Why are sociologists against any kind of evolutionary explanation for things? We get to use evolution to explain animal behaviours. But not humans. Why is everything due to social conditioning according to them?
At what point did we stop being animals, cease being influenced by our evolutionary past, and become blank canvasses for 'social conditioning' to paint all of our biases and gender roles on to?
>>24929565
>being influenced by our evolutionary past
We're influenced by our environment and available information, hence the reason you're able to use 4chan in your pajamas.
>>24929577
Welp... It's impossible to argue with logic like that.
Literally impossible.
>>24929705
I'm not trying to assume you're stupid, but let me clarify.
4chan in your pajamas was a reference to Humanitys technological advancements.
>>24929762
Why would technological advancements make all influence of our evolutionary past go away?
>>24929565
Well it's difficult to separate the evolutionary influences from the sociological influences when you're looking at a particular behavior. It's not clear it always collapses to one or the other, it may well be a mix both and it can be quite difficult to tell.
There's also the good old naturalistic fallacy at work here, I think. Sociologists sometimes think that saying some behavior is "natural" means it's moral.
>>24929903
>Why would technological advancements
Yeah I knew you weren't that bright, fuck.
I really don't feel like thinking much and explaining it to you because im a bad writer. So look.
> Why is everything due to social conditioning according to them
I say, We're influenced by our environment and available information
I also say 4chan in your pajams, but because the essence of humanity is survival and adaptation. You can't go from cave man to stevejobs in one lifetime. A generation, discovers something, the next improves on it, etc. Each generation is raised using that new information, which changes the way they think about the world compared to their ancestors.
>>24929968
And we can accomplish this because the human child's mind is very fluid and avid to learning.
>>24929565
They're obviously wrong but I understand them
>>24929565
>Why are sociologists against any kind of evolutionary explanation for things?
because facts like racial predisposition don't fit their narrative
>>24929565
that smirk on his face lol
>>24929993
>inb4 its a screw
part of the joke
>>24929968
>I can't explain any of my ideas and it's because you're stupid!
>>24930027
>I can't explain any of my ideas
But I've explained them...
>>24930017
Are you explaining it to yourself?
>>24929968
>A generation, discovers something, the next improves on it, etc. Each generation is raised using that new information, which changes the way they think about the world compared to their ancestors.
You're talking about science and technology. I'm talking about evolutionary baggage and how our minds actually work.
For example we evolved to crave fatty, salty and sweet foods which was a benefit to us 100,000 years ago when those things were rare, but today when those things are abundant we eat too much and become obese. A mechanism that has been bred into us and which made sense in the past, doesn't work very well in our current environment.
I think that gender roles exist because our brains are wired by evolution to preference those kinds of roles for various reasons. But sociologists consider these to be a result of social conditioning and dismiss evolutionary explanations for things altogether. I contend that this is dumb.
>>24930080
>You're talking about science and technology
Again, I am not. I really dont understand how you dont get it.
I'm talking about information. Information doesnt only pertain to science and technology.
Im done, tldr
Social conditioning is a real factor in a person's development, it's just that we don't really have the science to fully connect the dots. Watch some videos on epigenetics as it relates to child abuse, for example.
At the risk of incriminating myself, I can tell you that's fucking bullshit. My fellow SOC grad students may be a little far out, but nothing like what you've just said. Shit, even in 101 they aren't saying what you think they're saying.
>why does x profession see that x profession is necessary everywhere they go
>>24930080
>we evolved to crave
We evolved to live. The food we desire is a direct by product of our metabolism. The proteins produced by our dna, bacteria in our gut, your work output.
>A mechanism that has been bred into us and which made sense in the past, doesn't work very well in our current environment.
Yes it does.
>I think that gender roles exist because our brains are wired by evolution to preference those kinds of roles for various reasons.
They exist because no one wants the weak to lead. You could say this is evolutionary. Although I wouldn't want a woman leader, to say that there are no strong women worthy of being a leader exist, is a a byproduct of social conditioning. A survival BEHAVIOUR passed down, not through dna, but through learned words and actions.
>>24930095
>evolution stops having an effect on people because information exists.
Thanks, having clearly explained your position you can now be safely ignored as an idiot.
>>24930199
>to say that there are no strong women worthy of being a leader exist, is a a byproduct of our evolution. A survival INSTINCT passed down through dna, not learned through words and actions.
Hmm... it would seem that this argument is just as valid as yours.
I can understand why from an evolutonary standpoint it makes sense for women to not be leaders. Leading is risky.
Women seem to be completely averse to taking any kind of risk. I can understand this, because historically the consequnces of taking a risk could be fatal. Any tribe that lets their women take risks is not going to be a tribe for very long, because gambling on the lives of the only people in your tribe who can make babies just doesn't seem like a sustainable, self-selecting strategy. Men take risks of all kinds, because they're expendable. If a man fucks up in a leadership role, or any other risky endeavour, he can be thrown under the bus without fucking up the tribe's long-term survival. It's not unreasonable to see how this kind of trait could end up being genetically bred in to our psychological make-up... But I can't see how this would persist for so long as a meme of information.
