The sexual-exclusivity part wasn't relevant to the topic I wanted to discuss.
I would hardly consider evolutionary psychology to be "psychobabble." In my view, it was actually one of the more interesting aspects of the article--the contention that people with high IQ's are drawn to novel ideas, like political liberalism and atheism, in contrast to conservatives and theists who merely stay the course.
Wow.What did you get in your SAT's? And what year did you take it?
inb4 SAT score pissing contest.
oh, wait...
It was a sincere question.I wanted to get an idea of how high one had to score to get into the Ivy League.
Predictable, tbh..
Here's the study if you or anyone else wants to take a look at it: http://www.asanet.org/images/journal...SPQFeature.pdf
Anyway, evolutionary psychology is certainly psychobabble. It's people trying to fit human behavior into biological trends. By it's silly, since most of human behavior is governed by memetics as least as much as genetics. There are actually a good deal of issues with the study, not the least of which is that she equates "not religious" to atheism.
I took them back in 2007-2008. I think I got a 22-something. I don't remember. That kind of stuff really isn't important after you get into a school. Believe me, no one at Penn was bragging about their SAT.Wow.
I got the second-highest score in my high school. Same for the PSAT. To the same person. I was pissed back then, especially because the person who beat me sounded like a Cali surfer girl when she talked.
Obviously, I don't care anymore. Not bitter at all...
Along those lines, Penn didn't really have any cut-offs. They just looked at the whole package. I did well on tests, had a decent GPA, was the leader in four extra-curriculars and am a triple-minority. I pretty much had a scholarship wherever I wanted to go. Many people who were better than me in one or more of those things got rejected. It's just the way it goes sometimes.It was a sincere question.
Holy crap that test has changed. When I took the SAT the maximum score was only 1600.
Added a writing section. Max is 2400 now. I got around a 1500 on the old scale, I think. All that stuff seems like forever ago.
I took it twice in high school because I fell asleep near the end. Lol! I wound up with only 1010. Second time I took it I got a 1480.
You can't dismiss an entire academic field simply on a whim like that. But I'm going to let that pass because of your impressive credentials.
appeal to authority fallacy imo
triple minority? gay black woman?
They'd've made me president the school in that case. Black, Hispanic and Native American (uncle got us registered as Choctaws). Probably could have left the rest of the app blank, as Penn loves its "diversity".
i wish armenian counted as a minority, but the choice always says "White (European or Middle East/Caucus Region)"
i usually just put other. couldn't hurt
Blame the Kardashians, tbh.
I was compe ive within my class although I wasn't top and I can recall most every exam score I got. Seeing the compe ive nature of the situation it kinda works like that.
You use Freud to dismiss the motives of your opponent and then call someone else's argument psychobabble. You call people irrational and then refuse to defend your rationale. You categorize as 'entry level' and then blanket dismiss and other general intellectual cowardice. Accusing atheists of trying to feel better about themselves was a nice touch.
Now we get to enjoy reading you whack off to supposed academic achievements.
If I didn't know better, I would say you are xmas1997 because he does the same type of thing.
You really lack reading comprehension.
Cool. What you did in school doesn't matter anymore than what I or anyone else did in school. You just have to live your life. Test scores don't make you smart, and they don't help you in the real world past the first level.
First, I didn't use Freud to dismiss anyone's motives. I brought up his argument for atheism as an example of an argument that isn't dependent of atheism having superior reasoning. Brought up Marx for the same reason. I have no idea why you thought that was part of a rebuttal, since I wasn't even having a debate when I said it.You use Freud to dismiss the motives of your opponent and then call someone else's argument psychobabble.
Second, you obviously haven't read Freud, or at least if you have, you've retained as much from him as you have from reading my posts. Freud was a pretty whack psychologist almost completely because he was a philosopher who tried to make his views fit psychology. That lead to his "psychobabble". His philosophical work is pretty solid, though it's relatively standard for German philosophy at the time. In that same way, Marx' philosophy is fine, but his socio-political arguments were out of whack.
