i dont know how you guys call it. but all i know is that psychology is the thing with which the whole world is being control. The people on this planet are being controled by those who have the power .thats why NO kind of authority wants pshycologically strong society.
a person that has true knowledge of the world + phsycological shield (cant be controled by psychological traps) is what the system doesnt want.
Aurini - you seem to hold mutually exclusive views on homosexuality. In this video you hold that its genetic yet in the Atheistcult video (I think it was) you mention that Greeks brought up the young boys to be homosexual.
I suppose you could argue that homosexuality can appear through both postpartum environmental pressures as well as being a congenital trait but that seems pretty unlikely.
@Aurini Fair enough but why even muddy the waters with genetics? If nurture plays a large part in one becoming homosexual, then this is the area where psychology quacks should be concentrating - of course, that's off limits now. We've been conditioned to accept this behavior like never before in history. I don't hate or fear homosexuals, I pity them and wonder what kind of crap they must have endured to flip that switch.
@GTBeauregard Genetic predispositions are almost definite; from my experience (anecdotal) it's the 70%, not the 30 - and given that homosexuality isn't in-and-of-itself wrong (gay culture is another thing entirely) I would lean towards suspecting there's greater evil in suppressing it.
That said - of the crossdressers/transexuals I have known... there is often clear evidence of abuse. I don't know where I stand on that.
@Aurini Higher rates of molestation by gay men -some studies show this or look at incidence (30% of victims are boys, gays are 2% of pop.). Also, I sense there is a link between homosexuality, the sexual revolution, feminism, and the trend towards libertine sexual mores. All these factors have the effect of making marriage appear to be one choice among many "lifestyle" choices - even condemning the choice -"breeders".
@GTBeauregard I think the largest culprit there is the state-sponsorship of 'alternative lifestyles' - feminism and gov't propaganda driving women away from marriage, turning them into sluts, wiping the ass of those who are irresponsible, banning any social shaming...
As in my latest video, they arrogantly decided upon the best policy. Without 'free money for women' I suspect we'd see more marriages. I suspect free-market sexuality would find a more traditionl-ish result.
@Aurini Isn't the State in this case just enforcing the will of special interest groups?
This is the area of ambivalence for me - is the State an entity unto itself which is pushing the agenda or does the agenda come from outside groups (likely under the umbrella of something bigger - Franfurt School etc.)? The homosexual agenda seems to be coming from homosexuals and leftists and not the state itself.
Here's how I look at it: kids like candy, and even if they know it's bad for them, they chafe under the parent who denies candy. Introduce Uncle Buck who becomes a child advocate for candy dinners, and the kids fall for him - and get fat.
Lobbiests get state dollars, the state gets votes, and the blacks/gays/women/etc wind up worse off in the long run. I blame the SPLC, and politcians who should know better, not the blacks who fall for it.
@GTBeauregard Not directly - what happens is Group A lobbies for benefits for Group B, thus Group B 'donates' funds to group A. Following that Group A form a social service Group C (which is comprised of members from group A - they trade hats every so often), and the gov't funds Group C. This is the military industrial complex - we see the same thing in feminism, black power, social services, police, etc, etc.
This video is logically weak and is based on extremely limited and mostly unsupported arguments within one sub-area of psychology. Read “How to think straight about psych” (even just the first few chs.), peer-reviewed articles reporting scientific testing in psych, and Google the blog “The Hardest Science” & get back to us. No field is inherently scientific or non-scientific, only pursuits within those disciplines. Is physics not a science because Jim Carter made up his own ideas about it?
The only problem I see with this video is considering the clinical branch of Psychology as representative of the whole field. Not all of Psychology is as unscientific.
I've had these exact same thoughts. So much of this stuff is so ridiculous. I've never heard of anyone going into a psychiatrist and them telling them they are perfectly mentally healthy. It's all a big joke.
