Children

Originally posted by inimalist
1. please give me an argument for why something that is not controlled, not double blinded, and not peer reviewed is as likely to be true as something that is blinded, controls for confounds, and is reviewed by experts in the field?

2. you can't see for yourself why that isn't a valid and objective criteria?

like, "reasons"? Any action a person makes without a reason that satisfies YOU is "drone like"? thats waaaaay too subjective.

[b]list of terms you need to define:
follow
social ideas
law
gay?
reasons
explanations
actions
their own
behaviour

this all assumes learning things like speech patterns, similar slang, similar mannerisms, similar beliefs etc from the peer group can be prevented and is somehow beneficial...

3. I guess you would probably have to show some significant difference between social learning and other forms of learning. And SOMEHOW show how someone can NOT be influenced by their social environment. (re: this is relevant to neuroplasticity [which is the term used to describe the way neurons and genes in the brain respond to incoming stimuli, thus making it impossible to separate social/genetic influences of ANY cognitive process, as they are the same thing at that level])

4. lol. thats really not your theory though, is it?

however, we have in fact been arguing the nature of human dualism, then the nature of scientific empiricism

5. again, more my point.

no, you don't need them

. however, to ignore real scientific data because you saw something on TV is the height of ignorance.

6. start on page 1 of this thread.

you aren't looking at things from a social point of view. You are looking from a point of view based on a pet theory that you just made up. [/B]

1. Because control is more of an hinderance than a help in the situation, controlling someone into trying to give you answers often leads to fake answers, infact the only true way to see what a person is thinking is to ask them as a friend. A scientist grouping people together and asking things or researching them would not help your argument. Experts in the field i.e people who have their Diploma basically? as ive said before these experts will only be looking for scientific reasons when ime talking about Social.

Can you find me where a social study is made using research information and the things youve included?

2. no wrong, any person who had NO real reason for the action is a Drone.

you dont understand those words? dont play foolish....

3. Social learning is not what ime talking about, ime talking about pack animals, people who simply follow the "pack" (peer group) and do what they do without giving real reasons for their actions. Once again, youve got the wrong end of the stick, perhaps the shit end, basically ime not talking about a minor outside influence, ime talking about people who do things based on the overall social view without thinking about it themselves, they just follow what is "right" or "wrong" in the face of the soceity they are apart of.

4. It what ime trying to tell you, that people change themselves to fit in and cannot explain why, my theory is the "drone" theory that encumpasses all the things from Fashion, religion up to the small groups people socialise in, people changing themselves to fit in is a part of that.

5. Ime not ignoring scientific data, youve not shown me any real data that makes people what they are, a TV show on the other hand is a reflection of the social control of people and how they are and there are hundreds of them from Family guy to Big brother. If youve ever seen the producer of family guy you would know he creates the show based around how people in American soceity act which makes it funny, because many things in it are exagerrated truths.

6. Hm yes, I did not think you could find a real study, you would be a hypocrite by using your own opinion as fact, which is what you seem to be taking me up on.

The only thing I made up is the word "drone" to mean what ime using it for, other than that ime using things already in place such as how people act and how you can see them in the real world.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Oh, I figured that you would take the neutral perspective later on in the thread and decided to post about your post anyway solely for entertainment. I was more or less arguing with the implications in that one particular post because it's hard to "get you" NOT being neutral/objective.

Let me have my fun, damnit!

Your fun is based on a misunderstanding of my post. I did not claim anything that you said I claimed in that. It was a sarcastic posts, poking fun at the opinion of the thread starter and, in specific, that greek guy that posted. You took it as having a meaning that was nowhere near being implied. But hey, if you have fun, just makes you seem more of a douche.

Originally posted by dadudemon

And dadudemon can't be arsed to look that shit up or ask a psychology student/professor to find/cite evidence that shows that the vast majority of women still desire children in developed countries. If someone else is happy to look it up for me...they can. I think it's obvious.

