anyways....and boldly fight pseudo science with pseudo science. Which isn't all that effective imo.

PhoenixAsh

1st June 2015, 23:55

This thread is a riot.

Concerning the term itself, keep in mind I'm a venerable dreadnought at 26,

I googled it...this came up...sorry to expose your identity like this...but I felt it was for the best everybody knew.

http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Images/Product/AlternativeFW/xlarge/MkivVen3.jpg

(...) I have never heard the term used in a context other than entitled self-pity on part of men. It does carry some connotations at failing at "traditional" gender roles, but then that entire milieu (the people most likely to use the term) has a strange relation to gender role, wanting to see them enforced while abjectly failing to adhere to them (men are supposed to be steely-eyed killers fakers, not manchildren having cry-wanks).

Exactly well...except for parts of it...my point...actually. The crying self pity part is looked down on. Hence the need to reassert dominance and standing...by whining about it...which is still counter productive. It is usually displayed by a group of men that already are deemed lower on the hierarchical ladder and are already in disrepute based on gender roles.

LuÃs Henrique

2nd June 2015, 01:16

but then that entire milieu (the people most likely to use the term) has a strange relation to gender role, wanting to see them enforced while abjectly failing to adhere to them (men are supposed to be steely-eyed killers fakers, not manchildren having cry-wanks).

Haha. Pretty much. And women should be pure virgins who never deny sex to them. And if they deny sex, then they... are whores.

Luís Henrique

The Disillusionist

2nd June 2015, 02:39

Dillusionist: Some studies claim that women tend to fear, and are more repulsed by black men more during ovulation for fear of being raped. I can show you the evo-psyche studies too, if you want. The conclusion is that it's because women fear being raped by outside marauding bands or whatever, or don't want to have kids outside of their pre-established group. So women are "innately" repulsed by black men, apparently, it's "hard wired in their DNA".

Why do you get to pick and choose and claim it's a "cultural" problem or whatever? It's evidence, by your qualifications. Can you just admit to everyone you're a racist, just like every evolutionary psychologist at least implicitly is?

Evolutionary psychology rejects the idea of human "races" as they have no real genetic basis. As I've stated many times, evolutionists are the ones who demonstrated that fact in the first place. There is absolutely no accepted theory in evolutionary psychology that relies on cultural assumptions about race. Such an assumption would be contradictory to the very foundations of evolutionary psychology. There is no sound evolutionary hypothesis to be made from these supposed studies that you've mentioned. The fact that you think there is based on what you found in some weird corner of the internet simply demonstrates your vast ignorance about the entire field, which most of your posts have been based on.

This thread exposes the individuals with internalized sexism and misogyny and certain people's posts just disgust me

Mistress, I actually like you. You seem to actually care about the human side of leftism, and I respect that.

However, I'm going to call it like I see it here...

This entire thread seems to just be ideological masturbation for you. There is no real discussion in your original post, it was just intended to fish for people who agreed with you. This thread was created to provide you with opinions that boost your own ego. Your abundance of thanks and superficial platitudes, and the continued lack of any real theoretical contribution to this discussion from you demonstrates that pretty clearly.

I write this, not to insult you, but to make the argument that because this thread was designed to boost your own ego, it is entirely unsurprising that you would take such a condescending attitude toward those who disagree. Just the fact that you are backed up by the majority (mostly indoctrinated acolytes who stopped questioning things years ago) does not lend your attitude of moral superiority any credence. I'm sure most people involved would have been happier if this thread had just remained a big circle-jerk of uncontested opinions and reassurances, but I consider it my job to destroy that kind of complacency every chance I get.

In short, "morality" without fact is simply arrogance. Your accusations of misogyny mean nothing without evidence to back it up. "Misogyny" isn't just a buzz word to be freely thrown around at anyone who disagrees with you. It implies hate. You are accusing many people in this thread of downright hating women simply because their opinions don't fall in line with your own, despite the fact that I can promise you, you are not capable of following that accusation to its logical conclusion. Frankly, your attitude in this post is very close-minded and dangerous.

The argument that humans are guided by biology is not misogynistic, it's realistic. It has no bearing on whether men and women should be socially equal or not (they should be), and it has no bearing on any arbitrary ideas of cultural value associated with gender. Ironically, though evolutionary theory constantly gets accused of adhering to capitalist values, it is the opponents of evolutionary psychology who are so mired down in their own cultural attitudes that they can't even comprehend a part of humanity that could transcend those attitudes.

Oh, and finally.... as I keep saying... I'm the one with the mountain of evidence. Not a single other person has provided any factual data refuting my evidence, only opinions that rely on baseless conjecture or that assume that my evidence has already been refuted, or does not need to be refuted.

Oh yeah, just one more note to make.... do any of you really think that through the course of our evolution from the other apes that we just completely lost all of the previous mechanisms that had gotten us that far, to wholly replace them with this "blank slate" concept of a system of anthropogenic culture and ecology that governs everything we do or think? You really think that the mechanisms of reproduction that allowed proto-humans to continue their existence simply disappeared when our brains got larger? No... our brains expanded, but many of the deep structures of our brains are not much different from the other apes. I know it's a bit hit to the ego to think about that, but it's true.

BIXX

2nd June 2015, 05:17

Mistress, I actually like you. You seem to actually care about the human side of leftism, and I respect that.

However, I'm going to call it like I see it here...

This entire thread seems to just be ideological masturbation for you. There is no real discussion in your original post, it was just intended to fish for people who agreed with you. This thread was created to provide you with opinions that boost your own ego. Your abundance of thanks and superficial platitudes, and the continued lack of any real theoretical contribution to this discussion from you demonstrates that pretty clearly.

I generally agree with you about the posts made by SI, in fact this on included- however, I will say that they are right- there are misogynists and people with sexist views on this site. So while the quality of the OP is questionable (I guess I just can't see why there should be any contention of what they say) the fact is it sparked actual discussion, between sexists and feminists, between feminists and other currents of feminism, etc...

Threads like these always bring the people who have a problem with women out of the woodwork, so SI was right that this puts misogynists on their radar.

The Disillusionist

2nd June 2015, 05:34

I generally agree with you about the posts made by SI, in fact this on included- however, I will say that they are right- there are misogynists and people with sexist views on this site. So while the quality of the OP is questionable (I guess I just can't see why there should be any contention of what they say) the fact is it sparked actual discussion, between sexists and feminists, between feminists and other currents of feminism, etc...

Threads like these always bring the people who have a problem with women out of the woodwork, so SI was right that this puts misogynists on their radar.

Yeah, you are right... I just took it personally, since it seemed to be directed at me. I'm not a misogynist, and it drives me crazy when people just throw words like that around without basis in order to silence dissent.

BIXX

2nd June 2015, 05:42

Yeah, you are right... I just took it personally, since it seemed to be directed at me. I'm not a misogynist, and it drives me crazy when people just throw words like that around without basis in order to silence dissent.

While I may be wrong and I have honestly pretty much checked out of this thread because thcurrent direction it is going doesn't interest me (so my judgement may not be the most accurate) I don't think it was directed at you.

Redistribute the Rep

2nd June 2015, 08:13

You really think that the mechanisms of reproduction that allowed proto-humans to continue their existence simply disappeared when our brains got larger? No... our brains expanded, but many of the deep structures of our brains are not much different from the other apes.

The brain of humans didn't just expand, the cerebrum disproportionately grew in size and complexity in comparison to the hindbrain, a fairly important distinction to make given the cerebrum's role in learning and higher level thought. Functionally this means the "deep structures" of our brains are far removed from any other primate, ostensible similarities notwithstanding. it's not justified to omit the gradient between humans, who have developed highly structured and varied societies and can inhabit basically any Earth environment (and at some point probably space as well) and other 'apes'

Besides, the "deep structures" of our brains don't do anything on their own. They operate inseparably from their environment as a highly plastic organ. They can't be compared with other species (or within a species for that matter) in a way a physiologically static organ like, say, an arm could be.

The similarity you're noting between the "deep structures " of the brains is superficial.

For a more general overview of the criticisms of the theoretical foundations of evolutionary psychology, I recommend this from the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-psychology/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-philosophy-biology/#SocEvoPsy

PhoenixAsh

2nd June 2015, 12:39

the fact is it sparked actual discussion, between sexists
and feminists, between feminists and other currents of feminism, etc...

Threads like these always bring the people who have a problem with women out of the woodwork, so SI was right that this puts misogynists on their
radar.

Come now PC it is not like you actually know what any of these words actually mean....your usage of these terms shits on their meaning consistently and repeatedly and you seem to be actually making an effort to devalued the terms.

Of course everybody is extremely well aware that you simply use these accusations when you don't have any actual arguments and ran out of ways to contribute in order to silence people you do not agree with. Which you are doing right here, right now again.

So consider this your first and last warning in this thread.

SI simply copies you...you seem to have a new fan.

PhoenixAsh

2nd June 2015, 13:50

The brain of humans didn't just expand, the cerebrum disproportionately grew in size and complexity in comparison to the hindbrain, a fairly important distinction to make given the cerebrum's role in learning and higher level thought. Functionally this means the "deep structures" of our brains are far removed from any other primate, ostensible similarities notwithstanding. it's not justified to omit the gradient between humans, who have developed highly structured and varied societies and can inhabit basically any Earth environment (and at some point probably space as well) and other 'apes'

Besides, the "deep structures" of our brains don't do anything on their own. They operate inseparably from their environment as a highly plastic organ. They can't be compared with other species (or within a species for that matter) in a way a physiologically static organ like, say, an arm could be.

The similarity you're noting between the "deep structures " of the brains is superficial.

For a more general overview of the criticisms of the theoretical foundations of evolutionary psychology, I recommend this from the Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-psychology/

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-philosophy-biology/#SocEvoPsy

One thing to keep in mind though is that the debate surrounding EP is a rehash of the classic nature vs nurture debate that pops up its ugly head every once in a while within psychology when two fields clash. Invariably the debate has it's polarizIng view points on both sides of the debate proven wrong.

It is also useful to keep in mind that many of the criticisms against EP have been levelled at Evolutionary biology and theory when it was first proposed. That doesn't mean EP is right nor does it mean the criticism is wrong but it does mean that you should take caution in taking a side based on academics arguing. They usually do not argue facts alone and argue from academic political agenda's .

Biological and evolutionary principles are not new to psychology and many of the principles and concepts of EP have been expansions on or copies of already accepted and proven facts within Standard Psychology for years and decades. What EP is trying to do is create a comprehensive behavioral model for the entire field of psychology. And that is where the opposition comes from.

The debate however does not deny evolutionary principles nor does it reject biological imperative influencing behavior..as many of these were already part of standard psychology nor does rejecting an entire field and body of comprehensive research mean all the research is useless or untrue.

That is the caution.

The debate here seems to be between the two extremes. The Disillusionist being a proponent of EP and genetic determinism of mind and Rafiq being the classic example of cultural driven mind. Neither of these positions are entirely right or entirely wrong...

The fact is that both culture and biology play a significant part in human behavior. And the traditional field of Biological Psychology (which I different from EP and deals with how the brain operates biologically speaking and what processes are occurring in it) has already proven that biological processes in some parts of the brain are unconscious and can not be controlled or overwritten by nurture/cultural behavior.

Cognitive and culturally driven psychologists have not been able to explain how there is cross cultural behavior and evolutionary psychologists have not been able to explain why groups of people go against evolutionary principles....without...crossing over into each others fields.

That should show and illustrate that while neither holds the absolute truth. .neither can be dismissed either.

RedWorker

2nd June 2015, 14:05

Evolutionary psychology rejects the idea of human "races" as they have no real genetic basis. As I've stated many times, evolutionists are the ones who demonstrated that fact in the first place. There is absolutely no accepted theory in evolutionary psychology that relies on cultural assumptions about race. Such an assumption would be contradictory to the very foundations of evolutionary psychology. There is no sound evolutionary hypothesis to be made from these supposed studies that you've mentioned. The fact that you think there is based on what you found in some weird corner of the internet simply demonstrates your vast ignorance about the entire field, which most of your posts have been based on.

You obviously missed the point. The point is that Rafiq is making is that if women today are demonstrably attracted to "masculine" men, and the fact that they are means that it is inherent, biological and eternal; then, just like women may scared of black men today, and there may be evidence to that, that means that it is inherent, biological and eternal. Why would such evidence be accepted in the former scenario and not in the latter? If you truly use such logic - as Rafiq is arguing here - then you avoid accepting the latter scenario because it would expose the absurdity of your logic.

Your response here amounts to a simple excuse.

The meaning of "masculinity" has completely changed throughout time. As a matter of fact, crying used to be considered one of the most manly things to do. Today it is the exact opposite. Only this very example shows the absurdity of the whole thing, and the real basis in the social and not the biological. People are biologically sexually attracted to the person most fit for survival and reproduction, NOT to "masculine" men - something entirely meaningless given the fact that the meaning of the term completely changes depending on what period of time and place we put ourselves in.

Today, sex is done primarily for enjoyment and not for reproduction. So you aim to prove that sexual attraction is fully based on biological reproduction laws. In primitive society, sex was REALLY done for reproduction... and examining that society proves that the notions of sexual attractiveness then existing are completely different from today's.

PhoenixAsh

2nd June 2015, 14:40

food for thought. ...how much is the definition of masculinity influenced by what is seen as more successful in a given epoch context?

Rafiq

2nd June 2015, 15:50

And yet people with no previous education have managed to do so and figuere it out for themselves since the start of humanity.

You don't need direct education to learn sex. Sex can be learned with experience, and sexual drives derive from a social-symbolic order - and that's the point. But you don't automatically know where to put your dick, you don't automatically know how to have sex. It has to be told, and afterwards it has to be learned through experience. The only reason people might spontaneously be able to have sex, for example, is because both men and women have genitalia, so even if they didn't know how sex worked initially, they'd both find themselves intersecting in their objects of desire. It is a strictly social behavior simply because the so-called innate "biological drives" have no medium of expression of divorced from their social application. My point is not that the mechanisms of sexuality are not associated with biology, my point is that they have no medium of expression, and they have no language, abstracted from their social application.

It is not difficult to understand, and it's very puzzling why you find this so frustrating. It has nothing to do with a "nature/nurture" debate, it has everything to do with recognizing nature itself doesn't exist, i.e. nothing can be divorced, or abstracted from the social order that is not vestigial. Whether there are things which are inevitable in the formation of a social/symbolic order or not is absolutely irrelevant, and they are vestigial. It is interesting, however, to note that you're also an apologist of Gamergate, and considering your previous posts on previous threads it is not a surprise that you fetishize pseudo-biology:

What the fuck are you talking about?

You clearly have no notion of what fantasy is. In this setting, one would expect this to be understood: Fantasy is not simply what you want really bad, it is a psychological concept. If one "fulfills" their fantasies, what is wrought out is much, much worse. Basically, people do not want what they think they want, and their desires propel them to act in ways that are divorced from their.. Aesthetic representation in imagination. That was my point.

They not only prefer it but it is an instinctive biological drive towards it...that can not be satisfied by masturbation.

Let's stop throwing around words. When you claim something is an "instinctive biological drive", you may as well be talking about a soul. First off, we recognize that it is not a physical, but a psychological (social) need. That is a fact. Because the "physical needs" of desiring sex can be satisfied with inanimate objects. This does not constitute evidence of an instinctive biological drive, it constitutes as evidence that sex is a social act - and finally, your whole conception of humanity is so fucking ridiculous it's beyond me:

Well so much is extremely obvious...so tell me...how did people start having sex? Who taught them to have sex...the first humans.

THIS is what your WHOLE FUCKING argument hinges on and it's absolutely nonsensical! First of all, as you should know by now, there were never "First humans' isolated from a social setting. There was never an Adam and Eve, and their offspring. Instead, when apes first became bipedal, their means of survival and life became increasingly dictated by social customs, complex coordination for hunting and gathering, and then emerged a social order. This social order had overridden the, let's call them "ecological" predispositions of man, and now man was free only insofar as his social order allowed it. This is why the first hunter-gatherers were able to engage in mass migrations across continents and drive several species to extinction without any regard for ecology.

So the question of how people "started having sex", with regard to a process that occurred over millions of years is absolutely ridiculous. It was not as though one day we had a hairy ape completely dictated by their biological constitution, and the next day we had humans. When complex social relations were able to override biological predispositions, much of those biological predispositions became a hindrance for survival. So no one had to teach the first humans anything, because as any dolt knows sexuality was implicit in the first social order to ever emerge. It becomes even more difficult because even the great apes have definite mating rituals and sexual customs (that conform ecologically) that are learned, and that if a gorilla is raised by humans and then released into the wild, it won't be able to mate with anyone. So the cut-off point wherein sexuality took somewhat of a social dimension was early, and it carried on. Of course we know that's exactly why the brain in humans is so distinct from other primates - it had to accommodate for growing social complexity. By merit of what we are biologically limited by, modern industrial society should be quite an impossibility for us, compared to small band societies - and yet for us, a band society would be intolerable to live in. We can only hypothesize at this point - the point being that for a social dimension to override biology and gradually even select away for many of those biological predispositions, of course that pre-supposes there was a biological dimension (that guided behavior) to begin with, but no one has denied that.

nor is it a general phenomenon that counts for all free males.

Yes it is, in fact, for people experienced in dealing with great apes, it's common knowledge. Look it up on google if you want.

You don't really understand how biological imperative works and what it actually means do you? Because the level of ignorance here is actually surprising.

I know exactly what you're trying to say, and I'm telling you you're completely full of shit. Biological imperative has a practical function and exists in accommodation to this or that environment, or ecological setting. That is why organisms have to already be individually predisposed to this or that behavior - in order to survive in an ecological setting. Humans, conversely, change their setting and thereby change themselves as a rule of history - humans do not need a "biological imperative" because they already have a social imperative, a means by which life is sustained, and reproduced! Again, everything else is vestigial.

Evolutionary psychology rejects the idea of human "races" as they have no real genetic basis.

No, Marxists were, and frankly it's nonsense that evolutionary psychologists reject the idea of human races. Most of them, on one level or another, accept that races exist. In fact it was not "evolutionists" (evo-psychologists) who disproved the notion of race, but the the human genome project or whatever - which did NOT disprove the idea of race in their eyes. I'm telling you there are countless studies, just as much as the "evidence" you've provided which argues that race exists, has an evolutionary dimension to it, and I can prove you studies which will just as much claim that racism is biologically ingrained.

You will reject them, however, on grounds that they do not take into account realities outside of biology. But you have no right to, considering the OTHER drivel you've provided! That's my point:

Oh, and finally.... as I keep saying... I'm the one with the mountain of evidence. Not a single other person has provided any factual data refuting my evidence, only opinions that rely on baseless conjecture or that assume that my evidence has already been refuted, or does not need to be refuted.

Do you know what evidence is? Let me explain: You make some kind of prediction, you make a hypothesis which basically goes along the lines of this: "If this turns out to be true, then it might support this conclusion". That's how that works. But if you start from the get-go with false theoretical presumptions, which they all do, thereby being unable to even CONCEIVE other variables that they have no reason to want to control for (because they do not regard them as scientific variables but just background noise or whatever) then your data is bullshit. I'm not REJECTING the numbers, or the studies themselves - what they YIELD is obviously true, but the CONCLUSIONS they draw from their own data is not. Again, do you deny the evidence that white women are aversed towards black men, biologically, during ovulation? This is a well-documented phenomena. The only thing left is a claim to the metaphysical, of choosing what does, and what doesn't make "common sense" according to pseudo-darwinist principles. But the fact of the matter is that all this demonstareats is a lack of imagination.

You have false theoretical premises, so fuck your mountain of evidence. You have a giant pile of shit, and nothing more. It's funny tha you accuse many of us here of acting ridiculous, when in fact you argue like a child - "LOOK! LEGITIMATE DATA AND NUMBERS!" this means nothing, and you may as well be arguing by merit of divine will. The fact is that studies and "evidence" have definite qualifications for being conducted, ones that can be evaluated, and the conclusions they draw in contrast to the data they yield can be thoroughly analyzed. And as it turns out, the conclusion drawn doesn't support the data - because other conclusions can be drawn from it to, just as easily. What that means is that they don't have enough variables to control for. The reason reactionaries like talking out of their ass and pointing directly to "evidence" is because it is something that doesn't require any degree of critical thinking, it's an argument by authority that only demands you look at the paper and bow before its legitimacy.

But there are premises, subconsciously or consciously held before producing such data which determines the conclusions wrought out from it. So I don't need ot provide counter-studies, because I am destroying the theoretical foundations that breath life into them.

Oh yeah, just one more note to make.... do any of you really think that through the course of our evolution from the other apes that we just completely lost all of the previous mechanisms that had gotten us that far, to wholly replace them with this "blank slate"

We rendered them useless, vestigial, or non-existent, for the most part yes. Social complexity simply became a more powerful force than any of the biological predispositions to this or that behavior we had. If this were not the case again, we would have a definite, single and unchanging ecological setting. I ask a simple question to evolutionary psychologists: What separates man from animal? Do not tell me it is his "intelligence", because intelligence according to Darwinist principles exists in approximation to a definite environmental setting, i.e. a bird is more "intelligent" in doing what they do, and so on.

What makes man DISTINCT from the animal kingdom, insofar as we are the ones with these categories in the first place, insofar as we're so stupid as to identify ourselves with them when we clearly are distinct from them in every possible way. Darwinist taxonomy is a human construct (one that reflects reality, of course) and so are our metaphysical ideas about nature. Why does the gym bro, or the douche at the bar need to tell himself he's just like a gorilla, or a primate, in order to act like one? Even a theological argument is more coherent than a vulgar pseudo-darwinist one, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart. The actual metaphysical idea of a soul, and all that nonsense, makes more sense than evolutionary psychology because it's more holistically consistent and honest with itself.

Rafiq

2nd June 2015, 15:55

The debate here seems to be between the two extremes. The Disillusionist being a proponent of EP and genetic determinism of mind and Rafiq being the classic example of cultural driven mind. Neither of these positions are entirely right or entirely wrong...

Well I can be an asshole two and say I'm the middle of the measuring stick, wherein everyone who diverges from ME specifically is extreme. That's how horseshoe theory works.

"The conflict ere seems to be between the two extremes. Fascists supporting the idea of ultra-nationalism and ultra-conservatism, while anarchists opposing the state completely, and the existence of all nations. Neither of these positions is entirely right or entirely wrong".

This is what we call ideological epistemology. It has no basis in actually confronting the substance of either of the two "extremes", it simply categorizes them on an ideological basis because it "makes sense" that the golden road is the right one to take. How again do you go about calling yourself a radical? You speak, act, and behave like a liberal.

PhoenixAsh

2nd June 2015, 16:04

Actually when you took a minute to actually read what has been said it was confronted and addressed. Nor am I dismissing all of your arguments....and if you had read my first post...I actually agree with quite a lot of what you are saying. It is however also the case that I am not dismissing everything Disillusionist is saying either...because....well...facts.

That said...

You are basing your opinion entirely on ideological grounds that agenda has plagued the field of psychology for decennia and dismissed facts that have been proven for years. You opinion boils down to cultural supremacy. You do so from a political position rather than science and over stress it by dismissing research out of hand merely based on one sided focus and rhetoric.

This does not discredit everything you say...which I already stated in the post ypu didn't actually read...but that does mean that part of your narrative is pure bullshit that is fueled more by politics than actual facts...and actually in part your objections are based on a subjective morality...good vs evil if you will...by grounding them in a "omg think of the implications" kind of reasoning.

Rafiq

2nd June 2015, 16:11

If you think that "facts" are divorced from political, and ideological considerations, you're only fooling yourself.

If what I say is driven by political motivations, than what you say is driven by your subservience to predominant political structures. If we're able to question the presumptions that we tacitly derive from our social orders, our political orders, then yes a POLITICAL opposition to how things are today is necessary. No "narrative' is independent of ideological designations and presumptions that people aren't aware of.

The difference is that I'm conscious about where I stand. Are you?

Taking sides, and knowing real truths are one and the same. Virtually every controversy in the domain of science is polarized in political lines. IF there was no anti-racism, a PURELY POLITICAL position, EVERYONE would simply accept Scientific racism, no one would put so much effort trying to discredit it. IF there was no bourgeois humanism, having definite political groundings there would be no way to question the doctrine of the church and no modern science at all. Hence fools like Pinker who claim people with "political agendas" are infiltrating science and obfuscating data. The fool! Of course we have political agendas, we are simply AWARE of them!

PhoenixAsh

2nd June 2015, 16:47

I really have no time for your idiocy today.

But good to bring up scientific racism...a field which used a political agenda and then set out to prove it by dismissing facts that didn't suit their agenda...which is by the way the main reason why the field was discredited. You apply the same methodology...which makes you no different. This field was not dismissed by ideology...this field was dismissed by the overwhelming research and the overwhelming amount of facts that contradicted it and that the field either failed to address or completely ignored. Which disproves the validity of your entire position. And ironically it was the field of EP that played a huge, huge role in discrediting it....based on...guess what...biological impact on human nature, behavior and development...Wauw. Who would have thought. :rolleyes:

You are also making a huge, huge, huge fallacy in reasoning that scientific explanations mean that that should rule the social order and dominate how we operate society above all else. Jesus...there is so much wrong with that concept you hold that it is hard to even begin addressing everything that is wrong with it.

Fact remains that you do not realize the truth. You are ignoring it to serve your own agenda...and that is, for very obvious reasons, a dangerous position. Basically you are moralizing....and considering YOUR own position on morality and moralization...what does that make you? Or are you going to apply your own positions with a double standard again?

So yes...I am aware that facts can be used to fuel politics. As I am very aware of the dangers of subjectively picking and choosing your own facts to serve your own narrative. You only have to look at the consequences of scientific racism to see why that is the case.

you are in fact completely unaware of the political ramifications not to mention that you devaluate your own position by ignoring facts and dismissing them because they are supposedly inconvenient for you.

Pitiful.

But it is good to hear you admit that you are in fact ignoring facts....that makes it so much easier to ignore your posts on the field of human behavior as mere opinion rather than based on anything substantive and based on knowledge or on anything resembling reality.

:rolleyes:

Rafiq

2nd June 2015, 16:54

PhoenixAsh

2nd June 2015, 17:15

"Facts, facts, facts"

Facts don't mean a damn thing if they are not conceived into a wider context. It's so funny how these pseudo-darwinist vulgarists talk of how humans are driven by biological mechanisms, about how we're just animals... But apparently, how we conceive "facts" and science is fundamentally divorced from our means of survival. Where is the biological mechanism that relates to this argument? Is obfuscating "facts" for "political agendas" an evolutionary adaptation? The reason evolutionary psychologists don't provide an evolutionary-based notion of epistemology is because it would be so hilariously paradoxical everything would fall apart.

Apparently we're just free floating specters observing objective truth passively.

Hint: Truth cannot be fathomed if it is not related to partisanship. "serving an agenda" and knowing truth are contingent upon each other. Because the question of truth is a practical question. And you're taking a side either way, whether you know it or not.

Intelligence isn't your strong point now is it? Because you still haven't realized that I find your position as equally asinine and untrue as that of EP...and I am not a fan or supporter of either side of that debate. ...with the added issue of course that I think you are in fact no different from a scientific racist or the Catholic Churc or any other dogmatic organization that simply ignores data because it is inconvenient.

IMO you are both wrong...but both sides have arguments that are valid....but both sides are based on speculative nonsense and extrapolations that have been already disproven or are simply pseudo-scientific drivel.

So until you realize that it really doesn't matter to me what your moralist problem is with the field of EP as long as you dismiss a comprehensive and correct position and application of data...

Your entire premise is based on ignoring data to suit your own purpose and that makes you entirely suspect and discredits you as to having any authority to speak on the matter with such gross arrogance.

Basically you just admitted you are lying and misrepresenting...simply to prove your point.

Goodbye Rafiq.

Rafiq

2nd June 2015, 18:24

I have never claimed to reject the data. I claim it doesn't support the conclusions that are drawn from it, because other variables are not controlled for... Because they are unquestioned.

I may not be "intelligent" it is rather simple to understand, anyway.

PhoenixAsh

2nd June 2015, 18:41

I want to get back to your gorilla story. Part of the reasoning given why some male gorilla's fail to reproduce/copulate are sought in their perceived ability to offer the bet survival. In other words...an evolutionary argument. That is of course part of the story. But it can't be ignored.

The sad part is that I actually agree with a large part of your arguments. I do however not agree with your methods and overall conclusion you draw. That is for a large part because you dismiss data as irrelevant that shows that...like your problem with EP...The position of cultural hegemony over behavior is equally problematic as a sole position to interpret human behavior.

Personally I reject both theories as they currently are. And find, that both biological as well as cultural factors heavilly influence each other...and therefore are both necessary to understand human behavior.

So....to put it in other words. I don't think humans are either entirely the product of genes, nor the product of culture. In fact I think that genes/biology influences culture and vice verse. Meaning that culture changes because of socio-economic reality changes and therefore has a feed back loop to what is considered with evolutionary principles. That same loop runs back the other way.

#FF0000

2nd June 2015, 19:24

The sad part is that I actually agree with a large part of your arguments. I do however not agree with your methods and overall conclusion you draw. That is for a large part because you dismiss data as irrelevant that shows that...like your problem with EP...The position of cultural hegemony over behavior is equally problematic as a sole position to interpret human behavior.

Rafiq literally just said that he never said anything about rejecting the data -- just that the data doesn't support the claims made.

PhoenixAsh

2nd June 2015, 19:35

Rafiq literally just said that he never said anything about rejecting the data -- just that the data doesn't support the claims made.

Except he was exactly doing that. So saying that he wasn't becomes quite weird when taking that into consideration. Not to mention that part of his argumentation to do so is based on moralist rejection of it....litterally proving that point by equally just arguing that he was constructing a political agenda.

Sinister Intents

2nd June 2015, 19:39

What about your liberalism and stick-in-the-mud approach PA? Why don't you put in bulleted form what you're attempting to prove.

#FF0000

2nd June 2015, 19:45

Except he was exactly doing that. So saying that he wasn't becomes quite weird when taking that into consideration. Not to mention that part of his argumentation to do so is based on moralist rejection of it....litterally proving that point by equally just arguing that he was constructing a political agenda.

I don't see what's moralist about questioning and critiquing the base (and untested, unaccounted for) assumptions made in a study or experiment or by an entire field of study, for that matter.. If that's moralism, then I guess Marxism is a whole lot of moralism as well.

The Disillusionist

2nd June 2015, 19:46

Rafiq literally just said that he never said anything about rejecting the data -- just that the data doesn't support the claims made.

But give an example of one single sentence stated in this thread that backs this up in any substantial way. Or better yet, provide a single scrap of real data that supports the claims that oppose mine. It's easy to fabricate reasons why data might be flawed, it's another thing entirely to meet the burden of proof. This issue here is that one group of people is trying to have a scientific discussion with another group of people who don't believe in science. Trying to explain science to a postmodernist (Rafiq's leaning, whether he admits to it or not) is like trying to explain science to a religious fundamentalist. They have no response that can operate on the level of the scientific paradigm.. they aren't capable of providing such a response. They don't care though, because they have invented their own way of thinking, a circular paradigm that doesn't need external verification of fact, so they can always be right. Postmodernism is an inherently arrogant and ignorant method of thought, but you'll never convince a postmodernist of that, because they're too arrogant and willfully ignorant to accept it. It's only a matter of time until your opposing argument devolves into nihilism. "The only thing I can believe in is me. Therefore I am god, and need not concern myself with these ideas of science and knowledge...As god, I've already decided what the truth is in my head." It's a very lazy way of thinking really...and very counterproductive. Again, it's easy to fabricate reasons why data may be flawed. If I think hard enough, I can convince myself, and even others, that nothing exists and we're just brains in a vat. But that kind of thinking isn't going to do anyone any good.

#FF0000

2nd June 2015, 19:49

But give an example of one single sentence stated in this thread that backs this up in any substantial way. Or better yet, provide a single scrap of real data that supports the claims that oppose mine.

This was already done. Someone already posted that meta-analysis that you dismissed with another article that actually said the meta-analysis was a fine study. And further, I already pointed out the serious problems with the studies you linked, and the fact that, even if we accepted the findings at face value, they did not support your claims.

The Disillusionist

2nd June 2015, 19:52

I don't see what's moralist about questioning and critiquing the base (and untested, unaccounted for) assumptions made in a study or experiment or by an entire field of study, for that matter.. If that's moralism, then I guess Marxism is a whole lot of moralism as well.

That's not what's happening here... Instead, tested and accounted for data is being questioned and critiqued with base assumptions. THAT is moralism.

Also, yes, in the modern scope of social theory, traditional Marxism is a whole lot of obsolete moralism.But that's not at all relevant to the point you were making.

Quail

2nd June 2015, 19:52

What about your liberalism and stick-in-the-mud approach PA? Why don't you put in bulleted form what you're attempting to prove.

I'm not sure if this is a personal attack? But if it is, please don't do it again or you will receive an infraction.

willowtooth

2nd June 2015, 20:07

how is freindzoning exclusive to males? i have freindzoned plenty of ugly girls who have had crushes on me, am i also to believe that they are "matriachal oppressors who view me as nothing but a sex object"?

Or is "friendzone" just a term used to describe, when someone likes your personality but doesn't find you to be physically attractive enough to mate with?

I've personally never been freindzoned (i guess thats a word now) I would feel like pathetic stalker if I was befreinding a woman just on the off chance of dating her one day.

should I also now believe there has never been such thing as a female stalker? Or a female with a crush on someone, who doesn't find them attractive? Or is that when a woman does it, its not sexual or based on power, or something?

And if you think you need to be nice to women or buy them things, to get them too sleep with you, your probably very ugly and not very good in bed

I think you guys are forgetting there are radical feminists (or rather misandrists) who think 90+% of men should be castrated, people who say if a little boy pulls a little girls hair he should be castrated for he might one day become a rapist

#FF0000

2nd June 2015, 20:11

That's not what's happening here... Instead, tested and accounted for data is being questioned and critiqued with base assumptions. THAT is moralism.

Can you show me where? Because I'm honestly not seeing it. And, like I said earlier, I even accepted the data you presented, for argument's sake. The data just does not support what you posted, which, to remind everyone was this:

women tend to seek out aggressive, testosterone-laden males to mate with on a short term basis, while they are more likely to seek out less-aggressive males to either be with on a long-term basis as friends or romantic partners, in order to secure their care and resources for their children. A typical strategy is to marry the "nice" or non-genetically-ideal guy, but sleep with the aggressive guy when ovulating, thus securing you the more robust genes of the aggressive guy while allowing you access to the paternal care of the more timid nice guy.
Emphasizing "a typical strategy" myself, here.

Also, yes, in the modern scope of social theory, traditional Marxism is a whole lot of obsolete moralism.But that's not at all relevant to the point you were making.Maybe you mean something different by "social theory" than my understanding of it, because that's flatly untrue. Marx and Marxism are still hella influential among social scientists and if anyone's calling it "moralism" then they just don't know what moralism is.

I think you guys are forgetting there are radical feminists (or rather misandrists) who think 90+% of men should be castrated, people who say if a little boy pulls a little girls hair he should be castrated for he might one day become a rapist

Shhhh the grown-ups are talking.

Quail

2nd June 2015, 20:13

how is freindzoning exclusive to males? i have freindzoned plenty of ugly girls who have crushes on me, am i also to believe that they are "matriachal oppressors who view me as nothing but a sex object"?

or is "friendzone" just a term used used to describe, when someone likes your personality but doesn't find you to be physically attractive enough to mate with?

I've personally never been freindzoned (i guess thats a word now) I would feel like pathetic stalker if I was befreinding a woman just on the off chance of dating her one day.

should I also now believe there has never been such thing as a female stalker? Or a female with a crush on someone, who doesn't find them attractive? Or is that when a woman does it, its not sexual or based on power, or something?

And if you think you need to be nice to women or buy them things, to get them too sleep with you, your probably very ugly and not very good in bed

I think you guys are forgetting there are radical feminists (or rather misandrists) who think 90+% of men should be castrated, people who say if a little boy pulls a little girls hair he should be castrated for he might one day become a rapist

I feel like I don't know where to start with this post, but who are these "misandrist" radical feminists who want to castrate all men?

