RE: Young Men and Mass Violence

RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

tweakabelle -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 6:38:31 PM)
quote: [...] do I understand correctly your model [I use the term only for convenience, understanding it implies fixed dimensions] of violent or aberrant behaviour has no allowance for the chemistry difference in males but is attributed solely to learned and modeled behaviours from their culture? Please clarify that for me Vincent, your question seems to me to interested in identifying the determining factors are in a given behaviour. I don't believe that any human behaviour is wholly determined. It seems all human behaviour is mediated through the brain mostly consciously, often sub-consciously. This implies an element of choice, which can range from the minute to total prevarication depending on the individual the context and the choice. One area that is constantly overlooked in studies of chemical differences and their alleged effects on human behaviour is that we do 'know' that certain behaviours and/or external influences stimulate chemical (eg. hormone) production. For instance, some behaviours and/or external influences stimulate the production of sex hormones, other behaviours and/or external influences inhibit the production of those hormones. Do you find it puzzling that, even though we know the opposite to be valid, the assertion continually advanced is the unproven and possibly unprovable claim that hormones determine behaviour?

tweakabelle -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 7:03:28 PM)
quote: The fact of the matter, of course, is that there is indeed an "essence-given-in-Nature" both with regard to human beings in general and also with regard to male and female human beings. Male and female brains are unlike in size, structure, and wiring. These are not differences without consequences. Deeper than this, our sense of fairness has been described as "innate." From earliest infancy we react negatively to being treated unfairly. And as our frontal lobes mature, mirror neurons develop which endow us with empathy, rendering us naturally compassionate toward those with whom we empathize. The claim, presented above as fact, that infants have an "innate" sense of fairness has been advanced several times, with cites. I recall one of the cites was based on the researchers' interpretations of the infants staring at a phenomenon said to be manifestly unfair. It was held that the infants' reactions were because their sense of fairness had been offended (!). Upon reading the research, my reaction was it was a remarkably flimsy foundation upon which to hang such a big claim. I note that you are claiming the authority to determine and pronounce what the "fact of the matter" might be. And also the authority to determine that differences have consequences, and to specify those consequences. The research you refer to 'support' your claims doesn't enable or entitle any one to label their interpretations of that research as a "fact". Everything in the quote above is your opinion. And each of those opinions is eminently open to challenge, should any one be bothered.

Kirata -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 7:08:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: The fact of the matter, of course, is that there is indeed an "essence-given-in-Nature" both with regard to human beings in general and also with regard to male and female human beings. Male and female brains are unlike in size, structure, and wiring. These are not differences without consequences. Deeper than this, our sense of fairness has been described as "innate." From earliest infancy we react negatively to being treated unfairly. And as our frontal lobes mature, mirror neurons develop which endow us with empathy, rendering us naturally compassionate toward those with whom we empathize. Everything in the quote above is your opinion. And each of those opinions is eminently open to challenge, should any one be bothered. Either take the bother, or give it up. K.

njlauren -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 7:09:56 PM)
One thing to keep in mind is this is changing, violence used to be the domain of young men, and part of it may well be that culturally women were brought up to be non agressive, to not get off into the kind of things boys did. One of the things that is changing is that young women are getting progressively more violent, though it doesn't usually make the news, stats on killing and assault by young women is growing, and it may reflect women's changing roles in society. Go overseas and female suicide bombers, even in the conservative muslim world, are increasingly a reality. I think it is a lot more likely with young men, even today, in part because young men's worlds are still very much centered around aggression, dominance and the like, and I think that plays out when they go bad, and they last out in anger and rage. And yes, some of it is hormonal, I can guarantee you that, from personal experience reactions to things happening are very, very different when wired on T then on Estrogen, you cound't count out physiology, either.

tweakabelle -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 7:17:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: The fact of the matter, of course, is that ............ Everything in the quote above is your opinion. And each of those opinions is eminently open to challenge, should any one be bothered. Either take the bother, or give it up. K. [/I] I already have - or did it miss your notice? To wit: "The research you refer to 'support' your claims doesn't enable or entitle any one to label their interpretations of that research as a "fact". " As you know, or should know, no scientific research supports findings of "fact".