@CodeManFromTheFuture Hmm, you just gave me an idea for a future video - even well funded, well organized, 'scientific' studies will find some sort of mental disorder here in North America which is entirely unknown in Asia - which cannot be detected, no matter how hard they look.
@CodeManFromTheFuture Thanks. It's not that they have *nothing* useful to say - it's that they're treated as if their Truth comes from the pontiff (in criminal court, etc), when their grounding is shaky at best.
The issue of being attracted to symmetry, though we can score a survey of people who like symmetrical things over asymmetrical, even look at the philosophy of aesthetics and find some objective observations, in terms of attraction, I've found the concept of koinophilia promising. Experiments in prototypical composite images of facial features to score attraction have supported this idea.
@smudboy That's a valid experiment you just described - or could be - but the studies which resulted in 'The Decline Effect' were studying completely separate things, that were only related in an emotional, intuitive sense - not a factual logical sense. It's like studying cows, then studying horses, and saying that science is disagreeing with itself.
As for Freud - that's the reason I brought him up. We no longer 'believe' in Freud, but not because he was disproved; it's like fashion.
I'm not sure I'd put the history of psychology into the vein of what's popular. Think of it like a software update (to the DSM). For example, the APA once believed in MPD (Multiple Personality Disorder.) There was a great debate whether such a condition even exists. With lack of evidence, it's been reduced to DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder.) It's not always the case that observations and deductions are wrong, but a lack of testable conditions.
I know of one elderly patient (in a nursing home) whose brain is anxiously being sought (upon her death) by neurologists in Toronto due to her special type of Alzheimer's. We know Alzheimer's exists, but we don't have enough testable conditions to perform experiments to properly understand. Alzheimer's could be disproven, but science can't say until they have sufficient experimental data.
I studied for a psych BA for two years at university, and got fed up there wasn't enough science. So I went to transfer to the BSc program, and found out the curriculum was identical, save the electives.
Psych is a general category of studies, and those may involve science (neurosci, stats), but in general it's the study of people (which sociology essentially is.)
@sb That game was one of the most profound pieces of art I've ever played.
The issue with scientifically valid studies within Psych is that their foundation is built on sand - and because of this, the conclusions are far more tentative than they're made out to be
I was a History major; in History we try and be as scientific as possible, while being unable to perform experiments, and constantly fighting against historical and contemporary biases. We're aware of our limitations, essentially.
There are some objective approaches to psych (e.g. behavioralism), but the social disciplines are sketchy. No one seriously believes Freud. My problem is with the series of social-dispositions in the DSM-IV, like ADHD, and the depression and anxiety "disorders." Then there's the gene study that implies character traits, as opposed to simply stating neurotransmitter production. (A depression gene, really?)
In the idea that there's a gene for emotion, or a particular type of emotion, is false: rather, the disposition, or perhaps aptitude, for exhibiting a certain behavior, is a series of chemical processes, not just dependent on gene. There is no "stupid" gene or "angry" gene. There are, however, genetic conditions that result in retardation, or aggressive tendencies. Genetics do not equate emotional behavior.
@smudboy The brain creates our emotions and our brain is created by our genes. If a certain gene is missing or defective, then it could result certain parts of the brain not being fully formed. Or it could result in lower levels of a certain neurotransmitter such as serotonin or dopamine.
There are areas in the brain that are used to solve math problems. If a person is born with strong or faulty genes that are responsible for creating this part of the brain, it could result in strengthened or decreased ability to solve math problems. Having said that, I think its obvious that the gene is not the only thing that is responsible for behaviours, our environment,culture and past experiences all work to together with our genes to shape our brains.
There is no genetics or genes for "intelligence." Saying a healthy brain is healthy and thus has a capacity to be smarter (e.g. math) does not mean the person will use that healthy brain for smarts.
@smudboy "intelligence" is not a single phenomenon. Different areas of the brain are responsible for different types of intelligences.