>>24930136
Who are you even responding to?
Mankind is in a constant struggle to distant titself from it's animal self. It's pretty stupid to think that several millions years of evolution can just be brushed away in a few thousand years of 'civilization'.
The problem is we have created a society whereby we must fulfill certain roles and it is assumed we must all act in a certain manner and perform certain duties in order to live as a human 'being'. It's also why we have certain elements of society for which there is no place such as pedophiles. People often rage against such individuals as being 'animals' because their sexual drive does not conform to 'normal' behavior and/or social values. And yet it exists as just another one of those oddities that comes out of the gene pool. Go back a few thousand years and it may have been frowned upon, but in some societies it was even encouraged to a degree (Greek boy initiations for example).
'Progress' requires that we bury the 'anti-social' elements of our inherited animal instincts. But even though you can exercise self control over your those elements, you can't totally ignore what makes you tick. Because those are encoded into us and take much longer to change.
>>24930461
>distance itself
Fixed.
>>24930461
Dude if we want to survive as a species, we need to "distance" ourselves. For the sake of fucking progress.
You neets are so fucking annoying.
>I'm going to die soon and life is fine for me anyway, so fuck the rest of the humans that come after me
>>24929565
>Why are sociologists against any kind of evolutionary explanation for things?
They're not.
Next.
>>24929565
Modern sociologists are so heavily infiltrated by leftist politics that they're literally forbidden from doing any research that contradicts them. You'll be fired from your job and exiled from the community if you dare suggest that any group of people evolved separately because then you're bringing up the possibility that one group may be superior to another. And according to the leftist establishment, doing that means that you have created another holocaust.
Here's what happens if you contradict the brainwashing that goes on in our "higher" education:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/11261872/James-Watson-selling-Nobel-prize-because-no-one-wants-to-admit-I-exist.html
"evolution" doesn't happen overnight. Things around us are different for everyone and change a lot so of course we are more influenced by those.
>>24930524
Our potential to manipulate our environment has made this an issue. 'Progress' is a human concept we have created as an excuse to assure ourselves we are doing what is 'right' for ourselves and our future offspring. Our capacity to think further than our dicks and the next meal means we have invented these concepts as a means to keep those same animal instincts in check. But it does not invalidate them.
>>24929565
dude looks like the matt martin n.17
>>24930524
>Dude if we want to survive as a species, we need to "distance" ourselves. For the sake of fucking progress.
This seems to betray some erroneous teleological idea you have about biology, evolution, and development. There is no direction, no progress, no more or less advanced in the adaptation of species. There are just evolution pressures and survival. We're not more advanced than our predecessors for having survived, nor are we less advanced nor is there any kind of goal to progress toward in our evolution.
>>24929565
Because of the nurture vs. nature argument.
Humans are self aware and you can't prove that we're unable to defy nature. For example we're able to commit suicide but animals are not.
The reason sociobiology is practically dead nowadays is because they couldn't proof shit. There was an article I read recently about hating refugees and they interviewed some biologists who based they whole argument around "we hate immigrants nowadays because cavemen hated men from other caves". The problem is that they have literally zero scientific proof that cavemen hated other cavemen. They just assume based on the theory "if it's there now it must have evolved from back then." That's not scientific.
>>24930799
Progress is slow
>>24930885
You can't prove anything either. But you can conform to a liberal PC agenda. So that's okay.
I'm sure some element of social influence exists. Its stupid to blame everything on evolution, but its equally stupid to entirely ignore any possible effect that it may have, especially considering that our brains are products of evolution.
>>24931208
>>24930080
>But sociologists consider these to be a result of social conditioning and dismiss evolutionary explanations for things altogether.
Yes to the first part, no to the second. The problem is that most "evolutionary explanations" are nothing but unproven theories and fallacies or they can't be proven at all because they're based on unfalsifiable ideas.
Sociology accepts scientific proof, but as long as there is no proof for a biological theory then sociology will pursue their own theories.
Most reputable sociologists and anthropologists I know don't deny the role of biological programming and evolution at all, they just don't see it as the ultimate answer you can use to explain things away.
That all of the social sciences are haunted by humanities and the postmodern cancer, that makes any kind of worthwhile scientific progress impossible, is another story.
>>24929565
>believing in spontaneous generation
Have fun being a kek, loser.
>>24929565
you want to hear an explanation why humanities/sociology is so shit today?
stop listening to the american universities and start reading what continental european ones write and teach
it's like day and fucking night
>>24930524
If the neet isn't reproducing he has no incentive to ensure the success of future humans, as they're not his descendents. You can say that's not just but the neet holds no obligations.
