[Vicious]

What I've disagreed with, is the facts. I'm glad you've taken the time to actually do the research. Which was not present until now.

It’s such a strange belief that you can "win or lose" these discussions.

[brianmark]

(03-13-2013 10:18 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I replied to YaReally in the comments. I must say, the dude is pretty stupid. Fails basic logic, and has some sort of hater complex.

I asked him a legitimate question,

“Why work 10x as hard for shit quality women when you can work with half the effort for a much higher quality product?”

And his reply:

"Why climb Everest? Why hit the gym instead of watching TV on the couch? Why cook instead of eating McDonalds? Why train to be a pro athlete instead of playing touch-football in your backyard?

There are plenty of quality women here, they just aren’t interested in YOU. But enjoy flying across the world to have a bunch of broken-english conversations."



LOL at how bad that analogy is. Climbing Mount Everest is like banging an American woman?

Maybe because they've gotten that fat!



He's so blinded by his haterade he can't see that his analogy SUPPORTS Roosh, because most American men take the easy way out, staying in their comfort zone banging the low quality female livestock where they grew up.

Very, very few men take the time to develop an independent income and bang women in foreign countries, because THAT is difficult and commends 10x the respect than someone who can score a large notchcount with the ugly American female.

Tell him to keep working on his Game. Eventually he bang a fatty in the USA. It will mean more though because he had to work extra hard for it!

[Kingsley Davis]

This cat Yareally admitted to shitting on a lizards chest, no joke.

[Joseph_Dantes]

The idea that introversion has a genetic component has NOTHING TO DO with the idea that introversion is destiny and cannot be overcome insofar as succeeding with women is concerned. It does however have something to do with how one should design one's Game.

How is acknowledging that Roosh is an introvert to be emulated by other introverts in any way "blame their genes, something they can't do anything about, in order to not confront the fact that they are too lazy, weak or cowardly to do something about their situation." Calling Roosh an introvert rather implies that all those introverts who haven't achieved his level of success have failed due to lack of character.

I was going to write something about how Scorpion's smackdown was so hard it made my genetic empathy hurt, but apparently Vicious has backed down so it's over now.

[Kitsune]

(03-15-2013 02:02 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

Samseau I've always enjoyed your posts but that's really stupid what you're saying. So should we refer to swans as certain codes?

Yo that's one beautiful xkj432499## right there.
I love eating 59434jj#$ but only if it's raised eating kj24932j.

I dunno. Sounds exactly what the Seduction Community used to be about. Hot girls were "HB10's," guys in clubs were AMOGs, guys without game were AFCs and sex was an f-close.

[Vicious]

(03-16-2013 05:22 AM)Joseph_Dantes Wrote:  

How is acknowledging that Roosh is an introvert to be emulated by other introverts in any way "blame their genes, something they can't do anything about, in order to not confront the fact that they are too lazy, weak or cowardly to do something about their situation." Calling Roosh an introvert rather implies that all those introverts who haven't achieved his level of success have failed due to lack of character.

Let's keep things in context here. That was in response to germanico's comment about height.

[GenJx]

(03-16-2013 05:22 AM)Joseph_Dantes Wrote:  

The idea that introversion has a genetic component has NOTHING TO DO with the idea that introversion is destiny and cannot be overcome insofar as succeeding with women is concerned. It does however have something to do with how one should design one's Game.

How is acknowledging that Roosh is an introvert to be emulated by other introverts in any way "blame their genes, something they can't do anything about, in order to not confront the fact that they are too lazy, weak or cowardly to do something about their situation." Calling Roosh an introvert rather implies that all those introverts who haven't achieved his level of success have failed due to lack of character.

I was going to write something about how Scorpion's smackdown was so hard it made my genetic empathy hurt, but apparently Vicious has backed down so it's over now.

what is character, does it have a genetic component?

