/sci/ - Science & Math » Thread #12929095

141KiB, 850x573, polityczna ideologia dwoch malp systemising empathising.png

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO

Anonymous Mon 05 Apr 11:00:18 2021 No.12929095 View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>12929676 >>12930459 >>12930509 >>12933559 >>12934261 >>12934368

was sociobiology abandoned because it was politically incorrect? will evolutionary psychology and behavioural ecology be abandoned too?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Apr 2021 14:14:38 No.12929641 Report

Quoted By:

Abandoned is the wrong term. But good luck getting funding or a respected journal accepting your work lol.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Apr 2021 14:26:12 No.12929676 Report

Quoted By:

>>12929095
I wouldn't mourn them if they were.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO 837f8cf1fe7ef5a54a690a1e8c5b797a.png, 56KiB, 645x729

Anonymous Mon 05 Apr 2021 14:35:57 No.12929720 Report

Quoted By: >>12930113

>killer ape hypothesis

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Apr 2021 16:19:48 No.12930113 Report

Quoted By: >>12934553

>>12929720
excuse me?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Apr 2021 17:52:53 No.12930459 Report

Quoted By: >>12930471 >>12930960

>>12929095
The actual spectrum is induction - systemizing, who are completely incapable of empathizing with each other.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Apr 2021 17:58:37 No.12930471 Report

Quoted By: >>12930499 >>12930508

>>12930459
chimps don't empathize?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Apr 2021 18:05:30 No.12930499 Report

Quoted By: >>12934238 >>12936182

>>12930471
No, both empathize. But it's impossible for an inductive thinker to empathize with a systemizer. I don't know how it relates to chimps, I only know it from people.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Apr 2021 18:08:02 No.12930508 Report

Quoted By:

>>12930471
Basically an indictive thinker came up with it, and decided the cost of systemizing is the lack of empathy, but systemizers have no dificulty empatjizing with other systemizers - the real problem is that the thinking of inductive thinkers seems bizarre, so you have no idea what to empathize with.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Apr 2021 18:08:05 No.12930509 Report

Quoted By: >>12930556

>>12929095
humans have all those qualities

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Apr 2021 18:22:54 No.12930556 Report

Quoted By: >>12934411

>>12930509
ok so what?

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Apr 2021 20:08:57 No.12930960 Report

Quoted By: >>12933406

>>12930459
prove

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 06:38:41 No.12933406 Report

Quoted By:

>>12930960
Prove what?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 07:31:33 No.12933559 Report

Quoted By: >>12933868

>>12929095
Because it''s literal guess work. You can make bullshit up and it's basically a shitshow because you can say anything is the reason why we evolved so and so.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 09:18:48 No.12933868 Report

Quoted By: >>12935440

>>12933559
the hypotheses are tested

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 12:11:50 No.12934238 Report

Quoted By: >>12934303 >>12934400

>>12930499
how do i know if im an inductive thinker or a systemizer?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 12:19:13 No.12934261 Report

Quoted By:

>>12929095
It wasn't? It's mostly social constructivism which has largely been abandoned (outside of non-scientific fields such as comparative literature)

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO F2.large-1b.jpg, 250KiB, 1800x1267

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 12:37:57 No.12934303 Report

Quoted By: >>12934317 >>12934391 >>12934428 >>12934736 >>12934877 >>12935458 >>12936182

>>12934238
Which group does the flower belong to?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 12:46:19 No.12934317 Report

Quoted By: >>12934356 >>12934363

>>12934303
group 1
because majority of traits of target object are in group 1 (petal shape, second ring, stem type, leaf) and object most closely matching target object (top left, only off by stem) exists in group 1.

but then

group 2
because the only consistent trait distinguishing the two groups is stem, and stem belongs in group 2

what does that make me?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 13:02:22 No.12934356 Report

Quoted By:

>>12934317
Yes, you are not supposed to put much thought into it.
Systemizing: its petals, center, and the leaf are all common in group one, while only the stalk is common in group two, it goes to group 1.
induction: all the flowers in the group share the same stalk, it goes to group 2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 13:04:04 No.12934363 Report

Quoted By: >>12934400

>>12934317
Yes, you are not supposed to put much thought into it.
Systemizing: its petals, center, and the leaf are all common in group one, while only the stalk is common in group two, it goes to group 1.
Induction: All the flowers in each group share the same stalk, it goes to group 2.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 13:05:23 No.12934368 Report

Quoted By: >>12937374

>>12929095
There's this funny attitude from some people in humanities, social sciences and philosophy that they HATE when someone tries to bring in elements from the natural sciences into their fields. Like psychologists who are terrified of neuroscience for some reason

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 13:15:43 No.12934391 Report

Quoted By:

>>12934303
group 1

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 13:18:43 No.12934400 Report

Quoted By:

>>12934363
>>12934238
>inductive thinker or a systemizer
when you say systematizer do you mean abduction?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 13:22:21 No.12934411 Report

Quoted By: >>12934589

>>12930556
why abandon sociobiology, or evolutionary psycology?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 13:29:38 No.12934428 Report

Quoted By: >>12934442

>>12934303
Initial glance made me think 1 but seeing the only consistent trait among the flowers is the stem it's group 2.