"Saying a healthy brain is healthy and thus has a capacity to be smarter (e.g. math) does not mean the person will use that healthy brain for smarts."I agree. But it does mean a person with a "healthier" or larger math portion of the brain, will be better at math than an "unhealthy" brain if they both had the same practice at solving math problems.
@smudboy Actually brain size is related to intelligence. That doesn't bean someone with big brain will necessarily become more intelligent. Someone born with a large brain that grew up in a remote tribe in the amazon will not be as intelligent as someone with a smaller brain that went to MIT.However, everything else being equal, brain size most definitely does mean more intelligence.
@smudboy Are you really this stupid ??? I half think you are just trolling. Why don't you try actually giving substanative explanation for once instead of a 4 word answer.
How could brain size (the brain being the place where thoughts,emotions and intelligence comes from) and leg size be equally plausible explanations for human intelligence ?
@smudboy Still no explanation fro you. I am beginning to question the size you your brain.
I never said that brain size "determines" intelligence. I said that it was related to intelligence in that a bigger brain increases the capacity for intelligence. All things being equal, a bigger brain will mean more intelligence.
If it's related, and then all things being equal, then a bigger brain will NOT mean more intelligence. It just means it's RELATED. You don't know how, or why. The same way foot size, or any other scale of organ may be related to intelligence. You have no evidence.
@smudboy I can not get over how mind numbingly retarded you are. The brain is made up of neurons. A bigger brain equals more neurons , more neurons means more computing power,more computing power means a greater capacity for intelligence. Are you really saying that one or ten neurons has the same capacity for intelligence as 100 billion? Does a pig brain have the same potential as a human brain ? Does a brain damaged or mentally retarded person have the same potential as Einstien ?
@smudboy "According to you, if the brain damaged or mentally retarded person's brain is simply bigger, they should be as smart as Einstein." How the fuck do you figure ?
@smudboy Also, I dont believe there is one single thing called "intelligence", there are many types of intelligence. The brain has different regions that have different functions. It is possible for a person to larger math centers of the brain but have smaller language centers. This person would probably excel at math but might be a bad communicator.
@smudboy "things being equal, then a bigger brain will NOT mean more intelligence." Yes it does.There is an area of the brain responsible for language comprehension called the Broca's.Chimps also have this area of the brain only it is much smaller and much more rudimentary.If a chimp and and human child are taught language in the exact same way, the human child will learn grammar,syntax and 10000 word vocab.The chimp will learn to understand about 300 words max and almost no grammar or syntax.
@smudboy Apples and oranges ? You've got to be kidding.Chimps are our closest living relatives. Chimps and humans share 99.9 percent our our DNA. The tiny difference in our genetic makeup produce larger brain and in particular much much larger prefrontal cortexes and language centers. It is because we have larger brains that we are able to do things a chimp could never do no matter how much training it had.
Now you're back to your "size = intelligence" bull. It's brain specialization, i.e., the development of those areas of the brain, not their areas size, not the cranium, nor the size of the mammal. May as well bring up Neanderthals while we're rambling on about chimps and genetics.
@smudboy You are fucking dense. I didn't say size = intelligence. I have said this many fucking times. Bigger brain (or bigger specific area of the brain ) means more computing power, more computing power means a greater capacity for intelligence. Do you really think that every single person starts off life with the exact same capacity to excel in anything and the only difference is their development? The entire field of behavioural genetics shows how this can not possibly be the case.
@smudboy Jesus Christs you are a dumb fucking cunt.Don't quote mine. What I actually said is"ALL THINGS BEING FUCKING EQUAL,brain size most definitely does mean more intelligence."Do you ever put any thought into your responses and respond with more than 4 fucking words. Why don't you actually take the time to think and answer my question.Do you really think that every single person starts off life with the exact same capacity to excel in anything and the only difference is their development?
