Truth Discussion Time - Page 50

I didn't call you a liar. It was more likely in my mind that you are inept with technology and can't find out how to do it. Seriously though, it's 2017. What's your phone model?

Poll: Is it odd that a baller's phone can't copy/paste text in 2017?
(Vote): Yes
(Vote): No
(Vote): Yes, considering he has access to the net and a browser
(Vote): No, copy/pasting links is still pretty cutting edge
(Vote): My iPhone 3Gs from 2009 can do it

On October 08 2017 00:37 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On October 02 2017 21:58 Spitfiree wrote: Can you point me to that study, I'm curious to the actual conditions it was set in, the tests itself and the following conclusion. Naturally, men and women would have different patterns of thought and interests but somehow proving what you're claiming seems quite improbable - staring at pictures of faces could mean about a hundred different things doesn't make them more prone to gossip other superficial shit. its proves that the brain of women and men work differently you can google the studies, here is one: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/....1.627.1904&rep=rep1&type=pdf There is a whole documentary about the topic: anyway no more derailing of the rofl, if you have further discussion lets move it to the "truth" discussion

At the request of Baal I'm not gonna derail the ROFL thread and just post this here. So, this is pretty outside of my main areas of interest but I was curious and started watching this documentary. I didn't make it very far before feeling like something was a bit off and I ended up looking it up online to see what kind of criticisms it received. Apparently, this is stuff that's really praised by Red Pillers. Anyway, some interesting criticisms of the documentary:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psy...e-gender-equality-paradox-t32654.html
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskFeminists...our_thoughts_on_the_norwegian_gender/
(more academic): https://www.reddit.com/r/AskSocialSci...rding_the_2010_norwegian_documentary/

Did you found those interesting? come on those criticism are idiotic, for example:

broad ontological, epistimological, methodological, and downright logical inconsistency of Evolutionary Psychology and other biological essentialist paradigms

lol so evolutionary psychology is just bullshit, oh but social studies and its 64 genders now that is a serious science.



Certainly that documentary is amateurish, I dont think it has any further goals than just to prove the insanity of left wing ideology in scandinavia, I dont think it pretends to be very scientific, its more like a "look at these crazy people".

To oppose that positon implies that you believe that millions of years of evolution have made our bodies, like in most species, vastly different between genders, however, our brains are identical and we have no behavioral differences nor natural predespositions, I think you would require a shit load of evidence to just being to defend such an absurd-looking proposition.

Also, obviously these people have an agenda, ultimate equality, they also wont acknowledge proven genetic differences between races, for example Eriador who isnt even hardcore left said on this forum not long ago that he wouldnt acknowledge blacks having a lower avg IQ understandibly so because its a tool easily used by bigots, but that should give you an idea of why these people dont care about research or truth, as long as it erases any difference between people, they will parade it as truth.

Personally I dont give a shit, I couldnt care less if women like to be Nurses or want to be engineers, in fact I would like them to get more into stuff I like, sadly it simply doesnt happen.

On October 10 2017 03:29 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2017 01:26 Liquid`Drone wrote: seems to be a divide between virgin coconut oil and coconut oil, even in the picture loco linked. That's consistent with what I've heard myself, when people talk about coconut oil as healthy, they're talking about virgin. And people used to live significantly shorter lives than they do nowadays, that 'people survived' eating something isn't evidence of it being healthy, it merely proves that it's not highly toxic. 400 grams of 'carbs' being the problem also sounds meaningless to me. That can be white bread, sugar, rice, or sweet potato. Western diets don't suffer from people eating too much of the latter two. I think you misread it. It's the extra virgin olive oil that's in the "beneficial" category. Not the coconut oil. There is no evidence of benefit for any kind of coconut oil as of yet. In fact, there is a good amount of very recent evidence to the contrary. And like RiKD pointed out, it's still mostly empty calories at the end of the day. Even if we don't ever have a consensus clearly saying it's bad (virgin or not), from an opportunity cost perspective, it's certainly bad. Your "calorie bank" for the day is quite limited and you can have a lot more nutrition for that amount of calories.

naw, I didn't. The virgin coconut oil was in the middle inconclusive bracket, I saw that. I just meant that even your picture made a distinction between the two. I didn't want to comment on whether it actually is healthy or not, just that even your picture didn't claim that the virgin version was unhealthy. I mean, it's listed together with juiced fruits/vegetables without pulp removal. That's not bad.

Erling if you're actually gonna give me $500 to take the bus to city syd, I'll do that. But it honestly seems like a waste of money on your behalf.. I don't think people care all that much.

