Post: #101

There are for sure genetic components in all behaviours.However they cannot take effect in the absence of a certain environment.Also introversion is relative.By Mediteraneam standards Scandinavians are introverted but by Scandinavian standards all Mediteraneans are extraverted.So what is the average to take into account?

There are also social conventions promoting introversion or extraversion as sth desirable however I suspect it is because people in the certain country feel more comfortable with that (meaning it is more pleasurable for them to be the one or the other so they push for the same behaviour).

Post: #102

It seems like vicious believes in the blank slate. That's fine, if he chooses to believe something that in not in line with reality; then he suffers, not us. Also he is blue pill. There is no one that can read Pinker (or most evo psych) without becoming more red pill.

Post: #103

(03-17-2013 03:28 PM)SPinker Wrote:  It seems like vicious believes in the blank slate. That's fine, if he chooses to believe something that in not in line with reality; then he suffers, not us. Also he is blue pill. There is no one that can read Pinker (or most evo psych) without becoming more red pill.

Oh that's dear. I couldn't even read the psycho-babble on the Amazon description of that book but it's cute that a 4-post poster is coming on here to tell us who's blue pill and not.

Post: #104

(03-15-2013 11:17 AM)germanico Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 11:06 AM)scorpion Wrote:  I heard height has no genetic component, either. Tall parents have tall kids because they feed them a lot of vitamins.

How come every thread becomes a height thread?

IHT.

Indian Height Troll

Post: #105

YaReally is really, really good at certain aspects of game. However, he also really drank a LOT of RSD koolaid, and an utterly mindless drone fanatic in some other areas (refuses to believe looks matter whatsoever etc.). He is still of the few guys where I'll sit down and read the PDF compendium of his posts.

Post: #106

(03-17-2013 04:15 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  YaReally is really, really good at certain aspects of game. However, he also really drank a LOT of RSD koolaid, and an utterly mindless drone fanatic in some other areas (refuses to believe looks matter whatsoever etc.). He is still of the few guys where I'll sit down and read the PDF compendium of his posts.

Nice attempt to talk about the original subject, but once thread drift attacks, we at RVF never go back.

Post: #107

I thought established members usually had an open mind about things. But maybe your apprehension towards different ideas is heritable.

(03-17-2013 04:02 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 03:28 PM)SPinker Wrote:  It seems like vicious believes in the blank slate. That's fine, if he chooses to believe something that in not in line with reality; then he suffers, not us. Also he is blue pill. There is no one that can read Pinker (or most evo psych) without becoming more red pill.

Oh that's dear. I couldn't even read the psycho-babble on the Amazon description of that book but it's cute that a 4-post poster is coming on here to tell us who's blue pill and not.

Post: #108

(03-17-2013 05:19 PM)SPinker Wrote:  I thought established members usually had an open mind about things. But maybe your apprehension towards different ideas is heritable.

(03-17-2013 04:02 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 03:28 PM)SPinker Wrote:  It seems like vicious believes in the blank slate. That's fine, if he chooses to believe something that in not in line with reality; then he suffers, not us. Also he is blue pill. There is no one that can read Pinker (or most evo psych) without becoming more red pill.

Oh that's dear. I couldn't even read the psycho-babble on the Amazon description of that book but it's cute that a 4-post poster is coming on here to tell us who's blue pill and not.

More psycho-babble. I'm supposed to have an open mind about some dude on the internet trying to go Freud?

You read a book, congratulations. Go read another 50 and then come back.

Post: #109

I'm not sure you know who Freud is... But I'm pretty sure I've read more books than a guy who uses the phrase "psycho babble" to deflect any comments. And make sure you hide behind your rep points and post count to talk down to new members in the future. It really gets to them.

(03-17-2013 05:43 PM)Vicious Wrote:  More psycho-babble. I'm supposed to have an open mind about some dude on the internet trying to go Freud?

You read a book, congratulations. Go read another 50 and then come back.

(03-17-2013 05:19 PM)SPinker Wrote:  I thought established members usually had an open mind about things. But maybe your apprehension towards different ideas is heritable.

(03-17-2013 04:02 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 03:28 PM)SPinker Wrote:  It seems like vicious believes in the blank slate. That's fine, if he chooses to believe something that in not in line with reality; then he suffers, not us. Also he is blue pill. There is no one that can read Pinker (or most evo psych) without becoming more red pill.

Oh that's dear. I couldn't even read the psycho-babble on the Amazon description of that book but it's cute that a 4-post poster is coming on here to tell us who's blue pill and not.

Post: #110

(03-17-2013 04:22 PM)Kitsune Wrote:  

(03-17-2013 04:15 PM)DarkTriad Wrote:  YaReally is really, really good at certain aspects of game. However, he also really drank a LOT of RSD koolaid, and an utterly mindless drone fanatic in some other areas (refuses to believe looks matter whatsoever etc.). He is still of the few guys where I'll sit down and read the PDF compendium of his posts.