#FF0000

2nd June 2015, 20:14

It's really weird that I've been involved with the radical left n feminist millieu for like 10 years now and never once ran into one of those types.

Like, really weird. Huh.

Rafiq

2nd June 2015, 20:16

It's only a matter of time until your opposing argument devolves into nihilism. "The only thing I can believe in is me. Therefore I am god, and need not concern myself with these ideas of science and knowledge.... [worthless drivel]

It's so cute how philistines like you make such grand pretenses to philosophic notions they are absolutely alien to... These philosophic barbarians are so far divorced from critically evaluating the INHERENTLY PHILOSOPHICAL foundations of their "truths" that they can only profess a deep incapability of understanding what they themselves are saying, even by their own merit. We go from recognizing that if important variables are not controlled for, the data cannot support the conclusions wrought out from it (because, in case you didn't know, an innumerable amount of conclusions can be drawn, equally, that are just as viable in approximation to the data), to a claim that - apparently - a rejection of vulgar anglo-empiricism is a logical stepping stone to solipsism. Understanding which conclusions are more viable therefore relies on definite theoretical presumptions and foundations, of which I have already singled out.

Your argument rests upon the thread of "Well, it just makes more sense that humans are animals, how else would they exist?" which is ideological in nature.

In case you weren't aware, Disillusionist, the dichotomy between empiricism and "postmodernism" is a false one. The school of thought that I, as well as every other Marxist belongs to is the continental school of philosophy. You're the one creating the nonsensical dichotomy between "opinion" and those who are qualified to speak truth, but that hasn't been my argument at all. In fact, it's ironic that you call me a postmodernist insofar as you reduce people's positions and "opinions" to their individual characteristics, considering this is exactly a hallmark of postmodern thought. In reality, the notion that there are specialized qualifications for truth which are beyond questioning is wrong. The bourgeois-epistemology (borrowed from theology) which basically posits that people are either right or wrong based on their personal qualifications is itself alien to Marxists. Because there are definite THEORETICAL qualifications for truth, and ANYONE is capable of conceiving, criticizing and approaching these so long as they abide by them.

Because REASON itself is collectively, and socially derived. It does not belong to any individual. it does not belong to any group of specialized "scientists". If scientists themselves fail to properly adhere to the timeless, collectively based scientific method, they can face scrutiny even by the most ignorant and illiterate person.

For example, when you claim:

Or better yet, provide a single scrap of real data that supports the claims that oppose mine

This is exactly reminiscent of how Chomsky, in reference to Zizek, claims that "Bring me one meaningful, testable thing that's come out of his mouth" (paraphrasing), completely incapable of addressing arguments rationally at face value. These people argue like high-priests of capital, and for all the pretenses to being arrogant people like Disillusionist are able to go about their lives continually repressing any predisposition to question their own theoretical foundations. They argue with a pretense to legitimacy and power. It is no different than the King who justifies his actions "because I'm the king!". This philistine demands I provide data completely ignorant of the fact that the claims being offered by Evolutionary psychologists are unfulfilled by the data that they provide. They are the ones claiming this or that about modern humans replicating ancient practices, not I. So the logic either boils down to:

a) How could it be otherwise? What possible alternative explanation could there be for this, that is scientifically viable?

b) No else one is producing numbers which the average idiot will automatically associate with divine truth, therefore the evolutionary psychologists are correct.

The first choice can definitely be answered, thereby discrediting the study, and the second I will leave for you to decide.

We get the standard narrative that here you have untainted, neutral "data", and science - and then those politically motivated come and obfuscate it. But the reality is much more interesting: Instead, we ideologically designate this or that part of reality by merit of not being able to think outside of the ruling ideas which reproduce the existing order. Only through a definite political opposition to those in power can the unscientific ideas which sustain their rule be questioned. Think: During feudalism, before the embryonic bourgeoisie, how was it possible for one to think outside of the doctrine of the church? There was no predisposition, or reason to question it. Of course, you had mysticism, but when not on an individual level it was directly linked to class realities, and this was still inherently religious, often times abstractions of ruling Church doctrine.

willowtooth

2nd June 2015, 20:21

I feel like I don't know where to start with this post, but who are these "misandrist" radical feminists who want to castrate all men?

there was a radical cult back in the 60's or 70's. im having trouble finding their name but they do exist is my point im not trying too say all feminists are misandrists.

here one modern example of a woman who thinks 90% of men should be castrated

http://thelibertydoll.com/2014/08/22/meet-woman-reduce-male-population-90-for-peace/

#FF0000

2nd June 2015, 20:27

there was a radical cult back in the 60's or 70's. im having trouble finding their name but they do exist is my point im not trying too say all feminists are misandrists.

here one modern example of a woman who thinks 90% of men should be castrated

http://thelibertydoll.com/2014/08/22/meet-woman-reduce-male-population-90-for-peace/

This is like criticizing Marxism and then pointing to Lyndon LaRouche and Maoist Rebel News. "They exist" you say, and then you point to a cult (probably S.C.U.M. which was, iirc, just one person anyway) and some youtube lunatic?

Why even say anything?

Rafiq

2nd June 2015, 20:28

Also, yes, in the modern scope of social theory, traditional Marxism is a whole lot of obsolete moralism.But that's not at all relevant to the point you were making.

I've seen you and PA keep on prattling of "moralism" but this makes absolutely no sense. There might be morally based motivations for why I'm typing right now, but there are definitely no moral connotations to any of the criticisms leveled against evolutionary psychologists here, and there is no scientific paradigm that regards the domain of the social that is more amoral than Marxism. This is the mistake of YOU philistines, associating EVERYTHING we Marxists claim as a secret cover-up for wanting to make "everyone more equal" or other infantile drivel.

The point of Marxism's scienticity is that there ARE NO moral implications to it. The criticism being leveled against you here here does not have its basis in political correctness (or its lack-of political correctness) but a criticism of the scienticity of the arguments. You can draw whatever moral conclusions you want from them, they are plainly wrong even by their own theoretical qualifications for being true. The error most likely stems from the fact that you actually think systemically based sexism and racism have their origins in "science" when in fact every idiot knows these to have proceeded their legitimization scientifically. Whether we want to condemn racism or not, it is not a coincidence that scientific racism arose at the same time as the age of colonialism, it is not a coincidence that evolutionary psychology gained popularity at the same time that the workers movement was defeated and capital made the most aggressive ideological, social and political offensive in its history, it is not a coincidence that a book like IQ and Wealth of Nations arose around the same time developmental economists were scrambling to explain why neoliberal policies in many countries were absolutely failing, around the time after globalization.

Humans are not divine beings. Rather, humans can be scientifically understood, and so can the phenomena of evolutionary psychology.

"But wait!", you'll say - "Isn't this hypocritical? Isn't the existence of MARXISM or its varying degrees of popularity predictable too, since Marxists aren't gods?"

Absolutely. it is directly linked to the class struggle, and we Marxists do not pretend to be divorced from social realities. But that's the whole point of truth being a practical question! The varying degree of power Marxists have is contingent upon the power of the proletarian class, the class with nothing to lose - and the varying degree of power by bourgeois ideologues has its basis in the power of capital, which much reproduce itself ideologically (because if there was social-consciousness, there would be no capitalism, which is SUSTAINED by the reality that no one, not even the bourgeoisie, is conscious of its intricacies). And this makes perfect sense. Labor was destroyed in the 1980's, around the same time Marxism was booted out from universities. Labor was strong after world war two, around the same time Marxism was incredibly popular.

You seem to take qualm with the idea that "science" is ultimately susceptible to a wider class struggle. But wait a second.. You're an evolutionary psychologist! That means you'd have to submit the "drive" humans have to know the world around them properly on an evolutionary level to the same theoretical qualifications. Which suggests that, like a religious devotee, bourgeois empiricism is the ends-all that there is for you, incapable of being subject to the same vulgarization that every other field of human behavior and activity is - primarily those which have political implications. If anyone, people like you - if they had a shred of honesty - would have to recognize that something's appearance and something's function are entirely different things, and that science has relevance that is beyond its appearance.

The battle between science and ideology is a battle between Marxism and ruling ideology. And it could only ever be. For bourgeois science has destroyed the theological, ideological designations of the natural world and has made it knowable scientifically. But the domain of the social, of history - this is still designated in an ideological manner and made unknowable. Evolutionary psychologists carry a plethora of presumptions about the human species and about history that, if made subject to critical evaluation, would not only be laughable but would completely destroy the foundations of their thought. That's the basis of my criticism and nothing more.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

2nd June 2015, 20:34

willowtooth

2nd June 2015, 20:35

This is like criticizing Marxism and then pointing to Lyndon LaRouche and Maoist Rebel News. "They exist" you say, and then you point to a cult (probably S.C.U.M. which was, iirc, just one person anyway) and some youtube lunatic?

Why even say anything?

scum yeah that was it, for the life of me i could not find them on google.

but im not crticizing feminists or feminism, im just saying this idea of freindzones being specifically something hetero males are placed in by hetero females isn't true, and the quality of posts of alot of people so far have been in inferring that sex predators are only men, but in reality, women can be stalkers, women can be sexual predators, women can pedophiles, women can be in the freindzone, and if you don't agree with that, then your the defintion of a misandrist

#FF0000

2nd June 2015, 20:39

but im not crticizing feminists or feminism, im just saying this idea of freindzones being specifically something hetero males are placed in by hetero females isn't true

Statistically there has to be at least one woman out there that uses the term "friendzone" in earnest, but there's no denying that "the friendzone" is usually invoked by dudes either shit-talking other dudes or complaining about their standing with a woman in their life.

and the quality of posts of alot of people so far have been in inferring that sex predators are only menWho inferred this? Quote it.

but in reality, women can be stalkers, women can be sexual predators, women can pedophiles, women can be in the freindzone, and if you don't agree with that, then your the defintion of a misandristNobody ever said any of this. And I think the one thing almost everyone in this thread will agree on is that the "friendzone" doesn't exist outside of the imaginations of some young men frustrated about unrequited attraction.

Rafiq

2nd June 2015, 20:42

but im not crticizing feminists or feminism, im just saying this idea of freindzones being specifically something hetero males are placed in by hetero females isn't true

You're right, but the term itself, the phenomena itself is solely a male-to-female phenomena. The idea of the friendzone didn't become popular because men were sexually rejecting their female friends.

BIXX

2nd June 2015, 21:10

This is like criticizing Marxism and then pointing to Lyndon LaRouche and Maoist Rebel News. "They exist" you say, and then you point to a cult (probably S.C.U.M. which was, iirc, just one person anyway) and some youtube lunatic?

Why even say anything?

Am I the onky one who actually loves SCUM manifesto? I know this is a bit off topic but damn, I love that shit.

#FF0000

2nd June 2015, 21:15

Am I the onky one who actually loves SCUM manifesto? I know this is a bit off topic but damn, I love that shit.

I remember reading it after I read Freud and noticing that what Valerie Solanas was saying about men was basically what Freud said about women, which got me wondering if it was satire or something.

BIXX

2nd June 2015, 21:17

I remember reading it after I read Freud and noticing that what Valerie Solanas was saying about men was basically what Freud said about women, which got me wondering if it was satire or something.

I always thought parts of it were. I will have to re-read it because I forgot about how awesome it is though.

The Disillusionist

2nd June 2015, 21:20

This was already done. Someone already posted that meta-analysis that you dismissed with another article that actually said the meta-analysis was a fine study. And further, I already pointed out the serious problems with the studies you linked, and the fact that, even if we accepted the findings at face value, they did not support your claims.

You entirely missed the point of that article. Check it out again. And check out the second article I posted that addresses the problems of the meta analysis in terms of data, because you must have missed it.

Also, you never made any serious criticisms... you made typical criticisms that can always be leveled at any scientific study, as long as you're willing to favor your own ungrounded opinion over the logic of probability. Every study can always use more a larger sample side and longer studies. Those are being done. But the fact remains that I posted data from hundreds, probably even thousands of people, even you responded with absolutely nothing bit opinion . "Eh, we haven't yet studied every single time the sun has rise in the morning, so its not possible to state with any certainty that it will rise tomorrow morning. Your studies must be flawed." That's just more unhelpful postmodernism. Also, I already explained and clarified my statement about "a typical strategy", you just read what you wanted to read there, and argued with that, instead of the actual meaning of the post.

Finally, I have a life, so I can't even begin to read or respond to rafiq's posts, but I do have to say, I love his constant use of the term "philistine". It really demonstrates the pseudo-religious nature of his posts. Fun fact, "philistine" is thought to be the ancient root for the modern morphology "Palestinian". I'll let you interpret from that what you will (it's a bigoted term. That's the correct interpretation.)

Rafiq

2nd June 2015, 21:31

Let's assume the data includes the entire American population.

It still does not support its conclusion. That's the point.

#FF0000

2nd June 2015, 21:32

You entirely missed the point of that article. Check it out again. And check out the second article I posted that addresses the problems of the meta analysis in terms of data, because you must have missed it.

No, I actually read your sources. The article talked about the shortcomings of meta-analysis in terms of being the final word on scholarly debates. That's a critique of meta-analysis in general, and not of the meta-analysis in question.

Also, you never made any serious criticisms... you made typical criticisms that can always be leveled at any scientific study, as long as you're willing to favor your own ungrounded opinion over the logic of probability.

I made a lot of criticisms which you still don't seem to understand. 1) Yeah, you can say any study could have a larger sample size, but we're sitting here looking at sample sizes that are very small, and relying on self-reporting. That's a serious problem, especially when sample sizes that small can lead to false positives and make minor things looks statistically significant. That's a serious criticism. 2) I even put those criticisms aside, accepting them for the sake of argument, and pointed out that the conclusions you made in your first post of this thread did not logically follow from the data you presented. All you've done is insist otherwise; that somehow, saying that women tend to find certain features more attractive during ovulation means that women will typically marry "nice guys" and then cheat to get pregnant by a more assertive/masculine/aggressive man.

Finally, I have a life, so I can't even begin to read or respond to rafiq's posts, but I do have to say, I love his constant use of the term "philistine". It really demonstrates the pseudo-religious nature of his posts. Fun fact, "philistine" is thought to be the ancient root for the modern morphology "Palestinian". I'll let you interpret from that what you will (it's a bigoted term. That's the correct interpretation.)

Man, that is such a stretch that I don't even think you believe that.

Counterculturalist

2nd June 2015, 22:05

I remember reading it after I read Freud and noticing that what Valerie Solanas was saying about men was basically what Freud said about women, which got me wondering if it was satire or something.

It's a great piece of writing, and I believe that the references to Freud are intentional and satirical, at least to a degree. I wish she had written more.

PhoenixAsh

3rd June 2015, 00:20

What about your liberalism and stick-in-the-mud approach PA? Why don't you put in bulleted form what you're attempting to prove.

Nothing I said isn't supported by female feminist authors of some sort. Not one thing in any of the threads over the last few weeks. From Dworkin to Wood to Hall....so across the feminist spectrum.

But when it comes to psychology and history and law then yes...I am banking on several years of university education and know what the hell I am talking about from an academic perspective.

Nothing I say here I from a liberal perspective.I n fact the position I take is based on psychological research across the spectrum often ad odds with liberalism and the idea that the human behavior is the sole product of culture. ..which...I ultimately a liberal position.

PhoenixAsh

3rd June 2015, 00:26

Let's assume the data includes the entire American population.

It still does not support its conclusion. That's the point.

Actually you haven't shown that at all and so far your entire premise is based on drawing the comparison with scientific racism...and arguing yourself that your premise is based on an political subjective agenda based on moralist narrative of how you think things should be rather than they are..THAT is moralist reasoning.

Redistribute the Rep

3rd June 2015, 01:02

This is like criticizing Marxism and then pointing to Lyndon LaRouche and Maoist Rebel News. "They exist" you say, and then you point to a cult (probably S.C.U.M. which was, iirc, just one person anyway) and some youtube lunatic?

Not a lunatic, just your average run of the mill blogger, who basically thinks MRAs and feminists "balance" each other. The videos about killing men were not serious, they were (an attempt at) parody.

http://www.femitheist.net

PhoenixAsh

3rd June 2015, 01:12

We had that radical feminist group that advocated female separatism and female lesbianism (regardless of gender identity....meaning all women should become lesbians)...that was pretty awesome. Dworkin argued that female seperatist groups were basically hating men in general and were misandrist. But these were splinter groups....though at the time were influential and got a lot of publicity.

PhoenixAsh

3rd June 2015, 01:40

ironic fact.....standing in front of my old faculty building right now.....went to see Goatsnake in Amsterdam....parked my car right next to the building in Leiden. I remember it had nets hung in the main stair case on every floor because students had a tendency to jump. I also remember that I started to study psychology because it was free and a woman I liked was starting her term there. We ended up dating for a few months untill she became a born again Christian who liked to observe me at night when I slept....while reading the bible ..and woke up at five to pray bare feet in the grass in her nightgown...

I lived right across from my faculty ....

also I am drunk and can't find my car...

The Disillusionist

3rd June 2015, 02:53

All you've done is insist otherwise; that somehow, saying that women tend to find certain features more attractive during ovulation means that women will typically marry "nice guys" and then cheat to get pregnant by a more assertive/masculine/aggressive man.

For the third time.... I said it is "A typical strategy", not "THE typical strategy". I never said that it was the strategy of the majority, only that it has enough presence to be statistically significant. Which, again, I've explained twice.

Also, the data that I've given, for the third time, does not JUST deal with what traits women are attracted to, it also examines behaviors as a result, including the tendency to have affairs. This is based on self-reported behavior, yes, but the data is there, and even accounting for self-reporting bias, it is very likely significant.

For the third time, I haven't made any claims that were not taken directly for some kind of scientific study.

Oh, and finally, evolutionary psychology cannot be linked to some kind of capitalist conspiracy to subvert the working classes. That's just stupid. Evolutionary psychology isn't new, it's a refined version of evolutionary theory that has been around since Darwin.

In fact, Marx was influenced by social evolutionary theory to some extent. Here is a quote from him: "Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle."

Now, if that doesn't sound like someone taking scientific evolutionary data and using it to justify their own preconceived notions, I don't know what does... That statement reeks of evolutionary psychology, except for the fact that it isn't grounded in any data. The very argument that you use against evolutionary psychology, that it is used to justify the modern capitalist status quo by appealing to biology, can be directed at Marx himself as well. Clearly, Marx was just a capitalist in disguise... part of the grand bourgeois conspiracy to undermine the workers with science... :laugh:

On top of that, Engels wrote about Marx's work that he was "simply striving to establish the same gradual process of transformation demonstrated by Darwin in natural history as a law in the social field."

If Engels was correct, then Marx went far beyond reasonably data-based evolutionary theory, and fell headlong into plain old Social Darwinism. Just because it's leftist doesn't mean it's correct...

As the brunt of your criticisms, Marx actually does serve as an excellent example of the dangers that evolutionary theory CAN be associated with, when they aren't backed up by real data.

PhoenixAsh

3rd June 2015, 03:28

I've seen you and PA keep on prattling of "moralism" but this makes absolutely no sense. There might be morally based motivations for why I'm typing right now, but there are definitely no moral connotations to any of the criticisms leveled against evolutionary psychologists here,

Hahahahaha yeah dude...there really are...and they are right in this very post.

there is no scientific paradigm that regards the domain of the social that is more amoral than Marxism.

That would exclude you from being a Marxist then.

This is the mistake of YOU philistines, associating EVERYTHING we Marxists claim as a secret cover-up for wanting to make "everyone more equal" or other infantile drivel.

Well this clearly doesn't make any sense in this context. Because you are the one who is arguing cultural dominance...and if something makes people more unequal it is culture.

The point of Marxism's scienticity is that there ARE NO moral implications to it. The criticism being leveled against you here here does not have its basis in political correctness (or its lack-of political correctness)

Nobody claimed that. The criticism you level however is levelled from a perspective of pseudo scientific personal agenda's rather than any form of data to back it up. Even studies you cite to disprove arguments is partially rooted in evolutionary explanations...like most notably the Gorilla argument...

You can't really think that citing studies in order to disprove one point while they prove another point you are railing against makes you in any way somebody who is to be taken serious..right?

but a criticism of the scienticity of the arguments.

Yet for all your drawn out posts you have failed to provide one single argument that actually does that.

You can draw whatever moral conclusions you want from them, they are plainly wrong even by their own theoretical qualifications for being true. The error most likely stems from the fact that you actually think systemically based sexism and racism have their origins in "science" when in fact every idiot knows these to have proceeded their legitimization scientifically.

And here we have you moralizing. Drawing the comparison between Ep and sexism and racism is definitely proving that you have no fucking clue what EP actually is, strives to do or what it is based on....and is purely based on some false notions that are rooted in what you subjectively think it is and decided on that faulty principle that therefore it must be wrong.

Whether we want to condemn racism or not, it is not a coincidence that scientific racism arose at the same time as the age of colonialism, it is not a coincidence that evolutionary psychology gained popularity at the same time that the workers movement was defeated and capital made the most aggressive ideological, social and political offensive in its history, it is not a coincidence that a book like IQ and Wealth of Nations arose around the same time developmental economists were scrambling to explain why neoliberal policies in many countries were absolutely failing, around the time after globalization.

Yeah...but none of these events actually occurred in the same time frame that you make it appear to be. So you are grasping at straws trying to create some kind of sequence of events that are somehow linked without actually showing the link.

Humans are not divine beings. Rather, humans can be scientifically understood, and so can the phenomena of evolutionary psychology.

uhuh.

Yet you are claiming unscientific methods to explain humans....and use unscientific methods and subjective narrative to both discredit EP (by false association based on complete and utter ignorance about the subject you are talking about) and promote your pseudo scientific and political motivated idea how it should actually be.

It is quite laughable that you claim humans aren't divine beings when you just spend sveral posts trying to argue that humans aren't animals and rose to a level in which they simply ignore biological principles completely. The ludicracy of your own contradicting arguments should be quite obvious to you at this point.

"But wait!", you'll say - "Isn't this hypocritical? Isn't the existence of MARXISM or its varying degrees of popularity predictable too, since Marxists aren't gods?"

Nobody is actually saying that. But the funny thing is that Marx was a huge fan of evolutionary principles. So please tell us more.

Absolutely. it is directly linked to the class struggle, and we Marxists do not pretend to be divorced from social realities.

you keep talking about a mysterious "we" when you talk about Marxists... yet you are advancing a liberal moralist agenda here, subscribe to liberalist moral agenda's and quote to a teeth the same field scientific racists stem from (behavioral psychology)...as well as rejecting the basis of evolutionary principles as a driving force for the class struggle such as Marx used it. So...yeah...there is that.

But that's the whole point of truth being a practical question! The varying degree of power Marxists have is contingent upon the power of the proletarian class, the class with nothing to lose - and the varying degree of power by bourgeois ideologues has its basis in the power of capital, which much reproduce itself ideologically (because if there was social-consciousness, there would be no capitalism, which is SUSTAINED by the reality that no one, not even the bourgeoisie, is conscious of its intricacies). And this makes perfect sense. Labor was destroyed in the 1980's, around the same time Marxism was booted out from universities. Labor was strong after world war two, around the same time Marxism was incredibly popular.

Yeah. No. That again is completely wrong and Marxism wasn't at all booted from universities unless you are talking about your very specific local geographical area. So no.

You seem to take qualm with the idea that "science" is ultimately susceptible to a wider class struggle.

No we don't. We take qualm with your subjective pseudo scientific approach which you lace with some revolutionary rhetoric to make it appear legit. It isn't and you are literally contradicting yourself at every turn.

But wait a second.. You're an evolutionary psychologist! That means you'd have to submit the "drive" humans have to know the world around them properly on an evolutionary level to the same theoretical qualifications. Which suggests that, like a religious devotee, bourgeois empiricism is the ends-all that there is for you, incapable of being subject to the same vulgarization that every other field of human behavior and activity is - primarily those which have political implications. If anyone, people like you - if they had a shred of honesty - would have to recognize that something's appearance and something's function are entirely different things, and that science has relevance that is beyond its appearance.

The battle between science and ideology is a battle between Marxism and ruling ideology. And it could only ever be.

Yawn. Scientific socialism. Scientific theory of history. Yeah...sure buddy...Marxism is at war with itself ;):laugh:

For bourgeois science has destroyed the theological, ideological designations of the natural world and has made it knowable scientifically. But the domain of the social, of history - this is still designated in an ideological manner and made unknowable.

Tell that to Marx.

Evolutionary psychologists carry a plethora of presumptions about the human species and about history that, if made subject to critical evaluation, would not only be laughable but would completely destroy the foundations of their thought. That's the basis of my criticism and nothing more.

Yet you still have failed completely to provide one shred of evidence for your position that goes beyond mere pseudo scientific rhetorical drivel like what you do in this post. Your entire narrative is based on dismissing an entire field based simply on how you perceive how the world should function because of class struggle and the statement that science is ad odd with Marxism...

Not only that but this position is so insanely idiotic that it literally undermines and contradicts all your own arguments which you pose as science fact in order to dismiss EP based on flimsy political narratives...by dismissing proven and reproduced principles that support your side of the story which you now discredit as being bourgeoisie driven reproductions and ideological pseudo science. Wauw.

:laugh::laugh:

My God man...do you actually think when you type?

PhoenixAsh

3rd June 2015, 03:37

Also...the look on Rafiq's face when he realizes that the entire class struggle of the working class from a Marxist perspective is based on biological imperatives and evolutionary principles in behavior.

:) :) :)

#FF0000

3rd June 2015, 03:41

For the third time.... I said it is "A typical strategy", not "THE typical strategy". I never said that it was the strategy of the majority, only that it has enough presence to be statistically significant. Which, again, I've explained twice.

A typical strategy isn't any better, dude, because what you described isn't typical at all. That's the entire point of what I'm trying to say here.

Also, the data that I've given, for the third time, does not JUST deal with what traits women are attracted to, it also examines behaviors as a result, including the tendency to have affairs. This is based on self-reported behavior, yes, but the data is there, and even accounting for self-reporting bias, it is very likely significant.

Putting aside, again the problems with self-reporting and small sample sizes influencing what looks "significant", noting a "tendency" towards behavior does not make that behavior typical or common.

Oh, and finally, evolutionary psychology cannot be linked to some kind of capitalist conspiracy to subvert the working classes

yeah i never said this so i don't even know what to make of that whole tangent.

PhoenixAsh

3rd June 2015, 03:44

yeah i never said this so i don't even know what to make of that whole tangent.

Rafiq did that...

#FF0000

3rd June 2015, 03:48

Rafiq did that...

Oh. Aight.

FWIW I don't think one can or has to disregard all of evo-psych but it's a very fair criticism, imo, to say that there's folks involved in there who are doing some very bad science and are pushing racist and sexist political agendas.

PhoenixAsh

3rd June 2015, 03:51

noting a "tendency" towards behavior does not make that behavior typical or common.

Typical means characteristic. Tendency means characteristic likely to. According to the dictionary. I think it is close enough to say that a tendency means that it is behavior that is a prevailing occurrence (again one of the definitions of tendency)...and therefore fits the definition of typical.

That said...the sample size is indeed limited.

#FF0000

3rd June 2015, 03:54

Typical means characteristic. Tendency means characteristic likely to. According to the dictionary. I think it is close enough to say that a tendency means that it is behavior that is a prevailing occurrence (again one of the definitions of tendency)...and therefore fits the definition of typical.

That said...the sample size is indeed limited.

A tendency could be any slight preference one way or the other. When one is saying something is typical or characteristic, you're saying it's very common, maybe regular behavior. What Disillusionist describes is not remotely common nor does the data he presented even suggest this.

PhoenixAsh

3rd June 2015, 04:03

Oh. Aight.

FWIW I don't think one can or has to disregard all of evo-psych but it's a very fair criticism, imo, to say that there's folks involved in there who are doing some very bad science and are pushing racist and sexist political agendas.

I don't deny that. I am not a huge fan of EP either. However there are also very unsavory types in almost every other field of psychology (and in science in general) using it to promote very unsavory agenda's...that does not in itself discredit these fields or science in general. (behavioral psychology for example...is notable because a lot of scientists from this particular field were actively involved in scientific racism).

What it does illustrate is that an open discussion is needed based on whether or not there is conflicting data and if research is comprehensive enough to draw certain conclusions. Much like Scientific Racism as a field turned out to ignore data, fabricate it, or misrepresent it so they could create theories on racial differences...these people should ultimately be completely blown away by correct data sets and well founded theories/research.

Illustrative is that the field of EP played a huge part in both providing the basis for discrediting Sc. Racism....as well as providing the same basis for discrediting a lot of pseudo scientific prattle in discrimination in general...for example based on non heterosexual preferences...to name a few.

The Disillusionist

3rd June 2015, 04:39

Oh. Aight.

FWIW I don't think one can or has to disregard all of evo-psych but it's a very fair criticism, imo, to say that there's folks involved in there who are doing some very bad science and are pushing racist and sexist political agendas.

Sure, there are. As in any field of science. But the EP community is well aware of its historic reputation and is very careful to discredit these kinds of "scientists". The mainstream EP community has nothing to do with that stuff, and the people who do push bigoted agendas can NOT support their arguments with true, EP-based research. As I've said, evolutionary scientists are the ones who debunked the idea of race as a biological construct in the first place.

A tendency could be any slight preference one way or the other. When one is saying something is typical or characteristic, you're saying it's very common, maybe regular behavior. What Disillusionist describes is not remotely common nor does the data he presented even suggest this.

Ok... then I'm saying it's a tendency... Or whatever... It's an observable phenomenon, and it has been observed. Obviously cheating in general is pretty rare, so I was never suggesting that this is a strategy used by the majority, just that it is statistically observable, and thus can be called a significantly present strategy.

Oh, and one final note... I'm actually not an evolutionary psychologist, or a student of evolutionary psychology. I'm a student of applied, community oriented anthropology, and my major theoretical interest in anthropology is Human Behavioral Ecology, which is similar to evolutionary psychology, but has many differences as well, which makes it a more accurate, more relevant field of study, in my opinion, as it is based more in environmental and material conditions. My main priority is simply defending evolutionary science in general.

#FF0000

3rd June 2015, 04:44

Sure, there are. As in any field of science. But the EP community is well aware of its historic reputation and is very careful to discredit these kinds of "scientists". The mainstream EP community has nothing to do with that stuff, and the people who do push bigoted agendas can NOT support their arguments with true, EP-based research. As I've said, evolutionary scientists are the ones who debunked the idea of race as a biological construct in the first place.

"Evolutionary science" and "evolutionary psych" aren't the same though. Evo-psych, frankly, is pretty rife with explicitly political hacks to the point where people in the field hardly ever even really talk about folks like Kropotkin, who was pretty much the founding father of socio-biology, because he came to unwelcome conclusions.

Ok... then I'm saying it's a tendency... Or whatever... It's an observable phenomenon, and it has been observed. Obviously cheating in general is pretty rare, so I was never suggesting that this is a strategy used by the majority, just that it is statistically observable, and thus can be called a significantly present strategy."Statistically observable" is a weasel word. Are you seriously suggesting that women intentionally marry weaker men, to cheat with strong men while forgoing birth control during ovulation, to get pregnant? This is a "significantly present" strategy?

The Disillusionist

3rd June 2015, 04:57

"Evolutionary science" and "evolutionary psych" aren't the same though. Evo-psych, frankly, is pretty rife with explicitly political hacks to the point where people in the field hardly ever even really talk about folks like Kropotkin, who was pretty much the founding father of socio-biology, because he came to unwelcome conclusions.

"Statistically observable" is a weasel word. Are you seriously suggesting that women intentionally marry weaker men, to cheat with strong men while forgoing birth control during ovulation, to get pregnant? This is a "significantly present" strategy?

By "statistically observable," I mean the phenomenon has been statistically shown to have a significant presence.

Also, "Weaker" and "stronger" are arbitrary terms. The traits being measured here are measures of testosterone associated with masculinity. On top of that, it's not that simple or specific. Women tend to psychologically group men into "long-term" and "short-term" mates. They are more likely to have careless one night stands with the "short-term" mates, especially when ovulating, and they are more likely to cheat on long term mates with short-term mates in these situations. This is all statistically demonstrable. This results in a statistically significant number of women who cheat on long-term mates with short-term mates, having children with the genes of the short-term mates while obtaining care for those children from the long-term mates.

When I call this an evolutionary "strategy", I don't mean that women are consciously planning this out. I simply mean that it is a behavioral pattern that occurs. Evolutionary "strategies" are simply patterns of behavior, conscious or unconscious, that can affect a person's fitness. Nobody thinks when they are working, "I'm working so that I can obtain resources so that I can mate and provide for my children, thus ensuring that I have a strong genetic legacy to ensure optimal fitness for myself." Yet working in modern culture is still a subsistence "strategy".

Oh, almost forgot... I'm a big fan of Kropotkin, but his ideas are obsolete and he didn't fully understand evolutionary theory. His bias for group evolution prompted him to ignore certain important fundamentals of evolution. Thus he isn't a theoretical cornerstone of the field, though he is known and recognized. It doesn't make sense to just ignore modern evolutionary psychology on the assumption that Kropotkin already did everything that could be done in the field.

#FF0000

3rd June 2015, 05:14

By "statistically observable," I mean the phenomenon has been statistically shown to have a significant presence.

aight i think we're on the same page w/ regard to what you're describing (which now, to me, sounds pretty different from your original post) but I'm still not convinced that the evidence proved this. v:mellow:v

Oh, almost forgot... I'm a big fan of Kropotkin, but his ideas are obsolete and he didn't fully understand evolutionary theory. His bias for group evolution prompted him to ignore certain important fundamentals of evolution. Thus he isn't a theoretical cornerstone of the field, though he is known and recognized. It doesn't make sense to just ignore modern evolutionary psychology on the assumption that Kropotkin already did everything that could be done in the field.

Yeah of course but the same can be said of some of the founders of other fields (e.g. sociology) where people still at least talk about them. I mean, hell, psychologists still talk about Freud even though he was one of the wrongest men to walk the Earth.

The Disillusionist

3rd June 2015, 05:39

aight i think we're on the same page w/ regard to what you're describing (which now, to me, sounds pretty different from your original post) but I'm still not convinced that the evidence proved this. v:mellow:v

Yeah of course but the same can be said of some of the founders of other fields (e.g. sociology) where people still at least talk about them. I mean, hell, psychologists still talk about Freud even though he was one of the wrongest men to walk the Earth.

My first post was a very poorly worded combination of tongue-in-cheek semi-satire, and grouchy, sleepless ranting for the sake of disagreement, so I can understand why it didn't exactly convey the message I intended. I apologize for that.

And I do agree, I'm a big fan of theory, and would really like to see Kropotkin talked about more in the field of evolutionary social science.

Rafiq

3rd June 2015, 17:59

Also, the data that I've given, for the third time, does not JUST deal with what traits women are attracted to, it also examines behaviors as a result, including the tendency to have affairs. This is based on self-reported behavior, yes, but the data is there, and even accounting for self-reporting bias, it is very likely significant.

You still fail to understand that it does not matter if this behavior is prevalent, or not: It does not support the notion that the behavior has a biological basis, or that the behavior is present, for example, in pre-capitalist totalities. That is the point. The whole point is that behaviors that are significant in present society are legitimized by elevating them to have some kind of natural basis: it is quite simply no different than theology. For example, the idea that women often cheat on their scrawny suburban husbands for more masculine men is not something that one would need evolutionary psychology to conceive: it is literally a sexual archetype that has been present in our liberal capitalist society since the counter-culture, encapsulating, for example, the anxieties of the decay of the nuclear family. It is entirely pathological. That's the point. It doesn't support the notion that this is done BECAUSE, maybe (and this is still uncorroborated) our ancestors engaged in such behavior, or that such behavior was selected as an evolutionary trait. What part of this don't you understand?

For the third time, I haven't made any claims that were not taken directly for some kind of scientific study.

Yes, keep barking on about this when I've addressed this a billion times: the conclusions drawn from the studies do not support the data that they have compiled. IT doesn't matter if this or that study claims this: It should virtually be common knowledge for most anthropologists at this point that evolutionary psychology is completely unscientific.

