Sexism in NGE?

For serious and at times in-depth discussions only, covering the original TV series, the movies End of Evangelion and Death & Rebirth.

Moderator: Board Staff

honsou
Zeruel
Zeruel
Age: 37
Posts: 845
Joined: Sep 15, 2006
Gender: Male

Postby honsou » Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:31 pm

View Original PostXard wrote:People like you who treat man as a tool, blind bunch of pulls and triggers without will or meaningful interior disgust me. Didn't your time end decades ago, Skinner?

Cognitive psychology is where it's at.


Cognitive psychology seeks to differentiate the human from the animal. But in the end, we're all just animals that have more varied needs and fears. Behaviorism doesn't treat man as a tool but as an animal. Now is this a scary way to look at things? Sure, but is it the one school of psychology that's undergone rigorous scientific study and been proven time and time again? Yep.

Xard
Banned
User avatar
Posts: 14236
Joined: Jan 03, 2008

Postby Xard » Thu Feb 10, 2011 7:42 pm

edit: whatever, this is offtopic anyway

I should learn to control these damn tangential outbursts of mine

honsou
Zeruel
Zeruel
Age: 37
Posts: 845
Joined: Sep 15, 2006
Gender: Male

Postby honsou » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:32 pm

View Original PostXard wrote:I'm sorry. I forgot for a moment that you're our resident Bright. :rolleyes:

Seriously speaking, you're making little sense here. Mechanical/Classical Behaviourism has been dead since 50s thanks to Chomsky et al.

your position comes off more metaphysical than scientific and the claim that Behaviorism is "the one school of psychology that's undergone rigorous scientific study and been proven time and time again" insults developments in mainstream psychology since 60s.

I find it funny you talk about being able to change oneself when Behaviorism denies any such intentional, willful capacity. Why so incoherent?


First I really dont like the term bright, I'd really rather go with the term Hitchens semi coined which is anti theist but I digress.

Mechanical/Classical Behaviorism is not dead, its most certainly evolved since the 50s due to scientific study but its not dead. You bring up Chomsky as someone who helped killed the idea of Behaviorism. Two things, first his critique of Skinner's verbal behavior was relatively limited in the sense that it attacked how Skinner's research was done but not on the actual principle. Second, he attacked it in purely on philosophical grounds, which is kinda like attacking string theory because it doesn't make sense to you.

Now my argument isn't metaphysical but simply historical. The developments in cognitive psychology and other psychological fields have been facilitated by studies which aren't exactly pure science. Most of them either used survey or case studies to prove their points. There are various problems with both types of research but the most obvious ones would be that surveys could be inaccurate and have tons of different biases. And case studies have small sample sizes simply because of the nature of how they are done. Now the principles of Behavioral psychology have not only been tested originally using the scientific method, but all these experiments can be repeated and you will get the same result. And that's what i meant by my previous statement.

Now as for your last statement, lets talk about a simple example of how you'd get what could look like "willful change" but actually it would simply just be antecedents and consequences working together to cause change. Lets take a phobia, heights for example. Person X has a strong phobia of heights, now hes offered a job as a window washer for a lot of money. Now as money is a strong reward for X here, he takes the job. Now when he gets to said job he finds he cannot physically do his job because the phobia makes him unable to go up to the higher floors. Now there are two behaviors he could do, he could either not show up for work or some how get over the phobia. In this case lets have money be a strong enough reward as to have him find help. This reward would cause the behavior of finding help. So what looks willful, is actually just a number of antecedents and consequences working together to cause the complex behavior of humans

Synapsid
Pilot
Pilot
User avatar
Posts: 2143
Joined: Aug 05, 2008
Location: NERV Baths

Postby Synapsid » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:33 pm

View Original PostAllemann wrote:Sorry, it is. Darwin hates you.
Um, I thought you hated Darwin and no, it isn’t, I don’t think you’ve got enough of a grasp of evolutionary or developmental bio to be saying that.

From a evolutionary standpoint it isn’t: dimorphism isn’t all that prominent in other life and most animals don’t even use our determination system.

What’s more the chromosome/genetic argument you’re probably going to give really isn’t the case. It’s not having a Y or set of X’s that makes the difference in brain structure, it’s how hormones act as promoters en utero and early in life to set an individual’s template. This is pretty significant since the makeup of sex hormones someone is exposed to, vary per individual and is affected by their environment, mother and many other things than sex chromosomes. It’s not dissimilar to how our finger lengths and predisposition to certain diseases are set, it’s epigentic. Biological gender is not the black and white you claim it is, it’s very possible for women to have masculine dimorphic brain structures men to have feminine structures, or people to not fall in either.