Nice attempt to talk about the original subject, but once thread drift attacks, we at RVF never go back.

No retreat, no surrender!

Post: #111

(03-17-2013 05:43 PM)Vicious Wrote:  You read a book, congratulations. Go read another 50 and then come back.

We're baaaaack!

http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/

Post: #112

(03-16-2013 04:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  1. My world view is actually much more open and inclusive of scientific findings than most people. Consider: if someone runs an experiment that isn't "peer reviewed," I will still believe that experiment to have merit.

The point of peer review is that it is supposed to be a quality control factor. It's supposed to catch flaws in the study like perhaps the methodology, etc.

(03-16-2013 04:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  2. My worldview is only controversial because all cutting-edge thought is. But, intelligent minds understand that what the masses think isn't necessarily correct or useful.

What I believe about science is by far the most comprehensive and useful stance on science I've read anywhere. Falsification allows for science to be used but not worshipped.

Falsification has already been adopted by the Supreme Court of the USA to determine if something is scientific or not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsificat...rts_of_law

What I'm telling you guys about science now will be considered common knowledge in 50-100 years from now, much the same way Darwinism is.

Your world view is not cutting edge. Fallibilism has been around for a long time and Falsificationism has been around for a while too.

Falsificationism isn't as strong as people make it out to be but it's widespread in pop-culture probably because it satisfies an intuitive notion about scientific theories.

Post: #113

Why argue with fools!?!!

Post: #114

(03-15-2013 02:06 PM)Therapsid Wrote:  

(03-15-2013 02:00 PM)DjembaDjemba Wrote:  HBD is only disconcerting when it's used for negative race trolling and obsessing over who's fucking with whom.

Which is pretty much what Heartiste and his commentators do: race troll.

Bad as he is, it's nothing compared to Gucci Little Piggy, who seems to wake up every morning looking for a way to take a shit on black people.

Roosh brings a humility to his writings. He'll talk about his fuck-ups and missed opportunities. He'll even admit where his books might be outdated or incomplete. And he brings an open mind. Guys like Heartiste don't have an open mind. He has all the answers and he's on a jihad to make sure everyone knows them.

GLP's a loser. There's no benefits to reading shit from men who are not successful in life. Unless you're interested in finding out how not to go about living.

Post: #115

(03-17-2013 05:58 PM)SPhincter Wrote:  I'm not sure you know who Freud is... But I'm pretty sure I've read more books than a guy who uses the phrase "psycho babble" to deflect any comments. And make sure you hide behind your rep points and post count to talk down to new members in the future. It really gets to them.

Uh huh.

Tell me more about my life, bro. You must know me so well.

(03-18-2013 08:13 AM)Mr.Barbarian Wrote:  http://www.humanbiologicaldiversity.com/

Interesting site. Very comprehensive. Not sure what I'm supposed to make of this though other than snigger at the opening line as overly pretentious:
"Someone recently said, "Assertions about the importance of HBD [human biodiversity] are rife on the internet among high-IQ bloggers.""

Post: #116

(03-18-2013 12:19 PM)TheKantian Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 04:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  1. My world view is actually much more open and inclusive of scientific findings than most people. Consider: if someone runs an experiment that isn't "peer reviewed," I will still believe that experiment to have merit.

The point of peer review is that it is supposed to be a quality control factor. It's supposed to catch flaws in the study like perhaps the methodology, etc.

Means nothing if there are politically correct controls in place determining which studies get the review.

Quote:

(03-16-2013 04:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  2. My worldview is only controversial because all cutting-edge thought is. But, intelligent minds understand that what the masses think isn't necessarily correct or useful.

What I believe about science is by far the most comprehensive and useful stance on science I've read anywhere. Falsification allows for science to be used but not worshipped.

Falsification has already been adopted by the Supreme Court of the USA to determine if something is scientific or not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsificat...rts_of_law

What I'm telling you guys about science now will be considered common knowledge in 50-100 years from now, much the same way Darwinism is.

Your world view is not cutting edge. Fallibilism has been around for a long time and Falsificationism has been around for a while too.

Falsificationism isn't as strong as people make it out to be but it's widespread in pop-culture probably because it satisfies an intuitive notion about scientific theories.

Fallibalism didn't start to gain attention until "The Logic of Scientific Discovery," which was published in 1934. Basically a newborn in the philosophy world.

Post: #117

(03-18-2013 05:42 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Means nothing if there are politically correct controls in place determining which studies get the review.

Not really. It has its drawbacks and benefits.

(03-16-2013 04:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Fallibalism didn't start to gain attention until "The Logic of Scientific Discovery," which was published in 1934. Basically a newborn in the philosophy world.

The history of the idea shows it has been around a long time, but if we are talking in modern times then it would begin with the American Pragmatists. People like Peirce, Dewey, and James were publishing on fallibilism long before the Popper wrote his book.