Oh, and finally, evolutionary psychology cannot be linked to some kind of capitalist conspiracy to subvert the working classes. That's just stupid.

That is stupid, and it takes an incredibly stupid person to abstract this from my post. The point wasn't that it was a capitalist conspiracy, but that it was ideologically sustained by a holistic ruling class assault on the proletariat. For example, scientific racism was not a conspiracy. It was the spontaneous ideological impulse wrought out from colonialism, people were SPONTANEOUSLY inclined to believe this because it "made sense" within their historic context and it legitimized, subconsciously, the relationship of power between the colonizers and the colonized. Evolutionary psychologists don't have to give a flying fuck about capitalism, or the class struggle, or anything political for that matter. Because the appearance, and function of something are entirely different, and anyone who would dare try to scientifically approach the human species should already know this. It's not a conspiracy that Marxism was more popular in universities, for example, when the working class had either the upper hand or a leveled playing field. This philistine makes pretenses to the great thinkers of our tradition and yet the idea that prevailing ideas, even in the domain of science, have a correlation to the social basis of the entire society which sustains them is completely alien to him. It's either an ACTUAL, conscious, deliberate conspiracy or there's no correlation. And now we come to the crux of how these philistines think: The ideas of man are in ends-of-themselves, and that is why evolutionary psychologists will NEVER provide an evolutionary basis for their epistemology. They want to pick and choose what's reducible biologically, but apparently they don't have an evolutionary basis for a theory of knowledge. Why? Because again, it would completely undermine their work.

For something not to be a coincidence does not mean it has its basis in actual deliberate and conscious conspiracy. Are you a child? Who the FUCK thinks like this and would even DARE mention Marx? Even if you oppose Marxism, you should at least have somewhat of familiarity with how Marxists think, but you don't know SHIT! Do you actually think that the point of the relationship between the base and the superstructure actually entails the bourgeoisie consciously acting in a socially self-conscious way producing ideas to reproduce the conditions of production? We can already point out your hypocrisy, as highlighted by ap revious post:

You seem to take qualm with the idea that "science" is ultimately susceptible to a wider class struggle. But wait a second.. You're an evolutionary psychologist! That means you'd have to submit the "drive" humans have to know the world around them properly on an evolutionary level to the same theoretical qualifications. Which suggests that, like a religious devotee, bourgeois empiricism is the ends-all that there is for you, incapable of being subject to the same vulgarization that every other field of human behavior and activity is - primarily those which have political implications. If anyone, people like you - if they had a shred of honesty - would have to recognize that something's appearance and something's function are entirely different things, and that science has relevance that is beyond its appearance.

Don't you dare indirectly respond to me, coward, if you're not going to actually read my entire post. If you're going to be so dismissive then plainly fuck off - you prattle of arrogance but WHO THE FUCK are you to behave like this? To literally put no thought whatsoever in how you approach my posts. Then again, you can't argue with me, and you can't approach the substance of my posts for what they are. You have to designate them ideologically, this or that way and be on your merry way. If your epistemological foundations were so strong, wouldn't you at the least be able to CONFRONT what I am saying from a critical, scientific perspective?

In fact, Marx was influenced by social evolutionary theory to some extent. Here is a quote from him: "Darwin’s work is most important and suits my purpose in that it provides a basis in natural science for the historical class struggle."

Now, if that doesn't sound like someone taking scientific evolutionary data and using it to justify their own preconceived notions, I don't know what does... That statement reeks of evolutionary psychology, except for the fact that it isn't grounded in any data. The very argument that you use against evolutionary psychology, that it is used to justify the modern capitalist status quo by appealing to biology, can be directed at Marx himself as well. Clearly, Marx was just a capitalist in disguise... part of the grand bourgeois conspiracy to undermine the workers with science... :laugh:

The real disgusting, and absolute despicable arrogance here is conflating evolutionary psychology with Darwinism. Marx didn't need to justify anything with Darwin's so-called "Data" (WHICH WASN'T FUCKING DATA, IT WAS A THEORETICAL PARADIGM!) because Marx was REPLICATING Darwin. My god I can't take such ignorance! For fuck's sake! The point was that in the field of natural history there was no scientific paradigm for understanding biological history that was divorced from inherently unscientific, metaphysical ideas before Darwin, just as it was for all discourses and theories which pertained to social history. Marx did not "use" Darwin, he was an avidly fanatic admirer of Darwin in the same way he admired Kepler: Because Kepler divorced astronomy from astronomy, so too did Darwin divorce idealism from natural history. Historical Materialism is the only de-facto, legitimate application of Darwin's ideas to human history. This is why Darwin's findings are referred to as the materialist conception of natural history.

So let's begin examining this quote: How did Darwin provide the basis in natural science for the historical class struggle? Because it demonstrated that culture, religion, ideas, only exist insofar as it has its basis in material realities, i.e. that humans do not exist independently of the material world around them, and so on. The conclusion wrought out from this, would logically be the weakening of bourgeois-metaphysical ideas pertaining to human history and the social nature of man, conceived in terms of natural, divine, or cosmic will, in moral terms, i.e. in an ideological fashion (i.e. like conceiving all of human history in terms of the shining road to bourgeois civic democracy, as many enlightenment thinkers did). It had nothing to do with reducing the social dimension of humans to having some kind of biological basis.

Because on the contrary, Darwin's ideas left no room for the metaphysical. There was no "intent", there was no "meaning" or purpose in nature for Darwin. There was no "drive" for evolutionary fitness either, and that was the fucking point of natural selection, even in contrast to Lamarck. Evolutionary psychology is not condemned because of Darwin's influences, it is condemned because it is a gross vulgarization of what virtually all materialists accept: which is the materialist conception of natural history. It ignores social realities as being not reducible to biological realities: Hence it was Engels who claimed that matter went from the material to the biological, to the social and then to the psychological - which he (metaphysically, arguably) claimed was the highest expression of matter. There was not claim that the class struggle had its basis in some kind of biological conflict: In fact this is just as much of worth as claiming that history had its basis in racial struggles, which many claimed was the rightful application of Darwin of human history. According to Foucalt, in a letter Marx claimed to Engels that historical materialism was wrought out from recognizing the mistakes of their initial attempt to conceive history in terms of national struggle, which proves that they were genuinely striving to conceive human history in scientific terms (from abandoning Hegel's idealism), not because of some kind of deliberate, shallow strive to "legitimize" the ideas of Communism. So there is absolutely no degree of equivalence between the vulgarity of evolutionary psychology and Marx's admiration of Darwin's works, because unlike the reality of Marx resembling Darwin but in the social field, evolutionary psychologists make no real independent breakthroughs of their own and instead construct metaphysical paradigms which only confirm realities relative to our societies, but then claim they somehow have their basis in our savannah ancestors.

The real applicability of Darwin's ideas onto the human species, an applicability which can make NO ROOM for ideological obscufation or "gaps" for god, is historical materialism. Hence why Marx claimed: "In order to conceive the anatomy of an ape, one must first conceive the anatomy of a man". The logic is very clear: Drawing metaphysical conclusion s about the human species from nature is unscientific, one can only ever concieve what is "natural" in human terms:

Human anatomy contains a key to the anatomy of the ape. The intimations of higher development among the subordinate animal species, however, can be understood only after the higher development is already known.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#p109

Marx claimed that we are so memorized by, for example, Chimpanzees because we project our own behaviors upon them, i.e. they only imitate us insofar as we see a higher truth in them that we believe is present in our won society. The vulgarity of ecology fetishism is that it is double-reflexive: Man sees himself in the animal, but then makes the error in seeing the animal in himself. and that we conceive ourselves in terms of making primary the "anatomy of the ape" to ours, thereby only degrading ourselves.

On top of that, Engels wrote about Marx's work that he was "simply striving to establish the same gradual process of transformation demonstrated by Darwin in natural history as a law in the social field."

If Engels was correct, then Marx went far beyond reasonably data-based evolutionary theory, and fell headlong into plain old Social Darwinism. Just because it's leftist doesn't mean it's correct...

Did you READ THE FUCKING QUOTE YOURSELF? Engels wasn't saying Marx wanted to somehow, in this stupid metaphysical way, politically change society, or make this or that claim about society in accordance with Darwin's work. The point was EXACTLY what he claimed: It is an unquestioned premise that history exists, and that history changes, and it is an unquestioned premise that nature exists, and that nature changes. Engels was saying that Marx strived to scientifically conceive the process of historical change in the same way that Darwin did in the field of natural history. Social Darwinism, conversely, makes political pretenses on the basis of moral abstractions derived from Darwin's work, i.e. "This is how it is in nature, so it's better" or whatever, completely ignoring that the social reality is not reducible to the biological reality, i.e. that antagonisms in human societies are not biological antagonisms but social ones. That's the logical conclusion of Darwin. There's no equivalence. What would be, perhaps just as ideological would be in the matter of Kropotkin to claim that humans have a biological predisposition to being Communistic, or that the ideas of Communism derive from our biological constitution, a la Chomsky who claims that there's some kind of innate "instinct for freedom". In fact the petite-bourgeois vulgarity of mutual aid is precisely that it adopts bourgeois metaphysical ideas by attempting to legitimize present struggles for emancipation and egalitarianism not only in the great apes and in the biological constitution of humans, but in the process of evolution itself! Even then, while we can recognize these ideas as unscientific, at the very least it demonstrates a polarization, i.e. if anarchists are using nature to defend their ideas, so too are evolutionary psychologists using it to legitimize the status quo, and no one claims otherwise. The point is a practical one: Which side are you on? Meanwhile Marxists recognize the basis of freedom's possibility is only made possible through standards set in place by capitalist slavery, and so on - that's the point of dialectics.

Pheonix: Why are you incapable of forming a holistic, consistent argument against me? Your posting style is vomit inducing, schizophrenic and eclectic.

Nobody claimed that. The criticism you level however is levelled from a perspective of pseudo scientific personal agenda's rather than any form of data to back it up. Even studies you cite to disprove arguments is partially rooted in evolutionary explanations...like most notably the Gorilla argument...

Well you missed the whole fucking point: It wasn't that gorillas are the same as humans, but that the process of the social dimension of man over-taking the biological predispositions he has ecologically was a long and gradual process, and because it is so strong, relative to other animals (like a hamster) in Gorillas, this demonstrates that this obviously took a process of millions and millions of years, humans did not one day wake up existing having to "learn" how to fuck. I'll explain this very carefully: mating practices continued to exist, even before man was bipedal, but because such a drastic and abrupt change in sexual relations had to occur before this process, the necessity of selecting for more SOCIAL behaviors, rather than intrinsically biological ones, was probably necessary for, let's hypothesize, the more flexible mobility and lifestyle of the first humans. The human brain increased in size and structure precisely to accommodate for its growing dependence upon the social totality of its existence. It is absolutely laughable to claim that women have an evolutionary predisposition to, for example, fuck rich men, or that there is an evolutionary explanation behind the "friend-zone" when all of these things are scientifically explainable WITHIN TERMS OF OUR PRESENT SOCIETY and not a hunter-gatherer one. Devoid of a scientific conception of the social, however, what is inevitable is that conclusions about our society will be made based on ideas of "human nature" or whatever, because they have NO OTHER WAY of explaining this or that behavior.

And here we have you moralizing. Drawing the comparison between Ep and sexism and racism is definitely proving that you have no fucking clue what EP actually is, strives to do or what it is based on....and is purely based on some false notions that are rooted in what you subjectively think it is and decided on that faulty principle that therefore it must be wrong.

Actually no, I can be a sexist, and a pro-racist, and recognize that these things exist. One can scientifically conceive the existence of racism and sexism, and their structural role, without any moral implications whatsoever. Has it ever occurred to you that the ideas of mankind can actually be conceived on a scientific level? Crazy, right? For example, it is a historical fact that scientific racism coincided with colonialism: That is how a materialist approaches history. One can justify colonialism, and the racism that came with it while recognizing this fact.

I claim that your accusation of "moralization" has its grounding in the idea that conceiving racism and sexism has to be done from some kind of moral standpoint, but that is not the case. Rather, expressing racism and sexism subconsciously actually requires a plethora of affirmative moral pre-suppositions. Now let's take away from your argument here: You claim that because there are inherently moral connontaitons with sexism and racism, that my claim is inherently a moral one. But this is true for EVERYTHING which evolutionary psychology concerns. Evolutionary Scumfuckers claim this or that, then say "Science isn't PC" and pretend that everyoen is free to "interpret the data" politically how they want, without questioning the data. But what's the double standard with you AUTOMATICALLY ascribing moral characteristics to the recognition of structural sexism and structural racism? Can I not, in the same vein, claim that "You're free to interpret the facts however you want morally" and get away with it?

Of course the whole thing is dishonest. That'st the point. So congratulations, you just demonstrated FOR ME how it is impossible to abstract such political considerations from science regardless of whether you're going in critically or thinking with your ass. Go on, tell me how there is no moral, political or ideological dimension to the idea that this or that behavior has its basis in biological realities, tell me about how the logical conclusion isn't that this behavior is "natural" or inevitable, tell me about how it doesn't remove capital as the culprit of fostering such behavior but instead places it squarely in some kind of inevitably existing innateness of the human species. It's incredible how these bourgeois ideologues think.

Yeah...but none of these events actually occurred in the same time frame that you make it appear to be.

Where would you place the growing popularity of evolutionary psychology at, most especially in the domain of popular science and the common sentiments of the everyday person. Every scumfuck idiot at the gym has already replaced religion with evolutionary psychology, so tell me, when did this happen? When did scientific racism become most popular, Pheonix? When did the re-emergence of scientific racism, such as the Bell Curve and IQ and Wealth of Nations occur, Pheonix? You're telling me that the correlation with the material foundations of the society which produced those works is just a coincidence? IT's fucking HYPOCRITICAL that you deny attempting to evaluate human SOCIETIES in scientific terms. Instead, "science" itself is an untouchable holy word that has no basis in material considerations.

Science, and its varying degrees is linked to the class struggle. That is a fact. the proletariat is the only class that can conceive reality in the least ideological manner, because it is not burdened with having to reproduce society full of class antagonisms (The majority of whom, if they knew the social realities, would destroy it) in an ideological manner. Evolutionary psychology is not simply "wrong" science, it is not science at all.

It is quite laughable that you claim humans aren't divine beings when you just spend sveral posts trying to argue that humans aren't animals and rose to a level in which they simply ignore biological principles completely. The ludicracy of your own contradicting arguments should be quite obvious to you at this point.

So why did evolutionary psychology emerge? The "natural" inclinations of humans to be curious about the world? Give me a FUCKING break. This was something that was, with the data that was available back then, more than infinitely possible in the early 20th century, and yet it didn't exist. I guess humans are divine beings after all, miraculous little creatures who are naturally curious about the universe and will always be burdened with the mystery of life. Que credits for National Geographic spectacle-vomit-shit documentary about life on Earth.

And humans are not animals. There is something distinct about humans from the animal kingdom, because we're the only fucking animals to create the abstraction called the "animal kingdom" and all of the taxonomy we have about animals has its direct reference point back to us psychologically. So what makes us distinct? Animals don't argue on the computer over this. Evolutionary psychology is degenerate in that it reduces man to an animal, reduces his spiritual capacities on reflecting upon the material world around him to the ignorance of a metaphysical paradigm which basically amounts to living life within the confines of your own immediate experiences. Why did it take so fucking long for us to learn that we're animals? What animal looks in the mirror and claims "I am an animal"? The fact that we can THINK about this, and QUESTION it alone proves that no - we are not animals. It is innate even in the linguistic structure - humans designate all animals as being different from themselves PRECISELY because there IS a real difference, not simply in a way that is relative only to us, but insofar as animals are devoid of spiritual consciousness (in the Hegelian sense, not some new age cack). Animals do not have spirit, they do not have a social totality or a social dimension, they do not have gods which encapsulate the entire social totality of their existence, and so on. We are not animals, and human behavior is not reducible on a biological level. The biological is vestigial, the social is active. For fuck's sake, even with new developments in bio-engineering, this alone discredits it. What biological inclinations are there to change intentionally? None. The social has overridden it and made possible the ability to change it... It's hilarious that you claim we're animals.

Mao said that bourgeois rationalists can only conceive things in terms of quantity, they cannot even fathom a change in quality. So everything that exists in all of human history is a mere abstraction of a category only made relevant by modern society. Thus we have "culture", this we have "art", thus we have "science" and thus we have "religion", "politics", etc. Even though in previous societies there was seldom such a clear cut distinction that constituted an actual linear evolution conceivable separate from each other.

Nobody is actually saying that. But the funny thing is that Marx was a huge fan of evolutionary principles. So please tell us more.

.. yet you are advancing a liberal moralist agenda here, subscribe to liberalist moral agenda's and quote to a teeth the same field scientific racists stem from (behavioral psychology)...as well as rejecting the basis of evolutionary principles as a driving force for the class struggle such as Marx used it. So...yeah...there is that.

If you call me a liberal moralist in contrast to evolutionary psychology, YOU ARE A REACTIONARY, period. If you call someone a liberal from the standpoint of a cop apologist, in the same vein, you are a reactionary. Are you fucking kidding me? Only reactionaries use the word "agenda" anyway. It's none of your fucking business what my real motivations are for doing this, because it doesn't matter. I am willing to bet people like Steven Pinker are closet fascists, but that doesn't actually constitute a viable criticism of their work. Most scientists have motivations for being scientists that is divorced from science itself, i.e. either for some stupid ideological platitude of "benefiting mankind" or for purely political reasons. IT DOES NOT MATTER!

Marx never claimed the class struggle was driven biologically. What biological changes are wrought out form it? He and Engels first contemplated, upon leaving the Young Hegelians, whether history was in fact a biological struggle between nations, but they realized the error in this very quickly. If I'm a liberal moralist,, you're a devotee to German Fascism, which explicitly claimed all history was a biological struggle. Do class differences have their basis in biology? What a STUPID fucking thing to say that Marx thought the driving force of the class struggle had its basis in biology...

Yeah. No. That again is completely wrong and Marxism wasn't at all booted from universities unless you are talking about your very specific local geographical area. So no.

Then your head is in your ass. It wasn't "booted" from universities in the sense of actually being banned but in many fields it waned in prominence. Marxism dominated anthropology for a long time, and where are we now? Marxism in the universities came under intense and heavy assault on an academic level during the late 1970's and the 1980's, do you deny this? Of course it was not a POLITICAL assault where actual laws were passed, or teachers were fired, but the general aroma of the university was no longer Marxist.

Yawn. Scientific socialism. Scientific theory of history. Yeah...sure buddy...Marxism is at war with itself ;):laugh:

IT is exactly someone who rejects the scientific nature of Marxism who makes grand pretenses about Marx which have no basis in reality. I mean for fuck's sake, you want to ridicule and mock historical materialism and yet you make authorative claims regarding Marx. Shows your level of respect for Marxism, really. Laugh away, philistine, laugh away at your own ignorance of the fact that Marism is not an ideology. IT is contingent upon the ideology of Communism, but it itself is not an ideology. It's so cute that you try and argue with me and yet you have a high schoolers notion of what constitutes "ideology": Hint, I refer explicitly to the Lacanian-Althusserian notion, not a "collection" of ideas (In which case Quantum theory is ideology too). Just because something is controversial does not make it outside ideology. Quantum theory was controversial and so is evolution here in the United States (on a political level). Get over it.

Your entire narrative is based on dismissing an entire field based simply on how you perceive how the world should function because of class struggle and the statement that science is ad odd with Marxism...

Do you actually THINK WITH YOUR FUCKING ASS? You literally SHIT OUT words with absolutely no consideration for substance. You just dismiss, and ideologically designate my claims in terms of platitudes and cliche's without even giving them a thought. Frankly this is infinitely worse than flaming, and by Christ do I have words for you. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't FUCKING MATTER WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE WORLD, the CRITICISMS of the scienticity of the argument, whether they have their basis in politics or something else, STILL STAND. Evolutionary psychology is ENTIRELY bullshit, ON TOP of politically legitimizing the existing order. Maybe the political reality of it has HEIGHTENED my energetic effort in pointing this out, but the fact of the matter is that there is NO scientific basis to evolutionary psychology and anyone who devotes energy into critically evaluating it, regardless of their motivations, would come to this conclusion.

And I didn't fucking say science was at odds with Marxism, I said it was at odds with IDEOLOGY. It is your own STUPIDITY which makes you inclined to automatically assume Marxism is an ideology.

Let's go further, just to show what a stupid ass you are, confront the idea that I have a belief about how the world "Should" function. What the FUCK Does this mean? Any moral pretense has its basis in ideological and social realities. It doesn't matter how I think the world "should" function, it matters that the world will either function in this way, or another way. The real basis is in which side you take. The world functions IN THIS WAY and that is the only thing we can know. So knowing how the world functions properly, AS IT IS NOW, what conclusions do we draw about the rest? Only with the definite POLITICAL and IDEOLOGICAL opposition to the status quo was Marx able to criticize capitalism scientifically and produce for us Kapital. Only with the IDEOLOGICAL opposition to the church by bourgeois-humanists was Kepler, Galileo and the enlightenment possible. That does not mean the CONTENT of the science is ideological, but that it is CONTINGENT upon real political, social and ideological antagonisms. "I only know this is true BECAUSE my guns are pointed in the right direction". THAT is Marxism.

Rafiq

3rd June 2015, 18:15

As I've said, evolutionary scientists are the ones who debunked the idea of race as a biological construct in the first place.

Did you say evolutionary scientists, or evolutionary psychologists? Do you deny a distinction? WHy do you keep ignoring the race-based EP studies? Do you deny their "legitimacy" and on WHAT GROUNDS?

Ok... then I'm saying it's a tendency... Or whatever... It's an observable phenomenon, and it has been observed. Obviously cheating in general is pretty rare, so I was never suggesting that this is a strategy used by the majority, just that it is statistically observable, and thus can be called a significantly present strategy.

That's not the problem. It's the unscientific nature of the CAUSATION being presented. Any bumfuck moron can see that it's a "general tendency", you don't need evolutionary psychology for that. It's almost like saying "Black people are more inclined to ". Yes, and? What causes this? Their "race" or something else? You pick and choose "culture" out of the ass. What about all the comprehensive data on the "correlation between Race and IQ" that is so popular among evolutionary psychologists? Using your logic, it is explicable in terms of biology. Explain away. Let me ask you a question, a serious one: Is "intelligence" heritable, in your mind? Ignore everything else. Answer this.

When I call this an evolutionary "strategy", I don't mean that women are consciously planning this out. I simply mean that it is a behavioral pattern that occurs.

It isn't a behavioral pattern. It RARELY happens that affairs, and CHEATING one night stands result in pregnancy. When a women is already married, the probability that she will have a child with another man is extremely rare. Most of the time, big fucking surprise, women have kids with the "bad genes" nice guys they marry, because news flash: Genes don't mean SHIT in our society! There are no "good genes" or "bad genes" in consideration of the material desires of people, besides of course physical attractiveness (relative to a historic epoch) and a lack-of-defects. The idea that women have sex with attractive men for subconscious considerations about their children, rather than purely being physically attracted to big masculine men (for reasons relative to our society) is so fucking stupid I might as well just kill myself now at the unfathomably that people can go about their lives believing this drivel. The actual experience of sex, and the social stigma associated with certain physical characteristics, is enoguh to warrant physical attractiveness, not actual intentional considerations of what the offspring will look like. And that's the opint of natural selection anyway: There is no INTENTIONAL DRIVE towards genetic fitness, the latter is CONSEQUENTIAL of immediate, individual drives of the organism.

What is possible is that careless one night stands in general can result in pregnancy, and perhaps it is possible that later on a "nice" guy can be married for financial reasons and other considerations LATER ON, but all this demonstrates is that women tend to have causal sex with people they are [I]purely attracted to. Most women being referred here probably do not marry for reasons that relate to their sexual, physical desires, though I would not be surprised if it factors in more infinitely today than it did a hundred years ago when women were less financially dependent. Big fucking surprise. If there wasn't a huge correlation between attractive women, and the women men would want to marry for other considerations the same pattern would be visible. Not only is this purely a phenomena of modern society, it is a purely post-sexual revolution phenomena.

Rafiq

3rd June 2015, 19:27

A Facial Attractiveness Account of Gender Asymmetries in Interracial Marriage

In order to provide a possible explanation for the pattern of attractiveness for Asian people, one can look to the evolutionary impact of the environment in which the races developed. Frost hypothesised that many of the visual features that distinguish White from Black people are a result of differences in patterns of sexual selection [30]. Further from the equator (for example in the arctic tundra of Europe 10,000 years ago), men would be less available for two reasons. First, they would have to hunt over greater distances with increased mortality. Second, polygamy would be less common due to having to provide over a longer winter. As a result, away from the equator, there would be greater competition between women for mates. This competition would lead to sexual selection for more feminine characteristics. While the sexual selection would be driven by competition between females, it would act upon both the males and females making them both more feminine. At the same time in the agricultural parts of Africa, females could contribute more to food production and so could be more easily supported. Men would be able to take more than one wife and so women would be competed for by males. Competition between males for mates would lead to sexual selection of masculine traits. Again, these traits would carry over into both the males and the females. This pattern of evolutionary development, therefore, provides an explanation for why White females and Black males are perceived to be more attractive than Black females and White males.

Although not specifically considered by Frost, this geographic evolutionary explanation can be extended to explain the findings regarding the perception of attractiveness of Asian people as well. We can do this if we assume that, just like the arctic tundra conditions of Europe, the mountainous expanses of Asian lead to a lifestyle of difficult agriculture. Several males may be required to support a single female as is currently the practice in the polyandrous Tibetan culture [31]. Such a society would show sexual selection for feminine features as a highly feminine female would be able to attract the support during child rearing of one, or more, productive partners. In this case, however, it is not the lighter skin tones and fairer hair that were selected for but the rounder, more feminine face structure. In this way, competition between females for mates leads to a population that is more feminine in its facial characteristics. These feminine facial characteristics mean that Asian women are perceived as being more attractive whereas the same features affect the attractiveness of Asian men in a negative manner.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0031703

So men on average find white women more attractive, the implications is that it is a selected trait on an evolutionary level (of course it has nothing to do with systemic racism and all that "moralist" irk).

In "most" cultures studied(none of them pre-capitalist, pre-globalized), lighter skin is more favorable and more attractive. It must have its basis in BIOLOGY! The SAME METHODOLOGY which is used to come to the conclusions that it does come to are used in ALL of the "Studies" you linked. You find a correlation about something, and assume only one cause is possible. You can go ahead and say "It's an exception" (it is NOT!) to the wider field of Evolutionary psychology but it uses the SAME methodology, same pulled-out-of-my-ass conclusions drawn as the idea that women's sexual preferences and patterns are biologically rooted. So where is the scientific basis for picking and choosing what's biological and what isn't? Cross cultural data? That is meaningless, because culture is not a meaningful variable, and no causation for cultural differences is provided (it's certainly not geography, considering some places have the same geographic environment but different "cultures").

It's like that stupid fucking "child bearing hips" myth that turned out to be hilariously wrong because it turns out there's no correlation with better child rearing and hip size (not to mention it is not always preferred in different societies, certainly wasn't in the 90's in the US). There were no pre-empetative mechanisms for Evolutionary psychologists to avoid this error, instead they made this or that assumption because all behavior just HAS to have a biological basis, and if it can be posited as "possible" hypothetically then it is deemed as true because it's "evolutionary" and "more scientific".

This, ladies and gentlemen is Evolutionary psychology. This is the future capitalism has for science, and only the liberal politically correct intellectuals stand in the way of these barbaric hordes of scum upon scum. We should fight for Communism EVEN IF we know it will fail, if only to enact a short, sweet, and succinct reign of justice for a day, only so that we can know that the possibility we can dance on the corpses of these "scientists" is within reach, if only that we can know some kind of justice for the silent, speechless suffering and hell that is this shit-gutter of a world can be wrought out. Look at this FUCKING SHIT! An explanation for rape in evolutionary terms is in no short supply: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228623286_Why_do_men_rape_An_evolutionary_psycholo gical_perspective.

No social criticism present. The culprit is biological, and that's the end of that. Fucking Christ every day that these scum walk the earth breathing is a day the fallen heroes of our cause cry in agony in their restlessness!

PhoenixAsh

3rd June 2015, 20:07

Pheonix: Why are you incapable of forming a holistic, consistent argument against me? Your posting style is vomit inducing, schizophrenic and eclectic.

I am forming a holistic argument against you by stating that your focus on certain information and dismissing or outright rejecting information that doesn't suit your agenda forms a subjective overall conclusion that is not supported by the totality of the data that is available....which makes it in part a downright travesty...not withstanding that some parts of your argument do have merit.

As I have explained to you this is my problem with your position and that the whole is infinitely more complex, that cultural primacy is only half the story, and that there is in fact a mutual feedback loop between culture and evolution...where both play an important part in human behavior. This is what you consistently spend time rejecting.

This means that YOU are in fact the one who is unable to form a holistic theory which accounts for all the parts...by simply refusing to acknowledge parts that don't suit you.

I am also extremely consistent from the start of the argument. I approached the parts of your arguments that I agreed with and filled in the parts you ignored and dismissed. I have not deviated from this argument at all.

Now...of all people on this board...you are in fact the least qualified to mention anything about posting style. Given your tendency to litter your posts with size variations, bold outlines or combinations of these two and your tendency to use pompous, arrogant and outdated language. You don't do yourself any favors by doing that aside from the fact that it makes reading your posts an unnecessary chore where the message often gets lost in your ridiculous phrasology (I realize that isn't a word...but it should be).

Well you missed the whole fucking point: It wasn't that gorillas are the same as humans, but that the process of the social dimension of man over-taking the biological predispositions he has ecologically was a long and gradual process, and because it is so strong, relative to other animals (like a hamster) in Gorillas, this demonstrates that this obviously took a process of millions and millions of years, humans did not one day wake up existing having to "learn" how to fuck. I'll explain this very carefully: mating practices continued to exist, even before man was bipedal, but because such a drastic and abrupt change in sexual relations had to occur before this process, the necessity of selecting for more SOCIAL behaviors, rather than intrinsically biological ones, was probably necessary for, let's hypothesize, the more flexible mobility and lifestyle of the first humans. The human brain increased in size and structure precisely to accommodate for its growing dependence upon the social totality of its existence.

Yes...I totally agree with the evolutionary principle fueled by biological imperative that you describe here. Because that is exactly what you are doing here.

It is absolutely laughable to claim that women have an evolutionary predisposition to, for example, fuck rich men,

The only one who consistently does this...is you actually. The rest of us have been arguing that partner selection is in part depended on evolutionary principles based on biological imperatives...among which I think I specifically mentioned survival. Now I know how you see these concepts is in a simplistic "hungry caterpillar" way...instead of seeing the abstracts...but that means that in any given social context the partner selection of men and women are influenced on the criteria that offer the best chance at survival success...regardless of the social definitions. This does not mean " rich", this does not mean "physically strong" and this does not mean "care taker" per se....nor does it mean " masculine", "feminine", "aggressive". Nor does it mean that it is exactly the same for every individual person.

What it does however mean that the tendency in human partner selection is to select the mate that offers the best chance of success. For you that could be a submissive woman; for somebody else it could mean somebody who is physically attractive; for others that could mean somebody who is offering safety. Overall however...in every epoch...the tendency seems to be with selecting the person who fits the behavioral normative roles...because the behavioral normative roles are often indicative of what is seen as the behavior with the largest chance of social-economic success...within a given social context...which means that that tendency can vary from culture to culture....because what is going to be successful also often varies from culture to culture....yet the underlying principles maintain the same.

Now...you focus on women specifically...do note that I am focusing on BOTH men and women.

or that there is an evolutionary explanation behind the "friend-zone"

There is no friend zone. So not seeing your point here. Nor have I argued there is one.

What I have argued about the friend zone consistently is that it is a concept that enforced male gender behavior. Which is a statement many don't agree with. I have also argued that the ones now hiding behind the label of friend zone are the ones who use it to try and reinforce their own social hierarchical standing.

when all of these things are scientifically explainable WITHIN TERMS OF OUR PRESENT SOCIETY and not a hunter-gatherer one.

Sure they are. And if you have been reading carefully and had actually understood what my problem with your position is...is that culture does influence behavior...but that behavior also influences culture. That man has NOT risen above biological imperatives and that they play an important part in shaping actual culture....as well as culture influencing biological imperatives.

There is a feedback loop between the two.

Your position is based however on rejecting this feedback loop and solely focusing on the cultural primacy. This one sided theoretical wishful thinking.

Devoid of a scientific conception of the social, however, what is inevitable is that conclusions about our society will be made based on ideas of "human nature" or whatever, because they have NO OTHER WAY of explaining this or that behavior.

And this means that you do not understand what evolutionary psychology is. Evolutionary psychology does not merely draw back to the non statement "Hurdur human nature" it tries to explain why certain behavior develops through time. It not only tries to explain how human nature varies from individual to individual, from culture to culture, epoch to epoch, it explains why the expression of behavior changes and how biological principles can influence social/historic development and vice versa.

Actually no, I can be a sexist, and a pro-racist, and recognize that these things exist. One can scientifically conceive the existence of racism and sexism, and their structural role, without any moral implications whatsoever. Has it ever occurred to you that the ideas of mankind can actually be conceived on a scientific level? Crazy, right? For example, it is a historical fact that scientific racism coincided with colonialism: That is how a materialist approaches history. One can justify colonialism, and the racism that came with it while recognizing this fact.

Well..given that I have been arguing this since the start and rejected your pseudo scientific narrative based on subjective political agenda's rather than actual data....I think I am pretty well aware of that fact.

I claim that your accusation of "moralization" has its grounding in the idea that conceiving racism and sexism has to be done from some kind of moral standpoint, but that is not the case. Rather, expressing racism and sexism subconsciously actually requires a plethora of affirmative moral pre-suppositions.

No. What I claim is that you are moralizing because your argument against EP is based on drawing the comparison with Scientific Racism and how that was so awful in your opinion. Not only is that comparison simply wrong...you also do it to incite emotions to make your position sound more legitimate.

I am also concluding that you are moralizing based on the fact that your argumentative basis against EP is firmly rooted in a political subjective agenda which simply ignores data structures and long term existing facts....without offering counter facts or comprehensive (if you will holistic) interpretations outside of subjective narrative.

Now let's take away from your argument here:

That would be an awesome idea if you were actually stating my argument. You however are not stating an argument I was making. So this seems to be a futile attempt at putting words in my mouth

You claim that because there are inherently moral connontaitons with sexism and racism, that my claim is inherently a moral one.

Nope. I am not.

But this is true for EVERYTHING which evolutionary psychology concerns. Evolutionary Scumfuckers claim this or that, then say "Science isn't PC" and pretend that everyoen is free to "interpret the data" politically how they want, without questioning the data.

You can question the data. It would be awesome if you actually did so...because if you did then you would in fact be on to something her...rather than offering subjective narratives which reject the data based on political agenda's. This is not questioning the data.

But what's the double standard with you AUTOMATICALLY ascribing moral characteristics to the recognition of structural sexism and structural racism? Can I not, in the same vein, claim that "You're free to interpret the facts however you want morally" and get away with it?

Yeah but you know...EP doesn't actually legitimize sexism and racism. In fact it offers a pletora of data which opposes them and offer scientific arguments that actually make sexism and racism unfounded in evolutionary theory. Your arguments drawing comparison on these two subjects however try to suggest that that is what EP is doing.

And while there are many arguments to be made about the current theories by EP...what you are doing is falsifying an argument....discrediting the field by making untrue statements and basically try to incite emotions in order to legitimize your personal subjective dislike of evolutionary sciences.

Now...I know there are some people who use specific data sets to prove this or that kind of agenda. This happened with biological evolution, this happened with behaviorism, this happened with medical science....And it is NOT exclusive to EP. Yet you make it seem it is.

THAT is moralizing. Inciting emotional arguments based in fabrications to dismiss the field. That is unscientific.

Of course the whole thing is dishonest. That'st the point. So congratulations, you just demonstrated FOR ME how it is impossible to abstract such political considerations from science regardless of whether you're going in critically or thinking with your ass. Go on, tell me how there is no moral, political or ideological dimension to the idea that this or that behavior has its basis in biological realities,

I know this is hard for you to understand but when data points in one direction this does not mean that therefore that is what should be allowed nor does that mean that that is the end of the story.