@smudboy I brought up chimps because they are our closest living relative. The reason they do not have language is because of the genetic differences between us. Every human is also related much more closely related to every other other human. This means that there is less genetic differences between humans, but genetic differences between humans still DO exist.
@smudboy Comparing a human brain to any other living creatures with a brain is NOT comoparing apples to oranges as we are all related. It is ESPECIALLY not comparing apples to oranges when comparing chimps to humans as we share 99.9 % of our DNA and chimps and humans share many of the same brain structures.
@smudboy What the fuck are you talking about ? You are one of the dumbest persons I have ever encountered on the internet.
chimps brain are fucking SMALLER than human brains. Did read anything about FOXP2 gene? That blows your theory that intelligence and genetics are not connected out of the water.
@smudboy First,You have absolutely no idea what the size of newtons head was.Second, bigger head does no necessarily mean bigger brain. Third, I have never argued that a bigger brain necessarily means more intelligence, but only that it means a greater capacity for intelligence. How many times do I have to repeat that point ?
@smudboy Accept what ? That a larger brain means a greater capacity for intelligence ? I haven't just accepted this, I have been arguing for this point the entire time. Perhaps the part of your brain that is responsible for reading comprehension is small or damaged in some way.
@smudboy I think you mistook my genuine concern for the health of your brain for name calling. Because you think genes do not increase certain types of intelligence/behaviour and that comparing human brain to chimp brain is apples to oranges makes me realize that you have no idea what you are talking about.
@smudboy Yes, I am convinced that your brain is not healthy. Either that or you are completely unwilling to even entertain the idea that you might be wrong about something.
No evidence? I have given you plenty of evidence but you simply choose to ignore it. The discovery of the FOXP2 gene contradicts everything you have been saying. visit personalityresearch. org. There is a wealth of information here about studies done linking behaviours and intelligences to specific genes.
@smudboy Chimps also have lager areas of the brain associated with short term memory and as a result chimps have better short term memory than humans.
i dont know how you guys call it. but all i know is that psychology is the thing with which the whole world is being control. The people on this planet are being controled by those who have the power .thats why NO kind of authority wants pshycologically strong society.
a person that has true knowledge of the world + phsycological shield (cant be controled by psychological traps) is what the system doesnt want.
DoubtFuLBrain 4 days ago
Aurini - you seem to hold mutually exclusive views on homosexuality. In this video you hold that its genetic yet in the Atheistcult video (I think it was) you mention that Greeks brought up the young boys to be homosexual.
I suppose you could argue that homosexuality can appear through both postpartum environmental pressures as well as being a congenital trait but that seems pretty unlikely.
I believe the evidence points to nurture.
GTBeauregard 1 month ago
@GTBeauregard I think it's both; most traits are both. Genetics is the recipe, environment is the oven.
Spend long enough in prison, and a skinny boy-ass will start to look good to you.
Aurini 1 month ago
@Aurini Fair enough but why even muddy the waters with genetics? If nurture plays a large part in one becoming homosexual, then this is the area where psychology quacks should be concentrating - of course, that's off limits now. We've been conditioned to accept this behavior like never before in history. I don't hate or fear homosexuals, I pity them and wonder what kind of crap they must have endured to flip that switch.
GTBeauregard 1 month ago
@GTBeauregard Genetic predispositions are almost definite; from my experience (anecdotal) it's the 70%, not the 30 - and given that homosexuality isn't in-and-of-itself wrong (gay culture is another thing entirely) I would lean towards suspecting there's greater evil in suppressing it.
That said - of the crossdressers/transexuals I have known... there is often clear evidence of abuse. I don't know where I stand on that.
Aurini 1 month ago
@Aurini Higher rates of molestation by gay men -some studies show this or look at incidence (30% of victims are boys, gays are 2% of pop.). Also, I sense there is a link between homosexuality, the sexual revolution, feminism, and the trend towards libertine sexual mores. All these factors have the effect of making marriage appear to be one choice among many "lifestyle" choices - even condemning the choice -"breeders".