Kirata -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 7:54:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle As you know, or should know, no scientific research supports findings of "fact". So you admit there is scientific research that supports the facts as we know them today, and offer none to support your contrary view. Alright. Not a strong position, but alright. This is a matter of faith for you then? A doctrine? K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 8:04:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata mo quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle As you know, or should know, no scientific research supports findings of "fact". So you admit there is scientific research that supports the facts as we know them today, and offer none with which to counter it. Not a strong position, but alright. I see. It's a matter of faith, then. I thought so. K. I am pointing out that the matters you claim to be "facts" are far more accurately described as your opinions. You are of course entitled to hold any opinion you like. But you aren't entitled to claim your opinions to be facts or to use scientific research to support such claims. As you seem to have conceded that my point is valid, I'm glad we agree. So I probably shouldn't remind you of your recent statement (earlier in this thread?) that 'opinions are like assholes, everyone has one'.

Aswad -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 8:26:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: njlauren And yes, some of it is hormonal, I can guarantee you that, from personal experience reactions to things happening are very, very different when wired on T then on Estrogen, you cound't count out physiology, either. Interesting... I have a lot less anger and a lot more patience now that I'm on testosterone therapy. You sure it isn't a matter of there being a sweet spot for each individual, above and below which different factors get thrown out of whack? IWYW, — Aswad.

Kirata -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 8:26:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle I am pointing out that the matters you claim to be "facts" are far more accurately described as your opinions. You are of course entitled to hold any opinion you like. But you aren't entitled to claim your opinions to be facts or to use scientific research to support such claims. They remain the facts as we know them today, as is the case with all scientific facts, and you are welcome to ignore them. But I have an idea. I'll continue to use scientific research to back up my claims, you continue to make claims without any, and we'll see how that works out. Okay? K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 9:18:23 PM)
Despite your grandiose claims, they remain your opinions, and most likely, that's all they'll ever be.

Rule -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 11:42:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Do you find it puzzling that, even though we know the opposite to be valid, the assertion continually advanced is the unproven and possibly unprovable claim that hormones determine behaviour? Clearly, seeing that the brains of males and females are identical, as is easily confirmed by the fact that males can learn to knit and to put down the seat of the toilet, it may be considered proven that hormones have no effect whatsoever on the development of the brain and consequently have no effect on behaviour. [8D]

Rule -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 11:52:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: The fact of the matter, of course, is that there is indeed an "essence-given-in-Nature" both with regard to human beings in general and also with regard to male and female human beings. Male and female brains are unlike in size, structure, and wiring. These are not differences without consequences. Deeper than this, our sense of fairness has been described as "innate." From earliest infancy we react negatively to being treated unfairly. And as our frontal lobes mature, mirror neurons develop which endow us with empathy, rendering us naturally compassionate toward those with whom we empathize. The claim, presented above as fact, that infants have an "innate" sense of fairness has been advanced several times, with cites. I recall one of the cites was based on the researchers' interpretations of the infants staring at a phenomenon said to be manifestly unfair. It was held that the infants' reactions were because their sense of fairness had been offended (!). Upon reading the research, my reaction was it was a remarkably flimsy foundation upon which to hang such a big claim. I note that you are claiming the authority to determine and pronounce what the "fact of the matter" might be. And also the authority to determine that differences have consequences, and to specify those consequences. The research you refer to 'support' your claims doesn't enable or entitle any one to label their interpretations of that research as a "fact". Everything in the quote above is your opinion. And each of those opinions is eminently open to challenge, should any one be bothered. I have to agree with tweakabelle. There are various kinds of psychology: 'normal' people, psychopaths, narcissists and supposedly more than three dozen others. Just limiting ourselves to the first three 'categories', clearly these three will have a very different sense of fairness, if they have any at all. Whether or not someone is born with a sense of fairness, and to what degree, is determined by his alleles and whether or not they are activated. Those who are born without a sense of fairness will have to acquire an external substitute, such as a religious code, or the law, or a philosophical code, or a warrior code.