Third, evolutionary psychology is psychobabble. It is psuedoscience in its purest form. It just attempts to make blanket assertions about the connection between evolution and human behavior. It doesn't back any of its claims up with actual science, just assumptions. The same is true for most retroactive explanations for adaptations. But evolutionary psychology is worse because human behavior is controlled by memetics, which are obviously not subject to primate evolution.
Finally, the reason why I criticized the article on those grounds is because that's where most of the impact phrases come in. They aren't from the data itself, but from the researcher's world-view (including saying that atheism does indeed make intellectuals feel better about themselves). If you haven't read the article (the link in the OP, not the quoted next), then do so before coloring my evaluation of it. A huge chunk of the article is about fidelity and how smart men are monogamous while smart women aren't any more monogamous than less-intelligent women. It's really just all over the place, and the study the article is based on isn't much better.
I had a thread full of defending my rationale. Sorry that you want another thread's worth of defense for yourself. It's not like I've deleted the posts. If you had a specific question about what I said, that would be one thing. But you just want me to go through the whole spiel again.You call people irrational and then refuse to defend your rationale.
Yes, I told Uriel that his arguments are basic and that they did not convey the level of intellectual complexity they were assuming they did. He wasn't levying them at me, so they weren't mine to refute. The actual point-by-point wasn't the basis of my critique of him. It was very obvious in my responses to him that I wasn't taking issue with his contention. I had already given my response to that early in the thread, as you note later on the this post.You categorize as 'entry level' and then blanket dismiss and other general intellectual cowardice.
Thanks. Been working on that one for years now. Glad it went off without a hitch.Accusing atheists of trying to feel better about themselves was a nice touch.
Um... Your reading comprehension is abysmal. I know I keep saying that, but wow. I didn't volunteer my "credentials" until Uriel asked about them. If anything, I spent most of the latter half of this thread refuting the idea that any of us is more qualified to speak on this than anyone else. Of course I made a joke about how I was bitter about losing out of having the highest score, but that was me poking fun at myself. Uriel brought up the SAT first.Now we get to enjoy reading you whack off to supposed academic achievements.
What does he do? More importantly, why should I care what he does?If I didn't know better, I would say you are xmas1997 because he does the same type of thing.
Yup you are he.
Dissertation of basically saying that I cannot pin anything on you and similar dissembling. You categorize things and then use the categorical imperative as basis for belief over and over again.
Your begging the question regarding your academics was clumsy at best.
You are still rank coward for claiming that I am irrational and then refusing to defend your rational. I read your 'defense' before. When I called you on formal logic when you were taunting other people about not understanding formal logic was exactly the time you started this current routine of refusing to address my arguments.
You are not credible at all whatsoever but by all means keep asserting.
All right. So this is a troll attempt. Fine. The above literally had nothing to do with what I said, or , what anyone said.Dissertation of basically saying that I cannot pin anything on you and similar dissembling. You categorize things and then use the categorical imperative as basis for belief over and over again.
Again, nothing about what I said.Your begging the question regarding your academics was clumsy at best.
I've never claimed you were irrational. I literally have done nothing but try to ignore you whenever you engage me. I do so not because I deem you irrational, but because you're not interesting.You are still rank coward for claiming that I am irrational and then refusing to defend your rational. I read your 'defense' before. When I called you on formal logic when you were taunting other people about not understanding formal logic was exactly the time you started this current routine of refusing to address my arguments.
You, on the other hand, do claim to be irrational. You claim you have no reason to believe in god but do anyway.
That is irrational.
Also, fallacies aren't part of formal logic. They are informal logic. You've never expressed anything to me about formal logic if I recall correctly. , I don't even think you've said anything about informal logic, either. Again, that has nothing to do with what I said.
Lame.You are not credible at all whatsoever but by all means keep asserting.
I never said I believed in a diety. Talk more of reading comprehension.
All right. So this is a troll attempt. Fine. The above literally had nothing to do with what I said, or , what anyone said.
Again, nothing about what I said.
I've never claimed you were irrational. I literally have done nothing but try to ignore you whenever you engage me. I do so not because I deem you irrational, but because you're not interesting.
You, on the other hand, do claim to be irrational. You claim you have no reason to believe in god but do anyway.