Wauw...I know I just blew your mind there...very novel concept.

tell me about how the logical conclusion isn't that this behavior is "natural" or inevitable,

Again...not what EP does. EP does not say it is inevitable. It does not say it is " natural" and therefore should be accepted. It is for example extremely natural to bash somebodies head in with a stone when you are angry. People have been doing that for ages. Several species kill each other for whatever reason. It is very natural behavior. It has a biological imperative behind it that can explain why it happens. Some behavior can even be explained to exist based on evolutionary principles.

THAT HOWEVER DOES NOT MEAN THAT SOCIETY CAN NOT DISPROVE OF IT...

...:ohmy::ohmy: Wauw...the novel ground breaking ideas just keep being handed to you :ohmy::ohmy:

tell me about how it doesn't remove capital as the culprit of fostering such behavior but instead places it squarely in some kind of inevitably existing innateness of the human species.

Well...I won't because other than you try to allege again and again...I am neither a fan of EP not am I suggesting that evolution is the only factor here. I have however from the start been saying there is a feed back loop....something you seem to reject.

It's incredible how these bourgeois ideologues think.

Is it? I think there is probably an evolutionary reason for it :P

Where would you place the growing popularity of evolutionary psychology at, most especially in the domain of popular science and the common sentiments of the everyday person. Every scumfuck idiot at the gym has already replaced religion with evolutionary psychology, so tell me, when did this happen? When did scientific racism become most popular, Pheonix?

Scientific racism became very popular since the early 19th century basing itself on works dating as far back as the 17th century...and really, really took flight after Darwin.

EP developed at the end of the 1960's....decades after Scientific Racism has been completely discredited and found to be obsolete.

Of course...the roots of EP date back to the concept of evolution with Darwin and Lamarque.

When did the re-emergence of scientific racism, such as the Bell Curve and IQ and Wealth of Nations occur, Pheonix?

Lol. Yeah sure...the "reemergence of Scientific Racism" because of the book Bell Curve...which by the way...cited existing studies from fields waaaaaay outside EP...and is not considered form an EP perspective.

Aside from that...I don't feel to get into a book review...most of the criticism leveled against the book was based on two or three chapters and was thoroughly based in publishing contradictory scientific facts or attacking the relevancy of the data set. It was however not based on mere political narratives. And that is aside from the fact that both the authors of the book started the chapter that there needs to be research in how far biology determines intelligence...or culture determines intelligence....basically making your case...and not arguing that that was genetically based!

You're telling me that the correlation with the material foundations of the society which produced those works is just a coincidence? IT's fucking HYPOCRITICAL that you deny attempting to evaluate human SOCIETIES in scientific terms. Instead, "science" itself is an untouchable holy word that has no basis in material considerations.

Again...I am not.

As I have consistently argued I reject your cultural primacy one sided subjective narrative which simply rejects data sets which you do not find convenient.

So I must again restate...because it fails to register with you...that both biological imperative, genetic factors and cultural factors shape each other.

Science, and its varying degrees is linked to the class struggle. That is a fact. the proletariat is the only class that can conceive reality in the least ideological manner,

Yeah. I reject that last part.

because it is not burdened with having to reproduce society full of class antagonisms (The majority of whom, if they knew the social realities, would destroy it) in an ideological manner. Evolutionary psychology is not simply "wrong" science, it is not science at all.

Yeah...no...again you are making a statement that you fail to support by the entirety of your argument and which some of your arguments even contradict.

So why did evolutionary psychology emerge? The "natural" inclinations of humans to be curious about the world? Give me a FUCKING break. This was something that was, with the data that was available back then, more than infinitely possible in the early 20th century, and yet it didn't exist.

Actually it did. Several evolutionary works about psychology were written in the early 19th century. The field as a comprehensive field however did not exist before the 70's though...within biological evolution studies, mind, emotions and behavior did feature.

I guess humans are divine beings after all, miraculous little creatures who are naturally curious about the universe and will always be burdened with the mystery of life. Que credits for National Geographic spectacle-vomit-shit documentary about life on Earth.

Bla

And humans are not animals.

Uhuh. Sure buddy. You are a talking ape. That is about it.

There is something distinct about humans from the animal kingdom, because we're the only fucking animals to create the abstraction called the "animal kingdom" and all of the taxonomy we have about animals has its direct reference point back to us psychologically.

And this proves what? That we set ourselves apart from animals? And basically what you argue here is that we are not animals because we say we are not animals.

So what makes us distinct? Animals don't argue on the computer over this. Evolutionary psychology is degenerate in that it reduces man to an animal, reduces his spiritual capacities on reflecting upon the material world around him to the ignorance of a metaphysical paradigm which basically amounts to living life within the confines of your own immediate experiences. Why did it take so fucking long for us to learn that we're animals? What animal looks in the mirror and claims "I am an animal"? The fact that we can THINK about this, and QUESTION it alone proves that no - we are not animals. It is innate even in the linguistic structure - humans designate all animals as being different from themselves PRECISELY because there IS a real difference, not simply in a way that is relative only to us, but insofar as animals are devoid of spiritual consciousness (in the Hegelian sense, not some new age cack). Animals do not have spirit, they do not have a social totality or a social dimension, they do not have gods which encapsulate the entire social totality of their existence, and so on. We are not animals, and human behavior is not reducible on a biological level. The biological is vestigial, the social is active. For fuck's sake, even with new developments in bio-engineering, this alone discredits it. What biological inclinations are there to change intentionally? None. The social has overridden it and made possible the ability to change it... It's hilarious that you claim we're animals.

It is hilarious that you seem to be under the impression that most of the traits you describe here are not present in other species we do consider animals....concept of self, abstract thought, language, intrinsic communication patterns, behavioral recognition...etc. Altruism. Complexer emotional structures.

Mao said that bourgeois rationalists can only conceive things in terms of quantity, they cannot even fathom a change in quality.

He should know...he was one.

So everything that exists in all of human history is a mere abstraction of a category only made relevant by modern society. Thus we have "culture", this we have "art", thus we have "science" and thus we have "religion", "politics", etc. Even though in previous societies there was seldom such a clear cut distinction that constituted an actual linear evolution conceivable separate from each other.

Blah.

If you call me a liberal moralist in contrast to evolutionary psychology, YOU ARE A REACTIONARY, period.

I am calling you a liberal moralist because you use moralism to grant legitimacy to your narrative. This is what you yourself weeks ago called liberalism. ...yet now it applies to you.

This does not say anything about my opinions on EP...which you seem to consistently misrepresent.

If you call someone a liberal from the standpoint of a cop apologist, in the same vein, you are a reactionary. Are you fucking kidding me? Only reactionaries use the word "agenda" anyway.

yes...which you totally admitted in doing. So..... :rolleyes:

It's none of your fucking business what my real motivations are for doing this, because it doesn't matter.

Actually it does matter what your real motivations are. Don't contradict yourself. You are asking that same question about EP...

I am willing to bet people like Steven Pinker are closet fascists, but that doesn't actually constitute a viable criticism of their work. Most scientists have motivations for being scientists that is divorced from science itself, i.e. either for some stupid ideological platitude of "benefiting mankind" or for purely political reasons. IT DOES NOT MATTER!

which is why you are spending such an awful amount of time trying to establish that the motivations behind science and scientists is perpetuating bourgeoisie rule.

So again...you are contradicting yourself.

Marx never claimed the class struggle was driven biologically.

Eh...yeah...he actually did. You know...when he said that we sell labor in order to survive and that that is the basis of capitalism...to exploit the natural drive for self perpetuation. He then proceeded to describe class interests to oppose each other...based on the biological determination of what provides a better solution to this biological imperative.

What biological changes are wrought out form it?

What are you on about? Biological changes? Do you even understand what we are talking about?

He and Engels first contemplated, upon leaving the Young Hegelians, whether history was in fact a biological struggle between nations, but they realized the error in this very quickly. If I'm a liberal moralist,, you're a devotee to German Fascism, which explicitly claimed all history was a biological struggle. Do class differences have their basis in biology? What a STUPID fucking thing to say that Marx thought the driving force of the class struggle had its basis in biology...

Yeah...it is pretty stupid that you don't get what we are talking about...

[quote]
Then your head is in your ass. It wasn't "booted" from universities in the sense of actually being banned but in many fields it waned in prominence. Marxism dominated anthropology for a long time, and where are we now?

Discredited for falsifying data sets and ignoring them

Marxism in the universities came under intense and heavy assault on an academic level during the late 1970's and the 1980's, do you deny this? Of course it was not a POLITICAL assault where actual laws were passed, or teachers were fired, but the general aroma of the university was no longer Marxist.

Yup...and do you know what the basis was for that? Do you? And do you understand WHY that was actually successful? Because of pseudo scientific douche bags and pompous arrogant ass wipes who, like you are doing here, ignored data sets...failed to create comprehensive theories because they ignored data that didn't fit...and therefore discredited Marxist influences by not accounting for opposing data, leaving it open to be completely undermined...based on opposing research.

OMG...who knew that the basis I am criticizing you on...is that what you are doing actually devaluates your own arguments because it ignores data which will come back to bite you in the ass....

IT is exactly someone who rejects the scientific nature of Marxism who makes grand pretenses about Marx which have no basis in reality. I mean for fuck's sake, you want to ridicule and mock historical materialism and yet you make authorative claims regarding Marx. Shows your level of respect for Marxism, really. Laugh away, philistine, laugh away at your own ignorance of the fact that Marism is not an ideology.

Well...aside from the fact that you completely rejected science in the post I criticized and used the "scientific" part of Marxism to illustrate what a complete asswipe you are for making that argument...and actually pointed out to you that Marxism was science based...I am not entirely surprised that you didn't get the point.

But yeah...I have in fact very little respect for Marxism. Because I don't think theories should be awarded respect...at all. I don't worship books, authors, or theories...

IT is contingent upon the ideology of Communism, but it itself is not an ideology. It's so cute that you try and argue with me and yet you have a high schoolers notion of what constitutes "ideology": Hint, I refer explicitly to the Lacanian-Althusserian notion, not a "collection" of ideas (In which case Quantum theory is ideology too). Just because something is controversial does not make it outside ideology. Quantum theory was controversial and so is evolution here in the United States (on a political level). Get over it.

Well...Rafiq...so far your entire diatribe has been based on misrepresenting what I said. Fabricating what I said. Putting words in my mouth. Trying to shift tables. Showing complete lack of understanding about what we are actually talking about. And making arguments that have no bearing on things I actually said.

I hope it is going to be better from here on....but I kind of doubt it.

Do you actually THINK WITH YOUR FUCKING ASS? You literally SHIT OUT words with absolutely no consideration for substance. You just dismiss, and ideologically designate my claims in terms of platitudes

I think I made a pretty consistent argument against your claims calling them normative diatribe of pseudo scientific fallacies and subjective morality and misrepresentations. Basically that means I have considered your entire argument...saw that some parts hit the board...but that by and large your conclusions, the basis of the arguments...was complete and utter shit insulting the intelligence of people who actually know what the fuck we are talking about.

and cliche's without even giving them a thought. Frankly this is infinitely worse than flaming, and by Christ do I have words for you. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't FUCKING MATTER WHAT I THINK ABOUT THE WORLD, the CRITICISMS of the scienticity of the argument

OMG THAT IS SO TRUE. But you probably mean it in another way. :(

, whether they have their basis in politics or something else, STILL STAND. Evolutionary psychology is ENTIRELY bullshit,

Then it shouldn't be so hard to actually show why that is based on actual facts rather than on the basis of a subjective normative, emotional and moralistic narrative. So far you have failed to deliver.

And by god...am I not a fan of EP and know exactly how to do so. Your method however does not develop beyond a 5 years old made up and made pretend story. And I refuse to accept that.

ON TOP of politically legitimizing the existing order. Maybe the political reality of it has HEIGHTENED my energetic effort in pointing this out, but the fact of the matter is that there is NO scientific basis to evolutionary psychology and anyone who devotes energy into critically evaluating it, regardless of their motivations, would come to this conclusion.

except they would do so on the basis of actual data, facts and fair criticism. They do not need, like you, fabricate arguments, ignore data sets, discredit things the entire field of psychology/biology and medicine holds for fact, create emotional parallels that aren't actually there...etc.

And I didn't fucking say science was at odds with Marxism, I said it was at odds with IDEOLOGY. It is your own STUPIDITY which makes you inclined to automatically assume Marxism is an ideology.

Maybe you need to reread the statement you made and try to comprehend the stupidity I was trying to illustrate there.

Let's go further, just to show what a stupid ass you are, confront the idea that I have a belief about how the world "Should" function. What the FUCK Does this mean? Any moral pretense has its basis in ideological and social realities. It doesn't matter how I think the world "should" function, it matters that the world will either function in this way, or another way. The real basis is in which side you take. The world functions IN THIS WAY and that is the only thing we can know. So knowing how the world functions properly, AS IT IS NOW, what conclusions do we draw about the rest? Only with the definite POLITICAL and IDEOLOGICAL opposition to the status quo was Marx able to criticize capitalism scientifically and produce for us Kapital. Only with the IDEOLOGICAL opposition to the church by bourgeois-humanists was Kepler, Galileo and the enlightenment possible. That does not mean the CONTENT of the science is ideological, but that it is CONTINGENT upon real political, social and ideological antagonisms. "I only know this is true BECAUSE my guns are pointed in the right direction". THAT is Marxism.

Ah...but Marxism is not an ideology. Yet merely uses ideology to be able to become scientific. Uhuh.

Good evening Rafiq. Try to make an actual argument next time.

Rafiq

4th June 2015, 02:34

As I have explained to you this is my problem with your position and that the whole is infinitely more complex, that cultural primacy is only half the story, and that there is in fact a mutual feedback loop between culture and evolution...where both play an important part in human behavior. This is what you consistently spend time rejecting.

First of all, let's clear one thing up: Whether it regards the "nurture vs. nature" debate or the so-called dichotomy between culture and biology, this is entirely alien to Marxism. Your argument, rather than providing any kind of substance, attempts to make pretenses to fanciful ideologically based epistemological falsities about taking the golden road about two categories which have constantly been rejected as to having any kind of causality for human behavior as an ends-in-itself whatsoever. It means nothing to say that culture influences behavior. Where does the culture come from? And why? It's merely an aesthetic tautology to attribute it any causality. "Culture" is a meaningless category in this regard, because it is not cultural difference which forms the basis of variance between human behavior, but different social relationships to production. Culture is ultimately, and in the last instance, subordinate to the social totality. Cultural patterns do not just "form" and influence itself, it is reinforced by definite social foundations that make it necessary. As much as we know from capitalism, if culture so much as gets an inch in the way of capital's hunger it is knocked down and replaced. The reason this is, as a category solely unique to the vulgar pseudo-darwinists (Ironically it was a scientific racist who coined the term "nature vs. nurture" is because the idea of culture is already explicitly accepted by biological deterministic as being something that is a product of the biological constitution of man as an animal, i.e in their pseudo-taxonomy of the human species, the ability for man to have 'Culture' and 'technology' and so on is ALREADY implicitly accepted as being a reality of his existence. So you're creating a dichotomy here which is already one sided.

Furthermore, I did not claim that all behavior does not regard biological mechanisms, I explicitly claimed that biology facilitates the expression of social behaviors. The point is that it does not DETERMINE them. For example, the biological reality of a women having her monthly might make her have a heightened sex drive because her genitals might become more sensitive around this time. The point, however, is that the sexual drive itself is not determined biologically, it is merely influenced by the reality of biology as vestigial. The fundamental divide, difference if you will between her sexuality and what her body is doing, is still there, sustained by her essence belonging to a social domain, rather than a biological one. And of course, without the biological mechanisms which facilitate the erection of a penis, how could there be sex? Does that mean we come to bizarre, and stupid conclusions about sexuality like the so-called "Child-rearing hips" being INHERENTLY more desirable which were later found to be a myth considering that there was no correlation between them and the ability to better rear children? The fact of the matter is that the psychological has no biological basis, because the psychological becomes only possible wrought out from the social. To claim otherwise is entirely paradoxical because it would reject being epistemologically consistent, i.e. "The claim 'human behavior has its basis in biology' is biologically determined by X" would fundamentally undermine the notion. So when you talk about this or that behavior being "biologically influenced", WHAT DO YOU MEAN and HOW DO YOU KNOW? That's the fucking point.

So there is no primacy of culture whatsoever being claimed on my part. In fact the fetishization of culture is purely a neoliberal, post-globalization phenomena wherein various other "cultural domains" became a part of a singular world totality, which forced "scientists" to accept it as a point of relavnence. But culture is not an ends in itself, culture only expresses a deeper social reality, namely, the basis of survival and life - which, if biologically determined, would not allow for any cultural difference at all besides in consideration of geographic realities. Because capitalism is capable of making malleable "politics", "culture" and "technology" to its timeless existence, these categories are conceived as meaningful by bourgeois ideologues. But in previous societies there was seldom such a clear cut distinction between them that would warrant, by their own terms, to consider them separate categories - these are SOLELY capitalist abstractions. And they are not meaningful ones in explaining the PROCESS OF historical change, which you claim Marx sais "driven by biological imperatives":

Eh...yeah...he actually did. You know...when he said that we sell labor in order to survive and that that is the basis of capitalism...to exploit the natural drive for self perpetuation. He then proceeded to describe class interests to oppose each other...based on the biological determination of what provides a better solution to this biological imperative.

What are you on about? Biological changes? Do you even understand what we are talking about?

It is tautological to claim that survival is an axiomatic condition of human existence, because without it there would be no humans. So it is absolutely meaningless to claim this - in fact, this is EXACTLY what destroys culture fetishism: Because it is the relationships to the foundation of survival and its reproduction through culture that form the basis of all societies, precisely because the survival of those societies as well as the individuals of which it is composed of is contingent upon the relationship between man and nature. That doesn't, however, serve as an argument that class struggle is "driven by biological imperatives" because:

Firstly, this is even grossly anti-darwinist. There is no "natural" drive to regard the holistic "biological imperative" of a whole species. Classes do not fight because they believe they are "better" at suiting the holistic biological needs of humankind (even if this is part of their rhetoric), they could at the last instance care less about this. The fact of the matter is that there is no drive which regards or concerns a "better solution" to any biological imperative, including survival in the domain of class struggle - because before capitalism no class struggle was waged on direct, socially conscious grounds, save for perhaps slavery. The class struggle that defined the rise of the bourgeoisie was not a direct battle between classes but the unleashing of a plethora of class antagonisms that resulted in their ascension to social power, for one. Class war is solely expressed on these terms before capitalism. Class interests oppose each other for reasons precisely inherent to the respective totalities from which the classes form a part of, which is exactly why Marx claimed Communism was only possible after the reality of capitalism, that the proletariat and bourgeoisie were theoretically the first two classes in history because from their antagonism was social-consciousness of history able to be wrought out. It is a pretense to the metaphysical to claim that this is "natural" and so on, because we then blur the lines on what constitutes what is natural, and what is not. The dichotomy cannot be conceived in terms of culture, because a "natural" basis could theoretically (but unscientifically) be provided for its existence. So what is natural, and what is not natural? One begins to realize that the idea of "nature" is nothing more than a metaphysical construct.

The struggle to survive as an imperative is only contingent upon existing, but even this is often something man conceives in a vestigial way. Only humans have stupid existential crises's, because merely surviving IS NOT ENOUGH. This is why humans have what Freud calls death drive, a desire, an insistence for something beyond life and death... Furthermore, only by merit of the entanglement of social realities do humans intentionally commit suicide. Some will talk about animals refusing food, but there is no evidence of this being an intentional desire to die. To exist is axiomatic, and the desire to reproduce existence is reproduced socially.

...by simply refusing to acknowledge parts that don't suit you.

Which don't suit ME? Who the fuck am I? This is meaningless. How, in any practical way could this suit me personally or not? Even if it could, somehow, it doesn't matter whether these parts "suit me" because this would only ever be a matter of convenience: It suits me, AND it's completely unscientific. The reality of the former, hypothetically, does not negate a demonstration of the latter, something I have done thoroughly and relentlessly if you actually would have read my fucking posts.

Yes...I totally agree with the evolutionary principle fueled by biological imperative that you describe here. Because that is exactly what you are doing here.

What the FUCK are you talking about? You claimed that if humans didn't automatically know how to fuck biologically, then they wouldn't have been able to exist. I claimed that even animals that are primarily dictated by ecological/biological mechanisms, like the gorilla (who are more social than a hamster, say) have a profoundly social dimension to sexual relations, which suggests that the predispositions to social development were present for millions and millions of years in the hominid, before finally over-riding its biological imperatives. This is measurable by the ecology of the animal: Humans have no innate ecology, habitat or environment. Which is the WHOLE FUCKING POINT of a biologically innate behavior in the first place, to CONFORM to a static relationship to nature! Which humans have utterly failed at doing - by merit of being purely social creatures with vestigial biological predispositions.

What it does however mean that the tendency in human partner selection is to select the mate that offers the best chance of success.

Yes, but this tells us nothing about some kind of innate, genetically determined behavior. In fact, this can be rationally conceived on the terms of each according social totality by its own merits, there is no biological explanation necessary. Each society creates standards of "success", inherently linked to class realities through a social/symbolic order, and it follows that those standards are fulfilled behaviorally. Saying that "humans naturally select partners that offer the best chance of success" is meaningless because it assumes there is a universal standard of what constitutes "success" in place: the mere WORD automatically inherits a plethora of meanings, which of course include fulfilling an already pre-designated behavioral standard which reproduces the social order. You don't need a genetic predisposition for this to exist, however, it is already present in EVERY foundation of society, definite conditions for reproducing its existence. So your claim is a worthless abstraction. Yes humans are social creatures, the mere inter-subjective entanglement of their existence, the mere summation of their social relationships to each other is enough to produce such standards. To conceive this on a biological level is to fail to conceive the fact that the social dimension alone is capable of producing a reality irreducible to the biological, the social reality which seeks to reproduce itself (and THEREFORE reproduce humans on a biological level, not the other way around!). The social serves to reproduce the biological. The biological does not serve to reproduce the social (how can it? Take the linguistic notion of the "social" here - which implies a contrast between different social/historic realities. The biological remains constant, but the historical doesn't).

Now...you focus on women specifically...do note that I am focusing on BOTH men and women.

Braavo, both men and women actually exist. EP claims men want servile, young and fertile women while women themselves want a man with "good genes" and a high social status (They tried to find a correlation between the two, and failed hilariously), and thus the origin of all sexual conflict emerges from this "clash of reproductive strategies". Fucking insanity.

And this means that you do not understand what evolutionary psychology is. Evolutionary psychology does not merely draw back to the non statement "Hurdur human nature" it tries to explain why certain behavior develops through time.

According to them, this behavior is grounded in biological, and therefore natural processes. Tell me how this isn't a pretense to human nature, now?

based on subjective political agenda's rather than actual data....

Data is nothing without a conclusion to draw from it. Do you disagree? What counter-data could I possibly offer, there are no studies which control for variables like whether it's a common occurrence in pre-capitalist, pre-modern societies. Is it common for a rural Afghani married women to fuck big husky men on one night stands? What societies have one night stands besides post-sexual revolution capitalist societies? You can say that such "natural" behavior is restricted through violence, and then I, an Afghani EP, can say that men violently restricting their wives is itself a natural thing, selected for through evolution. Hur dur "human nature" indeed.

No. What I claim is that you are moralizing because your argument against EP is based on drawing the comparison with Scientific Racism and how that was so awful in your opinion. Not only is that comparison simply wrong...you also do it to incite emotions to make your position sound more legitimate.

The reality is that scientific racism isn't being mentioned here simply because it was ethically abominable. The point is that what sustained scientific racism in terms of what made it powerful and popular had nothing to do with its basis in scientific inquiry or methodology, but contingent upon the ideology of colonialism. New imperialism didn't happen because scientists found out blacks and brown people were stupid and inferior, the predisposition former proceeded the latter. Hence most of the claims evolutionary psychologists make don't really need to be backed up by data because they're usually commonly accepted tropes anyway. IT has nothing to do with how awful scientific racism was. It has everything to do with how unscientific it was, and why. It is because of course of colonialism and imperialism that it was sustained, not science. And it is because of ecology fetishism, the new religion of capitalism, and it is because of the absence of a militant working class that evolutionary psychology reigns supreme, in the face of the absence of another alternative for explaining behavior. No "new data" emerged during this period which rendered previous psychological theories obsolete. It was purely an ideological paradigm shift. Lenin could have wiped his ass with ALL of the new "criticisms of Marxism" in the 80's in the 1920's.

Nope. I am not.

So when you automatically said "you're a moralist" when I mentioned sexism and racism, what did you mean exactly? Stop bullshitting and grow a backbone. Own up to what you say.

You can question the data. It would be awesome if you actually did so...because if you did then you would in fact be on to something her...rather than offering subjective narratives which reject the data based on political agenda's. This is not questioning the data.

You can't question data. Data is data. You have theoretical qualifications, say, a survey to determine the frequencies of hair color, and so on, and that's all you have. The data has qualifications for existing, and unless it's fabricated or collected wrongly, it cannot be questions. Data has no soul, no meaning. We draw CONCLUSIONS from data to support hypotheses we make before collecting data. If the hypothesis itself is based in false theoretical premises, the data will not support it, because the hypothesis failed to control for other, unknown variables (that others could know). I can say "if the sun comes up tomorrow, allah is truly real, because there couldn't be a sun without allah creating it". I don't need data to have that premise. I can collect data to support that premise, which will inevitably support it. But if the premise is wrong to begin wit, data doesn't mean shit. Learn epistemology.

In fact it offers a pletora of data which opposes them and offer scientific arguments that actually make sexism and racism unfounded in evolutionary theory.

Show me three studies that have their basis in evolutionary PSYCHOLOGY that "makes sexism and racism unfounded in evolutionary theory" and I will send you twenty dollars. I am not bluffing. No such data exists, and how could it? Evolutionary psychology is not a critical discipline, it makes affirmative, positive claims. It does not say "evolution proves sexism has no basis in nature". Quite the opposite actually.

Again...not what EP does. EP does not say it is inevitable. It does not say it is " natural" and therefore should be accepted.

Of course no one accepts rape and racism are good. Well, few people do anyway. But that isn't the point. But grounding them in biological processes, rather than relative social ones, the nature of the problem is conceived in such a way that it reproduces them. It has inherently political implications: Now when racial injustice, or horrible acts of rape occur, we can have a fucker come and explain them in terms of the biological processes they're apparently rooted in. This de-sensitizes our anger, disgust and revulsion towards them, through reification it makes them normal one way or another. You cannot properly, actually fight rape if you think it is a consequence of biology. Where the FUCK do you think the EP scum will be when a war breaks out? "Ah, fighting over resources, just like our savannah ancestors" is what they will say. Don't tell me this doesn't legitimize it. Your head is up your ass if you think it doesn't.

It is for example extremely natural to bash somebodies head in with a stone when you are angry. People have been doing that for ages. Several species kill each other for whatever reason. It is very natural behavior. It has a biological imperative behind it that can explain why it happens. Some behavior can even be explained to exist based on evolutionary principles.

Which is absolutely meaningless - no it is not "natural" because as far as its occurrence in humans concerns, it is explainable in terms of very real, "unnatural" realities. You can't divorce them, or abstract this or that behavior from the totality from which it is derived. Only a human would bash a fascists head in - would an ape? No, there are no ape fascists. We can conceive the REASONS behind things by their own merits. A behavior that exists, DOES NOT HAVE TO HAVE ITS BASIS IN BIOLOGY even though we might project this behavior onto animals (i.e. as being caused by the same thing). Regardless, it's a stupid claim anyway considering not one recorded case of a bonobo murdering another was been found as of now. Such behavior in animals is solely due to ecological considerations, while in humans it exists for other reasons. Reducing it to some timeless, unknowable metaphysical force, biological or otherwise, is not only lazy, it is the epitome of bourgeois formalist idealism.

EP developed at the end of the 1960's....decades after Scientific Racism has been completely discredited and found to be obsolete.

That was not my point. My point wasn't that they were the same, or that they were related - the point was that popular trends in "science" that concern the social dimension coincide with developments in the basis of society itself. EP became popular at the same time being able to question the system, which underwent an internal productive revolution, and being able to fathom the language to oppose it became rendered obsolete. The behaviors, the humans persisted, so some kind of way to understand this scientifically was still necessary. And that's where EP came in - because it didn't have to question anything to become popular.

Lol. Yeah sure...the "reemergence of Scientific Racism" because of the book Bell Curve...which by the way...cited existing studies from fields waaaaaay outside EP...and is not considered form an EP perspective.

Aside from that...I don't feel to get into a book review...most of the criticism leveled against the book was based on two or three chapters and was thoroughly based in publishing contradictory scientific facts or attacking the relevancy of the data set. It was however not based on mere political narratives. And that is aside from the fact that both the authors of the book started the chapter that there needs to be research in how far biology determines intelligence...or culture determines intelligence....basically making your case...and not arguing that that was genetically based!

So you're an apologist of the Bell Curve, then. Interesting. It absolutely tried to argue for a racial, heritable basis for "intelligence". One of the studies claimed that poor whites were less predisposed to crime than poor blacks. It turns out that the poor whites were rural, while whites in urban Cleveland were just as much supsteible to crime as blacks. How could it make that error, huh? Why did it? Regardless of the intentions of the author, it became immensely influential and popular in the domain of the refreshed scientific racism, and that's why it is remembered as significant. Around the same time IQ and Wealth of Nations came around - this phenomena of newly revived scientific racism is NOT something marginal. Try again.

Actually it did. Several evolutionary works about psychology were written in the early 19th century.

EP wasn't wroth a crock of shit before the 1970's and don't kid yourself otherwise. You can find any marginal text about this or that from any time period and it won't serve as an eventful basis for the linear predecessor of ANY real event of significance. Of course bourgeois ideologues who can't even fathom the idea of one thing changing into another, always having to have some kind of traceable, linear past into this or that is necessary.

And this proves what? That we set ourselves apart from animals? And basically what you argue here is that we are not animals because we say we are not animals.

No, saying that "we are animals" proves we are not animals. That is the point. That we are so stupid NOT to set ourselves apart, consciously. No animal does this.

It is hilarious that you seem to be under the impression that most of the traits you describe here are not present in other species we do consider animals....concept of self, abstract thought, language, intrinsic communication patterns, behavioral recognition...etc. Altruism. Complexer emotional structures.

These are meaningful only because they are human abstractions we project onto other creatures, (even if they are real and observable). Tell me again about how the Dolphin told you it values its abstract thought as a means of sustaining its taxonomic identity, though. Don't fucking kid yourself: Humans are NOT animals, they are entirely distinct from animals and even attempting to reduce yourself to one is paradoxical - what animal has to find characteristics in common with other creatures to define itself? Is this present in other animals, Ash? Even Christianity offers a better explanation between the relationship between man and beast. If humans were animals, the category called "the animal" would not exist. Plainly and simply.

Actually it does matter what your real motivations are. Don't contradict yourself. You are asking that same question about EP...

which is why you are spending such an awful amount of time trying to establish that the motivations behind science and scientists is perpetuating bourgeoisie rule.

So again...you are contradicting yourself.

No, because the personal motivations people have to engage in scientific discipline, and the actual function of their discipline in relation to a wider totality are two entirely different things. Most EP probably regard themselves as "honest scientists" who want to avoid the "political" obfuscation of science by PC liberals or whatever. And of course that's not enough to discredit them. The point is that you do two things: Point out how their conclusions don't support their data, and then when puzzled by why this is popular, provide an explanation about why they were spontaneously inclined to come to that conclusion, why that conclusion was wrought out and so on. I have done both, but you seem to be fixated on the latter. Interesting.

Discredited for falsifying data sets and ignoring them

Yup...and do you know what the basis was for that? Do you? And do you understand WHY that was actually successful? Because of pseudo scientific douche bags and pompous arrogant ass wipes who, like you are doing here, ignored data sets...failed to create comprehensive theories because they ignored data that didn't fit...and therefore discredited Marxist influences by not accounting for opposing data, leaving it open to be completely undermined...based on opposing research.

Actually it had no empirical basis whatsoever. All the "new" findings could have been conceptualized by Marxists earlier just as easily. What actually occurred was a radical ideological paradigm shift that rendered Communism, the ideology that is, crystalized and without vitality. Neoliberalism and finance capitalism were very real, distinctly, from the post-war capitalist totality. They were built upon a trampled and utterly defeated working class. You're simply making assumptions about Marxists in academia solely from your encounters with me, which is completely infantile as an approach. What examples do you have to confirm this? And if it's true, why did it take PRECISELY that long for Marxists to lose credence? Surely if they were ignoring empirical realities, people would have been able to catch on - why did it take several decades, coincidentally around the same time as the ideas of Communism were ideologically destroyed independently of any scientific inquiry (Or did the fall of the Berlin wall happen because scientists mandated it?).

Ah...but Marxism is not an ideology. Yet merely uses ideology to be able to become scientific. Uhuh.

So your qualm is that, when simplified and botched of any real substance, my argument sounds ridiculous. Yes it uses ideological designations of the reality that another society is POSSIBLE to vitalize itself. Absolutely. Quantum theory is not an ideology and neither is Darwinism. Yet they both "use" ideology to become scientific (your words, not mine, it's misleading anyway).

PhoenixAsh

4th June 2015, 03:29

Yup. No. You are completely wrong.

You are completely wrong because you have no fucking clue what the fuck you are talking about....make incredibly stupid statements that display such levels of complete ignorance about terms we are using, how the human body functions and so devoid of basic abstract thought...etc.

I am actually completely dumbfounded to be confronted by somebody so utterly devoid of any simple and basic knowledge and make such insane inferences from absolutely incorrect statements...and who creates such huge, glaring utter untruths about the field they are fighting...and then has the arrogance to type that ignorance in huge letters as if they were stating gospel...which...actually you are doing.

You're a religious nut...wauw

I will name one example...let me quote you...

The point is that it does not DETERMINE them. For example, the biological reality of a women having her monthly might make her have a heightened sex drive because her genitals might become more sensitive around this time. The point, however, is that the sexual drive itself is not determined biologically, it is merely influenced by the reality of biology as vestigial.

You think that it has to do with sensitive genitals? Not like say...oh...I don't know...hormonal fluctuations that are intrinsically tied with the cycle? You know...hormonal levels...something that is far, far, far from vestigal...and in fact a proven huge factor on human behavior. And that is even aside the fact that you completely fail to understand biological imperative as a term and what that means.

Instead you take some toddler level position where "OMG human nature...so that means it is an absolute" is basically the underlining argument. Which is nmost definitely not what the field of EP says. Fuck that....I really don't have time for your lies and fabrications and misconceptions.

You also keep using the word vestigal as if that even applies outside of your own fantasy concoction. Nor have you even build a case for it. You simply say that it is...because it suits you...not because you have any factual arguments. Merely it is there because it has to be there...because if it isn't then you are utterly wrong. You have however yet to show how that word actually applies....outside your completely theoretically constructed narrative of course.

So far you have created a nice story. Failed to back it up with any consistent argument that actually doesn't contradict everything else you say...and isn't wrought with falsifications, downright misrepresentations, utter lies and insinuations which have no basis in fact. And isn't based on some unproven statement of vestigiality.

You keep saying what EP says. Turns out none of what you claim EP says is actually what EP says. I have tried to tell you that you know fuck all about EP...and that what you say isn't actually true. I keep trying to point out to you that you are creating a false argument by misrepresenting the entire field...

But so far you have run on repeat to try and link EP with racism, try to link it with sexism. Tried to link it with a book that isn't even from the field of evolutionary biology. Etc. Regardless of the fact...that none of that comes actually from the field of EP. It is insane.

BECAUSE YOU ACTUALLY HAVE NO FUCKING CLUE WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

And that is being nice.

Because I actually think you know pretty damned well what you are talking about and actually misrepresent things on purpose to actually make your little role playing adventure here sound more legit....and try to make yourself sound smart.

But it really doesn't. What it does do is make you a liar, a cheat and a fraud....with a good story telling fantasy thing going on....but thoroughly embedded in liberal moralism which you try to cover up with some revolutionary terminology.

