~ archived since 2018 ~

New Flair: "Science"

bsutansalt · 2015-01-08T15:06:02+00:00

I've gone ahead and created a new flair for use when posting articles of a scientific/research basis that supports RP theories. This will greatly help...

bsutansalt

January 8, 2015

60 upvotes

/r/TheRedPill

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	New Flair: "Science"
Author	bsutansalt
Upvotes	60
Comments	34
Date	January 8, 2015 3:06 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2rqxn7/new_flair_science/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/new-flair-science.27710 https://theredarchive.com/post/27710

Comments

[–]rpquest 72 points73 points74 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]magus67824 points25 points26 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RejectionEquality 6 points6 points6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]1beerthroway5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]RejectionEquality 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]1beerthroway1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

Well I was referring to hypotheses more than I was theories or laws.

Gravity is a law. It has enough evidence to be guaranteed without exception.

Evolution is a theory, which in scientific terms means there is a large enough body of evidence for it to be certain that the main point is guaranteed. The mechanisms will be the only things to change with theories.

Hypotheses need to be disproven and rewritten. This is what I was referring to in the context of the discussion. I used "everything" incorrectly above. I meant to refer to testing hypotheses for disproving. When someone sets out to disprove a hypothesis and not only fails to disprove it but reinforces the hypothesis with more evidence, that's when a hypothesis is solid.

Which is what we should be doing with RP. They are not RP truths. Largely they are hypotheses. The RP theory flair should be reserved for endorsed contributors IMO for these very reasons. I personally am not experienced enough yet in RP living to state a theory of my own accord. I'm living on hypotheses right now.

[–]RejectionEquality 1 points1 points1 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

There are no guarantees in life.

Gravity is a law, yes, but even as the Law of Universal Gravitation was already established by Newton, it was never allowed to be an unquestionable doctrine.

It's often understated the enormous balls Albert Einstein had when he evolved physics as he did. Think about it. He put centuries-old proof on display and said, "well yes, but something is missing." You can bet that people were looking around mystified during the presentation. Time stood still and a new light was shed on the world.

I would still encourage people to test yes even laws but not without a clear understanding of the associated risks involved in doing so. For if widely-accepted laws were never questioned, we wouldn't have Relativity.

You are correct that most of our efforts should be spent testing hypotheses. That's our meat & potatoes here. After all, psychology isn't a precise, rigidly defined science quite like physics (with the obvious exception of Quantum Mechanics). There are a LOT of variables to the human mind, and I think it's safe to say that many parts of it will remain a mystery forever.

Again, we don't disagree.

[–]1beerthroway1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, I didn't think we were disagreeing. Just expanding and clarifying.

For if widely-accepted laws were never questioned, we wouldn't have Relativity.

Excellent point, including the details above.

Which is maybe exciting in my mind to think that TRP is coming across the same type of questioning. We may be questioning what is widely accepted as truth, but we are doing it with purpose instead of anarchy, the same as Einstein or Galileo. We are "adjusting the definition of the speed of light", so to speak. That is we are observing something that has been going on for a while (feminism's impact on the SMP) and realizing that the current social narrative (woman raise child, man provide food) needing more explanation.

As previously, I'm largely expanding on your ideas and just putting down some thoughts. You have great input.

[–]RejectionEquality1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Endorsed ContributorAFPJ2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]truchisoft-9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endorsed ContributorGarl_Vinland16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]smoothjazzanarchist6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]trpMilo5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Agreed. Evolutionary psychology is really just a fancy term for the idea of genetic adaptations that affect the brain.

When we see a physical adaptation, such as the wings of a bird, we have no problem making the conclusion that at some point it was evolutionarily beneficial for such an appendage to develop in the species over time. It's nearly a tautology if you accept evolution.

The only reason some people have difficulty accepting the same reasoning when it comes to species-wide behavior (behavior which is controlled by the brain, which is controlled by genes) is because many believe humans are "special snowflakes" and that our reasoning has freed us from crass evolutionary impulses (laughably untrue). Combine that with the philosophical legacy of Locke's tabula rasa (also laughably untrue in the face of modern science) and even simple ideas can face massive resistance.

[–]smoothjazzanarchist2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Very true. A feminist coworker of mine complains that certain evolutionary mechanisms (e.g. men being attracted to youthfulness) are "sad" because they enforce gender stereotypes. She, like so many modern-day feminists, has been convinced that human gender is not binary, gender roles are propagated by society entirely, and we should overcome any biological basis for our actions.

The moral indifference to such beliefs is perhaps what I respect most about TRP philosophy. We are uninterested in what is happy, sad, good or bad. TRP tries to use an unbiased observation of historical society with new-age scientific enlightenments to understand the complicated relationships between men and women. This subject is by it's very nature being relegated to the realms of pseudoscience in pop culture because it deviates from the common opinion. I do agree that we need to be critical even of our own material, but we need to do it with the same authority that the feminists do.

Learn our science in-depth and criticize within a TRP-framework. Doubting evolutionary psychology as a whole is anti-TRP and shows lack of enlightenment (or at least adherence to this subreddit).

[–]Endorsed ContributorGarl_Vinland4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]smoothjazzanarchist1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

True. It should be something open to discussion but the few people who do get marginalized for it. But by the way, feminists and SJW can now be painted with the same brush, and race issues very much fall under feminism 3.0.

More importantly, it's extremely difficult to remove confounding factors in race discussions about evolutionary psychology, and the differences in race aren't nearly as pronounced or interesting as those in gender because race is a less tangible and recent development. The gender dynamic precedes humans and transcends animal life - the race dynamic is contextual, fluid and easily altered. Not so far sexuality. In a global society race dynamics are not important and can be consciously altered in just a few generations with eugenics and science.

TL;DR Yes, racial differences in psychology do exist, but they're miniscule, easily influenced, and overshadowed by cultural norms.

[–]rpquest 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]magus6780 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]femmefatalle8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Endorsed ContributorGarl_Vinland2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]prixer 2 points2 points2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]rpquest 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* [recovered] (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]truchisoft0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]∞ Mod | RP Vanguardbsutansalt[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]2Occams_Shiv1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]rpquest 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lordofthejelly 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rpquest 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Modredpillschool-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bobbagwell0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dark-hokage0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]unknowinglyRP-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link