Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcher who wrote (174482)	7/9/2021 6:02:35 PM
From: sense	Respond to of 217800

Anecdotally... I've met and become familiar with only one person who was well along in the process of converting... from male to female... and personally know of one other instance... the daughter of a woman who I knew quite well, years ago... In the first instance, he was significantly physically abused by his mother... who hated men... from a young age... and it is very obvious that his circumstance today has less to do with biological imperatives than it does with the abnormal psychology of the victims of abuse... In the second, sort of the same thing... the mother was abused, herself, as a child... is not well adjusted, is very selfish, and is very likely to be "encouraging" if not "imposing" choices on her child... as an element in being "cutting edge" in her own corrupt perception of "social good"... so, basically, an issue in the Hollywood Mom syndrome... making the kids into what they want them to be... again, from an very early age... The model of the spread of the social dysfunction... is probably not attached only to the one instance... but could likely be found associated with other elements of the current "social change agenda" on the left... from the push behind critical race theory... the BLM and Antifa derangements... The origin in the academy is easy to trace... as errors in the logic imposed by and through the social sciences... as revealed in the nature of its conflicts with science as it is done by sociobiologists... The logic in play here plugs directly into that idea that I noted in a chat with TJ recently... re ideas having a VARIABLE place on a line that is a continuum between reductionism and holism... with it being the role of the observer to place himself on that line properly... to be able to properly observe what is necessary to observe in forming better ideas about "what is"... What you think is true... is in part determined by "how you see things"... and how you see things depends in part on where on that line you have decided to park yourself while observing... and the, the lens that you see things through, always including filters in your own limited understanding of things. What you observe depends on where you're observing from, and what filters or other limits you apply in what you're observing... but that limiting your view... is always necessarily limiting your perception of reality... not clarifying reality for you. That clarification, in science, comes from patience and persistence in repeated observation, and from talking about and testing the ideas so derived until they are validated, or fail... all of which might take a long time... but none of which can happen if you choose to limit the debate... The end of free speech... is the end of science... and the end of medicine... as all ideas of "what is" are replaced with what the idiot Mark Zuckerberg thinks... instead of considering Albert Einsteins views... Some criticisms of sociobiology appear valid, at first... like this one... It's Sociobiology, Hon! Genetic gender determinism in Cosmopolitan magazine And, its easy to see why they appear valid... because the magazine's view clearly is motivated by sales of magazines and sales of the products of their advertisers (from whom Mark Zuckerberg also makes all his money ?) But, criticism of the magazine's uses or abuses of others ideas... which might well be worthy of that criticism... are not a proper substitute for critical analysis of the legitimacy of the observations made by scientists, or the derivation of ideas from those observations.. That shows up pretty clearly in the brass tacks used to upholster the structural confusion here... CHALLENGING SOCIOBIOLOGISTS' VIEWS OF GENDER The bottom line... is that "real" science doesn't have an opinion... its purpose is to narrowly observe... and from the observations determine "what is". As that resulting determination might well be wrong... as science only works by NARROWING ones perspectives to view things through the intellectual equivalent of a soda straw... the ideas developed about "what is"... have to be tested and validated... all of which, taken together, is the scientific process. And when you do anything else... like declare "what ought to be" instead of "what is"... that's not science, anymore, but a value judgement. Where Dupre goes so obviously wrong is in arguing that since determinism and reductionism might lead to errors in observation, or in our analysis of observations (which is not wrong)... that means we must abandon science and its method altogether... and replace out interest in studying to learn "what is"... with our opinions of "what ought to be"... "Dupre believes that "in domains where human decisions are a primary causal factor, normative discussions of what ought to be must be given priority over claims about what nature has decreed." However, he offers no rational justification for that radical step... to quit doing science... and to instead call his preferences for how things should be "the result of science"... including that he offers no reason why that should apply uniquely to human decisions, and not the decisions of other creatures. So, when you go to the zoo... and see that the monkey is flinging poo at people... If you ask, "why does he do that"... you might be a scientist... But, if you instead determine "he shouldn't do that"... you're likely a lowly and overly opinionated sociologist... or just another Karen.