But you are most definitely not to be taken serious at all on this subject.

Wauw.

Don't bother replying. I am not fond of reading your pompous posts and strenuous use of size variations to begin with...but to have to work through all that to merely be confronted again and again by your own contradictions, fabrications and utter ignorance and foolishness...yeah...but no thanks.

I'll rather go to church where I here the same religious nuttery and insanity as in your posts.

Loony Le Fist

4th June 2015, 04:17

Its remarkable how quickly this thread derailed and degraded into pseudoscience about human sexuality.

Rafiq

4th June 2015, 04:48

What we've learned from Ash:

Females will have a heightened sex drive during their period because of hormonal changes (obvious), therefore it's solely a biological phenomena. But no one claims that, for example, hormonal changes affect sexuality inthis or that way - this means absolutely nothing in terms of some kind of innate process. The point is that the sexuality cannot be expressed at all without the social-psychological dimension, regardless of whether its varying degrees of expressing are influenced biologically.

Secondly, we learn that Evolutionary psychology is the same thing as evolutionary biology.

Finally, that evolutionary psychology isn't uniquely riddled with sexism and racism compared to other "scientific field". This just defies common sense.

Oh and to note: the the "vestigial" is meant to be provocative. Of course soethign that is actively involved in the facilitation of a process is not simply a carcass like wisdom teeth, that's not the point. The point is that its expression is subservient to social processes. That being said, it's my mistake that you're such a fucking idiot that you'd draw such wild and insane conclusions. You're an apologist for gamergate, for sexual oppression in general and now evolutionary psychology. Nothing here is a surprise.

PhoenixAsh

4th June 2015, 05:30

This will really be my last post to that role playing moralizing pseudo scientific clown pretending to be an actual Marxist...

O...and Rafiq...your own words about moralizing: it is a liberal attitude. Don't shoot the messenger...you are the one that said that. I am merely reflecting it back to you.

What we've learned from Ash:

Females will have a heightened sex drive during their period because of hormonal changes (obvious), therefore it's solely a biological phenomena. But no one claims that, for example, hormonal changes affect sexuality inthis or that way - this means absolutely nothing in terms of some kind of innate process. The point is that the sexuality cannot be expressed at all without the social-psychological dimension, regardless of whether its varying degrees of expressing are influenced biologically.

What this means Rafiq is that human behavior is motivated by biological processes and biological imperatives. What that also means Rafiq is that genetic structures play a huge role in defining behavior. It also means Rafiq that biological imperatives shapes culture....and yes...that also means Rafiq that evolutionary processes are responsible for human created structures and present day behavior.

And this passage written by you Rafiq means that you are back peddling from your previous arguments. It also means that you were clearly wrong a few posts back and it also means that you are inconsistent.

Secondly, we learn that Evolutionary psychology is the same thing as evolutionary biology.

Finally, that evolutionary psychology isn't uniquely riddled with sexism and racism compared to other "scientific field". This just defies common sense.

Well your common sense isn't really common at all and really makes no sense. Because obviously there wasn't sexism, racism and a whole slew of scientists trying to argue a scientific basis for them before the 1970's. :rolleyes:

That said...lets examine the field of EP and what it actually said, as opposed to what you are trying to insinuate it said so that it sounds like you have a point...not based on facts but on addressing base emotions.

> EP was largely responsible for disproving the existence of races and cognitive differences between races. (I am sure you are going to bring up that book again...which wasn't from the field of EP and which most of all didn't say what you allege it said...it would have helped if you actually read it)

> EP has provided a scientific basis for opposing gender roles. Providing the data sets which show that these gender norms are counter behavioral and damaging for both (all) genders.

> EP has shown that cognitive functions in men and women are basically the same and that there is no such thing as a male and female mind...psychologically speaking from a biological perspective

> It has provided data sets that undermine the notion that homosexuality actually damages the species chances of survival. Relatively minor argument...but it actually provided that basis.

Yes...there are people that use EP for less savory goals. But then again...so are there people that claim they are Marxists who are more than willing to falsify data and use subjective data selection in order to make it appear they have a point.

This is not unique to the field of EP.

Oh and to note: the the "vestigial" is meant to be provocative.

O really? Because you weren't being provocative enough by downright lying and admitting you were simply serving a personal agenda?

Of course soethign that is actively involved in the facilitation of a process is not simply a carcass like wisdom teeth, that's not the point.

Well actually it is the point Rafiq. You can't claim that something is vestigal....which is the ONLY basis and foundation on which you argument is viable....and maintain that position continuously when it is argued against...an then in the end brush it away as "provocative".

The point is that its expression is subservient to social processes.

Except that those social processes are a direct result of it.

That being said, it's my mistake that you're such a fucking idiot that you'd draw such wild and insane conclusions. You're an apologist for gamergate, for sexual oppression in general and now evolutionary psychology. Nothing here is a surprise.

Aside from the fact that I have done none of those things...

I also didn't lie, falsify data or simply ignored facts and data for pursuing my own agenda. Nor did I create an entire argument that hinged on a position that was later merely brushed aside as "provocative" basically saying that your entire argument was complete bullshit from the start...ironically that is is incidentally something I completely agree on.

So lets get back to summarizing what just happened:

1). You started the debate with vehemently arguing against biology, biological imperatives and evolution being of any relevance for human behavior.

2). You tried to insinuate a connection between EP and Scientific Racism...which there isn't

3). You tried to create a link between EP and arguing for sexual repression....which is false and counter factual

4). You tried to prove this by mentioning two books...neither of which are from the field of EP

5). ON TOP OF THAT...the two chapters of one of these books...start of by pointing towards cultural influences over biological processes to explain the data set.

6). This is moralizing behavior. EP is attacked because it can be used to justify current social structures...not because of the many actual real flaws it has. These really don't matter. What matters in your position is that it can be used in a negative way....hence the field is wrong...according to you

7). It is also an emotional argument based on the dichotomy of good vs evil. You try to insinuate connections with emotionally charged terms so that your "theory" sounds legitimate.

8). You mentioned studies to build your argument about biological factors and evolutionary principles...studies which ended up actually supporting just these positions and therefore disproving what you tried to use them for. I say studies...it is just one study you referred to.

9). You also claimed consistently that EP is trying to justify human behavior. It doesn't. It explains human behavior from an evolutionary perspective explaining why behavior occurs or how it developed. That is entirely different.

But not only that...you have stopped immediately at the position that if research shows prevalence of behavior in any way shape or form...this is now the ultimate truth and should form the basis of social order. And that is just so, so, so idiotic.

10). You have made numerous miserable failures in understanding human biology. You then say this is unimportant because it actually doesn't matter because of social structures. But yeah...you still made these huge errors....and that draws into question whether or not you actually understand what is being said.

11). On top of that you have used faulty logic based on changing definitions of words rather than understanding the complex and intricate principles behind them....which were mentioned to you btw...which do explain why these definition changes do not matter because the principle remains in tact.

12). Your entire argument hinges on the fact that you say biological processes and imperatives are merely vestigal. You fail to provide any basis for this essential foundation in your arguments. But that doesn't matter anyway...because this essential fundamental element of your entire argumentative basis...is now merely provocative.

Deep sigh.

And this doesn't yet mention the fact that you consistently try to place me somewhere in the EP field. So let me clear something up for you...I am defending the field against your downright lies, falsifications and fabrications. Your entire criticism of the field boils down to no more than that. And I think that is an asinine position. Stalinesque actually...constructing a false fantasy tale in order to legitimize your own position. It is an abject way of arguing and it completely misses the point. IF and WHEN you are going to critique a field...you do so on the basis of actual legit arguments rather than fabricating them on the go.

THAT is why I am arguing against you. Because you are an abject individual who thinks that this is a way to conduct a critique. Fuck that you pseudo scientific hack.

BIXX

4th June 2015, 05:41

Danielle Ni Dhighe

4th June 2015, 05:51

Its remarkable how quickly this thread derailed and degraded into pseudoscience about human sexuality.
It's RevLeft. So it's not that remarkable.

PhoenixAsh

4th June 2015, 05:54

"> EP has provided a scientific basis for opposing gender roles. Providing the data sets which show that these gender norms are counter behavioral and damaging for both (all) genders."

It was so obvious though. Why do we even need that scientific basis (which I am in no way qualified to determine if that basis was reached or not, I just can't see why we would need it)?

Because there is a whole lot of people claiming that gender roles are actually natural behavioral patterns.

Ironically those usually are people who say that biology doesn't really matter and culture and social norms are more important...

BIXX

4th June 2015, 06:25

Because there is a whole lot of people claiming that gender roles are actually natural behavioral patterns.

Ironically those usually are people who say that biology doesn't really matter and culture and social norms are more important...

But we've been explaining for years and years that being gau, for example, is not a choice (and even if it was it shouldn't matter) but those who want to believe its wrong will believe that anyway.

PhoenixAsh

4th June 2015, 15:39

True. But equally people have been trying to explain that it is a life choice. Without any back up to an explanation that means that what is believed is a matter of personal subjective choice.

And that rings us back to the crux of the debate.These people (for whatever reason..religious, political etc.) inavriably base themselves on the notion that biology is either vestegial or is subjugated to the social...and can be overwritten by social & behavioral conditioning. Basically these arguments range from man is not animal to will is stronger than biology.

One of the last scientific points of content was that it goes against the benefit of the species and should therefore be rejected. EVO biology and EVO psychology have recently provided the datasets and research that disprove this statement and indicated that homosexuality is both explainable by evolution as well as benefitting to species development and offers evolutionary advantages.

That point aside.

The mistake people like Rafiq make is over emphasising social factors and influence on biological factors and evolutionary principles...while ignoring the fact that social factors are heavily influenced by biological imperatives and evolutionary principles in the first place.

In other words....while it is true that social factors heavily in function behavior patterns these behavior patters also heavily influence social factors and constructs.

The wrong conclusion is made that evolutionary psychology and other evolutionary fields (that last being very much more influential on scientific racism and sexism...but strangely enough not awarded specific ire by Rafiq) justify current society and only serve that purpose. Giving that set of arguments the benefit of the doubt it is based on misunderstanding what these fields actually do....and inferring that if something is explained through evolutionary principles it is therefore an absolute truth.

Rather however is merely means that how current socio economic realities play out are based on biological imperatives and the evolutionary development of these imperatives in a given set of circumstances and perpetuating the necessity of these imperatives to be expressed in a certain logical pattern....because the structure relies on them.

It also means that while culture can heavily influence behavior patterns it can not do so universally. For example it can say what type of behavioral patterns are more successful in that context....it can not root out the fact that biologically and evolutionary speaking people will have a tendency as a group to favor the partners that offer more chance of success based on the imperatives of survival and procreation...within a given context. That doesn't mean that that is a universal rule that applies exactly the same to each individual...because what offers the best chance of success is highly dependent on a whole range of factors and individual contexts....but as a group....the principle is driven by biological imperative.

The fact however is that social does not over write the biological...it can in some cases...but that social is as much an expression of the biological and vice versa.

Now Rafiq is of the opinion that that means the social order is the ONLY logical and natural order and rejects that notion....and therefore rejects the idea of evolutionary principles influencing human behavior. And while it is certainly the case that Capitalism is a stage in a natural logical and evolutionary principles driven development...The conclusion that is draw completely misses the point.

Rafiq

4th June 2015, 15:54

Your post is fucking vomit, it's like you can't even coherently form an argument. Who the fucking organizes their posts this way? Honestly, I would have more pity for you if you had some kind of mental disorder. If anyone needs a reference point on what constitutes phrase-mongering, look no further than Phoenix. You're such a fucking child who lacks even the most elementary form of self control because you repeatedly claim you're done posting and then you explode in anger when you find out what an ass I make you look like. There is no administrator on this board, no one with their name in purple on this whole website, who degrades the quality of a discussion more than you. People accuse me of shit posting? Look at this! Literally a bunch of fucking dried excrement scattered around.

What this means Rafiq is that human behavior is motivated by biological processes and biological imperatives. What that also means Rafiq is that genetic structures play a huge role in defining behavior. It also means Rafiq that biological imperatives shapes culture....and yes...that also means Rafiq that evolutionary processes are responsible for human created structures and present day behavior.

No, it means that biological processes can greatly influence behavior in this or that respective context, which only a moron would deny. But the behavior isn't DETERMINED by the biological processes. You don't even fucking understand logic - let's say, sexual desire and fantasy, things which are shaped by a definite symbolic order, by the external colonization of the human mind by language - can have its fluctuations in hormonal levels and so on. Without the former, without the SPECIFIC EXPRESSION of sexuality itself, rather than the fluctuating patterns of its intensity or whatever you want, there is simply nothing. My point has been consistently that the social reproduces the biological, and not the other way around. That biological processes can only be expressed insofar as they are subordinate to social processes. The extent to which some "social" behavior is always going to be the same by merit of biology is a question that evolutionary psychologists fail to properly answer, because they lack a meaningful conception of the social. Don't FUCKING tell me that race-based studies, and sexism is some kind of MARGINAL phenomena in this field. There is no psychological field AT ALL which is more riddled with this - and while that alone doesn't constitute an argument against EP, which I have repeatedly FUCKING acknowledged, - as a matter of fact, you're the ONLY PERSON who is emphasizing this particular point of criticsim. MY CRITICISM has always been that they can't control for other variables BECAUSE THEY LACK THE MEANINGFUL THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS TO QUESTION RELATIVE FACTORS, INSTEAD DISMISSING THEM AS A GIVEN. Only a dishonest piece of shit would say that evolutionary psychology is only "marginally" riddled with sexism and racism.

Biological processes are INVOLVED in the expression of human behavior, BUT THEY DO NOT DETERMINE IT. It's also a false dichotomy to assume that "culture" and "biology" are somehow two factors which "both play a part". It is a false dichotomy. Instead, through biological processes are social behaviors expressed. Without the latter, THERE IS NO FORMER. You can try to say that humans are biologically predisposed to be social in general, but that is not a point of controversy, and the NATURE of the social is not determined biologically, just the predisposition to be a part of a social totality. And frankly, you fucking moron, if evolutionary processes were responsible for human created structures and present day behaviors, then variations in human created structures and behavior throughout history would have their basis biologically. But they don't. What FUCKING biological, evolutionary changes had led to capitalism? Why did it take 200 thousand years? Do you even understand logic? It is a FALSE ARGUMENT to claim that "Well, capitalism involves biological processes" - yes, and it involves the existence of two hands and two feet. That doesn't make a shit of a difference, and anyone capable of the most elementary form of logic can conceive this fact - it doesn't explain ACTUAL CHANGES in "behavior" and "structures", because the biological reality REMAINS CONSTANT.

> EP was largely responsible for disproving the existence of races and cognitive differences between races. (I am sure you are going to bring up that book again...which wasn't from the field of EP and which most of all didn't say what you allege it said...it would have helped if you actually read it)

> EP has provided a scientific basis for opposing gender roles. Providing the data sets which show that these gender norms are counter behavioral and damaging for both (all) genders.

SHOW ME A SINGLE UPIECE OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS AND I WILL SEND YOU TWENTY DOLLARS. YOU'RE GOING TO FUCKING TELL ME EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGISTS "DISPROVED" THE EXISTENCE OF RACES, AND THE BASIS OF GENDER NORMS? WHERE? Stop TALKING out of your FUCKING ass. You're just conflating ALL fields that deal with evolutionary biology with the pseudoscience evolutionary psychology. It's fucking pathetic.

...so are there people that claim they are Marxists who are more than willing to falsify data and use subjective data selection in order to make it appear they have a point.

When have Marxists done this in a way that is CLOSE to being comparable to how Evolutionary psychologists do this? Keep talking out of your fucking ass.

Well actually it is the point Rafiq. You can't claim that something is vestigal....which is the ONLY basis and foundation on which you argument is viable....and maintain that position continuously when it is argued against...an then in the end brush it away as "provocative".

No, I'm not brushing it away. You just don't fucking understand logic is all: Vestigial in this context is very simple, you just don't fucking understand. Saying biology "shapes" human culture, which would have to mean that cultural differences are owed to biological ones, an idea which people who flirt with EP actually believe, has no scientific basis. What little iota of truth there is in it IS SO FUCKING TAUTOLOGICAL that it's not even worth mentioning. The clay figures from ancient Phoenecian society are made with two hands, two legs and a head. Without the biological existence of two hands, two legs and a head, it would not have been made. That's not even worth fucking talking about. We are literally speaking in terms of ACTUAL IDEAS, concepts and so on innate neurologically and genetically in humans that were selected on an evolutionary level. That's beyond fucking idiotic. By the way what "psychological" dimensions in humans were selected for? Why? FOR WHAT? For hunter-gathering societies? And why the fuck don't we live in them anymore? Maybe because we organized ourselves into complex social formations, wherein our relationship to nature formed by them was not one of subservience, but dominance. The only possible psychological "traits" that could have been selected for were precisely ones that made people able to be better socially coordinated. Maybe because we were able to change our "nature" so much so that YES our biological imperatives became "vestigial", not because they no longer had any function, but because they no longer were the primary determinant of human behavior. I know how scary, how absolutely beyond you this idea is but rest knowing that no one gives a single fuck about how you feel anyway. You're so horrified by the idea that, *gasp* humans aren't fucking animals after all, that humans ARE unique as a species and to say otherwise is hypocritical and paradoxical.

The true nature of your allegiance is revealed when the ideology of ecology is challenged - THIS is what actually enrages you without restraint. Because it undermines the entirety of the foundations of your thought. Shows what a Chomskyan shitbird you really are, a fucking pseudo-leftists pathologically predisposed to reactionary ideas while masquerading behind the aesthetic of Leftist politics... For whatever reason. Your leftism is nothing more than a glorified form of political correctness, you've a rotten heart and the only thing to stray you away is the ritualistic adherence to words. Real Communist, and anarchists, do not have to blush. They are ashamed of nothing, spontaneously predisposed to the ideas that they have through living.

Rafiq

4th June 2015, 15:56

Because there is a whole lot of people claiming that gender roles are actually natural behavioral patterns.

Ironically those usually are people who say that biology doesn't really matter and culture and social norms are more important...

Give me ONE fucking example of this! Why do you talk out of your ass? This is literally OUTRAGEOUS? You claim I'm obscufating facts in order to conform to some kind of argumentative convenience, but this is EXACTLY what you're doing across the board!

Who gives primacy to "culture" and then claims that gender roles have their basis in "natural behavioral patterns" (i.e. BIOLOGY)? Who the fuck does this? Give us ONE example!

Rafiq

4th June 2015, 16:00

Now Rafiq is of the opinion that that means the social order is the ONLY logical and natural order and rejects that notion....and therefore rejects the idea of evolutionary principles influencing human behavior. And while it is certainly the case that Capitalism is a stage in a natural logical and evolutionary principles driven development...The conclusion that is draw completely misses the point.

I can't believe what I'm reading. Oh my god, this fucking idiot is an administrato! Now capitalism was predetermined to exist 200,000 years ago by a set "natural" and evolutionary course of development. That is not even pseudo-darwinism, it is metaphysical and COMPLETELY alien to darwin. The whole POINT of evolution is that THERE IS NO "logical" course of evolutionary development, nothing happens because it id 'driven by evolutionary principles' if evolutionary principles are conceived as some kind of fucking plan. Everything happens by ACCIDENT, i.e. mutations, catastrophes and so on are what shape nature. You can't fucking say that the "social" is determined biologically because the social CHANGES, and that is the POINT. Unless there's some kind of blueprint for human history encoded in our DNA, which is what you're close to actually fucking arguing, there can be no talk of the biological determining the social. There might be biological predispositions for humans to be MORE SOCIAL than animals, i.e. such as the specific structure of the brain, but that isn't an argument for how the biological REPLACES it. It doesn't. End of fucking story. Biological drives have absolutely no way of being expressed in a way that is separate from a social context. End of fucking story.

The REASON Marx compared historical materialism as the emulation of Darwin in the social field was because Darwin showed how changes in nature DO NOT follow a set, definite course of development. The predispositions for change are present in what already exists, which is always capable of changing in circumstance.

It's so PATHETIC how you can't even begin to ground my argument in any kind of pre-conceived theoretical archetype that you're aware of, so you just go ahead and conflate me with B.F. Skinner. It's so hilarious. It's like you actually cannot even find the WORDS to describe where I belong here. If you want to actually argue like a moron and just assume my lineage, stop looking at B.F. Skinner and pay more attention to Lacan. For fuck's sake.

LuÃs Henrique

4th June 2015, 16:37

how is freindzoning exclusive to males?

Because "friendzone" isn't a neutral concept; it is part of a reactionary and sexist "narrative". Outside of that narrative it doesn't make any sence:

i have freindzoned plenty of ugly girls who have had crushes on me, am i also to believe that they are "matriachal oppressors who view me as nothing but a sex object"?

Or, in other words, people accept and reject sexual or romantic ouvertures from others, regardless of sex and gender, and the only reasonable reaction is, "well, though life, deal with it". Constructing this as "friendzone", ie, as a social phenomenon worth noting is impossible unless we start from patriarchal premises.

should I also now believe there has never been such thing as a female stalker? Or a female with a crush on someone, who doesn't find them attractive? Or is that when a woman does it, its not sexual or based on power, or something?

No. It is that when women do it, it doesn't count because since men are not sexual objects (are not socially constructed as sexual objects), so when women do it, it is irrelevant: irrelevant for the ideologues of "friendzone theory", because the agency of women doesn't exist/doesn't count for them, and irrelevant for everyone else because it is not a social phenomenon.

And if you think you need to be nice to women or buy them things, to get them too sleep with you, your probably very ugly and not very good in bed

So let's put it up straight: if someone is arguing "friendzone", then they are probably ugly and incompetent in bed quite socially incompetent.

I think you guys are forgetting there are radical feminists (or rather misandrists) who think 90+% of men should be castrated, people who say if a little boy pulls a little girls hair he should be castrated for he might one day become a rapist

While those people may exist, the possibility that they achieve actual power to do anything similar is rather null, so why should we stress ourselves with them? Other, or course, than the possibility that their discourse is appropriated by very male and misoginistic right wing politicians, to further a rather different, socially conservative agenda (that might include, of course, anti-prostitution or anti-trans legislation, but by absolutely no means castration of toddlers)?

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

4th June 2015, 16:52

Ugh, you can always find people saying ridiculous stuff. If I tried I could probably dig up some obscure cult of, I don't know, gay Cuban-German syndicalist nationalists, and, as undoubtedly amusing as that would be, it wouldn't mean anything. All of the actual "feminist mysandrists" people dredge up are like that - but to be honest, I think the same goes for "Men's Rights Advocates/Extremists".

There is a difference, though, in the ability to engage people (dozens or scores, regarding "feminist-misandrists", a few thousands, regarding MRAs). There is probably also a difference in the ability to get linked to right-wing politicians and influence mainstream politics.

In a sane world, Hitler, after all, would be as amazing as gay Cuban-German national syndicalists. Problem is, we don't live in a sane world, and some brands of craze are more likely to spread and take hold of the levers than others. That being a reason that we need to keep an eye on insane Greek nationalists who want to repeal the memorandum by cooperating with police in the repression of anti-memorandum demonstrations...

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

4th June 2015, 17:13

"Statistically observable" is a weasel word. Are you seriously suggesting that women intentionally marry weaker men, to cheat with strong men while forgoing birth control during ovulation, to get pregnant? This is a "significantly present" strategy?

Even if it was, it would have to be, as of logical necessity, a non-evolutionary trait. Otherwise only the alfa-male bulls would reproduce, and in the next few generations women would find no more beta-male cuckolds to look after their kindred.

... unless, of course, if this is an ideological justification for patriarchy: women must be enslaved to their beta husbands, lest they cheat and get pregnant from alfa lovers.

Which, after a second thought, it is what it seems to be.

Luís Henrique

LuÃs Henrique

4th June 2015, 17:26

Rafiq, you are basically right here.

Evolutionary psychology is pseudo-science (as discussed here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/male-sexual-orientation-t187063/index.html?t=187063&highlight=bailey) and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/rich-have-less-t170161/index.html?t=170161&highlight=bailey) ) and has nothing to do with evolutionary biology or Darwin. And yes, it is bourgeois ideology, stemming from the bourgeois drive to anchor capitalist practices in trans-historic grounds, thus proving capitalism eternal and immutable.

But YOU DO NOT NECESSARILY GET MORE RIGHT by shouting... :)

Luís Henrique

Antiochus

4th June 2015, 17:28

Everything happens by ACCIDENT, i.e. mutations, catastrophes and so on are what shape nature.

Well, sort of. There is a common misconception that evolution has a "plan" or that it was "determined to happen", or that there is some sort of progression of biological development. However, evolution isn't merely 'random' as there are conscious processes, the key is that they act on individuals and NOT on populations; even if the overall result will be a change in allele frequencies of a pop. (definition of Evolution). So for example, sexual selection in birds isn't an "accident", and for lack of a better word, female birds do consciously pick mates.

Rafiq

4th June 2015, 17:32

PhoenixAsh

4th June 2015, 17:42

predetermined to exist 200,000 years ago

And this is exactly why I am saying you have no fucking clue what you are talking about.

You actually believe evolution means predetermination. It doesn't.

But because you haven't mastered even a basic level of knowledge about the subject your entire inference and analysis is based on faulty logic, faulty concepts and therefore is entirely wrong.

I can't believe what I'm reading. Oh my god, this fucking idiot is an administrato! Now capitalism was predetermined to exist 200,000 years ago by a set "natural" and evolutionary course of development.

Well I can certainly believe you are reading that...but that is because I don't have a high opinion of you nor of your reading comprehension. It is however not what it says at all.

What it does say is that from an evolutionary perspective capitalism can be explained and is in fact a natural logical development process based on biological imperatives being reinforced by social & economic contexts in reality.

It does NOT say it is predetermined. Because...gasp...evolution does not deal with such notions of "a master plan". Rafiq doesn't understand that. Because he doesn't understand the concept of evolution. Nor does it deal with notions of predictability...because...grasp...evolution doesn't work that way. Rafiq believes that it does....again because he doesn't understand the concept of evolution.

That is not even pseudo-darwinism, it is metaphysical and COMPLETELY alien to darwin. The whole POINT of evolution is that THERE IS NO "logical" course of evolutionary development, nothing happens because it id 'driven by evolutionary principles' if evolutionary principles are conceived as some kind of fucking plan. Everything happens by ACCIDENT, i.e. mutations, catastrophes and so on are what shape nature.

No, actually that is not what evolution says. Evolution says that development is driven by adapting to changes. This is not accidental. This is based on biological principles of survival.

You can't fucking say that the "social" is determined biologically because the social CHANGES, and that is the POINT.

Deep, deep sigh. Yes Rafiq...the social changes. I have explained this several times and you fail to seem to pick up on this. The social changes because it is necessitated by a new reality...and does so based on biological imperatives and biological imperatives change depending on the social. There is a mutual feed back loop.

You however seem to think that the social develops on a metaphysical vacuum and on a pure philosophical basis and changes because people want it to change...

Unless there's some kind of blueprint for human history encoded in our DNA, which is what you're close to actually fucking arguing,

no...actually that is what you infer because you haven't the faintest notion what we are talking about and lack the fundamental knowledge about the subject.

there can be no talk of the biological determining the social. There might be biological predispositions for humans to be MORE SOCIAL than animals, i.e. such as the specific structure of the brain, but that isn't an argument for how the biological REPLACES it. It doesn't. End of fucking story. Biological drives have absolutely no way of being expressed in a way that is separate from a social context. End of fucking story.

Nobody is arguing for biology to replace the social. That is purely something you create as a little fantasy in your head because you don't seem to be able to understand what we are talking about.

See above. EVERY human behavior is based on biological imperatives. The need for survival, the need of procreation for both the species and the personal gene sets, the need for mate selection, the need for safety, the need for sustenance, the need to be social etc. etc. Within a given set of context that will be the driving factor of behavior....which will be expressed in the social...and therefore heavily influences how the social is expressed. The social in its turn heavily influences what behavior is expressed and how it is expressed.

But as has been explained posts, and posts ago...the underlying mechanisms and principles remain the same.

The REASON Marx compared historical materialism as the emulation of Darwin in the social field was because Darwin showed how changes in nature DO NOT follow a set, definite course of development. The predispositions for change are present in what already exists, which is always capable of changing in circumstance.

Yes...and if you read carefully...that is what my post actually said. But you didn't read carefully...because you are foaming at the mouth at the idea that humans have not risen above biological principles....and that social can not completely change human behavioral patterns.

It's so PATHETIC how you can't even begin to ground my argument in any kind of pre-conceived theoretical archetype that you're aware of, so you just go ahead and conflate me with B.F. Skinner. It's so hilarious. It's like you actually cannot even find the WORDS to describe where I belong here. If you want to actually argue like a moron and just assume my lineage, stop looking at B.F. Skinner and pay more attention to Lacan. For fuck's sake.

O you mean Lacan who boosted psychologists who did in fact research the prim ordeal influencing modern day concept?

Sure...but I can not place you on that line...because your entire argument runs counter to it.

Not to mention that Lacan was extremely controversial and was discredited on several major issues.

But sure...go for that approach ;)

Rafiq

4th June 2015, 17:44

But YOU DO NOT NECESSARILY GET MORE RIGHT by shouting... :)

Often times one gets so frustrated with repeating the same unaddressed arguments that, one begins to wonder whether the points at hand are simply being overlooked and drowned out into a sea of text.

Basically, I've come to the conclusion that some users simply skim through my post and pick and choose what they want to take away. So I figure that I might as well be in charge of what they're simplifying from my post.

Rafiq

4th June 2015, 18:04

What it does say is that from an evolutionary perspective capitalism can be explained and is in fact a natural logical development process based on biological imperatives being reinforced by social & economic contexts in reality.

Which one is it: Is capitalism compatible with biology (a truism of no consequence) or did biological processes pre-determine capitalism? That's the point. What predispositions that led to capitalism in feudalism, did not exist in ancient Minoan civilization? If this concerns "biological imperatives" than surely such a specific course of development wouldn't have been necessary for capitalism to become possible. So what we're left with is the argument that biological processes were involved in this development - but this is a truism - the existence of five fingers for each hand was also involved.

What SPECIFICALLY is relevant concerning the CHANGES between historic, social epochs, is not biological. No one even has a problem with the idea that hunger is driven by biological processes, for example - the point is that man isn't born knowing how to eat, or how to fuck for that matter. it's such a strange concept for you, the idea that the more social a species is, the less reliance it has on "biological imperatives". The point is that the social reproduces the biological, i.e. what if I told you that social processes became more efficient at reproducing biological processes (surviving) than the imperatives of individual organisms themselves? Shocking, right?

No, actually that is not what evolution says. Evolution says that development is driven by adapting to changes. This is not accidental. This is based on biological principles of survival.

No, that is Lamarck you're regurgitating, not Darwin. Consequentially, adaption occurs, but there is no "drive" to adapt. The point of natural selection is that more favorable traits continue to exist and survive, while unfavorable traits die out because they were unable to adjust ecologically. That is why Darwin was fundamentally a materialist. There have been some developments in epigenetics which can shed new light on the specifialities of this process, but ultimately this is nothing but a subset of natural selection.

See above. EVERY human behavior is based on biological imperatives. The need for survival, the need of procreation for both the species and the personal gene sets, the need for mate selection, the need for safety, the need for sustenance, the need to be social etc. etc.

The reason this is a metaphysical notion is because it assumes, somehow, there is a force that contains the underlying idea or concept that inhibits humans to be inclined to follow "biological imperatives". What you fail to understand about evolution is that while consequentially, the need for these things is vital for the SURVIVAL of a species, that does not necessarily mean its expression is innate. For animals that have a definite habitat and environment which they need to select certain traits to adjust to, these things are facilitated on an individual level, with each organism having innate individual predispositions to procreate in a certain way, to select for certain traits and to eat in a certain manner. No kind of holistic regard for the survival of the species is encoded into the DNA of the species - consequential of these individual drives, the species is able to survive. That is why there are many species which have gone extinct, and that is why there are many mutated animals which died.

That is also why there are some traits selected for by animals which do not help survival at all - because the predispositions to sexual selection, like other animal behavior, has no "plan". A mutation to select for X assortment of colors which don't do anything to inhibit or help survival can arise.

For social animals that have a definite ecology, the ecological relationship is maintained partially on a social level, but the definite ecological relationship is grounded in biological predispositions that make adjusting to this or that environment more vital to the survival of a species.

For social animals like humans, the vitality of the survival of a species can be reproduced and expressed on a social level. The human species itself is distinguished by labor, the ability to transform nature. Even from a vulgar darwinist perspective, having a predisposition to this or that behavior biologically would greatly inhibit the ability for humans to survive, because they aren't bound by a single ecological relationship. So the predisposition becomes social: Those social formations which cannot reproduce survival change or lead to the death of the humans. That is history. There is no moral dimension; It merely serves as testament to that which can exist, and that which can not exist. There is no conscious reason for it.

But as has been explained posts, and posts ago...the underlying mechanisms and principles remain the same.

It's tautological because reproduction and survival are necessary for humans to exist in the first place. So it is not surprise that they are present in all societies. That isn't what evolutionary psychologists claim though. They claim that THIS specific expression of sexuality, and THIS specific expression of how humans behave and organize has a genetic, biological basis, not the underlying capability of being sexual or behaving in the first place.

....and that social can not completely change human behavioral patterns.

The social determines it. The social changes, the biological does not. Behavior and its specific expression also changes. Do the fucking math.

Not to mention that Lacan was extremely controversial and was discredited on several major issues.

If by "discredited" you mean simplified by morons (i.e. Chomsky) who couldn't understand him properly, sure.

PhoenixAsh

4th June 2015, 18:11

What I mean, for example, is that if there was some kind of major catastrophe that would completely change the birds' environment, the species would die off unless some were able to survive because they had whatever characteristics. As further testament to its survival, those characteristics would be sexually selected for (i.e. and those birds that do not sexually select for the right characteristics do not have offspring which survive, basically). Obviously a huge abrupt change would likely just lead to their extinction, but you get to the point.

The point of regarding individual organisms is that birds cannot innately actually plan ahead to regard their offspring. They have individual predispositions for sexually preferring these or that traits that don't have any regard for children. But women in a hunter-gatherer society, let's say, might choose a mate with her future and the future of her kids in mind, consciously. There doesn't need to be some kind of innate imperative that would consequentially affect the way her kids grow up, because again, there isn't a definite, pre-defined "human ecology" to begin with which would make this necessary.

Except that there I a biological imperative...namely: survival to name but one example

So this argument doesn't actually prove your point. In fact what is proves is that you have a very limited gaps of biological imperative and how it is expressed.

That is because you seem to think that they set a predestined cpurse that applies to all...regardless of context... rather than necessitating certain behavioral patterns within a given context either on a group level or on individual levels.

Where you are wrong is infering that this means that this is somehow the same for every fucking individual....and that every single individual want or need the exact same specific traits. Where you are also freaking wrong is thinking it is a constant....that when context changes the specific choices will start to alter....but the principle behind it remains the same: selection based on biological imperative.

Counterculturalist

4th June 2015, 18:13

But YOU DO NOT NECESSARILY GET MORE RIGHT by shouting... :)

People complain about this aspect of Rafiq's posting, but personally, I love it when he does this. It makes his posts fun to read while giving them a dramatic sense of gravitas. You can picture him getting more and more enraged the longer he types.

There are certain real-life situations where it'd be a blast to actually talk the way Rafiq posts. Imagine dealing with telemarketers or door-to-door salesmen, or your boss like that.

"You want me to finish this report by Tuesday, you FUCKING SWINE? How profoundly idiotic. If there were any justice you'd be publicly fucking crucified".

:lol:

Rafiq

4th June 2015, 18:15

The imperative to survive, whether present individually or not (It obviously is, the pain of dying for example) is reproduced on a social level. That is why humans have suicide, because this social imperative can become entangled through, for example, language, and that is why more complex social animals can refuse hunger and whatever (though it's not the same obviously) when their mates die.

The fact that this imperative exists is only testament to the fact that they exist. The imperative to survive in animals IS NOT an imperative that regards death. It means there are certain predispositions which, consequentially, allow the animal to continue to survive and reproduce. There's no soul inside a beast which says "Come on buddy, stay alive and don't die".