[Joseph_Dantes]

If character is conscientiousness, then yes it does. I am not arguing that failure at game really is a character failure, only that if anything the statement implies that rather than the opposite.

[Samseau]

(03-15-2013 01:39 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

Vicious made the classic mistake of demanding scientific proof

[quote]Quote:

The first and most common misconception about science is that it can “prove” things. Science has never proven anything, nor can it. On a deep enough epistemological level, nothing can be proven.

Human cells are real. Gravity is real. Hydrogen exists as an atom. Science can conclusively prove many things.

I would like to see you somehow rationalize away the existence of gravity. That would be a laugh!

Gravity wasn't even understood as a concept until Newton came around. Galileo was the first to accurately make observations on it. After general relativity the concept of gravity changed again.

The fact that gravity was slowly discovered and whose understanding has changed multiple times is all the proof you need to know that someday the concept of gravity will be replaced.

Science is nothing more than the most up-to-date version of our knowledge, and science in the 21st century will guaranteed be inferior to science of the 25th century.

But that's why science can't prove anything - we don't have total knowledge, and the quest for answers will always continue.

(03-15-2013 02:02 PM)NY Digital Wrote:  

Vicious made the classic mistake of demanding scientific proof

[quote]Quote:

The first and most common misconception about science is that it can “prove” things. Science has never proven anything, nor can it. On a deep enough epistemological level, nothing can be proven.

Samseau I've always enjoyed your posts but that's really stupid what you're saying. So should we refer to swans as certain codes?

Yo that's one beautiful xkj432499## right there.
I love eating 59434jj#$ but only if it's raised eating kj24932j.

Conceptually, our language is already a bunch of codes. What we call "nouns" are actually linguistic codes describing a set of properties people believe belong to a given object.

Our understanding of these properties are always changing and never complete, because human ignorance is eternal.

[Vicious]

(03-16-2013 01:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Gravity wasn't even understood as a concept until Newton came around. Galileo was the first to accurately make observations on it. After general relativity the concept of gravity changed again.

The fact that gravity was slowly discovered and whose understanding has changed multiple times is all the proof you need to know that someday the concept of gravity will be replaced.

Science is nothing more than the most up-to-date version of our knowledge, and science in the 21st century will guaranteed be inferior to science of the 25th century.

But that's why science can't prove anything - we don't have total knowledge, and the quest for answers will always continue.

And by what logic should we disregard current findings and science because it might prove to be wrong or further nuanced tomorrow? By using the above reasoning you could excuse any kind of crackpot theory.

[Samseau]

(03-16-2013 01:22 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 01:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Gravity wasn't even understood as a concept until Newton came around. Galileo was the first to accurately make observations on it. After general relativity the concept of gravity changed again.

The fact that gravity was slowly discovered and whose understanding has changed multiple times is all the proof you need to know that someday the concept of gravity will be replaced.

Science is nothing more than the most up-to-date version of our knowledge, and science in the 21st century will guaranteed be inferior to science of the 25th century.

But that's why science can't prove anything - we don't have total knowledge, and the quest for answers will always continue.

And by what logic should we disregard current findings and science because it might prove to be wrong or further nuanced tomorrow? By using the above reasoning you could excuse any kind of crackpot theory.

I'm not saying science is bullshit, or useless. I'm saying that science cannot conclusively prove anything, nor does someone need scientific evidence to believe in something.

So, apropos to this thread:

Vicious, you said that there was no scientific proof to show introversion is a genetically inhered personality trait; I'm saying that even if there's no scientific evidence to show introversion is genetic RIGHT NOW it doesn't mean there won't be someday.

Just as when Galileo correctly predicted that the feather and hammer would fall at the same speed without air resistance, it wasn't "scientifically validated" until nearly 400 years later.

[Icarus]

(03-16-2013 01:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Gravity wasn't even understood as a concept until Newton came around. Galileo was the first to accurately make observations on it. After general relativity the concept of gravity changed again.