Meh, if you just want to state your opinion, fine. You have done that now. The next step would be to argue logically (i.e. include evidence), but I guess your participation in this debate is done for now, then.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And my other comment about a kick in the balls for not wanting kids was OBVIOUSLY over exaggerated hyperbole. (Redundant, I know...but redundant for a reason.) My wife got really pissed at me for saying that I didn't want any more kids for a while a few months after we were married. It actually pissed me off that something like that upset her. I was literally pissed that she was pissed about that. She didn't kick me in the nuts and leave me, though...but I'm sure that's happened to a dude before...there's plenty of bitches out there to go around.

k

Originally posted by dadudemon
Fail. I never said anecdotal evidence replaces empirical evidence. *Searches KMC* Since my memory is good enough that I didn't have to search for that to begin with, I just wasted my time. DAMNIT!

If that wasn't what your were getting at, **** you and your games. stoned (For now...mwhahahahahahahaha!)

I was referring to his uncanny ability to psychoanalyze, predict and play people like puppets, that you, iyo, have too. Odd you'd misunderstand that so drastically.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen Like an experiment that can be summed up with empirical evidence, how is this hard for you to understand? If you make a claim, it's your responsibility to back it up.

Watching reality tv programmes is most definitely not a good way to try and explain any kind of social phenomenon. (1)The type of people that apply to appear on such programmes are chosen for their "out there" personalities, most of which is false. Also, you're deciding to judge the whole world based on 10 or slightly more people in a house, with rules that are completely different to the outside world? Firstly, that group is far too small for it to be representative of the population. Secondly, you may as well judge everything in human behaviour off of Zimbardo's prison experiment.

An experiment does not help social view research, otherwise my experment can be done in this thread, the beginning of the experiment is bolded in your post.

1. yes, exactley, fake like I said earlier, crude people who follow pack mentality.

Those people are just a taste, but ime talking about a single reality show did I? i thot i said many, and gave examples like Family guy, the simpsons, South Park is also massively social especially to the younger generations, it gives good examples of what social groups are.

Following are other experiments:

subject: Danaoula hime

Originally posted by danaoula hime
for women having children is really important, it competes then, it actually changes their life

For men it is a little bit different some have the same feeling as the women do, but some others don't give a tinny rats a**.

and of course everything is about preserving the species

now the first bit is interesting, this is the social view ime talking about, this is what I want an answer to, why does it change their life? now if ime just talking out of my @ss, that means that Danaula hime is also because he/she is speaking of the social control ime talking about? ofc not, it means you guys are not understanding.

And the second bit, "everything about preserving the speices" is an instinct, thus, is that my answer? women dont have children for any means other than their instinct and so is the feeling coming from it, so thats when they are basic animals?

Originally posted by danaoula hime

women are not breeding machines!! it is just that any instinct is far more important and strong from any other belief
Also you must consider that we live in a society that promotes the idea of a family with children. You must consider that most people think of it as a moral obligation !!

This quote shows what ime saying is also obvious to Danaoula hime....ime glad ime not the only one who doesnt need a science study in front of me to make sense of the world around me.

Subject Symmetric Chaos

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you just want to cry about reality? Have fun, you'll never accomplish anything and people will (quite justifiably) mock you. But have fun anyway.

😆

A combination of pack animal notions, take interest in the final "mocking" laugh at the end to try and cause anger in the social minority (me) to try and defeat my argument rather than ackknowledge it.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Thinking people.

Attention that your parents and other kids at school never gave you?

An opinion, once again not covered by any base, which is funny because its hypocritical since he claims I have no relvent backing either.

then we get a social response, apprently attension is required because? oh yes theres not a reason, silly me....

subjet chillmeistergen

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
You're an absolute retard.

Similiar to above, a baseless view usually formed to jab at a social minority, there is no reason behind it in the post, simply a pack animal view in here.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
How exactly do you know that all these people smoke because it's "cool"? Sounds to me like you've bought into the idea of the existence of playground peer pressure; not to say that it doesn't exist, but you seem to think of it as some sort of epidemic - therefore making you just another sheep.

Also, are you kicking off about what's perceives as "cool" because you never were perceived that way? I know it must be hard, having the only thing going for you debating about comics, but you are by no means the only one of your kind.

You touch on so many social control pieces in play here that its funny your on the opposing argument against me.

First you go on about peer pressure and saying you agree it excists, then you go into the typical social control insult where your view on whats "cool" or not is controlled, nobody mentioned comic books until you did, this means that you bringing it up as a derogative against me means that you actually belive debating comics is "uncool" perhaps? obviously that social view is shown within you here, this alone proves that it excists.

subject jalek moye

Originally posted by jalek moye
it is an instinct to want children and to care more about them.