On October 10 2017 09:44 Baalim wrote: Also, obviously these people have an agenda, ultimate equality, they also wont acknowledge proven genetic differences between races, for example Eriador who isnt even hardcore left said on this forum not long ago that he wouldnt acknowledge blacks having a lower avg IQ understandibly so because its a tool easily used by bigots, but that should give you an idea of why these people dont care about research or truth, as long as it erases any difference between people, they will parade it as truth. Personally I dont give a shit, I couldnt care less if women like to be Nurses or want to be engineers, in fact I would like them to get more into stuff I like, sadly it simply doesnt happen.

I could acknowledge that black people have lower IQ. Just not that it's determined by genes. We know that IQ has been rising rapidly in western countries over the past generations (obviously tied together with better nourishment and education) - see the flynn effect. I think it's more plausible that the differences are explainable through social than biological differences - the former are most definitely present.

I mean of course it's possible that there actually is a slight difference from a genetic pov also, but none of the proof we have that black people have lower average iq is remotely close to concluding that this is caused by genetic differences.

As for your documentary, Harald Eia is a comedian, but a really, really smart guy and I respect him a lot. I think he himself would be a little dismayed to see what internet groups are preaching his words as gospel - he meant to challenge the notion that biology is completely irrelevant (which is a minority attitude even among hardcore social scientists), not necessarily to say that biology is the dominant explanatory factor.

VanDerMeyde,

Have you recently gotten a lipid panel taken?

That is a marker of truth. Just keep it for your own records. If they are elevated you can rationalize it away anyway you want or you can figure out a sustainable way to eat.

When I was on paleo I used to literally take shots of coconut oil. It was fun. I thought it was cool, healthy, clean living. The bottle of MCT oil listed all these great benefits. I was getting down to my fighting weight. I felt like a super hero. 3 shots down the hatch, a buttered coffee, and a plate of eggs and bacon. Maybe I would go on a 6 hour hike and not eat anything until later where I would have a small piece of chicken and some broccoli. Maybe I would go to jiu jitsu and put in a solid session. I was living the life of a bad ass like the Joe Rogans and the Tait Fletchers. It can be hard to get out of that mindset that steaks are actually unhealthy. You mean being a man is unhealthy? The hikes are great, the jiu jitsu is great but that whole program of eating like a man is shite. I remember in college it was also how much you could eat. I remember one day I felt so cool eating a pizza, a giant burger, and a pint of ice cream and I felt like a king. I mean I felt horribly full and possibly a bit sick but I felt like a king. It is the same with a juicy, fatty ribeye and broccoli drenched in evoo. I thought that was the pinnacle of health. It is better than fried chicken, heavily buttered mash potatoes, and about a gallon of sweet tea but it is not healthy regardless of what Joe Rogan or anyone else says.

On October 10 2017 09:39 Baalim wrote: Did you found those interesting? come on those criticism are idiotic, for example: Show nested quote + broad ontological, epistimological, methodological, and downright logical inconsistency of Evolutionary Psychology and other biological essentialist paradigms lol so evolutionary psychology is just bullshit, oh but social studies and its 64 genders now that is a serious science. Certainly that documentary is amateurish, I dont think it has any further goals than just to prove the insanity of left wing ideology in scandinavia, I dont think it pretends to be very scientific, its more like a "look at these crazy people". To oppose that positon implies that you believe that millions of years of evolution have made our bodies, like in most species, vastly different between genders, however, our brains are identical and we have no behavioral differences nor natural predespositions, I think you would require a shit load of evidence to just being to defend such an absurd-looking proposition.

It's not about evolutionary psychology being an illegitimate field. Hell, I've used arguments from evo psych in this thread when we discussed the "pleasure trap" and obesity. It's just that for this particular issue I'm not convinced. It appears to me that the effects of biology and hormones are mostly overstated and overblown in the media. People are jumping on inconclusive evidence because it suits their preconceived narrative. As far as I can tell from a fairly cursory glance at it all, the evidence is tenuous at best and I'm quite certain that people who say "we have definitive proof!" haven't even bothered looking at possible counter-evidence from established patterns of modeling in psychology and sociological effects.