Yes, because Newton's theory could not explain the orbit of Mercury. Lesson to be learned: Newton's theory fails when the gravitational field is too strong. However, when NASA launches a space probe, they use Newton's theory, and then make some corrections using GR when necessary (e.g., to sync the clocks of GPS satellites).

Was Newton wrong and Einstein right? I would say they were both "right", but their theories had different domains of applicability. GR is more broad, more general, but it's also overkill if all you want is to compute the orbit of a satellite.

(03-16-2013 01:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

The fact that gravity was slowly discovered and whose understanding has changed multiple times is all the proof you need to know that someday the concept of gravity will be replaced.

I disagree. You don't update a theory because it was updated in the past. You update it because it fails to explain experimental phenomena. And the concept of gravity won't be "replaced", it will be refined. Let's wait till the LIGO thing detects some gravitational waves...

(03-16-2013 01:02 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

But that's why science can't prove anything - we don't have total knowledge, and the quest for answers will always continue.

Science can prove things... via experimentation. If you come up with an hypothesis, and experiment fails to validate such hypothesis, then your hypothesis is wrong. If the hypothesis is validated, you cannot conclude it's correct. Science can prove that hypotheses are incorrect, but it can't prove they are correct.

In other words, natural scientists (e.g., physicists, chemists, biologists) don't spend their days trying to prove things right, they try to prove things wrong.

[TheKantian]

People become too autistic when the phrase "scientific proof" is uttered. Anyone with half a brain can realize that it's not proof as in QED math proof, but instead means something along the lines of corroboration with some form of justification behind it.

Similarly, if you believe that science is a linear approximation of truth then every correction and overthrown theory is just an indication that science can correct itself, so to speak, and not get stuck in dogma. However, it's also true that science is practiced by people and there is consequently a social aspect to it.

[Vicious]

(03-16-2013 01:31 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'm not saying science is bullshit, or useless. I'm saying that science cannot conclusively prove anything, nor does someone need scientific evidence to believe in something.

So, apropos to this thread:

Vicious, you said that there was no scientific proof to show introversion is a genetically inhered personality trait; I'm saying that even if there's no scientific evidence to show introversion is genetic RIGHT NOW it doesn't mean there won't be someday.

Regarding the part in emphasis. I have said no such thing. I've stated that there's a lack of consensus on the subject. Which might sound hair splitting to a layman (not accusing anyone of being one, just making a distinction) but actually makes the difference between a hypothesis and fact. In any case I'm not developing that particular argument any further since it cuts both ways, someone can simultaneously hold the position that I can't disprove it and they would be right. It all boils down to Introversion/extroversion being very difficult to quantify.

Regarding your comment in general I fully understand what you're saying but I don't see what practical use there is in holding the position that everything can eventually be explained. Are you a Buddhist?

[MikeCF]

(03-16-2013 01:31 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Just as when Galileo correctly predicted that the feather and hammer would fall at the same speed without air resistance, it wasn't "scientifically validated" until nearly 400 years later.

You're going over people's head with epistemology stuff, man.

Vicious just wants to snark.

He's like a guy who shit talks "bro science."

No doctor has ever made someone more muscular than some dumb bodybuilder.

But post about weights or drugs and every geek will ask for scientific references.

It's a form of passive-aggressive behavior.

They don't really want to learn.

You can just look around and learn that introversion is genetic. Lots of shy kids with outgoing siblings.

Plus there's a bunch of research on the Big 5. I/E is a big 5 factor.

Generally speaking, people who ask for scientific references don't really want to learn. They just want to snip at your heels.

[Icarus]

(03-16-2013 02:34 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

I've stated that there's a lack of consensus on the subject.

In theory, Science is not about seeking consensus, it's about experimental validation of hypotheses.

In practice, Science is done by humans, who have human weaknesses. The lonely voice of reason will sometimes surrender to the madding crowd in order to preserve himself. To make it even worse, humans are complex machines, Biology is insanely hard, and biologists / geneticists / psychologists often have a less-than-perfect understanding of statistics. In the end, one is left discussing confidence levels...

