[cferneyh]

I mean when I'm sitting on the bus and an old lady with a crane gets on and I offer her my seat, does your statement not mean that everyone would offer her their seat?

No, it means that only you have been taking powerful hallucinogens. Why else would you think the old lady is carrying a crane?

Because it was so pretty.

[skippy the wonder dog]

And here I was, thinking you got out of your seat because you feared that she was about to use her crane to lift you out of it.

[second_sight_kyle]

So what exactly are we disagreeing about?

Oh, yes. That would be the part where, without having actually read what was written, you bought into Tiger's straw men, falsely attributed the notion that people are "born gay" to his opponents, and misrepresented other arguments -- and then, when called on these mistakes, refused to admit your error and chose instead to attempt to blind us with science.

Which all amounts to what I'd call the classic Internet dominance display of the human male. But I forgive you, "Kyle," because I understand that you're a "prisoner" of your biology.

We were disagreeing about being prisoners of our biology and culture. At least until you said environment was synonymous with culture. Either way, I took my blinding science to be more representative of male Internet dominance than your folk theories about personality and prisoners.

I actually did go into how much of the thread my laziness allowed me to read. I can kick up the font size if you want. So for my first couple of posts in this thread, I made love to Tiger's Strawmen. But my blinding science powers and bullshit radar were still put to the test with the 'prisoners of biology and culture' comment. All this culminating in Kyle's internet dominance over you :mrgreen:

[second_sight_kyle]

Well this thread has completely gone over my head, but I really don't understand the comment above, not-kyle.

If our day-to-day behaviour is determined by the situation and not our personalities, does that not imply that everyone would react the exact same way to any given situation? I mean when I'm sitting on the bus and an old lady with a crane gets on and I offer her my seat, does your statement not mean that everyone would offer her their seat? Because I can assure you that that is certainly not the case.

But perhaps I've misunderstood what you mean by "the situation".

You're right, there are exceptions. I think there are a few rules that correspond to the attribution error however. The situations that determine behaviour outnumber the situations where our internal disposition plays a role in our behaviour. These situations are also more subtle, though. I think this phenomenon started to be studied after Milgram's experiment with obedience to authority in the 60s and 70s, and they have a lot to do with conformity. I am a psychology major, but I'm a neuroscience major first...so I don't know that much about it since it's in the realm of social psychology. I dahno, if you want I could find some more information on it (I don't mind).

[cferneyh]

And here I was, thinking you got out of your seat because you feared that she was about to use her crane to lift you out of it.

Well that would be kinda weird no? Wasn't it obvious that I was talking about the bird?

[cferneyh]

I dahno, if you want I could find some more information on it (I don't mind).

God no! I don't come here to think!

[second_sight_kyle]

God no! I don't come here to think!

Too bad we can't come here to drink.

[skippy the wonder dog]

The situations that determine behaviour outnumber the situations where our internal disposition plays a role in our behaviour.

Except, of course, that the situations themselves don't determine our behaviour. External forces do not grasp us by our marionette strings and force us to do their bidding. Our responses to situations, our behaviours, come from within.

The fact that it is the situation rather than our dispositions that more often than not govern our reactions indicates only that we are much less individual and unique than we like to think. We respond not as individuals but as human animals. Which elements of our behaviour we owe to nature and which to nurture is moot; suffice to say that some of our behaviour is hard-wired and some learned, yet deeply ingrained, and that this is far more powerful in shaping our behaviour than our individual dispositions.

If I recall the research you refer to correctly, Kyle, it involved one subject administering (simulated?) electric shocks to another under the researcher's direction. The subjects continued to administer the shocks despite the obvious suffering of their victims, apparently solely because an authority figure directed them to do so. That work cast valuable light on why or how we are able to, for example, participate in genocide in Rwanda.

Perhaps it's because, as the animal behaviourists would have it, we're social animals, oversmart apes who are hard-wired to obey dominant members of the troupe. Perhaps, alternatively, it's because we learn to obey authority figures. Perhaps, perhaps.

What it comes down to, if we leave words like "personality" out of it, is that ... well, we're not really in control of our own behaviour to the extent we'd like to think we are.

You might say that we're prisoners of our biology and of the environments that shape us.

Sorry 'bout your luck, Kyle.

[second_sight_kyle]

Which elements of our behaviour we owe to nature and which to nurture is moot; suffice to say that some of our behaviour is hard-wired and some learned, yet deeply ingrained, and that this is far more powerful in shaping our behaviour than our individual dispositions.

I suppose I agree, except that the word behaviour should be replaced by the word personality in that paragraph. Obviously which elements of the environment contribute to our behaviour isn't moot, as shown by Milgram's ethical death-shock experiments.

What it comes down to, if we leave words like "personality" out of it, is that ... well, we're not really in control of our own behaviour to the extent we'd like to think we are.

I think I might be able to put a nail in both our coffins. Let us say that when you originally said we are prisoners of our biology and culture, I took culture to mean something more specific than our worldly environment. And when you used the word personality as the thing being constructed, I took it to mean personality and not behaviour. For reasons I hope I explained well enough, I disagreed when you said that we are prisoners of our biology and culture, with respect to personality.

At the same time I can accept that you meant that we are prisoners of our biology and environment, with respect to our behaviour. And really by mentioning biology and environment, you capture all the variables that influence us, and I guess imprison us. Dude trust me, Kyle is the first to know that semantics can be a bitch. If we could agree that behaviour is the prisoner, and not personality, that'd be great.

I'd still prefer a million of these back-and-forths than one conversation with that blowhard Esthete.

:lol:

[skippy the wonder dog]

Obviously which elements of the environment contribute to our behaviour isn't moot, as shown by Milgram's ethical death-shock experiments.

As much as it pains me to say it, I have to concede that one.

I knew we were really arguing about diction. And now I feel a group hug coming on.

[second_sight_kyle]

Obviously which elements of the environment contribute to our behaviour isn't moot, as shown by Milgram's ethical death-shock experiments.

As much as it pains me to say it, I have to concede that one.

I knew we were really arguing about diction. And now I feel a group hug coming on.

I'm man enough to give you a big bear hug. Cferney too.

[tigerthelion]

I never thought there would be 5 pages on this topic.

Shall I begin another thread titled, "For shame, Howard Stern, for shame"?

I could do the same for Oprah, Tyra Banks, Vince Mcmahon, Benny Hinn, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, James Dobson, Madonna, Angelina Jolie, Tom Cruise, etc.....


....nah, I guess not.