But not wrong in itself, I agree.
GTBeauregard 1 month ago
@GTBeauregard I think the largest culprit there is the state-sponsorship of 'alternative lifestyles' - feminism and gov't propaganda driving women away from marriage, turning them into sluts, wiping the ass of those who are irresponsible, banning any social shaming...
As in my latest video, they arrogantly decided upon the best policy. Without 'free money for women' I suspect we'd see more marriages. I suspect free-market sexuality would find a more traditionl-ish result.
Aurini 1 month ago
@Aurini Isn't the State in this case just enforcing the will of special interest groups?
This is the area of ambivalence for me - is the State an entity unto itself which is pushing the agenda or does the agenda come from outside groups (likely under the umbrella of something bigger - Franfurt School etc.)? The homosexual agenda seems to be coming from homosexuals and leftists and not the state itself.
GTBeauregard 1 month ago
@GTB Same for the black agenda.
Here's how I look at it: kids like candy, and even if they know it's bad for them, they chafe under the parent who denies candy. Introduce Uncle Buck who becomes a child advocate for candy dinners, and the kids fall for him - and get fat.
Lobbiests get state dollars, the state gets votes, and the blacks/gays/women/etc wind up worse off in the long run. I blame the SPLC, and politcians who should know better, not the blacks who fall for it.
Aurini 1 month ago
@Aurini Lobbyists get state dollars? Didn't know that. Would this be things like Community Organizing?
GTBeauregard 1 month ago
@GTBeauregard Not directly - what happens is Group A lobbies for benefits for Group B, thus Group B 'donates' funds to group A. Following that Group A form a social service Group C (which is comprised of members from group A - they trade hats every so often), and the gov't funds Group C. This is the military industrial complex - we see the same thing in feminism, black power, social services, police, etc, etc.
Aurini 1 month ago
This video is logically weak and is based on extremely limited and mostly unsupported arguments within one sub-area of psychology. Read “How to think straight about psych” (even just the first few chs.), peer-reviewed articles reporting scientific testing in psych, and Google the blog “The Hardest Science” & get back to us. No field is inherently scientific or non-scientific, only pursuits within those disciplines. Is physics not a science because Jim Carter made up his own ideas about it?
statzsinger 1 month ago
The only problem I see with this video is considering the clinical branch of Psychology as representative of the whole field. Not all of Psychology is as unscientific.
ELS01X 1 month ago
What about behaviorism?
br006DL 2 months ago
I've had these exact same thoughts. So much of this stuff is so ridiculous. I've never heard of anyone going into a psychiatrist and them telling them they are perfectly mentally healthy. It's all a big joke.
ArchNME 2 months ago
nice argument.
MusicMAAD 2 months ago
You have some valid points, but you are very narrow minded... :/
RowenaReena 3 months ago
@CodeManFromTheFuture Hmm, you just gave me an idea for a future video - even well funded, well organized, 'scientific' studies will find some sort of mental disorder here in North America which is entirely unknown in Asia - which cannot be detected, no matter how hard they look.
Aurini 4 months ago
@CodeManFromTheFuture Thanks. It's not that they have *nothing* useful to say - it's that they're treated as if their Truth comes from the pontiff (in criminal court, etc), when their grounding is shaky at best.
Aurini 4 months ago
The issue of being attracted to symmetry, though we can score a survey of people who like symmetrical things over asymmetrical, even look at the philosophy of aesthetics and find some objective observations, in terms of attraction, I've found the concept of koinophilia promising. Experiments in prototypical composite images of facial features to score attraction have supported this idea.
smudboy 1 year ago
@smudboy That's a valid experiment you just described - or could be - but the studies which resulted in 'The Decline Effect' were studying completely separate things, that were only related in an emotional, intuitive sense - not a factual logical sense. It's like studying cows, then studying horses, and saying that science is disagreeing with itself.