Science cannot prove that smoking causes lung cancer. It's just that the data suggests that smoking and lung cancer are highly correlated.

[Samseau]

(03-16-2013 02:34 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 01:31 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

I'm not saying science is bullshit, or useless. I'm saying that science cannot conclusively prove anything, nor does someone need scientific evidence to believe in something.

So, apropos to this thread:

Vicious, you said that there was no scientific proof to show introversion is a genetically inhered personality trait; I'm saying that even if there's no scientific evidence to show introversion is genetic RIGHT NOW it doesn't mean there won't be someday.

Regarding the part in emphasis. I have said no such thing. I've stated that there's a lack of consensus on the subject.

Consensus is irrelevant. The truth exists independently from any man's thought. (Although relativists will dispute this)

Quote:

Which might sound hair splitting to a layman (not accusing anyone of being one, just making a distinction) but actually makes the difference between a hypothesis and fact.

There is no difference between a hypothesis and fact. Everything we believe may one day turn out to be false.

Quote:

Regarding your comment in general I fully understand what you're saying but I don't see what practical use there is in holding the position that everything can eventually be explained. Are you a Buddhist?

Knowing that science is a tool to be used and not a religion to live by is extremely practical to me.

[Vicious]

Samseau, since your model of the world does not admit any scientific findings (or admits all of it depending on how you want to look at it). I think that makes it impossible to discuss anything grounded in science with you. I mean you have to admit your position is quite controversial?

(03-16-2013 02:51 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 01:31 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Just as when Galileo correctly predicted that the feather and hammer would fall at the same speed without air resistance, it wasn't "scientifically validated" until nearly 400 years later.

You're going over people's head with epistemology stuff, man.

Vicious just wants to snark.

He's like a guy who shit talks "bro science."

No doctor has ever made someone more muscular than some dumb bodybuilder.

But post about weights or drugs and every geek will ask for scientific references.

It's a form of passive-aggressive behavior.

They don't really want to learn.

You can just look around and learn that introversion is genetic. Lots of shy kids with outgoing siblings.

Plus there's a bunch of research on the Big 5. I/E is a big 5 factor.

Generally speaking, people who ask for scientific references don't really want to learn. They just want to snip at your heels.

Funny you should say that. I've learned tons the last two days from researching for this thread.

You're making this far more brainy than it is though. Personally I just target people who state their own conclusions as fact. On a forum full of self-alleged "alphas" something like that is quite common and can weigh down the overall quality. Of course, it's a fool's errand and vain to think I can cover all that. I need to let that shit go.

(03-16-2013 02:54 PM)Icarus Wrote:  

In theory, Science is not about seeking consensus, it's about experimental validation of hypotheses.

True, but it's consensus that provides us with reference points from which we build our world. My background as an engineer likely gives me a "bias" towards what can be verified rather than what can be envisioned.

[Duke Castile]

Vicious,

A large part of the reason there isn't a large consensus on the subject is because it's an unpopular theory. Behavior is genetic and not nurture. Or even "a large percentage" of behavior is genetic.

A lot of liberal sociologists wouldn't have a job anymore.

Or psychiatrists, behaviorists, etc

It's considered dangerous because what would happen to a specific group of people if their genes were known to manifest criminal behavior?

Science is a PC religion when it comes to this subject since so many atrocities have been committed in its wake.

[Samseau]

(03-16-2013 03:42 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

Samseau, since your model of the world does not admit any scientific findings (or admits all of it depending on how you want to look at it). I think that makes it impossible to discuss anything grounded in science with you. I mean you have to admit your position is quite controversial?

1. My world view is actually much more open and inclusive of scientific findings than most people. Consider: if someone runs an experiment that isn't "peer reviewed," I will still believe that experiment to have merit.