The documentary isn't just amateurish in style. The substance isn't really there from what I've seen so far (which is admittedly not much, I can't be bothered with it all). As one of the links I posted (the one discussing SSSM) highlights, it presents a false dichotomy, which you've just reiterated. Most social scientists don't believe that gender behaviors are 100% socially constructed. It looks like they got a few people that they could easily mock, edited the clips in a particular way, and went on to get some well-known "charismatic" authors to destroy the straw man they built and make them look silly. The main problem as I see it at the moment is replicability which is lacking for a bunch of theoretical models. I'm cautious to advance a strong position until there's more research done. The biologist P. Z. Myers said it well here:

[It's not that] we shouldn’t study gender or racial differences. We know there are going to be differences. The catch is that they have to be studied very, very well, with rigor and careful analysis, because they are socially loaded and because science has a deeply deplorable history of using poor methods to reach bad conclusions that are used as ideological props for the status quo. I’m not putting up roadblocks against scientific research; I would like to put up roadblocks to sloppy, lazy ideological nonsense touted as scientific research. I should think every scientist would want that.

Another thing is that, if I was to take evolutionary psych interpretations of deterministic biological urges as gospel, then I couldn't even explain how I can be an antinatalist and how I know hundreds of them who don't have the (so-called) fundamental urge to procreate. Is it all an act of self-deception in an attempt to spread our genes? I've thought about it of course but it seems less and less plausible to me with time. Do you think that women who want children are mostly (or entirely) influenced by innate biological urges or by cultural imprinting and societal pressure?

On October 10 2017 10:07 Liquid`Drone wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2017 03:29 Loco wrote:   On October 10 2017 01:26 Liquid`Drone wrote: seems to be a divide between virgin coconut oil and coconut oil, even in the picture loco linked. That's consistent with what I've heard myself, when people talk about coconut oil as healthy, they're talking about virgin. And people used to live significantly shorter lives than they do nowadays, that 'people survived' eating something isn't evidence of it being healthy, it merely proves that it's not highly toxic. 400 grams of 'carbs' being the problem also sounds meaningless to me. That can be white bread, sugar, rice, or sweet potato. Western diets don't suffer from people eating too much of the latter two. I think you misread it. It's the extra virgin olive oil that's in the "beneficial" category. Not the coconut oil. There is no evidence of benefit for any kind of coconut oil as of yet. In fact, there is a good amount of very recent evidence to the contrary. And like RiKD pointed out, it's still mostly empty calories at the end of the day. Even if we don't ever have a consensus clearly saying it's bad (virgin or not), from an opportunity cost perspective, it's certainly bad. Your "calorie bank" for the day is quite limited and you can have a lot more nutrition for that amount of calories. naw, I didn't. The virgin coconut oil was in the middle inconclusive bracket, I saw that. I just meant that even your picture made a distinction between the two. I didn't want to comment on whether it actually is healthy or not, just that even your picture didn't claim that the virgin version was unhealthy. I mean, it's listed together with juiced fruits/vegetables without pulp removal. That's not bad.

You said that it's consistent with what people said, but it's not? You first stated that they say it's healthy. So unless you're extrapolating that extra virgin would go to the healthy category, you aren't being consistent. Anyway, I think they're including both virgin and extra virgin in that category.

My guess is that the reason the virgin coco is in the inconclusive category is because the research hasn't been done on it specifically. If they did the same studies on it, I doubt a little more vit E or whatever would counterbalance its damaging effects. The main reason why cardiologists say to avoid it is because of its fatty acid profile, which is the same regardless of processing: high in saturated fat and raises LDL much like saturated animal fat.

On October 10 2017 22:03 Loco wrote: Show nested quote + On October 10 2017 09:39 Baalim wrote: Did you found those interesting? come on those criticism are idiotic, for example:   broad ontological, epistimological, methodological, and downright logical inconsistency of Evolutionary Psychology and other biological essentialist paradigms lol so evolutionary psychology is just bullshit, oh but social studies and its 64 genders now that is a serious science. Certainly that documentary is amateurish, I dont think it has any further goals than just to prove the insanity of left wing ideology in scandinavia, I dont think it pretends to be very scientific, its more like a "look at these crazy people". To oppose that positon implies that you believe that millions of years of evolution have made our bodies, like in most species, vastly different between genders, however, our brains are identical and we have no behavioral differences nor natural predespositions, I think you would require a shit load of evidence to just being to defend such an absurd-looking proposition. It's not about evolutionary psychology being an illegitimate field. Hell, I've used arguments from evo psych in this thread when we discussed the "pleasure trap" and obesity. It's just that for this particular issue I'm not convinced. It appears to me that the effects of biology and hormones are mostly overstated and overblown in the media. People are jumping on inconclusive evidence because it suits their preconceived narrative. As far as I can tell from a fairly cursory glance at it all, the evidence is tenuous at best and I'm quite certain that people who say "we have definitive proof!" haven't even bothered looking at possible counter-evidence from established patterns of modeling in psychology and sociological effects. The documentary isn't just amateurish in style. The substance isn't really there from what I've seen so far (which is admittedly not much, I can't be bothered with it all). As one of the links I posted (the one discussing SSSM) highlights, it presents a false dichotomy, which you've just reiterated. Most social scientists don't believe that gender behaviors are 100% socially constructed. It looks like they got a few people that they could easily mock, edited the clips in a particular way, and went on to get some well-known "charismatic" authors to destroy the straw man they built and make them look silly. The main problem as I see it at the moment is replicability which is lacking for a bunch of theoretical models. I'm cautious to advance a strong position until there's more research done. The biologist P. Z. Myers said it well here:   [It's not that] we shouldn’t study gender or racial differences. We know there are going to be differences. The catch is that they have to be studied very, very well, with rigor and careful analysis, because they are socially loaded and because science has a deeply deplorable history of using poor methods to reach bad conclusions that are used as ideological props for the status quo. I’m not putting up roadblocks against scientific research; I would like to put up roadblocks to sloppy, lazy ideological nonsense touted as scientific research. I should think every scientist would want that. Another thing is that, if I was to take evolutionary psych interpretations of deterministic biological urges as gospel, then I couldn't even explain how I can be an antinatalist and how I know hundreds of them who don't have the (so-called) fundamental urge to procreate. Is it all an act of self-deception in an attempt to spread our genes? I've thought about it of course but it seems less and less plausible to me with time. Do you think that women who want children are mostly (or entirely) influenced by innate biological urges or by cultural imprinting and societal pressure?