Thats what i think too which is a shame.

Subject dadudemon

Originally posted by dadudemon
Let me know when you encounter one. When you do, let me know when they talk about having kids, start crying when you say you don't want any, and kick you in the nuts after breaking up with you for being a selfish prick.

A perfect example of the typical female response to not wanting children from a guy, ive not had the personal experiance forutnaltey but you get it around so many times where women dont think of much else other than Children in their final lives.

In conclusion so far

There are so many pieces of evidence in this thread alone for my theory, the fact Dadudemon, Danaoula hime and me together have similiar experiances makes it obvious it exists across diffrent parts of the world. Women generally simply for instinct want to have children as their highest goal, Obviously not every women, but most.

Now onto the Drone evidence, the evidence for women by the information above is enough for this but the fact many of you who are denying me have said a socially drone way of thinking especially you chillmeistergen. So far the evidence of this thread alone points to my theory being corrected and its been so far proven by some people who are denying me.

You have absolutely NO idea how science works, do you?

Well, to counter dadudemon's "scientific" anecdote, why won't you include my girlfriend? She does not want children. Why does ddm's personal story beat mine? Is it because you predetermined your conclusion?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You have absolutely NO idea how science works, do you?

Well, to counter dadudemon's "scientific" anecdote, why won't you include my girlfriend? She does not want children. Why does ddm's personal story beat mine? Is it because you predetermined your conclusion?

ime not interested in science as much as a more social view.

because my argument is that from my own experiance women tend to want children, ime not going to use your argument against mine until you give me the reasons why she doesnt want children.

Originally posted by Burning thought
ime not interested in science as much as a more social view.

because my argument is that from my own experiance women tend to want children, ime not going to use your argument against mine until you give me the reasons why she doesnt want children.

That wasn't the requisite for dadudemon. He just had to state that she wanted children and got mad.

You are indeed not interested in science, you are just a sheep to a misogynist view. Not sure who you are trying to copy, and maybe you don't even know, but it is obvious that you don't have an open mind, but a predetermined belief system. No matter what we say...no matter what the evidence, you already decided. A sort of fanaticism.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You must consider that not everyone lives in Greece. And even if they did, I assume it's not even the case there.

Women are individuals as well. Such a blind generalization as you uttered is idiotic at best.

i must say that i have traveled a lot around the world, and believe me all but all societies promote the idea of a united family (some maybe are more free towards the terms of families but their are families never the less). even if you think of it as stupid believe me it is quite important.

Originally posted by danaoula hime
Sorry, but do you have the idea that Greece is not a modern or free society ?

Originally posted by danaoula hime
i must say that i have traveled a lot around the world, and believe me all but all societies promote the idea of a united family (some maybe are more free towards the terms of families but their are families never the less). even if you think of it as stupid believe me it is quite important.

That's not what you said initially and it's not what I replied to. Pointless.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That wasn't the requisite for dadudemon. He just had to state that she wanted children and got mad.

You are indeed not interested in science, you are just a sheep to a misogynist view. Not sure who you are trying to copy, and maybe you don't even know, but it is obvious that you don't have an open mind, but a predetermined belief system. No matter what we say...no matter what the evidence, you already decided. A sort of fanaticism.

Thats because according to my belief, instinct makes women want children so badly, thus I know instinct exists, so I dont need a further questioning from him. On the other hand you I do because although your gf has a pleasent view imo ime intersted in why and how she has a diffrent view.

Thats the typical reply from someone who does not actually have any proof or evidence and so simply waffles on about how even if you "had" evidence (chance would be a fine thing) then I wouldnt be deiced.

Originally posted by Burning thought
Thats because according to my belief, instinct makes women want children so badly, thus I know instinct exists, so I dont need a further questioning from him. On the other hand you I do because although your gf has a pleasent view imo ime intersted in why and how she has a diffrent view.

Thats the typical reply from someone who does not actually have any proof or evidence and so simply waffles on about how even if you "had" evidence (chance would be a fine thing) then I wouldnt be deiced.

Right Burning thought, is this your belief or is this scientific fact that you're trying to lay on us? Because you've been claiming it to be a scientific fact for quite a few pages now, then you go back on that and say "it's my belief" - which one is it?