As for Freud - that's the reason I brought him up. We no longer 'believe' in Freud, but not because he was disproved; it's like fashion.
Aurini 1 year ago
@Aurini
I'm not sure I'd put the history of psychology into the vein of what's popular. Think of it like a software update (to the DSM). For example, the APA once believed in MPD (Multiple Personality Disorder.) There was a great debate whether such a condition even exists. With lack of evidence, it's been reduced to DID (Dissociative Identity Disorder.) It's not always the case that observations and deductions are wrong, but a lack of testable conditions.
smudboy 1 year ago
(cont)
I know of one elderly patient (in a nursing home) whose brain is anxiously being sought (upon her death) by neurologists in Toronto due to her special type of Alzheimer's. We know Alzheimer's exists, but we don't have enough testable conditions to perform experiments to properly understand. Alzheimer's could be disproven, but science can't say until they have sufficient experimental data.
smudboy 1 year ago
Planescape Torment logo? Dude! Best game ever.
I studied for a psych BA for two years at university, and got fed up there wasn't enough science. So I went to transfer to the BSc program, and found out the curriculum was identical, save the electives.
Psych is a general category of studies, and those may involve science (neurosci, stats), but in general it's the study of people (which sociology essentially is.)
smudboy 1 year ago
@sb That game was one of the most profound pieces of art I've ever played.
The issue with scientifically valid studies within Psych is that their foundation is built on sand - and because of this, the conclusions are far more tentative than they're made out to be
I was a History major; in History we try and be as scientific as possible, while being unable to perform experiments, and constantly fighting against historical and contemporary biases. We're aware of our limitations, essentially.
Aurini 1 year ago
@Aurini
There are some objective approaches to psych (e.g. behavioralism), but the social disciplines are sketchy. No one seriously believes Freud. My problem is with the series of social-dispositions in the DSM-IV, like ADHD, and the depression and anxiety "disorders." Then there's the gene study that implies character traits, as opposed to simply stating neurotransmitter production. (A depression gene, really?)
smudboy 1 year ago
@smudboy Why is not possible that depression is genetic ?
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160
Are the capacity for having emotions genetic?
In the idea that there's a gene for emotion, or a particular type of emotion, is false: rather, the disposition, or perhaps aptitude, for exhibiting a certain behavior, is a series of chemical processes, not just dependent on gene. There is no "stupid" gene or "angry" gene. There are, however, genetic conditions that result in retardation, or aggressive tendencies. Genetics do not equate emotional behavior.
smudboy 3 months ago
@smudboy The brain creates our emotions and our brain is created by our genes. If a certain gene is missing or defective, then it could result certain parts of the brain not being fully formed. Or it could result in lower levels of a certain neurotransmitter such as serotonin or dopamine.
ryan84160 3 months ago
There are areas in the brain that are used to solve math problems. If a person is born with strong or faulty genes that are responsible for creating this part of the brain, it could result in strengthened or decreased ability to solve math problems. Having said that, I think its obvious that the gene is not the only thing that is responsible for behaviours, our environment,culture and past experiences all work to together with our genes to shape our brains.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160
There is no genetics or genes for "intelligence." Saying a healthy brain is healthy and thus has a capacity to be smarter (e.g. math) does not mean the person will use that healthy brain for smarts.
smudboy 3 months ago
@smudboy "intelligence" is not a single phenomenon. Different areas of the brain are responsible for different types of intelligences.
"Saying a healthy brain is healthy and thus has a capacity to be smarter (e.g. math) does not mean the person will use that healthy brain for smarts."I agree. But it does mean a person with a "healthier" or larger math portion of the brain, will be better at math than an "unhealthy" brain if they both had the same practice at solving math problems.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160
So whatever genetics for, literally larger brains = a smarter person? A quick google search shows that's wrong.
smudboy 3 months ago
@smudboy Actually brain size is related to intelligence. That doesn't bean someone with big brain will necessarily become more intelligent. Someone born with a large brain that grew up in a remote tribe in the amazon will not be as intelligent as someone with a smaller brain that went to MIT.However, everything else being equal, brain size most definitely does mean more intelligence.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160
I think you just defeated yourself.
smudboy 3 months ago
@smudboy How did you figure ?