That is irrational.
Also, fallacies aren't part of formal logic. They are informal logic. You've never expressed anything to me about formal logic if I recall correctly. , I don't even think you've said anything about informal logic, either. Again, that has nothing to do with what I said.
Lame.
You can say I am not interesting but we both know that you are full of or you wouldn't take this much time writing these dissertations. You would rather carry on with this nonsense than revisit your natural law argument.
You don't seem to understand that categorizing something is an arbitrary distinction and that your categorical imperative is self assuming. You also do not seem to understand that just because someone does not agree with your rational construct does not mean it is irrational. As if your rationale are the only valid one. More self assuming nonsense.
Yay, now the I'm not the troll, you are troll rationale. Where have we seen this line of reasoning before?
If you aren't atheistic, then you are theistic. There is not middle ground. If you neither believe nor disbelieve in a deity, then you are atheistic. Sorry to pop your bubble of neutrality.
You're not interesting, which is why my responses are so short. Also, it's almost six in the morning, and I still can't go to bed.You can say I am not interesting but we both know that you are full of or you wouldn't take this much time writing these dissertations. You would rather carry on with this nonsense than revisit your natural law argument.
Bro, do you know what a categorical imperative is?You don't seem to understand that categorizing something is an arbitrary distinction and that your categorical imperative is self assuming.
Thought you read my constructive in that other thread. You'd know that I make a huge deal about the subjectivity of rationale. I don't think you're rational, but I can at the same time feel that YOU think you are, and as a result that you're not irrational in a general sense. That's why I said early in this thread that atheists and I will think each other irrational, but that that was fine.You also do not seem to understand that just because someone does not agree with your rational construct does not mean it is irrational. As if your rationale are the only valid one. More self assuming nonsense.
I'm assuming you're the troll because you're just throwing out philosophical terms in the wrong context and you're consistently misconstruing what I said. I neither made a categorical imperative nor did I beg the question when talking about academia. The terms just don't apply.Yay, now the I'm not the troll, you are troll rationale. Where have we seen this line of reasoning before?
Still dodging the natural law argument. No one who ever disagrees with you construes you correctly and they of course are the troll.
You define people as theists and atheists and then because you created said categories everything must fit in your box. Its categorically imperative due to how you have defined your categories. I invite you to read Beyond Good and Evil where Nietzsche ridicules your mode of thought quite extensively. He goes down a list of such dualist categorical imperatives such as -go figure- good and evil.
you can stamp your feet and insist that everything must fit into your two boxes but as with everything else you cannot prove without a doubt that everything must be that way. We can go back to open ended sets and proving a negative but I am betting that you will dissemble from that discussion once more. But, but, but "uni" means one. . . .
Yeah naming the school you didn't go to was obviously not begging the question. . . . But you don't really care about all that right?
What a bag.
You not being able to think of another way doesn't mean that your limited capacity defines all possible knowledge. Doesn't matter if it is in regards to natural law or your dumbed down binary take on reality.
Every god belief, not every belief. I've said as much.
It's circular reasoning to say the reason a group does something is to identify with itself. The group is "intellectuals" and you didn't say an individual, you said "intellectuals".Do individuals not do things to identify with their group? Pretty sure you had no problem asserting that when you were talking about the social constraints surrounding theism.
Who's finished the process? Certainly not you nor any religion.First, I mistyped. I meant to say that atheism is easier than finishing the process, not that it's not.
But then you have to define what physical events led to something, and what caused the physical events. No where in the chain of causality can you say "but this magical being doesn't need to be caused, even though we established a rule that everything needs to be caused". With god, you just say "god did it" and when someone attempts to go deeper it's "dude, it's god, no one knows the mind of god". You thwart any further understanding after implying a god.Secondly, it's just as easy to say, "because physical events led to that" as it is to say "because god." They're the same type of trivial answer that doesn't address the proximate mechanisms. But the former is still a true statement, at least one we agree on. We disagree on the latter. That's just an example of why theism isn't incompatible with science at all. A lack of critical thinking is incompatible with most epistemology, however.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