>>24929565
ultimately because it points to the existence of objective truth, outside of social constructs
>18. Modern leftish philosophers tend to dismiss reason, science, objective reality and to insist that everything is culturally relative. It is true that one can ask serious questions about the foundations of scientific knowledge and about how, if at all, the concept of objective reality can be defined. But it is obvious that modern leftish philosophers are not simply cool-headed logicians systematically analyzing the foundations of knowledge. They are deeply involved emotionally in their attack on truth and reality. They attack these concepts because of their own psychological needs. For one thing, their attack is an outlet for hostility, and, to the extent that it is successful, it satisfies the drive for power. More importantly, the leftist hates science and rationality because they classify certain beliefs as true (i.e., successful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e., failed, inferior). The leftist's feelings of inferiority run so deep that he cannot tolerate any classification of some things as successful or superior and other things as failed or inferior. This also underlies the rejection by many leftists of the concept of mental illness and of the utility of IQ tests. Leftists are antagonistic to genetic explanations of human abilities or behavior because such explanations tend to make some persons appear superior or inferior to others. Leftists prefer to give society the credit or blame for an individual's ability or lack of it. Thus if a person is "inferior" it is not his fault, but society's, because he has not been brought up properly.
>>24931356
>The problem is that most "evolutionary explanations" are nothing but unproven theories and fallacies or they can't be proven at all because they're based on unfalsifiable ideas.
...............so they're exactly like sociology/psychology/psychiatry?
The field of psychology, at least, has tons of evolutionary theories
Daily reminder that there is no free will and we are all the products of our genetics and environmental influences.
>>24930626
>Mr Watson, who shared the 1962 Nobel Prize for uncovering the double helix structure of DNA, sparked an outcry in 2007 when he suggested that people of African descent were inherently less intelligent than white people.
>inherently
>ignoring potential confounding factors like poverty, nutrition, upbringing, etc.
he's just a typical racist old fart (albeit a very smart one, or at least he was back in the 60's, who knows what the ravages of time have done to his mind since then) who wants money to buy a painting, he's not starving or forced to live in a cave or some shit.
>>24933179
But that's what the data show. Even controlling for socioeconomic status.
As a scientist, it's his job to report the numbers as they come in.
>>24933431
socioeconomic status is not the only potentially confounding factor
>>24932955
Crazy asshole had a great manifesto.
>>24933448
Even when controlling for nutrition and socioeconomic status, strong biases in IQ scores remain. Barring trauma or extreme malnutrition during development, intelligence is strongly determined by genetics.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/
and heritable
http://www.nature.com/mp/journal/v16/n10/full/mp201185a.html
>>24929565
>Why are sociologists against any kind of evolutionary explanation for things?
1. More than 50 years of government sponsored brainwashing.
2. The government controls Academia and research thru funding and not funding.
3. Socialism is about always increasing the power of politicians, so the politicians use academia and research to increase their own power.
>>24933843
>Even when controlling for nutrition and socioeconomic status, strong biases in IQ scores remain. Barring trauma or extreme malnutrition during development, intelligence is strongly determined by genetics.
What is "intelligence", really?
>>24929968
You're missing his point. He's saying it's possible that different ethnicities, who do, as a matter of fact, have variation in there genes and physical/anatomical makeups, could be relatively more or less intelligent than one another, like different breeds of dogs. I.E., why do we accept that the Dalmatian, being a dog, is less intelligent than a border collie, another dog, but reject that there's any possibility that the Asian man is inherently more clever than the aborigine?
>>24934051
>moving the goalposts
>>24930626
original post to bee h
Sociologists also hate psychology. I took both courses and each textbook was passive agressive to one another.
>>24934051
If you move any further back you're going to hit full relativism.
>>24929955
>Sociologists sometimes think that saying some behavior is "natural" means it's moral
No anon, "they" don't. This is actually an everyday bias passing through in what otherwise might be a sociological conversation/whatever. In other words, when someone mixes whatever he/she means by the term "natural" with the term "moral", she/he doesn't speak from a scientific standpoint but an everyday biased standpoint (maybe even unbeknownst to him/her). For sociology there is nothing "natural".
>>24929565
>Why are sociologists against any kind of evolutionary explanation for things?
They are not. unless you mean some sociologist you might have once meet, that said something like that and you grossly generalized from there.
>>24934897
>Sociologists also hate psychology
I'm a sociologist. I don't "hate psychology". Actually I find it helpful, yet extremely difficult to incorporate in my research.
>>24929565
The picture you posted makes me laugh.
>The judge's look of mockery. "You seriously just lost to a girl."
Too funny.
>>24930626
You know, James Watson's study is one among many that say otherwise.
After all, he did get the nobel prize for his studies regarding DNA structure. This does not mean his infallible.
Anyway, if you follow/study his research on intelligence, it is not difficult to see that his sampling was biased.