Anonymous

View Same Google iqdb SauceNAO Screenshot_20210226-164907_Brave.jpg, 142KiB, 720x612

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 13:34:46 No.12934442 Report

Quoted By: >>12935463

>>12934428
I googled inductive and systemic thinkers and all that came up were autism sites.
The real question I have is, does picking group 2 make me one of the spastics?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 14:07:39 No.12934553 Report

Quoted By:

>>12930113
op's pic is an argument for the killer ape hypothesis. tl;dr this theory says humans evolved to be very smart compared to other hominids because they were apes that became extra violent.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 14:14:22 No.12934589 Report

Quoted By: >>12934627 >>12934789

>>12934411
evolutionary psychology was abandoned as most of it's theories are unprovable and were made with retarded top down reasoning.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 14:25:55 No.12934627 Report

Quoted By: >>12934640 >>12934648

>>12934589
>most of it's theories are unprovable
citation needed

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 14:30:37 No.12934640 Report

Quoted By: >>12934642

>>12934627
they are regally not universal and would require tests of humans with complete lab controlled lives to factor out cultural influence.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 14:31:39 No.12934642 Report

Quoted By:

>>12934640
regularly

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 14:33:53 No.12934648 Report

Quoted By:

>>12934627
LMFAO no, dumbfuck, a citation is not needed when making the statement "evolutionary psychological is not falsifiable".
You are clearly not intelligent and don't study any scientific field.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 14:52:50 No.12934736 Report

Quoted By:

>>12934303
Either group depending on which traits are prioritized, but group 1 by net number of shared trait.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 15:08:16 No.12934789 Report

Quoted By: >>12935355

>>12934589
>evolutionary psychology was abandoned
maybe in your queer studies department

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 15:32:19 No.12934877 Report

Quoted By: >>12935312

>>12934303
These groups aren't valid categories.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 17:09:10 No.12935312 Report

Quoted By: >>12935320

>>12934877
why? maybe they were created on the basis of DNA?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 17:12:16 No.12935320 Report

Quoted By:

>>12935312
>maybe
It doesn't take very long for the IFLS! types to turn to weasel words.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 17:20:29 No.12935355 Report

Quoted By: >>12936251

>>12934789
Have you read a psychology paper past the year 2000nd?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 17:42:07 No.12935440 Report

Quoted By:

>>12933868
Very weakly, in many instances.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 17:47:16 No.12935458 Report

Quoted By:

>>12934303
Group 2 due to the flower not sharing all traits with group 1. You can breed flowers in group 2 to lead to the example flower, but group 1 will not lead to the example flower short of cross pollination with the 2nd group

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 17:48:33 No.12935463 Report

Quoted By: >>12935798

>>12934442
It means you should go into biology

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 19:24:31 No.12935798 Report

Quoted By: >>12935841

>>12935463
im a biologist and i picked group 1

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 19:37:29 No.12935841 Report

Quoted By: >>12935978

>>12935798
Group 1's can still be biologists, you're just an inferior biologist is all

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 20:11:16 No.12935978 Report

Quoted By: >>12936190

>>12935841
what if im a successful biologist?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 20:52:04 No.12936182 Report

Quoted By: >>12936572

>>12930499
>>12934303

Group 2

What are the implications of being systemizer vs. inductive thinker?

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 20:53:26 No.12936190 Report

Quoted By:

>>12935978
Imagine how much more successul you'd have been if you were group 2

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 21:07:45 No.12936251 Report

Quoted By:

>>12935355
Yes

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 21:19:21 No.12936292 Report

Quoted By: >>12936313

Im a security engineer/hackerman and picked group 1.

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 21:23:30 No.12936313 Report

Quoted By:

>>12936292
condolences

Anonymous

Anonymous Tue 06 Apr 2021 22:15:24 No.12936572 Report

Quoted By: >>12937365

>>12936182

Inductive thinking? It means you guess a lot, and never can be sure based on your model of thinking and you can come up with myriad reasons for an outcome.

Inductive thinking and rationalism are psuedosciences and allow shit tier "sciences" to exist in the first place.

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 07 Apr 2021 01:48:53 No.12937365 Report

Quoted By:

>>12936572
Systemicnigger spotted. How is the flower group 1 if none of those flowers have the stem, faggot? Where is the stem?

Anonymous

Anonymous Wed 07 Apr 2021 01:51:55 No.12937374 Report

Quoted By:

>>12934368
Makes sense in philosophy's case since philosophy is supposed to be pure logic.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Your latest searches