Do single women still exist?? (2 Viewers)

[Lili Marlene]

well he's obviously pretending it was all a joke now.
maybe it was

 

[Gambra]

No one really has read Boris Baloney?

 

[BC]

Indeed. In fact you win. Your prize is a signed first edition of Stephenoblunt's wonderful treatise on dating and human interaction. "Why women need masks and men should hide their wobbly bits" Guaranteed to be a best-seller.

chapter 2: "freud! the nature of gender! and ben, i'm an awful eejit - i put the shorts... on my head!"

 

[stephenoblunt]

Why ar eyou makign fun of me? IT's what I believe. You're just trying to hurt me.

 

[therealjohnny]

Some good arguments here, and you prove yourself to have a decent grasp of abstract reasoning for a girl, so fair play to you.

"But, of course they ALL have lovely cerebellums"

 

[Gambra]

Why ar eyou makign fun of me? IT's what I believe. You're just trying to hurt me.

They haven't "gotten" it

 

[Mormon Nailer]

 

[D0njo]

Boris Baloney: Stephenoblunt's Psychological Tome of Pure Nonsensical Gibberish. Classic article: "Gays" or a "Gaze".

Look it up, things will make more sense then.... or less

 

[jane]

Some good arguments here, and you prove yourself to have a decent grasp of abstract reasoning for a girl, so fair play to you. But still I have reservations with what you say. And it's not just me. I speak for the whole psychological community when I say these things. This is what is being taught these days. Maybe you are a little out of touch with the current thinkings. And I'm sorry but with all your references to cultures centuries ago, you really do come across as someone with more of an interest in anthropology!

If you were really 'in touch' with the most progressive of current thinking, you would know that there are many very sensible people who are arguing that the artificial divisions between academic disciplines are more harmful than they are helpful. You're either being taught things in an incomplete and rather lazy (not to mention homophobic) fashion, or your grasp of them could be stronger. If I were grading your posts as an undergraduate essay, it'd be something in the low-50s, for basic understanding of concepts but failure to provide meaningful critique. I'd take off a few points because you're not using the quote function, which makes your posts difficult to read.

"the 19th century... ancient Athenian society... the hetairae"
"Theories are constantly being changed and revised because actual real-world examples make this necessary."
How can you say what is happening now is like what was happening then?? I am focusing on the gays of today. The women and gentlemen of today! Not people who ate raw meat in the 19th century!

But the point is, human sexuality changes, so if bisexuals exist, then bisexuality exists. How, if human sexuality is not a set of hard-wired biological traits, can bisexuals and genderqueers not exist? The problem with your understanding of psychology is that you don't seem to believe the subject of study has the authority of his or her own experience. That's something perhaps you could learn from the anthropologists.

"There isn't a single behaviour that isn't filtered through some sort of cultural lens, and so you can't observe them outside of those cultural constructs."

I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I tend to agree more with Wilson and Dawkins on this. As Wilson put it "I think you merely suffer from a case of bad genes"!!!!

An I am completely willing to go back on what I know if the evidence presents itself, but for now I think I'll agre with the psychologists.

Can you give me an example of a human behaviour that can be observed in isolation from all cultural factors, and thus determined to be entirely due to biological instinct?

 

[jane]

Boris Baloney: Stephenoblunt's Psychological Tome of Pure Nonsensical Gibberish. Classic article: "Gays" or a "Gaze".

Look it up, things will make more sense then.... or less

Fun fact! One of my art history lecturers in college, when she was going over the concept of the 'male gaze' in early modern art, quite apologetically said she felt the need to write it on the blackboard, not because she thought we were dumb, but to make sure there were no misunderstandings. Apparently, she'd had a student once who turned in an essay about representations of the body in art as being somehow related to 'the male gays'.

 

[Squiggle]

Why ar eyou makign fun of me? IT's what I believe. You're just trying to hurt me.

