Behavioural Genetics

  On 11/10/2015 at 11:17 PM, goDel said:

Make that: Learning about science is for everybody. Doing science is for scientists.

 

 

Talking about scientists. Didn't we have some Sapolski videos for this subject?

cool video, seems to cover all the bases. highlights that eugene doesn't know shit about what geneticists do and don't know about the impact of social factors.

eugene is obviously a crazy person, and it's a waste of time carrying on with this.

  On 11/11/2015 at 3:44 AM, Mesh Gear Fox said:

i love when a bunch of white people start getting really interested in genetics. that's never gone wrong before.

yeah, fuck trying to cure hereditary diseases and shit.

this is a cool story about one of those swapped at birth sets of identical twins:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/magazine/the-mixed-up-brothers-of-bogota.html

sapolsky basically tears apart past behavioral genetics research (and other similar shit science) using very similar arguments i presented,many times word for word, research that you believed was completely valid until a few days ago, and the only thing you took from it is that it proved me wrong about the fact that some scientists in those fields are not complete hacks? just lol.

  On 11/13/2015 at 12:32 AM, eugene said:

sapolsky basically tears apart past behavioral genetics research (and other similar shit science) using very similar arguments i presented,many times word for word, research that you believed was completely valid until a few days ago, and the only thing you took from it is that it proved me wrong about the fact that some scientists in those fields are not complete hacks? just lol.

you're making lots of assumptions about what I do and don't believe. you don't have a fucking clue mate.

This is ridiculous

Look at the russian fox experiment

You can go ahead and just keep pretending that's irrelevant though and that humans aren't animals

foxes are only animals tho, humans are magic.

  On 11/13/2015 at 2:49 AM, caze said:

foxes are only animals tho, humans are magic.

Foxes don't have immaterial souls like us superior humans /s

  On 11/13/2015 at 12:51 AM, caze said:

 

  On 11/13/2015 at 12:32 AM, eugene said:

sapolsky basically tears apart past behavioral genetics research (and other similar shit science) using very similar arguments i presented,many times word for word, research that you believed was completely valid until a few days ago, and the only thing you took from it is that it proved me wrong about the fact that some scientists in those fields are not complete hacks? just lol.

 

you're making lots of assumptions about what I do and don't believe. you don't have a fucking clue mate.

 

just look at your fucking first post in this thread where you still try to defend the idea that twin studies can have some merit.

  On 11/13/2015 at 2:47 AM, Zeffolia said:

This is ridiculous

 

Look at the russian fox experiment

 

You can go ahead and just keep pretending that's irrelevant though and that humans aren't animals

what's ridiculous is to assume that because both humans and animals are biological creatures and evolution and bla bla bla than they must necessarily share some features, and specifically behavior. might as well expect snakes to produce idms on fruity loops and humans to shed skin and lay eggs.

  On 11/13/2015 at 10:35 AM, eugene said:

 

  On 11/13/2015 at 12:51 AM, caze said:

 

  On 11/13/2015 at 12:32 AM, eugene said:

sapolsky basically tears apart past behavioral genetics research (and other similar shit science) using very similar arguments i presented,many times word for word, research that you believed was completely valid until a few days ago, and the only thing you took from it is that it proved me wrong about the fact that some scientists in those fields are not complete hacks? just lol.

 

you're making lots of assumptions about what I do and don't believe. you don't have a fucking clue mate.

 

just look at your fucking first post in this thread where you still try to defend the idea that twin studies can have some merit.

 

  On 11/13/2015 at 2:47 AM, Zeffolia said:

This is ridiculous

 

Look at the russian fox experiment

 

You can go ahead and just keep pretending that's irrelevant though and that humans aren't animals

what's ridiculous is to assume that because both humans and animals are biological creatures and evolution and bla bla bla than they must necessarily share some features, and specifically behavior. might as well expect snakes to produce idms on fruity loops and humans to shed skin and lay eggs.

 

The fact that animals and humans differ in behavior proves behavior is influenced by genetics since they only differ by genetics.

that's a stupid argument to make, especially at this point. no one's doubting that genetics are "responsible" for formation of various biological organs, one of which is a human brain that makes humans capable of things other species aren't, therefore comparisons to other species is often meaningless and assumption for similarity in causes for behavior is baseless.

Just logged in to express my sadness that tumblr-think has inffected WATMM too.

thread officially GORDOd

  On 11/13/2015 at 10:35 AM, eugene said:

just look at your fucking first post in this thread where you still try to defend the idea that twin studies can have some merit.

that's because they do have merit, and sapolsky never claimed otherwise in that video. pointing out things we can do to improve on them doesn't completely invalidate them. you have a very poor grasp on how the scientific method works.

you just don't fucking get it huh, the criticism saposlky presented makes their findings very likely to be completely baseless due to flawed methodology, it's not like they now explain 10% percent instead of 60% of variance of behavior due to that criticism, they can't conclusively prove ANY genetic effect at all because it all can be all alternatively explained pretty easily.