PhoenixAsh

4th June 2015, 18:45

Except nobody is talking about a soul. Again this is you introducing language and concepts aimed at inciting emotion rather than addressing actual arguments made.

It is funny that you equate yourself with Lacan because he employed the same method...and at the same time ironic because he was discredited by feminism as actually trying to provide a scientific basis for sexism and patriarchy. He did so specifically by implementing concepts of evolution...and promoting the conceptual notion of the present being premeditated on concepts developed naturally in the past.

But that is but one aspect of why Lacan was discredited. We could hold an interesting debate about the entirety of his work is basically universally rejected as extremely harmful both theretically and in his field as a therapist etc.

But let's not stray from the issue.

Also wrong is that evolutionary principles and biological imperatives mean that every individual will display them..Or in the same way. In general the species has an in ate drive to survive. That does not mean individuals will not simply give up.

It also does not mean one is predominant over the other. The social can NOT for example root our homosexuality. Which basically disproves the argument that social is predominant. It can stifle homosexuality behavior...again...usually based on fear and therefore the survival principle...but it doesn't change the sexual biological drive of that individual. The social can also not change the drive for partner selection based on succes..It can however change was type of partner is more successful.

It also means that the entire social structure develops based on biological imperatives...that does not exclude materialism...in fact the material reality is essential in directing human behavior.

Rafiq

4th June 2015, 20:00

Actually, Lacan was praised by most theoretically sophisticated feminists for providing the basis for understanding the complex dimensions of sexual oppression. By no means did Lacan claim that present day sexual relations had their grounding in "evolution" - Lacan was not an evolutionary psychologist. He claimed they derived from the productive foundations of society, which is why he was able to further influence Marxists like Althusser, etc.

Finally, it can only be a good thing that Lacan was "harmful" as a therapist. I assume you literally just pulled that straight out of his Wikipedia article. Be honest and admit that you literally have never even dared to read Lacan, or even any interpreters of him. Lacan's theoretical foundations were not built or meant ot make people feel better about their lives. If they were, they would have been a capitalist utility. Instead Lacan points out that such problems are inherent to our present order, he showed people the real hell of this world and it doesn't matter if they were left damaged by it. He wan't a scumbag self-help feel good guru or whatever. His goal was never to make people happy, but to allow them to understand the nature of their problems.

Finally, it's interesting that you mention homosexuality, because homosexuality is absolutely contingent as the excess of the sexual relations of a given historic epoch. That means the predispositions to homosexuality are already inherent to a given sexual order, regardless of any hormonal or biological predisposition to it. There has yet to be any evidence for a "gay gene" to date, and society finds it necessary to legitimize, de-sensitize and form a buffer towards the ideological trauma induced by "deviant" sexual behavior by calling it "natural". They cannot fathom the idea that homosexuality is both not a choice, and not something you're born with. Such is the nature of bourgeois ideology: It's either your choice, or it's something "natural" you're born with.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that rather than any affirmative predispositions necessary for homosexuality, it is possible that repression is what is necessary for its absence, i.e. most people can engage in behavior deemed 'homosexual', but repress this impulse (i.e. both subconsciously and consciously). And again, don't respond to me on points I have already addressed. I have already addressed that society creates standards for success, and that these standards are not universal, i.e. through the social order itself is the imperative to achieve "success" already present, there is no innate biological basis for it. So the reason the social can't "root out" sexual behavior is not because this behavior is innate or biological, but because it is an inevitable consequence of a social-sexual order by its own merits, the entanglement of gender relations and so on.

mushroompizza

4th June 2015, 20:08

Why dont we just fuck when we want to fuck? Is it really too hard to ask for sexual honesty? I hate all this relationship and standards bullshit, if two people want to fuck just fuck! :star3:

Loony Le Fist

4th June 2015, 20:41

Why dont we just fuck when we want to fuck? Is it really too hard to ask for sexual honesty? I hate all this relationship and standards bullshit, if two people want to fuck just fuck! :star3:

Nothing like clarity. People need to be more honest about their feelings. The problem is that so many of us are afraid to get our feelings hurt by rejection, so we create this courtship dance. Let's just say I'm the type of person that tears the bandaid off quick.

Sinister Intents

4th June 2015, 20:42

Loony Le Fist

4th June 2015, 21:03

Also an excited passionate YES IS NECESSARY!

If women were more sexually liberated, you would get a lot more passionate and excited yes's. The patriarchy makes women feel like sluts for being honest about how they feel in sexual contexts.

In most real world cases consent is going to be far more subtle. Keep in mind that consent is not always going to be verbal. Particularly when you have your tongues shoved down one another's throat's. :laugh:

PhoenixAsh

4th June 2015, 21:16

And again, don't respond to me on points I have already addressed. I have already addressed that society creates standards for success, and that these standards are not universal, i.e. through the social order itself is the imperative to achieve "success" already present, there is no innate biological basis for it. So the reason the social can't "root out" sexual behavior is not because this behavior is innate or biological, but because it is an inevitable consequence of a social-sexual order by its own merits, the entanglement of gender relations and so on.

And society does so based on biological drives which necessitate the changes in social structure.

This means that when the material context changes...society changes not merely because of the material conditions but because of the way biological imperatives need to express themselves within the new context...that ultimately necessitates the change of the social structure.

Why? Because social structures are a tool of the biological to cope with environmental influences. We aren't social because we like other people, we are social because we need other people for our survival and the way we interact as humans is to create social structures and conditions which reflect how we tend to survive in a given material context. This is not a one way street though, this works both ways creating an intricate and inseparable mutual influence....that reinforce each other.

An example of what I mean it the heritability of IQ and the genetic, social and environmental influences on IQ development through age....and the impact of IQ on behavior capacity. Those factors show us that where environment and social structures heavily impact IQ development, the range in which IQ can develop and vary is limited by genetic factors as well. And this has a profound influence on behavioral patterns and therefore social constructions.

In social structures that limit nutrient availability...IQ development will be stifled...having impact on how large sets of that population will be able to behave or function. The same set of genes in a situation with social structures that dispense nutrients equally...the IQ development will be higher...leading to more complex social structures and behavioral sets being possible.

I also see that you revisit the bisexual theory of Freud when it comes to sexual preference (for those not familiar with the way Freud uses bisexuality: basically he refers to sexual instinct meaning that a child will not yet be aware of its gender and only later differentiate that. Freud also said the feminine is developed because of Oedipal complex). i don't agree with either the Freudian analysis not the Lacan adaptation of that analysis.

No matter in 1953-55 Lacan argued that human desire can only be adequately understood against the background of an evolutionary enquiry on the emergence of language. He also paid heavy attention to the world of symbols which, if you read him, means that he refers to it as both the failure of nature to explain human nature and as human nature itself and must be interpreted through biological concepts. Incidentally...he copied Wallon, who must be familiar to you. And interesting tale in and of itself...heavily occult in nature. Which says something about Lacan...for copying that drivel. I will end here...but I think it suffices to say that I am pretty well familiar with the ass hat. That doesn't exclude him from saying interesting things...but he is still an ass hat. Timpanaro (Italian Marxist) called him a charlatan without any substance. His own students denounced him and his methods...and the own French field which he tried to revive (by violating all its principles) rejected him...and the current position on Lacan is that he approaches science like a cult leader without much notion of how to actually perform it.

Chomsky merely re worded the same criticism in 2012 that so many, many before him had already stated and proven.

Rafiq

4th June 2015, 21:45

PhoenixAsh

4th June 2015, 22:09

No, Lacan made a clear distinction between desire, which he rooted in the colonizing externality of language, distinct only in that it can NEVER be fulfilled, and need, which he claimed had its basis in typical biological drives. Lacan never claimed that langauge had its basis in biology, he claimed it had its basis in the social order. I mean, do you even know what you're saying? Lacan was a structuralist.

People might not agree with Lacan's methods of conveying information, i.e. even Zizek has criticized his approach, but the theoretical substance of Lacan's works is undeniable and can't be dismissed. Those who have criticized Lacan on grounds of being a "charlatan" have paid too much attention to appearance - they don't know shit about Lacan and couldn't possibly theoretically fathom him. Someone like Chomsky especially, the grand philistine of our age.

I can't help it that he argued that. Lacan was many things adopting many theories across the spectrum. I referenced Wallon. Which should immediately prompt you into knowing that there is something off with the theories of Lacan.

Of course we could revisit his therapeutic work where he once expelled a patient (Sabag) because he wanted sexual intercourse with his teenage daughter (and did so). Or his habit of punching patients and physically abusing them...while charging top dollar for the sessions which were intentionally under the IPA guidelines because he wanted to continue a very lavish life style of a multi millionaire...which incidentally also led him to flirt with German occupying forces. Or we could talk about how he had the highest amount of patients...ever (80 or 90) most of whom he charged for non sessions....or the highest suicide rate ever...Or we could talk about how he exploited his female students for sexual favors...or in fact his female patients. Of course that is disregarding the fact that during his carreer his sessions dwindled down to a minute billed on an hourly rate :) :)

But he is mostly critiqued fro the absolute absence of any empirical evidence basing his narrative solely on fantastical extrapolations and occultist narrative of borromian knots...to say that the man had a theory that could even be considered is well...beyond reality

Rafiq

4th June 2015, 22:43

Lacans theories do not warrant the need for "empirical evidence". Where do they, in your mind? Or do you just want to admit you have no notion of what psychoanalysis in general is?

But it does not matter. No one cares about what you think about Lacan. You will never understand him, just as none of his critics could. Every basis for any empirical study is grounded in definite theoretical presumptions which do not have their basis in "empirical evidence".

PhoenixAsh

4th June 2015, 23:06

uhuh. Yeah...The "if you criticise them you just don't understand them approach".

Let me explain this very carefully so we don't have later misconceptions about the notion: Lacan is a fraud, pedophile, a collaborator and somebody who sexually exploited and abused women....who milked his patients to be able to afford a lavish life style at their expense and who formed a pseudo scientific cult following around himself.

There is no theory and psychoanalysis as a field unanimously denounced Lacan. Lacan's work has a strenuous relation to psychoanalysis as it is being based on all kinds of fields that have nothing to do or was ever intended or compatible with psychoanalysis. There I no "theory". There is nothing there at all. Pretending that there is something to understand in Lacan much less that there is something that holds any value at all is pretending you are seeing the emperors marvelous new outfit.

That is aside from the fact that psychoanalysis itself is dubious as it is....and is even rejected these days as having anything to do with science at all. As well as its practical application. ..which is of such low quality and quantity that it is in fact officially the least effective form of therapy...but not only that in the vat majority of the casespatients were a tut suffering from medical probless such as tuberculosis etc.

Not only that....but the biggest argument pro psychoanalysis is that it can not be disproven because that is inherent to the field...because the field states that it is true because it is so. Basically. Which reminds me of religion.

Which....several posts back....I said you reminded me of arguing like...

Rafiq

4th June 2015, 23:28

Let me explain this very carefully so we don't have later misconceptions about the notion: Lacan is a fraud, pedophile, a collaborator and somebody who sexually exploited and abused women....who milked his patients to be able to afford a lavish life style at their expense and who formed a pseudo scientific cult following around himself.

These are personal criticisms. No one cares about what you personally think about Lacan. Be honest and admit you've never read him.

Pretending that there is something to understand in Lacan much less that there is something that holds any value at all is pretending you are seeing the emperors marvelous new outfit.

There is literally no need to pretend. There is a plethora of wealth to be learned from Lacan, and there's simply no way to explain that to someone who is automatically dismissive of him, i.e. someone who is not the least familiar with him. Anyway, there's no need to prove Lacans' worth to philistines anyway, because he theoretically provides us with the practical ability to conceive the world around us in a better way, which leads us to another point:

..which is of such low quality and quantity that it is in fact officially the least effective form of therapy...

So here's the logic of capital: Because psychoanalysis fails solving individual problems as a method of therapy, apparently this discredits it theoretically. There are plenty of self-help books, quasi eastern spiritualist gurus and other scum who can provide better opiates to people in our society for getting by. That is not the point of psychoanalysis, because above all it is not some kind of alien, externally positive claim that sais something others are themselves incapable of knowing on their own, (I.e. it does not claim "ghosts are real" or something that would demand scientific testing to validate), it only rests upon the premise that the field of the psychological is knowable, i.e. that conceiving it IS POSSIBLE:

Not only that....but the biggest argument pro psychoanalysis is that it can not be disproven because that is inherent to the field...because the field states that it is true because it is so. Basically. Which reminds me of religion.

Okay, can you disprove for me science itself? No, because it has a practical purpose, and one whose results can actually be conceivable. You simply don't understand the practicality of (lacanian) psychoanalysis: It is not meant to relieve people's ills, but to understand the domains of thought and its various expression. It is not a matter of whether it is "true" or not, for this is a vulgarity of philosophy: THE POINT OF WHICH is to ask the very basic question - what do you MEAN when you claim this or that is true? That's the point. You literally think like a child in your epistemology - something is either completely dismissable, ought to be rejected, or it directly violates your immediate experience, like literally showing you the sky is blue. You fail to conceive that there are deeper truths which can be conceived, and so on.

To say you want to "disprove" psychoanalysis rests upon proper qualifications for what it affirmatively entails. Frankly, the whole realm of psychoanalysis is so vast that you can't possibly criticize it in terms of the methods of psychotherapy employed by some psychoanalysists. Frankly, a fucking apologist for evolutionary psychology has no right to criticize psychoanlaysis on grounds of unfalsifiability, it is beyond ironic. The direct methods of empirically "testing" Lacan's theories (which wouldn't so much be testing their validity as much as substantiating them by measuring their effects in the brain) have become possible with breakthroughs in cognitive science, and there have been many studies that confirm them.

PhoenixAsh

4th June 2015, 23:52

These are personal criticisms. No one cares about what you personally think about Lacan. Be honest and admit you've never read him.

There is literally no need to pretend. There is a plethora of wealth to be learned from Lacan, and there's simply no way to explain that to someone who is automatically dismissive of him, i.e. someone who is not the least familiar with him. Anyway, there's no need to prove Lacans' worth to philistines anyway, because he theoretically provides us with the practical ability to conceive the world around us in a better way, which leads us to another point:

Yes...he does so in exactly the same fashion as the Bible does. Sorry, Rafiq, I have both read Lacan and reject the fact that there is anything worthwhile to learn from him that has any practical application at all.

In effect you believe a story which can not be tested

So here's the logic of capital: Because psychoanalysis fails solving individual problems as a method of therapy, apparently this discredits it theoretically.

If it can not be applied practically then it has no practical value and application. This means that what you say below is disproven by the track record of the field.

There are plenty of self-help books, quasi eastern spiritualist gurus and other scum who can provide better opiates to people in our society for getting by. That is not the point of psychoanalysis, because above all it is not some kind of alien, externally positive claim that sais something others are themselves incapable of knowing on their own, (I.e. it does not claim "ghosts are real" or something that would demand scientific testing to validate), it only rests upon the premise that the field of the psychological is knowable, i.e. that conceiving it IS POSSIBLE:

Except not through psychoanalysis.

Okay, can you disprove for me science itself? No, because it has a practical purpose, and one whose results can actually be conceivable. You simply don't understand the practicality of (lacanian) psychoanalysis: It is not meant to relieve people's ills, but to understand the domains of thought and its various expression.

Except it doesn't do so....all the while pretending that it is practically applicable as a field itself. Which should tell you plenty about what utter nonsense the field is.

It is not a matter of whether it is "true" or not, for this is a vulgarity of philosophy: THE POINT OF WHICH is to ask the very basic question - what do you MEAN when you claim this or that is true? That's the point. You literally think like a child in your epistemology - something is either completely dismissable, ought to be rejected, or it directly violates your immediate experience, like literally showing you the sky is blue. You fail to conceive that there are deeper truths which can be conceived, and so on.

Yet again...not through psychoanalysis. Sorry dude. But you an d the Lacan fan club are on your own here. But of course you are poorly misunderstood individuals waaaaay too developed to be understood.

To say you want to "disprove" psychoanalysis rests upon proper qualifications for what it affirmatively entails. Frankly, the whole realm of psychoanalysis is so vast that you can't possibly criticize it in terms of the methods of psychotherapy employed by some psychoanalysists.

You mean the vast majority? As well as the fact that basically every other scientific discipline thinks psychoanalysis has no practical value...

Frankly, a fucking apologist for evolutionary psychology has no right to criticize psychoanlaysis on grounds of unfalsifiability,

I am not an apologist for EP. What I am in fact is challenging your lies and falsifications and fabrications about what that field entails. As I have stated before and as should be apparent from my argument...I don't follow the concept and ideas of EP.

You fail to understand this...because you have no idea what the field is. Ad you also failed to pick up me several times saying that there is a lot of legitimate criticism to be directed at EP...however not the total fantasies you are concocting here.

But...one of your earliest criticisms of EP ironically was that the data sets did not support the conclusions. Psychoanalysis does not have data sets...they merely make inferences....often incorrectly and not applicable in any real world situation at all (which testifies to the fact that it doesn't in fact demonstrate anything about psychology...simply because if it does...it should be apparent) ...but NOW your argument is basically " Ow...data?...who needs it? That is not the point!" :laugh::laugh:

it is beyond ironic. The direct methods of empirically "testing" Lacan's theories (which wouldn't so much be testing their validity as much as substantiating them by measuring their effects in the brain) have become possible with breakthroughs in cognitive science, and there have been many studies that confirm them.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHA

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

OMG...the irony of that argumentative contradiction. Aside from the fact that it isn't at all true.

Lily Briscoe

5th June 2015, 00:21

PhoenixAsh vs. Rafiq in... The Battle of The Pontificating Textwall

Rafiq

5th June 2015, 00:40

But...one of your earliest criticisms of EP ironically was that the data sets did not support the conclusions. Psychoanalysis does not have data sets...they merely make inferences....

One doesn't even have to criticize evolutionary psychologists by merit of the relationship between their conclusions and data sets, however. The conclusions they draw can be drawn independently of data sets, because they are largely platitudes that are ingrained ideologically, i.e. that "women prefer the color pink, therefore it was because they were selected to pick colorful berries" and so on. The criticism we Marxists have is largely based on the theoretical presumptions Evolutionary psychologists have that lead them to draw the conclusions that they do - namely, that behavior and phenomena have to have an evolutionary basis, because humans are "just like the gorilla" or that "it all goes back to our savannah ancestors".

That's the point. If their conclusions, and explanations, were the most viable ones theoretically, there could be no problem. But they aren't, and they have failed to demonstrate how they could be - despite trying to. Meanwhile, there is no branch of psychology which even touches on the complexities, on the intricacies of the human mind at every level than psychoanalysis. It's not that psychoanalysis makes empirical claims that are just as explainable by other theories, it is that other theories do not even REGARD what psychoanalysists concern themselves. They're not even in the same ballpark. For example, the field of "cognitive psychology", largely a broken one that can't even manage to catch its own tail, is conceiviable in terms of what Lacan calls the imaginary... It can only ever concern the imaginary. Some have tried to claim that Lacan's idea that language imposes concepts and so on, on the subject has been falsified by analyzing how language is perfectly "compatible" with neurological processes miss the entire point: that this direct colonizing imposition HAS to be compatible with neurological processes, or else it would be consciously perceived, one way or another, as an externality.

The bankruptcy of the notion of falsifiability for ENTIRE theoretical paradigms is that all variables have to be accounted for that, within a theoretical paradigm, cannot leave room for other variables in conducting any experiment. If Chomsky thinks his idea of a "universal language" is testable, it is largely because he is unaware of other variables that would discredit the idea. Likewise, of course, he tells us that, to paraphrase "personally, when I talk to indigenous amazonian tribesmen, I feel like I'm on the same level, perceiving the injustice of the destruction of their homes by the government" or whatever. He sais that the fact that the tribesmen perceive it as morally condemnable means it's universal, not recognizing that by its own relative terms the moral foundations don't HAVE to be ingrained on any genetic level, but merely consequential of this or that relationship, interaction (i.e. namely being fucked over by bulldozers).

OMG...the irony of that argumentative contradiction. Aside from the fact that it isn't at all true.

There's nothing contradictory here. There have been studies in the field of cognitive science, well, let me be clear: There have been followers of Lacan who have pointed out that studies (DONE INDEPENDENTLY OF LACAN) have substantiated much of his claims, if interpreted correctly (i.e. without the theoretical bankruptcy that many cognitive psychologists are bound by, conflating appearances with their reality). There was no way to "test" his claims, as I said, because they concerned the mind. Do you even fucking understand theory at all? For fuck's sake, quantum physicists have made theoretical claims that were only recently "testable" and that does not discredit quantum theory to the slightest. Einstein theoretically posited the existence of black holes, and we have been able to observe them empirically only recently. We wouldn't have HAD to have the capability of empirically observing them in order to know they exist, however. But never mind that. The idea that psychoanlaysis has been replaced by cognitive science is nothing but an old myth (like saying Marxism has been replaced by "new developments" here or there) - in fact, the only problem is that psychoanalysis has not been able to catch up with it - they are entirely compatible fields. I merely pointed out that some studies have confirmed the relationship between langauge and the subject proposed by Lacan, of course I don't claim Lacan is true BECAUSE cognitive science confirms him: indeed this is a gray area and most cognitive scientists aren't even theoretically equipped to look it the right places here. It's hilarious how you laugh predictably when an affront to the idea that cognitive sciences have "discredited lacan" was already implicit in my post, i.e. I fully acknowledge that philistines use this as their primary criticism of Lacan. The point is not that it has "falsified Lacan" (AGAIN, ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE NEVER UNDERSTOOD HIM CLAIM THIS) but that it simply did not regard psychoanalysis, because cognitivists feel it has no practicality. However Zizek has already pointed out that amply, despite various "tests", the field of cognitive science is riddled with contradictory assessments of the data it produces and has greatly overlooked fields of great importance wherein "charlatans" like Lacan would be of great use.

Lacan's theories do not need to be "tested" as this would be a great misunderstanding of their epistemological nature, but they can certainly be substantiated. Before the advances in cognitive science psychology was incapable of being "tested" on a direct physical level, but never mind that - that does not mean they were all "wrong", but that their physical basis was considered unimportant, and rightly so. My point is simple: You can MAKE CLAIMS about things without having to directly "test" or regard them, because it would make no difference - if I say "I use my hand to wipe my ass", I do not need to know the exact means of how my hand is controlled physically by the will to wipe my ass, because I can already see that I am doing this. That is why Lacanians can perfectly understand cognitive scientists, while cognitive scientists are not equipped with understanding Lacanianism.

Try again. Know that I will be sure to respond, i.e. I will be certain to not let you get your last word here. And yes, purely out of spite.

Rafiq

5th June 2015, 00:44

I am glad you have revealed yourself in such a way that makes a plethora of your other positions more understandable. It is not a coincidence that you are a philistine positivist, an apologist of gamergate, an apologist of sexual oppression, a borderline men's rights activist, (what appears to be) a biological determinist, and finally a Chomskyan phrase-mongerer.

It would seem that the muddied shit vomit of incoherent, and eclectic garbage you've given us is truly a reflection of your own internal struggle to reconcile the aesthetic you're trying to keep up, the politics you tell yourself you adhere to, and the deep seated pathological predispositions you have towards being a full blown reactionary. Know that I have a solution for you: abandon the appearance of being an anarchist all together and find rest among the vile scum of whom you make yourself in the company of whether you like it or not.

PhoenixAsh

5th June 2015, 01:25

One doesn't even have to criticize evolutionary psychologists by merit of the relationship between their conclusions and data sets, however. The conclusions they draw can be drawn independently of data sets, because they are largely platitudes that are ingrained ideologically, i.e. that "women prefer the color pink,

Yeah...again...that is not what the field of EP actually says.

therefore it was because they were selected to pick colorful berries" and so on. The criticism we Marxists have is largely based on the theoretical presumptions Evolutionary psychologists have that lead them to draw the conclusions that they do - namely, that behavior and phenomena have to have an evolutionary basis, because humans are "just like the gorilla"

Again. Not what the field of EP actually says.

or that "it all goes back to our savannah ancestors".

It does actually say that...except not in the way you make it appear here

That's the point. If their conclusions, and explanations, were the most viable ones theoretically, there could be no problem. But they aren't, and they have failed to demonstrate how they could be - despite trying to.

You keep claiming this. And I don't entirely disagree...yet...and that is my point: you have failed to actually show this.

Instead you have served up mindless drivel based on false narrative, and brought forth a set of arguments which are not only objectively not true, they are also proven to be incorrect statements....and littered that with moralist associations aimed at inciting emotional responses to lend credence to your claims and your baseless counter narrative. Not only that but you have tried to equate two fields that are completely dissimilar.

You do this solely based on narrative...which is inferred from mere fabrications.

In the mean time you basically have admitted you falsify information, concoct a subjective narrative...and while critisicing the essentiality of unsuportive data sets markets your own theories which are based on no data sets itself.

Meanwhile, there is no branch of psychology which even touches on the complexities, on the intricacies of the human mind at every level than psychoanalysis.

Which is complete fictional dillusion which has NO practical applicability, can not be reproduced...and has consistently failed to even show how it applies...and therefore consistently proves that it actually doesn't explain anything at all.

Of course in the 60's and 70's the Frankfurt school...Fromm, Reich and Althusser tried to marry Marxism and Psychoanalysis...building on Wallon's occultist influences on the Mirror Image theory....Zizek still is a huge proponent. None of that is actually any good advertisement.

It's not that psychoanalysis makes empirical claims that are just as explainable by other theories, it is that other theories do not even REGARD what psychoanalysists concern themselves. They're not even in the same ballpark.

We totally agree on that. The ballpark you are playing in is pseudo scientific narrative creation without practical reproducibility.

For example, the field of "cognitive psychology", largely a broken one that can't even manage to catch its own tail, is conceiviable in terms of what Lacan calls the imaginary... It can only ever concern the imaginary. Some have tried to claim that Lacan's idea that language imposes concepts and so on, on the subject has been falsified by analyzing how language is perfectly "compatible" with neurological processes miss the entire point: that this direct colonizing imposition HAS to be compatible with neurological processes, or else it would be consciously perceived, one way or another, as an externality.

The bankruptcy of the notion of falsifiability for ENTIRE theoretical paradigms is that all variables have to be accounted for that, within a theoretical paradigm, cannot leave room for other variables in conducting any experiment. If Chomsky thinks his idea of a "universal language" is testable, it is largely because he is unaware of other variables that would discredit the idea. Likewise, of course, he tells us that, to paraphrase "personally, when I talk to indigenous amazonian tribesmen, I feel like I'm on the same level, perceiving the injustice of the destruction of their homes by the government" or whatever. He sais that the fact that the tribesmen perceive it as morally condemnable means it's universal, not recognizing that by its own relative terms the moral foundations don't HAVE to be ingrained on any genetic level, but merely consequential of this or that relationship, interaction (i.e. namely being fucked over by bulldozers).

Forgetting entirely that language itself is a evolutionary process ;)

There's nothing contradictory here. There have been studies in the field of cognitive science, well, let me be clear: There have been followers of Lacan who have pointed out that studies (DONE INDEPENDENTLY OF LACAN) have substantiated much of his claims, if interpreted correctly (i.e. without the theoretical bankruptcy that many cognitive psychologists are bound by, conflating appearances with their reality). There was no way to "test" his claims, as I said, because they concerned the mind. Do you even fucking understand theory at all? For fuck's sake, quantum physicists have made theoretical claims that were only recently "testable" and that does not discredit quantum theory to the slightest.

Yeah I do understand theory. I reject your notion of psychoanalysis because it actually doesn't explain things from a perspective that is in any sense falsifiable, reproducable and has consistently failed to be able to be applied....at all. This means that it doesn't actually explain anything. It offers a theory which MIGHT, MIGHT have a point somewhere...just on the basis of luck. It is basically like a group of five year olds trying to explain the world without any means of actually assessing their theories. That makes the theory...JUST THAT...a story.

A story that until it can be tested has no actual basis in facts, or reality...nor does it suffice or warrant the level of devotion that you attribute to it.

And that is aside from all the aspects about psychoanalysis that have been proven plain incorrect or highly subjective and dependent on a very specific individual context.

Einstein theoretically posited the existence of black holes, and we have been able to observe them empirically only recently. We wouldn't have HAD to have the capability of empirically observing them in order to know they exist, however. But never mind that. The idea that psychoanlaysis has been replaced by cognitive science is nothing but an old myth (like saying Marxism has been replaced by "new developments" here or there)

I am not saying that psychoanalysis has been replaced by cognitive science...where did you read that? I am saying that psychoanalysis is not a science at all.

- in fact, the only problem is that psychoanalysis has not been able to catch up with it - they are entirely compatible fields. I merely pointed out that some studies have confirmed the relationship between langauge and the subject proposed by Lacan, of course I don't claim Lacan is true BECAUSE cognitive science confirms him: indeed this is a gray area and most cognitive scientists aren't even theoretically equipped to look it the right places here. It's hilarious how you laugh predictably when an affront to the idea that cognitive sciences have "discredited lacan" was already implicit in my post, i.e. I fully acknowledge that philistines use this as their primary criticism of Lacan. The point is not that it has "falsified Lacan" (AGAIN, ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE NEVER UNDERSTOOD HIM CLAIM THIS) but that it simply did not regard psychoanalysis, because cognitivists feel it has no practicality. However Zizek has already pointed out that amply, despite various "tests", the field of cognitive science is riddled with contradictory assessments of the data it produces and has greatly overlooked fields of great importance wherein "charlatans" like Lacan would be of great use.

Yes...I am well aware of the psychoanalysts tendency to circle jerk.

Lacan's theories do not need to be "tested" as this would be a great misunderstanding of their epistemological nature, but they can certainly be substantiated.

Eh...no...they can't

Before the advances in cognitive science psychology was incapable of being "tested" on a direct physical level, but never mind that - that does not mean they were all "wrong", but that their physical basis was considered unimportant, and rightly so. My point is simple: You can MAKE CLAIMS about things without having to directly "test" or regard them, because it would make no difference - if I say "I use my hand to wipe my ass", I do not need to know the exact means of how my hand is controlled physically by the will to wipe my ass, because I can already see that I am doing this. That is why Lacanians can perfectly understand cognitive scientists, while cognitive scientists are not equipped with understanding Lacanianism.

Yes...you indeed do make claims. But these claims do never rise above the level of claims. you create a narrative that you say explains the world. It does. So does the Bible. So does the Qu'ran. That doesn't mean any of it is based on fact or that it is applicable.

So far the ONLY claim you have is that it is true because it is what psycho analysists say it is. We have to accept psycho analysis...because if we don't we are to dumb to understand psycho analysis.

That is what you are arguing here.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Try again. Know that I will be sure to respond, i.e. I will be certain to not let you get your last word here. And yes, purely out of spite.

I am not trying. You are making a perfectly fine ass out of yourself all on your own.

On top of that...you are vehemently defending a pedophile, sexual abuser, capitalist bourgeois ideologue. I am loving this....

Not to mention the fact that several posts ago...before you even mentioned that you were an ad herent to the psychoanalysis religion....I already predicted what you would turn out to be: merely an abstract of a dogmatic religious nut.

PhoenixAsh

5th June 2015, 01:34

I am glad you have revealed yourself in such a way that makes a plethora of your other positions more understandable. It is not a coincidence that you are a philistine positivist,

I am not a positivist.

an apologist of gamergate,

Nope...simply saying that it is a little more complex than simply harassment and has a longer developing history.

an apologist of sexual oppression,

Really? Where?

a borderline men's rights activist,

Either I am or I am not...

(what appears to be) a biological determinist,

Only because you haven't mastered the skill to read...I think it is a deficiency in your genetic coding

and finally a Chomskyan phrase-mongerer.

Said the supporter of Lacan...who is also a phrase mongerer ;)

It would seem that the muddied shit vomit of incoherent, and eclectic garbage you've given us is truly a reflection of your own internal struggle to reconcile the aesthetic you're trying to keep up, the politics you tell yourself you adhere to, and the deep seated pathological predispositions you have towards being a full blown reactionary. Know that I have a solution for you: abandon the appearance of being an anarchist all together and find rest among the vile scum of whom you make yourself in the company of whether you like it or not.

You mean like you I have to prove my revolutionary zeal in defending pedophiles, millionaires, sexual abusers, people who abuse patients, collaborate with nazi's...and who uses lies, slanderous comments and pure fabrications in order to make his pseudo scientific drivel seem legit...and on top of that laces his entire argumentative basis with liberal emotive language and hypocritical statements that apply when it suits them but not to their own fantasy tales?

....o...wait....that was you...owww sorry dude.

:rolleyes:

PhoenixAsh

5th June 2015, 04:56

Well we are passed that now.

I am actually turning my attention to wondering how Rafiq is going to account for the Lamarckian inheritance aspect of psychoanalytical explanations of human nature... (meaning that psychoanalysis relies heavily on the notion of heritability of acquired traits...)) or psychoanalysis's recapitulation account for human aggression.

I am also very curious how Rafiq will address the fact that there are several voices from the field of psychoanalysis that want to marry the entirety of the field with Evolutionary Psychology...and...Evolutionary Psychologists doing basically the same thing...both mentioning the other field as essential to create an integral understanding of human nature and behavior.

I am really looking forward to that.

Rafiq

5th June 2015, 05:18

Yeah...again...that is not what the field of EP actually says.

Show me one evolutionary psychology based study that couldn't have been inferred without the data they provided. One.

Which is complete fictional dillusion which has NO practical applicability, can not be reproduced...and has consistently failed to even show how it applies...and therefore consistently proves that it actually doesn't explain anything at all.

Of course in the 60's and 70's the Frankfurt school...Fromm, Reich and Althusser tried to marry Marxism and Psychoanalysis...building on Wallon's occultist influences on the Mirror Image theory....Zizek still is a huge proponent. None of that is actually any good advertisement.

Practical applicability in approximation to what? On a theoretical level, it is absolutely vital in conceiving not only humans on a psychological level, but for example the specialities between the relationship between the social and the psychological. You claim that it is a fictional delusion while demonstrating that you haven not even an elementary conception of psychoanalysis. And frankly, Reich and Althusser did not have to marry Marxism with psychoanalysis, because it was Lacan who already did this thoroughly, perfecting Marx's notion of commodity fetishism. Frankly, most Lacanians reject being called psychologists anyway, claiming psychoanalysis is a much wider discipline, and they are completely correct. You claim that it has "failed to show how it applies" but what you fail to conceive is that the whole of the continental school speaks consciously a language that is arrogantly dismissed by the philistine positivists, yet spoken subconsciously. The problem is that in their criticisms of the continental school, including Lacan, they will often beat around the bush in actually confronting them by their theoretical merits, and when they absolutely fail at doing this - it then becomes a game of literally dismissing the whole field as "gibberish" or "incomprehensible" and "not clear". Testament purely to their own ignorance. In reality, people do exist who are capable of fathoming such ideas, and that is why they often do not care much for trying to prove the legitimacy of such fields to the philistines - because they don't need to prove to THEMSELVES that it is theoretically workable, because they're already working with it!

Forgetting entirely that language itself is a evolutionary process ;)

So claim the Chomskyists. And there remains no evidence to confirm this: the fact of the matter is that language is rooted in social relations, not biology. Even if how we linguistically concieve a language remains the same, in terms of grammer and so on, the fundemental relationship between language and the subject is universally DIFFERENT in different historic epochs. Many claim that "high" languages eventually degenerate by the plebian masses's defilement of it, i.e. how English used to sound more sophisticated. What they can't fathom is that the opposite is true - more is capable of being designated linguistically, and ideologically, that is better able to substitute the expression of ideas with implicit signifiers. For fuck's sake, do you even KNOW what language is? You aren't born knowing how to speak, you aren't born with a "universal language" like the metaphysical idealists like to claim.

This means that it doesn't actually explain anything.

It explains things that are not even conceivable by the analytical scum. That's the point. It's like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a dogmatic Newtonian physicist who wants to dismiss all of it as fantastical or mystical.

highly subjective and dependent on a very specific individual context.