I'm sorry if you're feeling upset. But if this thread proves anything it is that individuals object to being told by someone that they can't possibly feel things that they do feel because to do so wouldn't conform with the theory of someone (probably long dead) who never met them.

As you continue your psychology studies, and broaden your reading to works outside your course, you will see that there are almost as many theories (many of them contradictory) as there are psychologists.

You may well have found theories that you feel are accurate and sum up the human mindset, but as you are an individual it is likely that you have chosen what you believe in keeping with personal bias and what best fits your own self-image and your idea of others. This is perfectly acceptable... but they are not scientific facts.

 

[Gambra]

Boris Baloney: Stephenoblunt's Psychological Tome of Pure Nonsensical Gibberish. Classic article: "Gays" or a "Gaze".

Look it up, things will make more sense then.... or less

Nobodys actually listening to you. They're too heckeled over what he's been saying

 

[D0njo]

Nobodys actually listening to you. They're too heckeled over what he's been saying

Yes, but it's funny, and I'm learning so much.

 

[Vinnie]

I ams learnt millions for this thread

 

[stephenoblunt]

How, if human sexuality is not a set of hard-wired biological traits, can bisexuals and genderqueers not exist? The problem with your understanding of psychology is that you don't seem to believe the subject of study has the authority of his or her own experience. That's something perhaps you could learn from the anthropologists.

Human sexuality is hard wired. And it is that hard wired determined self is what perceives its environment. If you throw a small stone or a big stone in the sea they will create different splashes. It's not the sea - the sea is uniform, but the unique quality of each stone that determines the splash. Humans are not programmed to be attracted to both sexes. Any cultural influence that persuades someone to believe they are bisexual is purely psychological. As I said, it's a result of half-repression of full homosexuality. The way genetics works means that a brain is either fully gay, or not gay at all.

Can you give me an example of a human behaviour that can be observed in isolation from all cultural factors, and thus determined to be entirely due to biological instinct?

Crying, smiling, the desire to learn, anger, mistakes, reflexes, thought, perception, association..

 

[egg_]

Mistakes???

Pete, lock this thread for the love of jaykers

 

[D0njo]

..there is the chance that he's being serious.. it's.. hard to tell with stephen

 

[jane]

But the humans do fit the theory!! You must be one of the school who doesn't recognise psychology as a science! My theories stand up to the scrutiny of science and logic!

And I'm not too into ancient medicine so I don't really know about the four humours! What are you, an anthropologist?

I recognise psychology as a social or behavioural science, as are archaeology and anthropology. Human behaviour cannot be reduced to pie charts and statistical graphs. Yes, there are certain things you can say when you discuss the behaviour of a group as a numerical abstraction, but a hell of a lot is lost in translation, which means that when you make generalised statements about groups, it is extremely important to be aware of the limitations of generalisations.

As a 'science' it cannot be said to provide the same kinds of results that, say, chemistry can do because humans do not behave like the periodic table. Humans do not behave like hawks or bats because humans are humans and hawks are hawks and bats are bats. You can draw an analogy between behaviours of different animals, but like theories, analogies are not the foundations of a solid argument.

It is a science in the sense that it uses empirical approaches to problems in order to test statements and ideas. But that does't mean its results are as 'hard' as those in the hard sciences. And even in the hard sciences, there is always the potential for refutation, revision and total turnarounds.

 

[stephenoblunt]

As a 'science' it cannot be said to provide the same kinds of results that, say, chemistry can do because humans do not behave like the periodic table.

But what are humans but a complex mix of chemicals? Do you believe in a soul, seperate from the chemical reactions in our brains? I think evolutionary psychology proves that we are completely at the mercy of our genes. We may not be fully equipped with the knowledge to predict everything a human will do, but we are pretty close. Unfortunately I don't know enough about neuro psychology but my aim is to study in that area. and by the way I nearly always get firsts in my essayz.

 

[Lili Marlene]

Quit trying to unweave the rainbow man, it's all magic and occasionally smoke and mirrors