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Right Burning thought, is this your belief or is this scientific fact that you're trying to lay on us? Because you've been claiming it to be a scientific fact for quite a few pages now, then you go back on that and say "it's my belief" - which one is it?

I think it is that he considers his beliefs to be on par with science... Or that science is unnecessary when figuring out human behaviour

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
Right Burning thought, is this your belief or is this scientific fact that you're trying to lay on us? Because you've been claiming it to be a scientific fact for quite a few pages now, then you go back on that and say "it's my belief" - which one is it?

its fact, just not ncesserily scientific, ive already used your own words to show the fact behind my idea.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Your fun is based on a misunderstanding of my post. I did not claim anything that you said I claimed in that. It was a sarcastic posts, poking fun at the opinion of the thread starter and, in specific, that greek guy that posted. You took it as having a meaning that was nowhere near being implied. But hey, if you have fun, just makes you seem more of a douche.

"one" ONLY refers to blacks...I got it. But why can't the general tone of your post imply that you think that he "modern women" runs rampant now? Without reading any of your other posts, that was the general feel of your post to him. If I didn't know your gender or past behaviors, I would say you were a rabid feminist.

Also...

EGADS!!! Having fun on an internet message board! NO WAY!

Originally posted by Bardock42
Meh, if you just want to state your opinion, fine. You have done that now. The next step would be to argue logically (i.e. include evidence), but I guess your participation in this debate is done for now, then.

You can call it opinion, but it's much too obvious. If you think it's closer to 50/50 than it is 100/0, than you're delusional or haven't been around women very much.

Also, your girlfriend is much too young to use her as anecdotal evidence, imo. How many young women her age want a child now? Ask her if she wants a child, ever. Maybe you'll get a different answer that's more in line with reality. (Not that you're arguing that "modern women" are running rampant, because you obviously wouldn't take a stance like that.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
I was referring to his uncanny ability to psychoanalyze, predict and play people like puppets, that you, iyo, have too. Odd you'd misunderstand that so drastically.

Sorry, my bad. That whole thing about context was getting in the way n'stuff. I should have known that it was something that you didn't actually say, again. I apologize for keeping things in context.

Now how was he supposed to know that that is what you meant? Exactly. Now who was that comment really for? Exactly. It would appear that you are guilty of the same thing you whined about at the top of this post. Bored? Obviously.
Should I answer more of my own questions? YES!

Originally posted by Burning thought
infact the only true way to see what a person is thinking is to ask them as a friend.

If your theory is that people act in ways that make them conform to their peer group, this strategy would ensure that people are giving you answers that don't reflect their real beliefs.

Originally posted by inimalist
If your theory is that people act in ways that make them conform to their peer group, this strategy would ensure that people are giving you answers that don't reflect their real beliefs.

Well thats why you gotta ask em as a friend, and continue to ask them, dig reasons out of them, if you ask them on a "one on one" basis as a friend without the group present, then you would get better answers, obviously in a big group its diffrent, but in a one on one basis they wouldnt be so affected by the social drone mentality.

ofcourse a Drone is likely to only give one of two answers, as you said and as have I, theyll give their drone social view that would most likely convey what soceity would wish to hear, or if they are closer to you and are more of a friend and even better, if your not part of their social group as well as not questioning while their in their group, they may only say "I dont know" and admit that their social view is flawed without actually saying it.

Originally posted by inimalist
If your theory is that people act in ways that make them conform to their peer group, this strategy would ensure that people are giving you answers that don't reflect their real beliefs.

Those "real beliefs" could actually be what they really believe, though. That's the problem with being and overly social organism.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Those "real beliefs" could actually be what they really believe, though. That's the problem with being and overly social organism.

Thats true, when the organism is too far gone socialy, they could ony belive those "social" views in which case if you bore deep into who they are as a friend, you may simply get the "i dont know"

Originally posted by dadudemon
Those "real beliefs" could actually be what they really believe, though. That's the problem with being and overly social organism.

I'm not the one suggesting classification of people based on asking them things as a friend

You cannot classify people by any means other than getting into who they are, science cannot od that, science can only provide figuires unfortunatley and although sometimes it can be useful, in the regard ime looking at, no it cant.