You keep abusing such words and phrases without knowing what this actually means. If there is anything to be criticized about psychoanlysis, it is certianly not a pretense to its "subjectivity". If I fuck around just like you do, I can say EVERYTHING is subjective and dependent on a "very specific individual context". What does calculus mean to the Hazda hunter-gatherers? Nothing. Therefore it's "subjective". Try again.

The fact of the matter is that it cannot be dependent on "individual contexts" because it theoretically concerns things that are fundamentally beyond the individual.

Yes...I am well aware of the psychoanalysts tendency to circle jerk.

While critical theorists can provide profound criticisms, deep insights into the error of the positivist philistines, what do they have to say to us? "Blah blah blah, just a bunch of bullshit". There's no critical insight whatsoever. Even something like new age spirituality, something I most certainly do dismiss, is something I can critically ground and understand thoroughly. That's the dilemma. We understand your language, but you don't understand ours.

So far the ONLY claim you have is that it is true because it is what psycho analysists say it is. We have to accept psycho analysis...because if we don't we are to dumb to understand psycho analysis.

This stems from the actual epistemological error of assuming that ANYTHING is true by merit of its origins. For example, you will claim that "this or that expert from this top university" claims this or that and that will be enough to confirm it. It is the logic of technocracy - you don't have to regard the ORIGIN of the claims made by psychoanalysts, you do not accept it as "legitimate" knowledge based on who claims it or not, but recognizing the basic fact that REASON is something anyone is capable of utilizing. You can definitely try to criticize, and point out whatever errors pscyho-analysts make by bringing forth definite qualifications for criticism. Saying "dur hur they dunt give us data" is not a criticism of the wealth of Lacanian theory. Muslims, and Christians can be confronted theoretically because they have definite qualifications for validity which can be shown to be nonsensical, inconsistent and ridiculous. This is not the case for Lacan. Hence, his only successful critics were those who DISMISSED him, those that tried to attack Lacan by evaluating his theoretical worth failed miserably.

It is not about what is "true" and what is not. The mere act of saying something has implicit means of theoretically validating or invaliding something. As does the process of rejecting something. So you oppose the theory of mirror stage - on what grounds? By its own merits, on what grounds? For example, I can criticize EP not because it is "unfalsifiable" because they make a claim: "If X, then Y is true". But I can show that even by these qualifications, they have failed at demonstrating this. That if X is true, then that doesn't necessarily mean Y is true. You're an epistemological mess and it's rather cute. You think like a barbarian because you're literally incapable of using REASON to process information, you can't even CONFRONT arguments. instead, you dismiss them on the basis of how legitimate you think they are. "Well, I don't agree, because it upsets me and I can say I do not agree with words". That doesn't mean anything.

On top of that...you are vehemently defending a pedophile, sexual abuser, capitalist bourgeois ideologue. I am loving this....

I do not care about Lacan's personal attributes, these have been criticized by Lacanians thoroughly as well. That doesn't matter though. If Darwin turned out to be a serial rapist, that would not invalidate the importance of his theories. Finally, the notion that he was a "bourgeois ideologue" is so hilarious I might even do you a favor and choke on my own laughter. You're coming from the ANALYTICAL tradition, as a Chomskyan, and calling LACAN a bourgeois ideologue? Give me a fucking break. In no way was Lacan a bourgeois ideologue, he fundamentally was among the most dangerous theoreticians for the ruling order insofar as he was able to provide the basis for the most rigorous, consistent and vital criticisms of its functioning. Lacan violated so many bourgeois sacred cows one cannot even begin. One might be able to call Freud a bourgeois ideologue, but then again, so was Darwin.

Not to mention the fact that several posts ago...before you even mentioned that you were an ad herent to the psychoanalysis religion....I already predicted what you would turn out to be: merely an abstract of a dogmatic religious nut.

Wow, what a great prediction. Tell me, Nostradamus, how exactly is accusing me of being a "religious nut" grounds for a prediction that I adhere to psychoanalysis?

Rafiq

5th June 2015, 05:22

I am also very curious how Rafiq will address the fact that there are several voices from the field of psychoanalysis that want to marry the entirety of the field with Evolutionary Psychology...and...Evolutionary Psychologists doing basically the same thing...both mentioning the other field as essential to create an integral understanding of human

What's your point? Psychoanalysis much more diverse as a field than EP, much more diverse than is conceivable to you. It's lke saying that "some biologists want to marry themselves with Evolutionary Psychology and vice versa". It's such a wide and expansive field that even talking about "psychoanalysis" removed from a specific concept means nothing. For example, Jung was a psychoanalyst, and he was a complete reactionary. We are talking about Lacanian psychoanalysis here, and frankly, this has fuck all either to do with Lamarck or any spontaneous inclination to "marry" with EP. It certainly concerns itself with cognitive science in 2015, but that is hardly a surprise.

Finally, the reason you're being called a rape apologist might have to do with the fact that being an apologist of Evolutionary psychology you probably adhere to the idea that rape has its basis in biological drives, one way or another. You claimed that sexuality, and even knowing the details on how to have sex (laugh, should I?) are things you are born with, things you know automatically, so it would follow that rape is too. Why do you get to pick and choose what you have a "biological imperative" for, and what you don't? Rape is, after all, "universal" if we only regard "culture" as the factor of difference. I even provided a study made by evolutionary psychologists which claimed exactly this, and I can give you literally 12 more right now if you want too. It's funny that you claim my epistemological foundations are "subjective" and only have their basis in politics when literally the only thing which prevents you from claiming rape is biologically innate is political correctness, and your political position. The same goes for racism and sexism in general too - using the qualifications for theory YOU have provided, basing any criticism in a previous inclination to oppose racism or sexism, is pseudo-scientific. how then would Scientific racism had been discredited? If no one argued against it from the point of anti-racism, which THEY ALL DID it would have not been shown to be pseudo-scientific. So you literally pick and choose which "facts" and which "scientific methodology" you want to use based on your "SUBJECTIVE" POSITIONS! You say that scientific racists bring an "external" agenda into science, but HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? HOW DO YOU MEASURE THIS? HOW DO YOU MEASURE THEIR "REAL" MOTIVATIONS? DOES ASH SIMPLY KNOW THIS BY INSTINCT? ARE WE TO TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT? BY THE SAME LOGIC, the evolutionary biologists who apparently discredited race might have been EQUALLY motivated by some kind of implicit anti-racist politics. No one could EVER know! Either criticize the epistemological predispositiosn and foundations to such FILTH, or accept it becuase it's backed up by "data". Don't pick and choose which fucking "science" you want to deem legitimate based on your "subjective" positions. You offer no consistent means to measure what is "biological" and what isn't. NONE.

PhoenixAsh

5th June 2015, 06:00

Show me one evolutionary psychology based study that couldn't have been inferred without the data they provided. One.

The question is a little dishonest don't you think?

After all you spend time attacking EP over it's data sets and conclusions. And then ended up defending psychoanalysis on the fact that data isn't required and that falsifiability is nonsense. Asking now for data sets would be more than a little hypocritical.

In fact...whether or not there are data sets that were required for the inference...doesn't disqualify EP based on your own arguments.

Practical applicability in approximation to what? On a theoretical level, it is absolutely vital in conceiving not only humans on a psychological level, but for example the specialities between the relationship between the social and the psychological.

That doesn't have any bearing on the argument. The argument is that if it theoretically explains how humans function and how human behavior functions...that should be expressed by the theory being actually applicable in reality.

Whether or not studying and creating theories about the social and the psychological is vital. Psychoanalysis however is not the only field that does that...at all.

You claim that it is a fictional delusion while demonstrating that you haven not even an elementary conception of psychoanalysis. And frankly, Reich and Althusser did not have to marry Marxism with psychoanalysis, because it was Lacan who already did this thoroughly, perfecting Marx's notion of commodity fetishism. Frankly, most Lacanians reject being called psychologists anyway, claiming psychoanalysis is a much wider discipline, and they are completely correct. You claim that it has "failed to show how it applies" but what you fail to conceive is that the whole of the continental school speaks consciously a language that is arrogantly dismissed by the philistine positivists, yet spoken subconsciously. The problem is that in their criticisms of the continental school, including Lacan, they will often beat around the bush in actually confronting them by their theoretical merits, and when they absolutely fail at doing this - it then becomes a game of literally dismissing the whole field as "gibberish" or "incomprehensible" and "not clear". Testament purely to their own ignorance. In reality, people do exist who are capable of fathoming such ideas, and that is why they often do not care much for trying to prove the legitimacy of such fields to the philistines - because they don't need to prove to THEMSELVES that it is theoretically workable, because they're already working with it!

Again this doesn't address the statement. Provide a basis of psychoanalysis where it actually explains human behavior that is applicable in real world circumstances

So claim the Chomskyists. And there remains no evidence to confirm this: the fact of the matter is that language is rooted in social relations, not biology. Even if how we linguistically concieve a language remains the same, in terms of grammer and so on, the fundemental relationship between language and the subject is universally DIFFERENT in different historic epochs. Many claim that "high" languages eventually degenerate by the plebian masses's defilement of it, i.e. how English used to sound more sophisticated. What they can't fathom is that the opposite is true - more is capable of being designated linguistically, and ideologically, that is better able to substitute the expression of ideas with implicit signifiers. For fuck's sake, do you even KNOW what language is? You aren't born knowing how to speak, you aren't born with a "universal language" like the metaphysical idealists like to claim.

Really? We aren't born knowing how to speak? We don't know words. We however make sounds instinctively to communicate. We do know instinctively how to speak...both auditive and kinetically...we need to learn words and linguistic structures.

It explains things that are not even conceivable by the analytical scum. That's the point. It's like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a dogmatic Newtonian physicist who wants to dismiss all of it as fantastical or mystical.

It explains...but the explanation can not be falsified. A lot of things offer explanations. Whether or not these explanations have any bearing on reality and the truth remains to be seen... so until it is falsified it is a nice sounding theory.

You keep abusing such words and phrases without knowing what this actually means. If there is anything to be criticized about psychoanlysis, it is certianly not a pretense to its "subjectivity". If I fuck around just like you do, I can say EVERYTHING is subjective and dependent on a "very specific individual context". What does calculus mean to the Hazda hunter-gatherers? Nothing. Therefore it's "subjective". Try again.

In fact that is exactly what you have been doing for the last few pages...when you applied one set of criticisms to one field...and then rejected these same criticisms for your own preferred field. And thus applying a double standard on what you like and dislike.

However psychoanalysis tries to extrapolate social inferences from individual functions. That is what it means. Trying to extrapolate group behavior form behavior of the individual.

The fact of the matter is that it cannot be dependent on "individual contexts" because it theoretically concerns things that are fundamentally beyond the individual.

Actually no.

While critical theorists can provide profound criticisms, deep insights into the error of the positivist philistines, what do they have to say to us? "Blah blah blah, just a bunch of bullshit". There's no critical insight whatsoever. Even something like new age spirituality, something I most certainly do dismiss, is something I can critically ground and understand thoroughly. That's the dilemma. We understand your language, but you don't understand ours.

Because your language isn't actually based on anything aside from self constructed ideas and theories that have so far failed to have any practical application. This means to a huge extent that your language basically evolves around: don't believe us? question us? then you are to underdeveloped to understand.

It is a circle jerk of intellectualism and arrogant rhetoric.

This stems from the actual epistemological error of assuming that ANYTHING is true by merit of its origins. For example, you will claim that "this or that expert from this top university" claims this or that and that will be enough to confirm it. It is the logic of technocracy - you don't have to regard the ORIGIN of the claims made by psychoanalysts, you do not accept it as "legitimate" knowledge based on who claims it or not, but recognizing the basic fact that REASON is something anyone is capable of utilizing. You can definitely try to criticize, and point out whatever errors pscyho-analysts make by bringing forth definite qualifications for criticism. Saying "dur hur they dunt give us data" is not a criticism of the wealth of Lacanian theory. Muslims, and Christians can be confronted theoretically because they have definite qualifications for validity which can be shown to be nonsensical, inconsistent and ridiculous. This is not the case for Lacan. Hence, his only successful critics were those who DISMISSED him, those that tried to attack Lacan by evaluating his theoretical worth failed miserably.

Psychoanalysis however rejects that definite qualification of validity and doesn't offer and qualification for validation. Instead the validation is the fact that it is said for psychoanalysts. That and rejecting any criticism directed at them as being base on profound misunderstaning, miscomprehension and inability to fathom the field....much like you have been doing for the last few pages.

I have given you substantial criticism for example about Lacan. How he adopted several very questionable theories based on occultist interpretations and almost literally reproduced these. How his work is actually deviod of a consistent theory. And how the theories he does have seemed to have never been able to be applied in practice...even though that is exactly what the field pretended to offer from the start...and so did Lacan.

It is not about what is "true" and what is not. The mere act of saying something has implicit means of theoretically validating or invaliding something. As does the process of rejecting something. So you oppose the theory of mirror stage - on what grounds? By its own merits, on what grounds? For example, I can criticize EP not because it is "unfalsifiable" because they make a claim: "If X, then Y is true". But I can show that even by these qualifications, they have failed at demonstrating this.

And I am trying to get you to wrap your head around the notion that Psychoanalysis has so far failed to demonstrate anything either.

Nor do you have to disprove EP to me. I am not, for the thousand time, a fan of EP. It is extremely easy to criticise EP....except I don't need to fabricate causality, create red herrings and fabricate a narrative that isn't actually based on anything the field says to do so.

That if X is true, then that doesn't necessarily mean Y is true. You're an epistemological mess and it's rather cute. You think like a barbarian because you're literally incapable of using REASON to process information, you can't even CONFRONT arguments. instead, you dismiss them on the basis of how legitimate you think they are. "Well, I don't agree, because it upsets me and I can say I do not agree with words". That doesn't mean anything.

You don't have any arguments. You make absolute statements that aren't actually based in facts. So provide arguments and i will confront them. In the mean time I am indeed dismissive of your field of psycho-fantasy because it doesn't actually apply...doesn't do anything except create an explanatory narrative which...MAYBE...at some time in the future might be...when technology is advanced enough...proven to have any value.

In the mean time you do not seem to realize that it is simply a nice interesting story and intellectual exercise. Until it is applicable, testable and actually providing a input-output basis that holds as much authority as any other explanation that isn't actually testable.

I do not care about Lacan's personal attributes, these have been criticized by Lacanians thoroughly as well. That doesn't matter though. If Darwin turned out to be a serial rapist, that would not invalidate the importance of his theories. Finally, the notion that he was a "bourgeois ideologue" is so hilarious I might even do you a favor and choke on my own laughter. and calling LACAN a bourgeois ideologue? Give me a fucking break. In no way was Lacan a bourgeois ideologue, he fundamentally was among the most dangerous theoreticians for the ruling order insofar as he was able to provide the basis for the most rigorous, consistent and vital criticisms of its functioning. Lacan violated so many bourgeois sacred cows one cannot even begin. One might be able to call Freud a bourgeois ideologue, but then again, so was Darwin.

O right...yeah...him being a millionaire employing people in his mansion, institution and running a profit based enterprise does indeed make him a bright shining example of a working class idealist...with working class ideals.

Lacan didn't even prove a nuisance for the Nazi's...much less to the ruling class. Which is why he was pretty damned well respected....especially by the petit-bourgeoise

You're coming from the ANALYTICAL tradition, as a Chomskyan, Yeah..not a Chomskyan though

Wow, what a great prediction. Tell me, Nostradamus, how exactly is accusing me of being a "religious nut" grounds for a prediction that I adhere to psychoanalysis?

Because adherers to psychoanalysis are extremely dogmatic, extremely dismissive of any form of criticism, adhere to a strategy of almost bullying people into accepting their ideas or denouncing them as simply unable to understand their ideas. It is kind of a cult....most of the PSA's have their own little cultist sects. Much like Lacan.

PhoenixAsh

5th June 2015, 06:55

Usually, when PhoenixAsh is in a thread for a long amount of time, I soon stop understanding what is the discussion about. It's not even that I necessarily disagree with his position, is that he becomes so nit-picking and obscure I can't really understand what his position is.

Yeah unfortunately that is not my fault in this case.

The position is simple:

1). Culture and Biology mutually influence human behavior and both shape each other based on the given environmental (material) conditions.

2). Both EP and Social primacy theories about human behavior are not comprehensive enough...each have their merits but both are essentially excluding parts that are essential....neither can accurately explain human behavior

3). The discussion between me and Rafiq hinges on the fact that Rafiq attacks EP on grounds that are fabricated or are conclusions that the field of EP didn't make.

4). And it hinges on the fact that Rafiq is of the opinion that the cultural holds primacy over behavior and determines behavior whereas he thinks the biological and evolutionary principles are not at all a factor.

PhoenixAsh

5th June 2015, 09:18

Let me first start of by listing what you have done so far:

01). You attacked EP based on the statement that their analysis was not supported by the data sets (something by the way that I agree on but more on that later). You then claimed data sets were irrelevant when it came to being confronted with the lack of data sets for your own preferred field.

02). You then claimed that your field was above data sets and that a theory doesn't actually need to be falsified...as long as you prefer it. Yet of course EP needs to be falsified.

03). You then tried several tactics to discredit EP. You tried to link EP with Scientific Racism...which is not true. You then ascribed theories to EP that are either not from the field of EP or they are not at all what the field of EP says. You did so knowingly and consistently and you do so to illicit an emotional support for your own position based on insinuation.

04). You then named two books that were supposed to link EP with racism. Neither book is from the field of EP.

05). You then cited a study to prove a statement you made which incidentally provided the basis for evolutionary explanations of behavior....and tried to get away with it by waving it away as inconsequential.

06). You then equated evolution with predestination. Which is not how evolution works.

07). You then make the false inference that when something has a biological or evolutionary explanation...that means that that explanation justifies it or makes a moral judgement. Which is idiotic in the extreme and is like saying that studying the causes of crime is justifying crime.

08). In the mean time you have been littering your posts with straw man constructions in order to attack the straw man rather than the actual arguments.

09). You seem to be under the impression that calling you out on attacking a field based on fabrications and false narrative of what that field says...means you support that field in the face of the statement that that field should be attacked on correct information...and many precious statements that that field was incorrect

10). You claim supremacy and ultimate truth of a set of theories which not only have been widely discredited but have so far failed to be substantiated and applied to any meaningful extent....all the time consistently failing spectacularly and disastrously to actually explain anything when they are applied.

11). You claim this supremacy not based on the merit of the argument but because you say so.

12). You consistently ignore every argument which attacks the validity of the field on content

13). You consistently brush away any criticism from literally thousands of scientists, former adherers and from a huge array of fields....because these people merely didn't understand the field. Any form of criticism is rejected based on the argument that these people were not sophisticated enough, not smart enough, simply don't understand it or worse...are philistines.

14). And all of that leads you to the conclusion that I therefore must be a reactionary.

That is your argument so far.

Now I don't blame you for not being able to classify me. So let me enlighten you. I studied 4 years of Psychology...with a specialization in biological psychology (which concerns itself with the biological processes of the brain and how they expresses behavior) and social psychology (which would probably surprise you)...and as to aspect you could place me more along the lines of functionalism....although I do concur with many of the criticisms of functionalism.

The reason I am arguing against your fabrications of EP is because they are that...fabrications. If you argue against something you do it based on facts and not lies and fantasies of how you want that field to be.

I also reject your notion of the dominance of the social and, as I have said before, am of the opinion that the social is not free from influences of evolution/biology and evolution/biology is not free from the social. Per extent this means I reject the notion of the dominance of the genetic/biological/evolution over social.

So lets continue to your post:

What's your point? Psychoanalysis much more diverse as a field than EP, much more diverse than is conceivable to you. It's lke saying that "some biologists want to marry themselves with Evolutionary Psychology and vice versa". It's such a wide and expansive field that even talking about "psychoanalysis" removed from a specific concept means nothing. For example, Jung was a psychoanalyst, and he was a complete reactionary. We are talking about Lacanian psychoanalysis here, and frankly, this has fuck all either to do with Lamarck or any spontaneous inclination to "marry" with EP. It certainly concerns itself with cognitive science in 2015, but that is hardly a surprise.

The inclination isn't spontaneous. In fact both fields have a lot in common in their central themes. Lacan for example advances theories which are predominantly relying on Lamarckian inheritance principles and recapitulation accounts. These are evolutionary principles.

I thought you knew this...because you are positioning yourself as somewhat of an expert.

But then again...you were also not aware that Lacan sought explanations for his theory in the biological.

Finally, the reason you're being called a rape apologist might have to do with the fact that being an apologist of Evolutionary psychology you probably adhere to the idea that rape has its basis in biological drives, one way or another. so it would follow that rape is too. Why do you get to pick and choose what you have a "biological imperative" for, and what you don't? Rape is, after all, "universal" if we only regard "culture" as the factor of difference. I even provided a study made by evolutionary psychologists which claimed exactly this, and I can give you literally 12 more right now if you want too. It's funny that you claim my epistemological foundations are "subjective" and only have their basis in politics when literally the only thing which prevents you from claiming rape is biologically innate is political correctness, and your political position.

As I have pointed out above...your are implying a causality here that isn't there.

What you are saying is that if there is an evolutionary explanation that means that the behavior is justified or should be allowed. This does not hold nor does that mean that. It is a subjective attribute you make.

Something can be both evolutionary driven and still not acceptable. You have made this mistake before in the same way when you mentioned that evolutionary principles mean it is predestined or determined to be that way. Nor does it infer similarity between normal sexual drives and rape btw. but that is a different argument.

This is, at best, a misconception of what evolutionary principles mean and subjectively infusing and assuming morality....at worse it is simply another attempt to use fabrications and emotion to sound more legitimate peddling your non proven theory.

But most of all it has the appearance of adjusting science to how it may be perceived by the audience and the fear, and false notion, that what is natural behavior is automatically perceived as good behavior.

So before you can start to infer rape apologism...you first actually need to make an argument how it is apologizing for rape. Stating that sometimes people rob others because they need money does not actually apologize for robbery...now does it? Nor does it say that people should be able to rob others. So how do you see that applied here...?

You claimed that sexuality, and even knowing the details on how to have sex (laugh, should I?) are things you are born with, things you know automatically,

Yes...with the nuance that I didn't say we knew the details. I said we are born with instinctive knowledge to have sex.

I know you are a psychoanalyst and believe in the bisexuality theory and therefore think that sexuality and sexual/gender identity expresses after the child stage but then again...so does evolutionary EP...and then again...some of psychoanalysis basic tenants are dependent on acquired trait inheritance...so it shouldn't be a stretch for you.

The same goes for racism and sexism in general too

Incidentally there is an evolutionary theory that explains the emergence of racism in terms of offering evolutionary advantages...so what that means is that racism served the goal of furthering the own genes. NOT that racism is somehow legitimate.

- using the qualifications for theory YOU have provided, basing any criticism in a previous inclination to oppose racism or sexism, is pseudo-scientific.

Nope. Not what I said at all. What I said was that operating from a political agenda and ignoring inconvenient data sets, ignoring them and fabricating data based on the urge to provide evidence for you agenda is pseudo-scientific.

Again...you create a straw man.

how then would Scientific racism had been discredited? If no one argued against it from the point of anti-racism, which THEY ALL DID it would have not been shown to be pseudo-scientific. So you literally pick and choose which "facts" and which "scientific methodology" you want to use based on your "SUBJECTIVE" POSITIONS!

Nope. I am quite clear in what I think it a decent scientific method:

Acquiring correct data sets that are falsifiable and do not rely on ignoring conflicting data sets, fabricating data sets etc.

Everything that is not proven is merely theory...which can be very interesting but has actual zero applicability until it is proven.

And that is in fact how Scientific Racism was discredited. It was not discredited by some people marching in the street...it was discredited by offering counter evidence and proving that most research was based on fabrications. A tactic you later said was pretty much ok...when you said data sets were of no consequence.

You say that scientific racists bring an "external" agenda into science, but HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? HOW DO YOU MEASURE THIS? HOW DO YOU MEASURE THEIR "REAL" MOTIVATIONS? DOES ASH SIMPLY KNOW THIS BY INSTINCT?

I came to this conclusion after a lot of introspection...or pretty much because people specifically set out to study racial differences with such theories that were predisposed to assume differences were there. It is pretty well documented...also ignoring and fabricating data sets was a good indication

ARE WE TO TAKE HIS WORD FOR IT? BY THE SAME LOGIC, the evolutionary biologists who apparently discredited race might have been EQUALLY motivated by some kind of implicit anti-racist politics. No one could EVER know!

Who knows. Maybe they were motivated by purple rainbows and jellybeans. That does not alter the fact that the data sets were not fabricated and falsifiable.

Either criticize the epistemological predispositiosn and foundations to such FILTH, or accept it becuase it's backed up by "data". Don't pick and choose which fucking "science" you want to deem legitimate based on your "subjective" positions.

That position isn't at all subjective. Data isn't data isn't data. You assume that all data is the same and therefore has the same merits and same value. You know of course this is an absolute joke and you don't actually believe this and know it to be a false statement....but it certainly sounds nice to say it beause otherwise you don't actually have a point.

You offer no consistent means to measure what is "biological" and what isn't. NONE.[/SIZE]

Well I did actually. Several times. You ignore them because you don't seem to understand them.

But sure I will bite.

I think, like I said before, that biological imperatives (which again...are pretty well defined) necessitate the formation of social structures which are structured according to facilitating the biological imperatives within a given material context. There is a feedback loop between these construct and the drive to fulfill biological imperatives.

I also mentioned genetic capabilities and predispositions which, in a given material context, will influence behavior and behavioral capabilities and therefore social structures differently....as well as the reverse where social structures heavily impact the expression of gene capacity and therefore behavior.

Added to that I think evolutionary principles do influence to some extend behavioral patterns which in turn will influence social structures....but then again...I also think social structures influence evolutionary principles....mostly on how they are expressed.

But your claim that I didn't specify them is, as so many claims you make about what I am saying, categorically untrue...I have basically stated the above for several posts.

PhoenixAsh

5th June 2015, 10:18

For example, Jung was a psychoanalyst, and he was a complete reactionary.

I almost let you get away with this little gem.

So what you are saying is that while EP is to be rejected because it can perpetuate and legitimise the current socio-economic order....psychoanalysis can be used like that as well....and has been used to that extend as well as trumping petit bourgeois intrests (which it has certainly done in the past)....but the is totally different? :laugh:

And you don't actually see how that is a hypocritical position?

Quail

5th June 2015, 11:13

You forgot his rape apologia, Rafiq

You were warned, so I'm going to have to give you an infraction.

I'm going to go through and trash all the irrelevant posts, and issue a general warning not to flame or stir up drama.

Rafiq

5th June 2015, 19:06

In fact...whether or not there are data sets that were required for the inference...doesn't disqualify EP based on your own arguments.

Which is the whole fucking point - namely, YOU'RE the one defending it on grounds that it has "data" to back it up, not me. I am not attacking the data, but the conclusions that they draw from it. The difference is a matter of the self-proclaimed qualifications for validity that THEY say. They claim, and even admit, that their "theories" would be empty and unsubstantiated if they were lacking data sets, not me. And they fail to sufficiently provide for data that properly supports their claims. The point isn't that NO CLAIM requires to be tested, the point is that there are definite positive claims which warrant evidence, because within their innate structure they pre-suppose the evidence is there. When Lacan talks about the relationship between language and subjectivity, he doesn't need to "test" this because he is telling us something we are all capable of knowing, something whose "evidence" is already there to begin with, but not properly conceived by merit of inconsistency, and so on. But ultimately, you're right, EP is not "simply" disqualified because ti makes inferences that wouldn't have needed data to be adhered to, it is disqualified because the theoretical basis for those premises is completely nonsensical and emits a stunning lack of philosophical sophistication. The analytical scum will make broad, over-reaching philosophical assumptions and assume that they don't have to defend them in the very field of philosophy because it's not "clear" enough and so on. It is absolutely beyond stunning how ignorant these people are, how much they are able to degrade the theoretical sophistication of academia by making infantile claims that any child could have conceived.

The fact of the matter is that YOU HAVE MADE A CLAIM WHICH DEMANDS EVIDENCE. You claim that EP NEEDS the data to vitalize its conclusions, that its conclusions couldn't have been inferred without the data to back them up. I merely, modestly ask you to give me one example of that. Is that a false theoretical premise, as a demand? No, it exists perfectly in synchronicity. Meanwhile, the analytical philistines do not even know which claims need to be tested by the continental school because it is frankly so beyond them that they can only resort to dismissing it.

Psychoanalysis however is not the only field that does that...at all.

There is no other field which is able to approximate consistently THESE without having to overlook and ignore a plethora of niches and specifialities. Psychoanalysis is disregarded because the findings and claims are not longer useful for reproducing the conditions of capital, not because it lacks viability in properly conceiving or understanding the mind and the social. The practicality is UNDERSTANDING THINGS that you wouldn't have been otherwise able to understand. You don't HAVE to understand them, just like you wouldn't HAVE to understand heliocentricism or astronomy to go about your day while eppur si muove. You keep making this broad, sweeping epistemological claims without being able to back it up theoretically. All of my epistemology is clear, coherent and can be backed up and defended theoretically. Can yours? No, because you likely don't even know what the fuck that means.

Provide a basis of psychoanalysis where it actually explains human behavior that is applicable in real world circumstances

What are the qualifications for "applicability" in a "real world circumstance"? You literally talk right out of your ass. Psychoanalysis is above all a discipline. Rather than asking for its basic PRACTICALITY you are asking for its UTILITY on a direct, vulgar level. That is beyond reductionist, and yes it is the logic of technocracy and capital. Without psychoanlaysis, there would be no means to conceive the vast ideological complexities of the existing order, we would be absolutely lost in every domain that concerns the pscyho-social, conflating the appearance of objects with their actual function. The point is that human behavior is critically understood IN THAT the niches of its variance are able to be understood. A vulgar evolutionary psychologist will make contradictory claims about our biological predispositions over a 20 year period by merit of the changes in a society. Meanwhile psychoanalysts will be able to evaluate the, for example, relationships between sexuality and society regardless of the context. There are claims made by Evolutionary psychologists in 2015 which would not only have no applicability in pre-capitalist society, but no applicability thirty years ago.

The fact of the matter is that psychoanalysis is a broad discipline which first and foremost conceives, and evaluates the intricacies of the human mind in its totality, it dose not hide behind the imaginary, it does not hide behind appearances, and that is why it is incomparable to EP as far as the variations of its adherence goes: because the theoretical presumptions and the applicability of Evolutioanry psychology IS UNIVERSAL, there is NOTHING close to a schism like the Jungian/Lacanian one, precisely because it is largely ALL THE SAME. In Evolutionary psychology, the REACTIONARY conclusions that are wrought out with regard to race and sex have the SAME THEORETICAL PREMISES AND FOUNDATIONS as the ones that regard something as trivial as why we prefer shiny objects or something. You can go ahead and try to claim all you want that "Well, racists and sexists bring in their own agenda and falsify data sets" but a) there is no way to actually consistently measure for this, because the distinction between your "agenda" and a neutrality are not implicitly present in the theoretical foundations of EP, and b) The articles I have provided, such as the one that provides a comprehensive study on the attractiveness of females for males based on their race, does not falsify any data sets. If it does, you're welcome to challenge the data. The studies that regard rape do not falsify data sets either, and you're again welcome to point out how they do either. Essentially you're making this because of your "subjective" political positions: According to you, data is either fabricated or correct based on whether it abides by political correctness. So it's not me whose vulgarizing "data" to literally conform to WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO THINK, it is YOU. And for fuck's sake, there has been a plethora of even empirical wealth that substantiates psychoanalytic claims ranging from child development to structural theory. The SPECIFIC CLAIMS made by psychoanalysis that are "testable" can be tested (for example, for Lacan, when exactly mirror stage occurs in children - this has been confirmed by research)and have largely been shown to be correct. But the WHOLE PARADIGM cannot be subject to falsification because it is not a singular, positive claim. It is a discipline.

Ultimately its triumph is owed to the basic philosophical proposition: When you say something, you mean something. And what you mean is conceivable and knowable. Lacanians can attack analytical scum, but they cannot attack Lacanians besides dismissing them. We can confront you EVEN BY YOUR OWN MERITS but you cannot confront us by ours. We understand you, and you don't understand us. For example vulgarists can claim "X" affirmative claim, but ONLY a Freudian can point out that "If X is true, then how is Y a reality"?

We do know instinctively how to speak...both auditive and kinetically...we need to learn words and linguistic structures.

No, we are predisposed with the CAPABILITY of learning how to speak, which is a tautology. We aren't born KNOWING how to communicate, because communication itself has, fundamentally a practical purpose that is rooted in social relations. If you're born in the wilderness, and somehow you manage to survive as an infant, you will not be "instinctively" communicating with the wind, because language itself is something which automatically requires a background of social relations, and inter-subjective order. To say that "language is an evolutionary process" is so beyond stupid I would be too embarrassed to ever post on this website again if I said that. How in any meaningful sense is LANGUAGE an evolutionary process - that is a meaningless statement. The predispositions to social behavior, and therefore to being ABLE to communicate may be there, but HOW you communicate is not something that you're born with. So language is in fact NOT an evolutionary process, it most definitely INVOLVES biological processes, such as the innate capability for vocalization, but it is not determined by them. So that's the fucking point - language has its basis in the social order, it has its basis in social relations, not "an evolutionary process" unless we want to conceive capitalism as an "evolutionary process" which you were pretty fucking close to actually claiming earlier. Look at the word "language" itself, it automatically implies that there are multiple possible languages, therefore, conceiving the differences in language and its various intricacies by merit of whatever "biological" predispositions make it possible is absolutely worthless and tells us nothing. It's like trying to conceive the history of the sport boxing in terms of the evolution of hands. And frankly, who the FUCK are you to respond to my posts like this? With simple phrases and words - I put thorough effort into my posts and yet you respond with one liners... Why even respond at all when you can't even come close to touching upon the substance of my argument? You won't get your last word here, I fucking promise you. So why?

It explains...but the explanation can not be falsified. A lot of things offer explanations. Whether or not these explanations have any bearing on reality and the truth remains to be seen... so until it is falsified it is a nice sounding theory.

Falsficiation has been shown to be an erroneous concept EVEN BY analytical philosophers, but let's play the devil's advocate: Evolutionary psychology is completely and wholly unfalsfiiable, there is not one claim that evolutionary psychologists have made that is falsifiable. To criticize psychoanalysis, a broad discipline, in terms of 'falsifiability' is therefore absolutely hypocritical. All intellectuals, analytical or otherwise, carry a variety of ideological ASSUMPTIONS which by default CANNOT be falsified, and analytical psychologists will carry a variety of assumptions that they designate in action about the human mind that cannot be subject to falsification, which is why we have seen, largely, a growing disparity in religious scientists over the past decades in the field of the analytical school - because their drivel is perfectly compatible with analytical philosophy, in that the underlying philosophical assumptions they have, cannot even be approached or touched upon theoretically according to them (besides positive claims, which then again, are always up for malleability and flexible interpretation). But never mind that, everyone is free to critiicze the claims, but analytical scum have not been able to do this. Because they cannot even TOUCH upon the DEPTH of explanation, they cannot theoretically offer alternative explanations AT ALL because they do not consider it important or "useful".

However psychoanalysis tries to extrapolate social inferences from individual functions. That is what it means. Trying to extrapolate group behavior form behavior of the individual.

And analytical fuckers try to accuse US of being rabid postmodernists? At least postmdoern philosophers are honest about themselves, now apparently, according to Ash, individuals are so precious, so complex, i.e. everyone is a unique precious little snowflake that attempting to draw conclusions that concern the social domain from conceiving individuals which are irrevocably a part of them is alone erroneous. Say goodbye to sociology as a whole, and let's not forget the fact that an apologist for evolutionary psychology is claiming this. Do evolutionary psychologists value individuals uniquely, according to you? This is the most idiotic criticism to come out of you yet, and I absolutely mean that - are you actually a child? ALL sciences that concern humans are going to do precisely this. Otherwise, you make it seem like psychoanalysis has its entire basis one psychoanalyzed individual. But various individuals and their experiences have been rationally and consistently approximated in terms of psychoanalytic theory and the variances between individuals have been able to be conceived in a systematized and explicable way, i.e. "X person is different because unlike Y person, they went through Z experience". This has shown to be absolutely consistent. But which one is it? Are psychoanalysts unable to even come up with consistent explanations for "group behavior" or are those claims unfalsifiable? You CANNOT have both! It cannot be "unfalsifiable" if there are no consistent explanations at all being made, because that itself would render it falsifiable. 'Frankly the theoretical premises that form the foundation of psychoanalysis are universal and cannot be reduced to any single unique individual. They concern things and behavior that is present in all individuals, and not even the most rabid criticisms of psychoanalysis would deny this (They simply reject the posited explanations for it). Give me a fucking break. You literally just lower everyone's standards of reason.