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160
You could've said cancer is related to intelligence, or leg length, or any other series of phenotypes.
smudboy 3 months ago
@smudboy What are you talking about ? This makes absolutely no sense.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@smudboy How could cancer possibly be related to intelligence?
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160
The exact same way brain size is.
smudboy 3 months ago
@smudboy Are you really this stupid ??? I half think you are just trolling. Why don't you try actually giving substanative explanation for once instead of a 4 word answer.
How could brain size (the brain being the place where thoughts,emotions and intelligence comes from) and leg size be equally plausible explanations for human intelligence ?
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160
And yet you think brain size determines intelligence. You've yet to give any reason or evidence of this.
smudboy 3 months ago
@smudboy Still no explanation fro you. I am beginning to question the size you your brain.
I never said that brain size "determines" intelligence. I said that it was related to intelligence in that a bigger brain increases the capacity for intelligence. All things being equal, a bigger brain will mean more intelligence.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160
If it's related, and then all things being equal, then a bigger brain will NOT mean more intelligence. It just means it's RELATED. You don't know how, or why. The same way foot size, or any other scale of organ may be related to intelligence. You have no evidence.
smudboy 3 months ago
@smudboy I can not get over how mind numbingly retarded you are. The brain is made up of neurons. A bigger brain equals more neurons , more neurons means more computing power,more computing power means a greater capacity for intelligence. Are you really saying that one or ten neurons has the same capacity for intelligence as 100 billion? Does a pig brain have the same potential as a human brain ? Does a brain damaged or mentally retarded person have the same potential as Einstien ?
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160
According to you, if the brain damaged or mentally retarded person's brain is simply bigger, they should be as smart as Einstein.
smudboy 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smudboy "According to you, if the brain damaged or mentally retarded person's brain is simply bigger, they should be as smart as Einstein." How the fuck do you figure ?
ryan84160 3 months ago
@smudboy Also, I dont believe there is one single thing called "intelligence", there are many types of intelligence. The brain has different regions that have different functions. It is possible for a person to larger math centers of the brain but have smaller language centers. This person would probably excel at math but might be a bad communicator.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160
Now you're contradicting yourself. "Actually brain size is related to intelligence." Ah huh.
smudboy 3 months ago
@smudboy "things being equal, then a bigger brain will NOT mean more intelligence." Yes it does.There is an area of the brain responsible for language comprehension called the Broca's.Chimps also have this area of the brain only it is much smaller and much more rudimentary.If a chimp and and human child are taught language in the exact same way, the human child will learn grammar,syntax and 10000 word vocab.The chimp will learn to understand about 300 words max and almost no grammar or syntax.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160
Oh, humans and chips are equal? Fancy that. Apples and oranges? Yeah. Keep trying.
smudboy 3 months ago
@smudboy Apples and oranges ? You've got to be kidding.Chimps are our closest living relatives. Chimps and humans share 99.9 percent our our DNA. The tiny difference in our genetic makeup produce larger brain and in particular much much larger prefrontal cortexes and language centers. It is because we have larger brains that we are able to do things a chimp could never do no matter how much training it had.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160
Now you're back to your "size = intelligence" bull. It's brain specialization, i.e., the development of those areas of the brain, not their areas size, not the cranium, nor the size of the mammal. May as well bring up Neanderthals while we're rambling on about chimps and genetics.