2. My worldview is only controversial because all cutting-edge thought is. But, intelligent minds understand that what the masses think isn't necessarily correct or useful.

What I believe about science is by far the most comprehensive and useful stance on science I've read anywhere. Falsification allows for science to be used but not worshipped.

Falsification has already been adopted by the Supreme Court of the USA to determine if something is scientific or not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsificat...rts_of_law

What I'm telling you guys about science now will be considered common knowledge in 50-100 years from now, much the same way Darwinism is.

[All or Nothing]

(03-16-2013 02:51 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

You can just look around and learn that introversion is genetic. Lots of shy kids with outgoing siblings.

Plus there's a bunch of research on the Big 5. I/E is a big 5 factor.

Then how come people "come out of their shells", years after childhood? What is the genetic component for that?

This argument is ultimately over nature vs nurture. I personally subscribe to nurture because I would like to believe that out of the many things in the world I have no control over, my personality is one that I can influence.

*Edit: cut out a response.

[Vicious]

(03-16-2013 04:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

What I believe about science is by far the most comprehensive and useful stance on science I've read anywhere.

<snip>

What I'm telling you guys about science now will be considered common knowledge in 50-100 years from now, much the same way Darwinism is.

I don't even know how to respond to this.

(03-16-2013 03:54 PM)Fisto Wrote:  

Vicious,

A large part of the reason there isn't a large consensus on the subject is because it's an unpopular theory. Behavior is genetic and not nurture. Or even "a large percentage" of behavior is genetic.

A lot of liberal sociologists wouldn't have a job anymore.

Or psychiatrists, behaviorists, etc

It's considered dangerous because what would happen to a specific group of people if their genes were known to manifest criminal behavior?

Science is a PC religion when it comes to this subject since so many atrocities have been committed in its wake.

Well stated and valid points (though I don't know if it's true but that's another matter entirely). It's like 5 am where you're at! Is this the kind of stuff you bust out post-bang and drunk!?

[All or Nothing]

(03-16-2013 04:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(03-16-2013 03:42 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

Samseau, since your model of the world does not admit any scientific findings (or admits all of it depending on how you want to look at it). I think that makes it impossible to discuss anything grounded in science with you. I mean you have to admit your position is quite controversial?

1. My world view is actually much more open and inclusive of scientific findings than most people. Consider: if someone runs an experiment that isn't "peer reviewed," I will still believe that experiment to have merit.

2. My worldview is only controversial because all cutting-edge thought is. But, intelligent minds understand that what the masses think isn't necessarily correct or useful.

What I believe about science is by far the most comprehensive and useful stance on science I've read anywhere. Falsification allows for science to be used but not worshipped.

Falsification has already been adopted by the Supreme Court of the USA to determine if something is scientific or not:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsificat...rts_of_law

What I'm telling you guys about science now will be considered common knowledge in 50-100 years from now, much the same way Darwinism is.

You must not have any real connection to the scientific world if you can make such bold claims.

You are a philosophy major who is essentially proclaiming the way scientists should approach the world. My question is, how many have you actually sat down with and talked to?

[Samseau]

(03-16-2013 04:19 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

You are a philosophy major who is essentially proclaiming the way scientists should approach the world. My question is, how many have you actually sat down with and talked to?

Nope, I'm telling you how (good) scientists actually approach the world, and what separates bad science from good science. The demarcation is falsification.

By the way, there's no real separation from a philosopher and a scientist. Many great scientists have been a philosophers, and vice versa.

I consider myself a scientist in certain fields, and I consider game to be a kind of scientific psychology in it's infancy stages. It will be a long time (at least 50 years) before the requisite funding necessary to conduct rigorous experiments on the female sex is available.

[Joseph_Dantes]

Perhaps an example would help clarify the theoretical discussion.

Was this scientific?
http://www.koanicsoul.com/blog/2013/03/1...onnection/

(Author is me)