Rule -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/4/2013 11:58:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle no scientific research supports findings of "fact". This to me is an incomprehensible statement, as - in my experience - a large part of science is the aim to establish facts. Please elucidate your statement.

Kirata -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/5/2013 12:18:42 AM)
Citing exceptions does not disprove a general truth. Were there no general case, we could not identify anyone as an exception to it in the first place. Psychopathy and pathological narcissism would just be other ways of being normal. Life meets Alice in Wonderland. K.

tweakabelle -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/5/2013 12:27:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle no scientific research supports findings of "fact". This to me is an incomprehensible statement, as - in my experience - a large part of science is the aim to establish facts. Please elucidate your statement. Scientific research produces working hypotheses, not facts. These working hypotheses are maintained until someone comes along and.produces a better one. At no stage in the process is a fact established, produced or identified. As it can be shown that for any given phenomenon, there are potentially infinite number of correct explanations, insisting that one working hypothesis is correct and all others incorrect is profoundly unscientific. Strictly speaking, science has never produced a fact in its history and never will. It is structurally unable to do so. This is not a criticism of science or the scientific method. Properly used, it is far and away the most successful research method available. It is more a recognition of the way things are, a statement of the limits of science and the scientific method.

Aswad -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/5/2013 12:32:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Psychopathy and pathological narcissism would just be other ways of being normal. Seems plausible, though I've rarely met people with those traits and the forcefulness I meantioned when the topic was violence and warrior codes. IWYW, — Aswad.

Rule -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/5/2013 12:37:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Citing exceptions does not disprove a general truth. Were there no general case, we could not identify anyone as an exception to it in the first place. Psychopathy and pathological narcissism would just be other ways of being normal. Ah. So, in summary, you now agree that there is a general case, and that there are exceptions to this general case. So that leaves Tweakabelle who asserts that there is no general case whatsoever and that there are only exceptions. Frankly, I doubt that anyone can ever make her understand that there are such general categories as narcist, psychopath and not-narcist-and-not-psychopath-but-something-else.

Kirata -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/5/2013 12:39:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Properly used, it is far and away the most successful research method available. Apparently "properly used" means not used to challenge church doctrine. Why does that argument sound familiar? K.

Rule -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/5/2013 12:40:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Scientific research produces working hypotheses, not facts. [sm=rofl.gif] Someone please hand me a tissue to wipe the tears from my eyes.

Rule -> RE: Young Men and Mass Violence (5/5/2013 12:54:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle no scientific research supports findings of "fact". This to me is an incomprehensible statement, as - in my experience - a large part of science is the aim to establish facts. Please elucidate your statement. Scientific research produces working hypotheses, not facts. These working hypotheses are maintained until someone comes along and.produces a better one. At no stage in the process is a fact established, produced or identified. As it can be shown that for any given phenomenon, there are potentially infinite number of correct explanations, insisting that one working hypothesis is correct and all others incorrect is profoundly unscientific. Strictly speaking, science has never produced a fact in its history and never will. It is structurally unable to do so. This is not a criticism of science or the scientific method. Properly used, it is far and away the most successful research method available. It is more a recognition of the way things are, a statement of the limits of science and the scientific method. Hm, I see where you go wrong: you are screwed up linguistically. You clearly are unaware that a phenomenon is characterized by facts - that is the reason we can investigate a phenomenon and talk about it - like the phenomenon that the living human body in rest has an average internal temperature that is constant in most humans, measured - a fact - at 37,5 degrees Celsius. Another phenomenon is for example the Moon and the facts established by scientific investigation about the Moon such as its mass, its diameter, its albedo, and the frequency distribution of the sizes of its craters. Also you seem convinced that any interpretation is a fact. Well, you are wrong. An interpretation is a hypothesis, not a fact. Anyone who fails this disastrously at semantics and the philosophy of science is not qualified to discuss science.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875