What are mutations?
Now you’re just angry.
What are you daft? You don’t even know what a mutation is.
Yeah, you still haven’t said what a mutation is. You just name random shit. This is what they teach you in school?
Yeah, what are those?
A mutation is an alteration in the nucelotide sequence of a genome. I have already cited why such alterations happen.
I think you have to wonder what on earth is actually going on inside Pedro’s head. (If anything)
Ah I see, yet another one of your delusions.
No it does it energetically.
UV light is of particular interest.
Have you heard of sunscreen?
So I want to address the idea that evolution is a competitive struggle to survive and reproduce. According to this popular notion, the competitive struggle to survive and reproduce is natural and normal and good because it got us where we are today.
This theory is used to justify free market economies, the conduct of international relations and legal judgments. Accordingly it is natural to pursue one’s self interest and failure to do so is irrational. So, a common understanding of reason is downstream from this proposition. The implication of this theory is that anything that interferes with competitive self interest is considered unnatural and immoral. I intend to show that this view sometimes known as “Social Darwinism” is incorrect.
When you apply the word “good”; and when you use words like “is a … to …” you are misrepresenting the meaning. In the first instance you are adding a moral value laden dimension, in in the second instance you are adding a teleology.
Evolution is a consequence not a force. It is not aiming at survival and reproduction. Survival and reproduction arrive at evolution.
The evolution of life could just as easily result in our destruction.
People will justify their behaviours with any means. Free-marketeers emphasis competition but ignore co-operation. Co-operation has been equally important in “getting us where we are today”, in fact without it we sould still be hanging from tree throwing shit at other humans.
Mature consdieration of “Social Darwinism” should also include co-operation, but we live in a Neoliberal world where such things as “socialism” is now a dirty word. This is a temporary phase in history.
Hate to comment ex post facto , but theory aside, a reevaluation must be commensurate with the rapidly escalating realization of insight.
Gosh - wonderful platitude. Pretty much goes without saying… so why say it?
If not said, it may be due to oversight and insignificance.
Then lacking insight, the object of significance may be lost to any analysis
For, analysis must be transpersonal
Excellent.
You have a talent for empty bullshit
Why? Any allusion that tries to point to the death of insight to the destruction of the soul of man
is good , despite pundits rejecting such a notion, despite the emergence of mounting evidence to the contrary, even anti intellectually rational reasoning trying to disprove such.
Excellent.
You have a talent for empty bullshit[/quot
To prove the point, any analysis to gain insight has for the most part been abandoned in favor of pharmacological treatment of symptoms
The sought after systemic cause, has resulted in fallacious transactional failure to get through.
It is no longer an issue within the scope of contradictory structural indications of disturbances in meaning interpretation
You may scratch the last paragraph if you care , of the whole thing if seeing inconsistency there in.
To prove the point, any analysis to gain insight has for the most part been abandoned in favor of pharmacological treatment of symptoms
The sought after systemic cause, has resulted in fallacious transactional frailer to get through.
It is no longer an issue within the scope of contradictory structural indications of disturbances in meaning interpretation
You may scratch the last paragraph if you care , of the whole thing if seeing inconsistency there in.
[/quote]
Either provide an example or stop waffling.
Referring to the systemic uncertainty of balance between the entangled sub structures and the corresponding lack of definite accountability of diagnostic criteria ; the gap is widening .
The medicated patient , for instance can not progressively gain understanding as to what ill’s him, because it is assumed that even in an unmedicated state, he is as perplexed as to his understanding as if he has never been analyzed.
This view is paradoxical, since it’s affordability determines the real nature of the gains of lengthy analysis that is required to advance to better understanding.
This is more waffle.
Evolutionary psychology is not related to medicated patients.
Put up or shut up!
Jordan Peterson is a confused man. He is an isolated drug addict, depressive, who gets his kick from a body of randroid twitterarti and facebookies.
He lost the plot years ago and now descends down a rabbit hole of his own construction, ignoring inconvenient truths about the social world he has chosen to ignore.
I know this is not an argument against the content of the video clip, but just listening to his hopeless cherry picking, reductionism and exceptionalism is enough to make me puke.
However…
I think his interlocutor seems worthy.
My initial objection to these kinds of discussions is that the differences of which they speak are assumed to be innate biological differences, rather than given by learned, cultural and social conventions.
It highlights a disciplinary wedge between biological and more nuanced anthropological studies.
I liked the campus survey which showed that 0% of women would have sex with a stranger whilst 79% of men would - more even than would agree to date a stranger.
In all seriousness it would be hard to justify this difference solely on the basis of cultural and social conventions.
But I did meet a woman, a mature student, on campus who was definitely in the “lets go straight for the sex camp” - and was personally invited to her room where I declined the offer, being a more sensitive soul.
There must be a motive force, a human nature, that motivates all behavior, including learning and construction of social convention…
keeping in mind that we are all mutations and that this nature is not exactly the same for all of us, there will be no formula that captures every single individual. Random mutation has and will generate a plethora of individuals that will collectively buck all the norms. But we can speak in generalizations like humans have two arms and legs, ten fingers and toes. It’s pointless for you to then say you met someone born with with only one arm… As it’d be significantly more shocking if there was no exception to the two arm norm.
That same principle ought then apply to psychological norms… human brains and how they are put together are subject to random mutation, after all.
Exceptions to the norm ought to be expected in that department as well… like everything else in our biology.
But that doesn’t mean we can’t speak about the norms…
Now you may believe some norms are a product of convention over nature but the onus always falls on you to argue the case that any human motive is exclusively the product of a social convention.
It’d be significantly more absurde to suggest the social and cultural conventions sprang into existence motivated by nothing, meaning the conventions can only be explained by recourse to human nature and motive.
Any attempt to explain the statistics brought up in that video, must refer to human nature. Even if you credit a social convention, that convention needs an accounting, motivated by human nature… with the only alternative being that it’s a social convention inherited from an ancestral species, with motives that no longer apply to us.
If you had a competing theory of human nature with which to counter the one presented in the video, that might be something…
But objecting to the “assumption” of human nature being the underpinning cause is intellectually vacuous.