And what evidence do you base your conclusions that the natural tendencies are overstated? expalin then the inverse correlation between a country's progressiveness and the choice of traditional roles, (Sweden having a more traditional distribution of laber than 3rd world countries).


You are vegan, yet you admitly acknowledge fighting a natural urge to consume animal products, I am also an anti-natalist and yeah I think most people have a strong natural urge to procreate, its fucking evolution 101, the genes of people with little desire to procreate have less odds to propagate.

I've never admitted fighting a "natural urge" to consume animal products. It's a lot more nuanced than that. First of all, the urge to eat those foods is not "natural", because we live in an unnatural world and none of those foods are actually natural. It took me over 21 years before I actually ate something resembling a natural animal product (grass-fed Bison and Highland). My taste for animal products was acquired mostly through culture. I had pet rabbits when I was a kid and I never salivated at their sight. My culture taught me that some animals were good to eat and others weren't, not based on some logic but purely prejudice carried through tradition. Once I saw through that and learned I could eat differently, there was no urge to fight.

When it comes to cheese, the only animal product I can say that I've been addicted to, it's also clearly not a natural food. You take the milk from another species, which we never did until very recently in our evolution. This milk has a protein in it which serves the purpose of encouraging mother-child bonding. When you make cheese you take that protein and you concentrate it, then when it's broken down by your body it transforms it into casomorphine, an opioid peptide. So, you get a mild drug-like effect from this stuff. Makes sense for the calf for whom the milk was designed for, who absolutely needs it to survive, not so much for the human being who is in an environment of abundance and who doesn't need it. You combine that with the high sodium that's in it (because cheese is disgusting without it) and you get a supernormal stimuli that will have you come back for more. Most people on the planet are lactose intolerant ffs, how natural can it be?

And what evidence do you base your conclusions that the natural tendencies are overstated? expalin then the inverse correlation between a country's progressiveness and the choice of traditional roles, (Sweden having a more traditional distribution of laber than 3rd world countries).

Like I said, this is not a topic I'm terribly knowledgeable about, so I have no problem deferring to the experts in those fields. I can only go off of the evidence presented in the clip you showed and say my conclusion is based on the weakness of that evidence. Why do you think this is evidence of causation in the first place? As far as I can see, you're assuming that the fairer a society is, the more standard gender roles will see themselves played out, and you're seeing what you want to see by saying that this happens through biology. But you're missing the obvious... the more equal a country is when it comes to jobs, pay and law doesn't tell us anything about equality with relation to how the genders are treated on a social level. There's obviously a ton of strong data on how society influences identity/motivation/behavior and there's no reason to believe that it's not largely why gender roles exist as they do now. And if there's counter-evidence to that it's definitely not based on that inverse relationship in Norway or Lippa's self selected study of well-off people on the internet. It's not enough for studies to show a difference if they want to claim it's biological, they need to show how this difference is innate.

most people have a strong natural urge to procreate, its fucking evolution 101, the genes of people with little desire to procreate have less odds to propagate.

I don't think that's evolution 101. There's no reason why a desire to procreate would have been selected for, since the drive for sex is entirely necessary to perpetuate a species until you introduce contraceptives.

Oh wow you are vegan Loco? Me too.

cool beans