smudboy 3 months ago
@smudboy You are fucking dense. I didn't say size = intelligence. I have said this many fucking times. Bigger brain (or bigger specific area of the brain ) means more computing power, more computing power means a greater capacity for intelligence. Do you really think that every single person starts off life with the exact same capacity to excel in anything and the only difference is their development? The entire field of behavioural genetics shows how this can not possibly be the case.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160
ryan84160: "brain size most definitely does mean more intelligence."
smudboy 3 months ago
@smudboy Jesus Christs you are a dumb fucking cunt.Don't quote mine. What I actually said is"ALL THINGS BEING FUCKING EQUAL,brain size most definitely does mean more intelligence."Do you ever put any thought into your responses and respond with more than 4 fucking words. Why don't you actually take the time to think and answer my question.Do you really think that every single person starts off life with the exact same capacity to excel in anything and the only difference is their development?
ryan84160 3 months ago
@smudboy I brought up chimps because they are our closest living relative. The reason they do not have language is because of the genetic differences between us. Every human is also related much more closely related to every other other human. This means that there is less genetic differences between humans, but genetic differences between humans still DO exist.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160
Oh? Prove it, and stop using apples and oranges.
smudboy 3 months ago
@smudboy Comparing a human brain to any other living creatures with a brain is NOT comoparing apples to oranges as we are all related. It is ESPECIALLY not comparing apples to oranges when comparing chimps to humans as we share 99.9 % of our DNA and chimps and humans share many of the same brain structures.
ryan84160 3 months ago
@ryan84160
Really? So why aren't there any Isaac Newton chimps running around? You know, the ones with brains the size of basketballs...
smudboy 3 months ago
@smudboy What the fuck are you talking about ? You are one of the dumbest persons I have ever encountered on the internet.
chimps brain are fucking SMALLER than human brains. Did read anything about FOXP2 gene? That blows your theory that intelligence and genetics are not connected out of the water.
ryan84160 2 months ago
@ryan84160
(Psst! Newton was 5'6. Therefore, I'm smarter than him because my head's bigger.)
smudboy 3 months ago
@smudboy First,You have absolutely no idea what the size of newtons head was.Second, bigger head does no necessarily mean bigger brain. Third, I have never argued that a bigger brain necessarily means more intelligence, but only that it means a greater capacity for intelligence. How many times do I have to repeat that point ?
ryan84160 2 months ago
@ryan84160
1. He had a death mask. Try google. (How_tall_was_Isaac_Newton)
2. Oh so you finally accepted that? About time!
3. About as many times as I keep laughing at this and your previous points.
smudboy 2 months ago
@smudboy Accept what ? That a larger brain means a greater capacity for intelligence ? I haven't just accepted this, I have been arguing for this point the entire time. Perhaps the part of your brain that is responsible for reading comprehension is small or damaged in some way.
ryan84160 2 months ago
@ryan84160
And we're back to name calling and poor logic. I had such high hopes.
smudboy 2 months ago
@smudboy I think you mistook my genuine concern for the health of your brain for name calling. Because you think genes do not increase certain types of intelligence/behaviour and that comparing human brain to chimp brain is apples to oranges makes me realize that you have no idea what you are talking about.
ryan84160 2 months ago
@ryan84160
The health of my brain? Let's say we stop this right here, since I'm tired of it anyway. You're wrong and you've got no evidence.
smudboy 2 months ago
@smudboy Yes, I am convinced that your brain is not healthy. Either that or you are completely unwilling to even entertain the idea that you might be wrong about something.
No evidence? I have given you plenty of evidence but you simply choose to ignore it. The discovery of the FOXP2 gene contradicts everything you have been saying. visit personalityresearch. org. There is a wealth of information here about studies done linking behaviours and intelligences to specific genes.
ryan84160 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@smudboy "Oh? Prove it" Prove what ???? that there are specific genes for certain innate types of intelligence ? google FOXP2 gene
ryan84160 3 months ago
@smudboy Chimps also have lager areas of the brain associated with short term memory and as a result chimps have better short term memory than humans.
ryan84160 3 months ago