Actually no.

And this pretty much sums up the summation of all the criticisms against the continental school made by the philistines. Good job.

This means to a huge extent that your language basically evolves around: don't believe us? question us? then you are to underdeveloped to understand.

Because we don't put barbaric limitations on what we are able to question, and what we are not able to question. YOU do. That is philosophical barbarism -- I mean, why the fuck can't you question us? if you reject us, then you have to reject us based on definite theoretical qualifications for validity that we apparently do not abide by. You also have to justify those qualifications consistently. You have all failed to do this. You claim to not be a positivist but what does it mean when you imply that our claims are meaningless because they cannot be "empirically" substantiated form the get go? I mean, it IS true that you are all philosophically without any degree of sophistication, YES it is your job to properly question and criticize us. And this is such a stupid fucking claim anyway, because the continental school is not some kind of holistic one - there are plenty of disagreements with it, plenty of philosophers that have been repeatedly "questioned" and attacked. And frankly, you have no notion of what constitutes are language - analytical scum have not claimed that continental philosophers "simply" reject any criticism, they claim that the work is impenetrable, incomprehensible and meaningless. But frankly, anyone with an iota of fucking actual experience in the field knows this not to be true, so much so that they don't even feel like
they have to prove it to the analytical philistines. We are free, and you are not. Fuck off and cry about it.

arrogant rhetoric.

You have no right to make pretenses to "arrogance" because all you've fucking done is dismiss claims feeling like you're so superior as to not actually have to critically address the arguments at hand, almost going so far as to claim that they are "not arguments at all". The so-called "arrogance" stems from a refusal to be dumbed down to the rhetoric of the vulgarists, the real word you are looked for is IMPUDENCE, as though the analytical philistines are in a position of authority which we are "too arrogant" to respect or bow down to. Well fuck you!

Psychoanalysis however rejects that definite qualification of validity and doesn't offer and qualification for validation.

Actually, we provide definite and conceivable qualifications for validity that are firmly rooted in the scientific method. Do you actually fucking think that our specific positive claims, somehow, are divorced from actual experience in drawing conclusions from, gasp, real experiments (i.e. and theoretical work)? Just because "data' doesn't come in the form of numbers and statistics, does not mean it is not real data. When Lacan claimed the mirror stage occurs between 6 to 18 months was literally made up? Why? What reason would we have to LITERALLY make things up? What positivists fail to do is conceive the basic, actually qualifications for validity that those in the continental school have, and ground this as the basis of their criticisms. *Gasp* there are aspects about reality which cannot be reduced to numbers, statistics and surveys, things which are not "simple" enough to be automatically "clear". Truth is something you need to struggle to conceive, because reality exists externally from your ignorant brain. The point is precisely not that we focus on "testing" things too much, but that we focus NOT ENOUGH on it, i.e. that is to say, putting the actual theoretical foundations from which we conduct "tests" up for critical evaluation. This is YOUR responsibility as much as anyone elses, and you've failed miserably.

I have given you substantial criticism for example about Lacan. How he adopted several very questionable theories based on occultist interpretations and almost literally reproduced these. How his work is actually deviod of a consistent theory. And how the theories he does have seemed to have never been able to be applied in practice...even though that is exactly what the field pretended to offer from the start...and so did Lacan.

That is barely a criticism at all, because only those who have not thoroughly read Lacan seriously claim that his theory is "inconsistent". The only way you do this is to reduce and abstract marginal positive claims that analytical philistines deem of value, ignore the context completely, and begin to make the most ridiculous criticism, as if we weren't able to know this was wrong to begin with. "Occultist" interpretations? What the FUCK are you talking about? Even here, lacan was the one who criticized Freud because he suspected Kaballah mysticism in Freud's work, Lacan firmly placed himself in the materialist camp as far as psychoanalysis is concerned. You claim that his theories have never been applied in "practice" but what does this actually mean? For example, if "applying in practice" means better computational technology, you don't need ANY real consistent theoretical foundations to do this, i.e. for programming computers, and so on. So what the FUCK are you talking about? It's no surprise that in universities those who are in power are the analytical technocrats. Because capital PRECISELY wants to do away with what it considers "worthless speculation" in the universities, our society merely wants experts who solve problems within the framework of fulfilling what those in power want. You haven't given me a single fucking substantial criticism of Lacan, in fact you haven't even provided a single example of anything inherent to Lacan, which suggests that your knowledge of him is limited to his wikipedia article. Just fucking admit it already, we all know.

And I am trying to get you to wrap your head around the notion that Psychoanalysis has so far failed to demonstrate anything either.

Not even those who call it a pseudoscience would say this. There would be no modern psychology at all without psychoanalysis, and that is a well known, and well respected fact. The criticism largely derives from the idea that "This could have been demonstrated in a better way" and so on. In fact the criticism does not stem from attacking the specific claims made by psychoanalysts, but for, for example, having "unscientific" presumptions and so on. A hypocritical accusation if there ever was one.

....except I don't need to fabricate causality,

No, frankly you do not - evolutionary psychologists do this in a more than sufficient manner. No one cares whether you want to admit being an apologist or not, the fact of the matter is that you are arguing on their behalf. Let me ask you this, however: what are your qualms with evolutionary psychology? Why do YOU reject it and how is this rejection superior to mine?

So provide arguments and i will confront them.

That's not how this works. You don't get to make up qualifications for what constitutes an argument and then demand them. If you claim I haven't made any fucking arguments, then why are you even responding to me? I am clear about my intentions: I don't want a sick, reactionary philistine to get his last word in a thread which concerns topics of great importance.

In the mean time you do not seem to realize that it is simply a nice interesting story and intellectual exercise.

By these standards, that is what EVERYTHING that concerns the domain of the intellectual is. And it's ironic you mention stories, because it was Lacan who claimed truth has the structure of a fiction, and he was absolutely correct. What people consciously say, and what they unintnetionally say in fiction are entirely different, and the latter reveals more about the pathology behind what they want to say than what they actually mean. Analytical philistines will approach this by claiming that it is not a "testable" claim, missing the point entirely that it touches upon the very edifice of thought that they themselves cannot possibly question or fathom, i.e. that even LOOKING at something in another way (as we should know from Hegel) can reveal a profound truth that you would otherwise not be able to see.

O right...yeah...him being a millionaire employing people in his mansion, institution and running a profit based enterprise does indeed make him a bright shining example of a working class idealist...with working class ideals.

Lacan didn't even prove a nuisance for the Nazi's...much less to the ruling class. Which is why he was pretty damned well respected....especially by the petit-bourgeoise

This is a worthless personal criticism, and no one claims Lacan was some revolutionary politician. He was a theoretician who was immensely revolutionary theoretically. And frankly, if Lacan was a nuisance for the Nazis than that would reveal a lot about the theoretical sophistication of the fascists. The ruling class and the Fascists were simply too stupid to care about Lacan, they did not understand him. It's like how Mussolini, that fucking idiot, assumed Amadeo Bordiga to be a "trotskyist" and left it at that. You claim that Lacan was well respected by the ruling class, but how does one measure the ruling class? Is it marginal rich people with a profound interest in theory, or is it the actual apparatus and mechanisms through which they exercise their power? Because frankly, it is solely and only the analytical field which is accepted by the ideological state apparatus as legitimate, and it is preicsely people like Lacan they consider to be a nuisance, and they are irritable at the thought of him. The petite bourgeois philistine Ash claims that Lacan was popular among the petite bourgeoisie, in a demographically significant way... What? What the FUCK are you talking about? Are all of the theoreticians of anarchism now derived from a working class background? how the FUCK was Lacan popular among the petite-bourgeoisie? How? So you don't have to back up my arguments, merely because I claim that not everything warrants statistics and numbers? Frankly, Lacan and the psychoanalysts DO back up their arguments, very well at that - just not in a way that analytical vulgarists deem acceptable.

It is kind of a cult....most of the PSA's have their own little cultist sects. Much like Lacan.

So you predicted SPECIFICALLY I was an adherent of Lacan, because you said that I was a religious nut. So Lacan is the ONLY religious nut, in your mind? Do you even fucking understand logic?

Let me first start of by listing what you have done so far:

And let me stop you right there before you REGURGITATE THE SAME FUCKING ARGUMENTS WHICH I HAVE COMPLETELY ANNIHILATED ALREADY. EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WITH HOW I ADDRESSED THESE ARGUMENTS, YOU NEED TO FORM A REBUTTAL RATHER THAN RE-HASH THE SAME FUCKING THING THAT WAS ADDRESSED. For FUCK'S sake, you're like a broken FUCKING record! have you not read ANYTHING I've written?

You then claimed data sets were irrelevant when it came to being confronted with the lack of data sets for your own preferred field.

No, I claimed that specific claims warrant specific data sets. That is the fucking point. You don't have to empirically observe black holes to have been able to predict them during the early-mid 20th century. it helps to SUBSTANTIATE their existence, but not much else. What "data sets" do YOU think would be useful for psychoanalysis? Your criticism, after all, is that they lack "proper" data, so what experiments do you want to be done, in order to "test" the claims? If you claim that what they say is not testable, that has NOTHING to do with a lack of data sets and everything to do with a false theoretical premise. And what premise is that? Can you even confront it? You cannot "test" language when analyzing it, you cannot "test" the mind and ideas with fucking numbers and statistics. It concerns appearances: For example, if I say that Fascists demonstrate X characteristics and qualities, this is not a "testable" or "falsifiable" claim, because the only way to measure it would be to analyze Fascists and how they appear, and act. I mean what data sets could be wrought out from here that would be appropriate? That is the point of critical theory . We concern a domain YOU STILL REGARD, but deem unknowable. We concern things you are not even aware of.

doesn't actually need to be falsified...as long as you prefer it.

No, I never placed the basis of the qualifications for whether it needs to be falsified in my "preferences". Again, you haven't read my FUCKING post. I claimed that preferences have absolutely nothing to do with it, YOU'RE THE ONE with a FUCKED UP epistemology. If there are claims which DEMAND falsification in order to be valid, then yes it needs to be falsified. You cannot falsify, however, a DISCIPLINE or a theoretical presumption in a 'test', you can back it up theoretically and that is it - falsification REQUIRES a background of pre-supposed merits, with variables that are assumed to all be known. But if variables exist that are not known, or plainly unaccounted for, then there is unfalsifiability. What variables does Lacan not account for that would make an alternative explanation superior? But there are more DIVERSE methods of testing and falsification that are beyond "data sets" and numbers. It's like saying Plato and Aristotle only have philosophic worth by merit of their positive claims about the natural world, which were almost always FALSE. That is why it's fucking barbaric.

You then tried several tactics to discredit EP. You tried to link EP with Scientific Racism...which is not true.

No, I compared it with scientific racism insofar as the power behind it does not have its basis in bare scientific inquiry but ideological power. But yes, it is absolutely linked with the revival of scientific racism in the 21st century that, for example, concerns "IQ differences" among different races as an explanation for poverty and national development. That does not mean all evolutionary psychologists openly adhere to this idea, but that they are THEORETICALLY PREDISPOSED TO IT IF THEY TOOK THEIR LOGIC TO ITS CONCLUSION IN ALL THINGS. The only thing which cockblocks them is political correctness.

You then named two books that were supposed to link EP with racism. Neither book is from the field of EP.

This is absolutely fucking ridiculous, I DID NOT PRESENT THE BOOKS AS BEING RELATED TO EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY, I PRESENTED THE BOOKS AS EXAMPLES OF HOW POPULAR SCIENTIFIC PARADIGMS THAT REGARD SOCIAL CONSIDERATIONS CORRELATE WITH MATERIAL DEVELOPMENTS, NAMELY, THE RISE OF AMERICAN GHETTOS AND GLOBALIZATION FOR THE BELL CURVE AND IQ AND WEALTH OF NATIONS RESPECTIVELY! FOR FUCK'S SAKE!

I merely pointed out it was NOT a coincidence that evolutionary psychology became popular EXACTLY with the rise of neolibralism and the destruction of the worker's movement, the rise of ecology fetishism as the new ideology of de-industrialized consumerist capitalism wherein questioning the existing order was in short supply and yet a plethora of phenomena about our existing order had yet to be meaningfully explained that did not have its basis in a criticism of it. In that sense they were REACTIONARY attempts to explain behavior previously conceived by Marxists and the irk, in terms that coincide with the ideological assault on Marxism (and the irk).

You then cited a study to prove a statement you made which incidentally provided the basis for evolutionary explanations of behavior....

What study? THIS one? http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2834601&postcount=195

Or was it the study that claimed rape was an evolutionary impulse? In which case, admit that you ACTUALLY think this is true and that the study was correct, so we can see your ass fucking banned from this site once and for all. I know exactly what the fuck you are even if it's difficult for others to see what a slimy reactionary piece of shit you are.

You then equated evolution with predestination. Which is not how evolution works.

No, YOU SPECIFICALLY claimed that "Capitalism has its origins in a logical and evolutionary course of development". What the FUCK is to be inferred from that, if not some kind of teleological notion that capitalism was pre-determined? And frankly, you don't know what predestination is either, which is an entirely different matter but still fucking hilarious that you can't even bother to properly conceive what it is you're accused of being wrong about. And here's how I resopnded to your claim that "no, this is not what I said" which incidentally YOU DID NOT RESPOND TO:

Which one is it: Is capitalism compatible with biology (a truism of no consequence) or did biological processes pre-determine capitalism? That's the point. What predispositions that led to capitalism in feudalism, did not exist in ancient Minoan civilization? If this concerns "biological imperatives" than surely such a specific course of development wouldn't have been necessary for capitalism to become possible. So what we're left with is the argument that biological processes were involved in this development - but this is a truism - the existence of five fingers for each hand was also involved.

What SPECIFICALLY is relevant concerning the CHANGES between historic, social epochs, is not biological. No one even has a problem with the idea that hunger is driven by biological processes, for example - the point is that man isn't born knowing how to eat, or how to fuck for that matter. it's such a strange concept for you, the idea that the more social a species is, the less reliance it has on "biological imperatives". The point is that the social reproduces the biological, i.e. what if I told you that social processes became more efficient at reproducing biological processes (surviving) than the imperatives of individual organisms themselves? Shocking, right?

Don't FUCKING try to worm your way out of this by giving us some stupid fucking list. You aren't more right because you're re-hashing the same absolute BULLSHIT numbered off from 1-14. I already addressed ALL of this.

You then make the false inference that when something has a biological or evolutionary explanation...that means that that explanation justifies it or makes a moral judgement.

No, I claimed that it de-sensitizes a definite opposition to it, and don't you dare try to say otherwise. It is MUCH EASIER to ethically accept wars, rape and hell if you think it somehow has its basis in the metaphysical idea of "nature". I claim THIS IS WHY evolutionary psychology is popular, not because they OPENLY make moral judgements in their bullshit studies. In fact I EXACTLY pointed out how 100% of the time they make NO moral or political statements in their studies, HYPOCRITICALLY and DISHONESTLY claiming that the implicaitons of their studies do not concern their "factual" basis. I pointed out, thoroughly how this was absolute bullshit and how the implications are already enshrined within the BASIS of the hypotheses they make in the first place. But never mind that - my primary criticism WAS NOT this, I merely pointed out that ON TOP of being pseudo-scientific, the REASON they are popular is becuase of htis. I was providing an EXPLANATION for why a pseudo-scientific hteory has gained credence and legitimacy in scientific fields. That's the fucking point. If I didn't substantiate this argument, we'd be left wondering WHY all this bullshit is being seeped into scientific discourse. Knowing it is bullshit itself does not have to REST on the recognition of why the bullshit was wrought out in the first place, however.

You consistently brush away any criticism from literally thousands of scientists, former adherers and from a huge array of fields....because these people merely didn't understand the field. Any form of criticism is rejected based on the argument that these people were not sophisticated enough, not smart enough, simply don't understand it or worse...are philistines.

You criticize me on the basis that I make epistemological pretenses on the basis of "because he said it" and yet apparently we're supposed to not reject the criticisms of psychoanalytic discipline because thousands of experts agree. Well it might be billions, and it DOES NOT MAKE A FUCKING DIFFERENCE. Because there is no fundamental, unique VARIANCE among their criticism, it is not like they are offering thousands of in-depth criticisms that haven't already been addressed. It has nothing to do with how "smart" they are and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that they are not INCLINED To critically evaluate, confront or properly address these arguments becuase THEY DO NOT REALLY CARE. Their criticisms boil down to outright dismissal or to completely ridiculous misunderstandings, much like Searle's absolutely fucking idiotic criticisms of Derrida which basically amounted to flying passed his arguments. I do not "brush away" criticism, in fact, I have very critically and carefully approached such criticism, because I understand their basis. Meanwhile, their rebuttals all amount to "balh blah blah that's meaningless". They're not even equipped theoretically for engaging in a fucking debate, and that's how sad it is.

And all of that leads you to the conclusion that I therefore must be a reactionary.

No, if you actually fucking read my posts, you would see that I have very thoroughly outlined why you are a reactionary, for one, calling someone a "liberal moralist" who criticizes evolutionary psychology is completely reactionary. You are pathologically a reactionary and any bumfuck idiot should be able to see this. It coincides perfectly with your apologia for gamergate, and your skipping around of actually addressing the EP studies I've linked because you're scared of being banned.

I studied 4 years of Psychology...

And this makes absolutely no difference. I do not care about your qualifications. I care about direct claims and direct arguments. I do not fucking care if you're a god himself - I do not argue by merit of IDENTITIES but by merit of the substance of CLAIMS which can be criticized, claimed on a UNIVERSAL level. All of your arguments are not yours, they are owed to a large ideological aroma, much like a cloud storage, through which they express themselves in your posts. This is what I attack, and this is the point of post-structuralism. I don't give a single fuck about what "credentials" you have, you are plainly wrong. Steven Pinker has a lot of credentials and yet he's full of absolute and utter shit. The Authors of IQ and Wealth of Nations were more qualified academically than you are, so does that mean you accept them? No? On what basis? Their "credentials" have to show for it.

I also reject your notion of the dominance of the social and, as I have said before, am of the opinion that the social is not free from influences of evolution/biology and evolution/biology is not free from the social. Per extent this means I reject the notion of the dominance of the genetic/biological/evolution over social.

I've already addressed this, for fuck's sake, WHERE THE SOCIAL is inevitably determined by biological processes, it is a TRIVIALITY and of no consequence whatsoever in concerning the specific expression of the social, like having two hands. Where do you draw the line from whether rape is biological or social? HOW do you know? How do you falsify or measure this with "data sets"? The burden of proof is on the biological determinists, if they claim that something is genetic or innate, they need to A) Give us the exact genes which confirm this and B) control for all possible variables in how those genes specifically determine this. Most geneticists know very well the idea to be bullshit anyway, because there's never just "one" gene that's responsible for this or that, there is a plethora which can make something more probable or more improbable WHOLLY DEPENDENT on specific contexts. The social came into existence as a means to REPRODUCE the biological in a way that did not rely on the biological imperatives of individual organisms. It became more efficient for survival, for the hominid at least. That's why most non-human apes live a very precarious, short, confined and grudgingly brutal existence.

But then again...you were also not aware that Lacan sought explanations for his theory in the biological.

Lacan was a post-structuralist, the idea that his explanations for the social symbolic order had their basis in biology is so fucking stupid it's ridiculous. It's also beyond ironic because you are exactly attributing something to Lacan which made him, as a psychoanalyst, DISTINCTLY not one to resort to biological explanations. It was Freud who relied on phylogeny explanations for his developmental, structural and psychological theories, and he did this by adopting neo-Lamarckian ideas. Lacan explicitly rejected this by grounding what Freud attributed to phylogeny could be better explained by the action of language and the symbolic order, of which he used to adamantly reject biological determinism. In fact in Lacan's most counter-revolutionary episode, when he was critical of student's in may 68 and revolutionary projects, it was because he considered the linguistic innateness of the symbolic order to be already completely, implicitly require the master signifier. Lacan told the students that what they want is a new master, and that they well get one. It has nothing to do with biology.

So before you can start to infer rape apologism...you first actually need to make an argument how it is apologizing for rape. Stating that sometimes people rob others because they need money does not actually apologize for robbery...now does it? Nor does it say that people should be able to rob others. So how do you see that applied here...?

Because in grounding rape in biological processes, it de-sensitizes rape as an injustice relative to our existing order, and therefore considers it either an inevitability (Many have made Hobbesian arguments about how it can be prevented), or something that is beyond the structural responsibility of a society, i.e. which exists IN SPITE of it. Knowing the causes of robbery are alone enough to warrant an opposition to it, because we know for a fact that robbery does not HAVE to occur, that it is owed to casual factors - in the case of a bourgeois moralist, the inability to use free will. For example, if rape exists in our society, it is because we failed to take X precaution against our spontaneous biological inclination towards it. This absolutely trivializes it, legitimizes it and forms the basis of a stepping stone that forces women to bare the responsibility to preventing rape. Hurricanes are caused "naturally", but if a city had the capability of preventing a hurricane, and failed to do so, then the city planners are to blame. that does not mean people think hurricanes are "good", and likewise, placing the causality of rape in biological processes fundamentally reproduces the conditions that make rape possible, because, and in case you didn't know, the causes of rape ARE NOT biological, whether it is morally acceptable or not, rape can be linguistically traceable, actively reproduced ideologically almost in a ritualistic manner in order to be sustained. If rape had its basis in biology, and it was caused biologically, there wouldn't be a need for so much conditioned ritualistic behavior that pre-supposes one to it, which is why it is absolutely not a surprise that most rapes are pre-meditated.

You ARE a fucking rape apologist, and I will openly accept an infraction for asserting this. If you claim that rape has its basis in biological processes YOU ARE BY DEFAULT APOLOGIZING FOR IT. PRECISELY because the ONLY inclination, and predisposition one could possibly have for EXPLAINING rape in biological terms would be to de-sensitize it, to TRIVIALIZE it. Why? Because better, ALTERNATIVE explanations for the causes of rape exist, and by AFFIRMATIVELY claiming it is innate, while not providing 'data' which proves this, but mere falsely based theoretical speculation and ill-grounded inferences based on "data" no one refutes, you are apologizing for it. NOT EVEN RAPISTS will claim that rape is "O.K.", but they certainly perpetuate the conditions of its emergence by saying it's her fault. Do you even fucking understand logic? You're absolutely morally BANKRUPT if you think that the explanation for something is not automatically linked from a fundamental understanding of something.

Yes...with the nuance that I didn't say we knew the details. I said we are born with instinctive knowledge to have sex.

That is a claim which warrants specific evidence, which there is none for, but on the contrary there is a plethora of evidence which suggests otherwise. In fact people barely know how to have sex properly if they lack experience. The fact that both sexes have sensitive genitalia which cause pleasure when stimulated, something that you learn merely through experience by touching it in various ways, etc. and that they might be spontaneously inclined to associate both of their genetalia with each other does not constitute an "instinctive" basis for knowledge about how to have sex. No we do not have instinctive knowledge to have sex, we have the tools for sex, the hormonal degrees of expressing its intensity, but without learning it the way these tools are expressed would lack coordination and lead to no where. I have already thoroughly explained how this is absolutely wrong, however: WE do not have "instinctive" knowledge about how to have sex, this is absolutely fucking ridiculous. Rather than providing evidence, you claimed that - while not even responding to my rebuttal - that humans couldn't exist if it wasn't instinctual, and I pointed out very comprehensively how that's a bunch of fucking bullshit. You argument boils down that it MUST be this way, and I have already shown this to be wrong. So again, the burden of proof is on you because you're making an over-reaching positive claim - show me the specific structure in the brain that stores the pre-birth knowledge about how to have sex. Don't show me this or that chemical INVOLVED in sex, because this does not provide the basis for causality. See how that works?

I know you are a psychoanalyst and believe in the bisexuality theory and therefore think that sexuality and sexual/gender identity expresses after the child stage but then again...so does evolutionary EP...and then again...some of psychoanalysis basic tenants are dependent on acquired trait inheritance...so it shouldn't be a stretch for you.

Evolutionary EP? Evolutionary Evolutionary Psychology? Anyway, I do not, and have never denied that hormonal imbalances can make individuals more or less predisposed to conform to this or that gender identity. I merely claim that those gender identities ARE NOT determined biologically, and are reinforced structurally. I merely claim that all humans have the physical capacity to find pleasure homosexuality and heterosexually - that does not mean it is a "choice" but that we are ingrained with having an aversion to it, and we go either one way or another. IT is not so much that I claim we are "naturally" bisexual as I claim we are structurally predisposed to not be. That is why sexuality is, surprise surprise, not something biologically determined. Even your preferences in physical features in women, for example, can be shown to have their basis in early childhood experience. If it would be otherwise, then do you accept the study I provided which claims black women are objectively less attractive, rather than this reality being something that is reinforced structurally?

Evolutionary psychologists take advantage of postmodern philistines who assume everything is relative to the individual by pointing out that yes, by in part, society does deem black women less attractive. They then follow that this HAS to have a biological basis.

Incidentally there is an evolutionary theory that explains the emergence of racism in terms of offering evolutionary advantages...so what that means is that racism served the goal of furthering the own genes. NOT that racism is somehow legitimate.

Administrators, do you fucking see this? I cannot believe what I'm seeing. I cannot fucking believe what I'm hearing. The idea that racism emerged for evolutionary purposes is somehow not reinforcing the conditions of racism? HOW? The fact of the matter is that IT DOES legitmize racism, because common sense would demonstrate otherwise. Racism in previous historic epochs was NOT based on the variance between physical differences, but based on NATIONALITY, i.e. differences in their social epochs. The Romans and Greeks greatly admired the Egyptians while they thought the Germanics, Gauls, etc., many of whom did not look that different from them, were naturally inferior. Even in the United States during the early 20th century, Irish immigrants, who are physically almost indistinguishable on an 'evolutionary' level from other 'races', were deemed physically inferior. Is there an evolutionary reason as to why there was racism against the Irish? So the question follows: WHAT SPONTANEOUS INCLINATIONS lead them to adhere to the idea that racism was advantageous on an evolutionary level? Why were they INCLINED To adhere to this hypothesis, and falsely support it with "data" which could have conformed to better explanations for it? Why, if not to legitimize RACISM? If the causes of racism is obfuscated, SO TOO are the political implications you draw from it. Now, the spontaneous racist inclinations of the individual can be conceived in terms of their "natural" predispositions. Only the guilty blush. Innocence is ashamed of NOTHING.

And that is in fact how Scientific Racism was discredited. It was not discredited by some people marching in the street...it was discredited by offering counter evidence and proving that most research was based on fabrications. A tactic you later said was pretty much ok...when you said data sets were of no consequence.

No, most of the research was not based on fabrications. Instead, the conclusions that they drew were unscientific based on the data that they did have. I tell you that the same methodological foundations which make trivial claims in evolutionary psychology are the same ones that support innately racist and sexist conclusions drawn from evolutionary psychology, but apparently according to you, the power of these "theories" do not have a basis in racism or sexism at all, but somehow, in "data". Do you think that black people are genetically dumber? Why? The same methodology, in relation to data, is used to come to this conclusion. After all, Africans do on average, incontestably have lower IQ's. Is this owed to genetics? Why can't that "possibly" be a casual explanation for the poverty of blacks? Are gender roles natural? Again, why not? Aren't women naturally predisposed to be foragers, on a genetic level? I can show you an EP study which confirms this with "data" if you like. Why do you reject it? WHY? Because of your own SUBJECTIVE positions? No, you INCONSISTENTLY PICK AND CHOOSE which data is "fabricated" and which one isn't. The only thing in common is your political correctness.

You weren't specifically CONCERNING the fabrication of data, however. You were upset that I oppose EP on political grounds, i.e. for reasons "outside" of scientific inquiry. I tell you that's a crock of shit, because the whole of scientific inquiry has its basis in ideological considerations, and that it doesn't fucking matter what my political views are, it is STILL UNSCIENTIFIC because the conclusions do not support the data properly. Would I be arguing right now if not for my POLITICAL opposition to the legitimization of sexism and racism? NO! But my MOTIVATIONS for CHALLENGING the data on scientific grounds DOES NOT MATTER as long as it is scientific. Conversely, you do not consistently attack the epistemological or theoretical foundations of the racism at all, instead, you pick and choose what you believe based on your politiacl correctness, which is WHY you're pathologically a reactionary. Understand this statement: "If X is true for Y reason, then A is also true for B reason". If the theoretical premises that lead one to draw the conclusions are the SAME, it doesn't matter if people have "sexist" or "racist" agendas going in, as long as they don't violate the theoretical foundations of the hypotheses and the conclusions that they draw. And you admit there is sexism and racism in Evolutionary psychology. So I ask you: ON WHAT GROUNDS DO YOU OPPOSE IT? HOW DO THEY SPECIFICALLY FABRICATE DATA IN A WAY THAT SO-CALLED POLITICALLY CORRECT EP DOES NOT?

I came to this conclusion after a lot of introspection...or pretty much because people specifically set out to study racial differences with such theories that were predisposed to assume differences were there.

Well fuck you! That is not theoretically workable as a conclusion. For all I know you could say the same about being a born again Christian. The fact of the matter is that their predispositions to come to conclusions based on pre-conceived structurally reinforced conclusions IS NOT A BASIS FOR REJECTING THEIR "DATA" ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN CONSISTENT EPISTEMOLOGY. Because I can CONSISTENTLY point out that this is true for ALL of evolutionary psychology, that people specifically set out to confirm their pre-conceived ideological presumptions and so on. Instead, you want to pick and choose what constitutes a preconceived bias and what does not. And you provide no SCIENTIFIC means of assorting this, of categorizing it aside from your own political correctness, which is not scientific at the least.

Who knows. Maybe they were motivated by purple rainbows and jellybeans. That does not alter the fact that the data sets were not fabricated and falsifiable.

Yes they could be, because ultimately, very few of the direct empirical data offered by scientific racists is fabricated. And what data did these anti-racists POSITIVELY give us? The fact that humans are genetically related in a very great way? That's ambiguous. In fact, scientific racism was not disproved with positive data, it was disproved because it was shown to be unscientific by drawing false conclusions about data, then belonging into a historicist narrative that better explained its emergence in terms of colonialism and new imperialism. It's like saying born again christianity has to be disproved with positive data. It's nonsense!

That position isn't at all subjective. Data isn't data isn't data. You assume that all data is the same and therefore has the same merits and same value.

And you haven't AT ALL given us the slightest degree of evidence which would constitute why some data is more superior than others on the basis of how racist or sexist it is. How is data that perpetuates racist ideas "worse" than data which doesn't? How do you demonstrate this? Data means NOTHING and cannot be qualified if it is divorced from its CONTEXT and MEANING. If data isn't presumed to SIGNIFY this or that fact, then WHAT THE FUCK is the point of it? Why should "data" directly regard this? Is it data that deals with racism and sexism, plain numbers and statistics, or is it the theoretical presumptions going in that determine the course of the experiment and the conclusions it "apparently" is able to bring about that is innately racist or sexist?

Added to that I think evolutionary principles do influence to some extend behavioral patterns which in turn will influence social structures....but then again...I also think social structures influence evolutionary principles....mostly on how they are expressed.

The reason this is WORTHLESSLY vague is the fact that no, this doesn't give us an explanation of WHAT SPECIFICALLY is influenced by "evolutionary principles" and what is not. We all agree that the digestive system has an evolutionary basis, which in turn might regulate how food is distributed in a society. What about patriarchy though? To what degree does this have its basis in biology, and what degree in our social relations, and HOW DO YOU (by merit of YOUR qualifications for validity) MEASURE THIS? You cannot. Because it will automatically be reduced to your "political views". Meanwhile we "unscientific" Lacanians understand that you don't accept patriarchy by merit of some kind of innate spontaneous thing, we offer a direct, conceivable and consistent paradigm that places it squarely rooted in language and social relations, and that to argue that something is biologically innate that is a point of political controversy most certainly determines that it is not biological innate (because for it to be controversial mans it can change, otherwise, we would have NO REASON to oppose it, besides a confused entanglement of 'agendas' divorced from an ACTUAL drive to oppose patriarchy, which your irk have yet to point out for us).

So you try give us a cliche, infantile "taking the middle road" argument (Which is just as rhetorically worthy as saying "I don't think the Nazis were right in their idea of a master race, but I also don't think the Communists were right in assuming that race isn't real. I think that both race and social factors play a part" - WHERE DO YOU PLACE THE POINT OF MEASUREMENT and WHY?) - and yet, how you determine this relationship and its specific variance has no grounding in scientific methodology whatsoever. Instead you hark on about 'data sets' and 'input-output loops' which is, in this context meaningless and demonstrates nothing. You can't determine that women naturally want to have babies with masculine men and have weak cuckolds raising them with 'data sets' and 'feedback loops' alone for FUCK'S sake.

Rafiq

5th June 2015, 19:09

You were warned, so I'm going to have to give you an infraction.

That is ridiculous! On what grounds is this claim unwarranted? Is claiming that the idea that biology is responsible for rape not apologizing for it? Is claiming that the idea that humans "naturally" are inclined to rape not legitimizing rape - in fact apologizing for it? If it is not grounds for taking action against Ash for in fact being a rape apologist, that is all very well, but Sinistra's accusation was perfectly warranted.

In fact, I believe I also deserve an infraction, if that is what warrants it, for calling him a rape apologist. He is a rape apologist and to overlook this fact, and to reject this fact, is not only ethically abominable, it is simply wrong.

PhoenixAsh

5th June 2015, 20:05

1). I am not defending EP. I am attacking your fabrications about the field ypu find necessary to make in order to appear to sound legit. And I am calling you out for no less than 5 double standards you apply. Much less it on the ground of datasets...which I litterally said in the post ypu quote do not support the conclusions. Again this is one of your tiresome Straw Man arguments.

2). While the link between language and subjectivity may be apparent...but since subjectivity is dependend onnlanguage this is what we call atruism. From that does NOT follow that subjectivity is actually true or the only factor. THAT is something you need to prove. Untill you do...yoy are proving the validity of your statement by naming the statement.

3). While at least now you are actually making valid attacks on the field...there is one huge and glaring point: sophistication is not an indication of validity.

4). You still hide behind the vastness of the field one moment and limit it to Lacan the next. You never actually give a definition of which of the multiple self contradicting and dominance proclaiming strands you actually adhere to...or mean when you talk about this magical superior theory that explains the human condition. What you do however do very skillfully is dodge. When psychoanalysis is attacked on the therapeutically validity (which is the actual basis for the field in the first place) this is irrelevant. When Lacan is attacked for failure to actually gain succes with the practical application of his theories...which he claimed was there....you brush it off as inconsequential. When the fundamentals of psychoanalysis are challenged you hide behind the vastness of the field nobody can even begin to comprehend. At no point do you actually address the criticism...you merely run away and hide behind vague statements and then proclaim very loudly that PSA has never been challenged and that all the thousands of people attacking and criticising the field are mere philistines Which is fun...but means that you actually do not have a sound basis in that field at all.

At this point I am tired of scrolling up and down on my phone. So your last word will have to wait till after the weekend...when I certainly will comprehensively address everything you say.

But seeing that your posts is still riddled with truisms, self proclaimed superiority and hinges and straw man arguments and complete misconceptions lacking any actual basis to be made on..We are going to be at it for a good long while before you get the last words.

But at least you are departing from your previous position that it is actually more than a mere model and nice story. So we are getting somewhere

WE will never agree that psychoanalysis will have value as a means to completely explain behavior. ..ever. You are plain and downright wrong on that account. You will never admit that ...nor will I ever cede the point to you.
.
So the lt words you probably will utter are "I give up"