In short according to the biological aspect you advocate about there is no vast ocean dividing anything, no black and white binary system for gender; everyone is part of the same landmass even if their individual location might vary.
Only stubborn ideologues and people enamoured with traditional roles would still claim that gender and sex are as simple as a man/woman binary.
It's a trap!|Saigo no shisha seitenkan
Genderbending is an important part of any fandom and must be taken very seriously. ZapalacX
If you ever say that name again, I will hunt you down and neuter you with a spork. Sailor Star Dust *cue Shinji's bloodcurling girly scream* LiLi
leave my innocent Shinjiko thread alone! Reichu Asuka would be the one going "SURPRISE BUTTSEKS, BAKA!!!!" while of course in appropriate dress and, *cough, gulp, snort*, with a certain strapped on accessory THE Hal E. Burton 9000

Xard
Banned
User avatar
Posts: 14236
Joined: Jan 03, 2008

Postby Xard » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:42 pm

View Original Posthonsou wrote:First I really dont like the term bright, I'd really rather go with the term Hitchens semi coined which is anti theist but I digress.


That isn't any less silly or childish.

View Original Posthonsou wrote:Mechanical/Classical Behaviorism is not dead, its most certainly evolved since the 50s due to scientific study but its not dead. You bring up Chomsky as someone who helped killed the idea of Behaviorism. Two things, first his critique of Skinner's verbal behavior was relatively limited in the sense that it attacked how Skinner's research was done but not on the actual principle. Second, he attacked it in purely on philosophical grounds, which is kinda like attacking string theory because it doesn't make sense to you.


Nothing wrong with attacking it on purely philosophical grounds either when they're as shaky as ones behind Behaviorism, I might add.

View Original Posthonsou wrote:Now my argument isn't metaphysical but simply historical. The developments in cognitive psychology and other psychological fields have been facilitated by studies which aren't exactly pure science. Most of them either used survey or case studies to prove their points. There are various problems with both types of research but the most obvious ones would be that surveys could be inaccurate and have tons of different biases. And case studies have small sample sizes simply because of the nature of how they are done. Now the principles of Behavioral psychology have not only been tested originally using the scientific method, but all these experiments can be repeated and you will get the same result. And that's what i meant by my previous statement.


okay then. I can accept "there's only one perfect scientific method" myth and the exclusion of psyche from psychology (LOL) Behaviourism's sillyness forced it into for some time, even if I think none of it makes sense. I'm not here to debate psychological theories which very premises I think are wrong.

View Original Posthonsou wrote:Now as for your last statement, lets talk about a simple example of how you'd get what could look like "willful change" but actually it would simply just be antecedents and consequences working together to cause change. Lets take a phobia, heights for example. Person X has a strong phobia of heights, now hes offered a job as a window washer for a lot of money. Now as money is a strong reward for X here, he takes the job. Now when he gets to said job he finds he cannot physically do his job because the phobia makes him unable to go up to the higher floors. Now there are two behaviors he could do, he could either not show up for work or some how get over the phobia. In this case lets have money be a strong enough reward as to have him find help. This reward would cause the behavior of finding help. So what looks willful, is actually just a number of antecedents and consequences working together to cause the complex behavior of humans


Still metaphysics.

In any case this is offtopic and if there's something I should've learned in here over the years it's that I should not encite debates that I'm not interested enough in to follow through. So - for once - I act responsibly and call it a day. :P

Azathoth
Angel
Angel
User avatar
Posts: 3495
Joined: Dec 08, 2009
Location: somewhere under noctis labyrinthus

Postby Azathoth » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:43 pm

View Original PostXard wrote:edit: whatever, this is offtopic anyway


There isn't really a topic since the original Allemann/O-chan threadjack, is there?
Nothing is so valuable that it need not be started afresh, nothing is so rich that it need not be enriched constantly.

Xard
Banned
User avatar
Posts: 14236
Joined: Jan 03, 2008

Postby Xard » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:44 pm

View Original PostAzathoth wrote:There isn't really a topic since the original Allemann/O-chan threadjack, is there?


debating Behaviorism doesn't have anything to do with sexism though

and yes I think the threadjack was fucking stupid idea to begin with. If the original topic was dead it should've not been resurrected in the first place

Bagheera
Asuka's Bulldog
Asuka's Bulldog
User avatar
Posts: 18646
Joined: Oct 15, 2010

Postby Bagheera » Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:48 pm

View Original PostAzathoth wrote:There isn't really a topic since the original Allemann/O-chan threadjack, is there?


I tried for a bit there but I think my efforts got lost in the shuffle. :ehh:

ZapX
Guided by the New Era
Guided by the New Era
User avatar
Age: 34
Posts: 4466
Joined: Jan 21, 2008
Location: Houston
Gender: Male

Postby ZapX » Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:58 pm

I was willing to give it one last chance but, here we are. Time for a long break at the very least.
ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ"Stop watching anime. it makes you think all girls are incredibly hot and shy, and there are 10 that all want your boner which just isn't true." -Brik-aniki

"I CAN'T HELP IT THAT I WANT TO EAT MY OWN VULVA AND SHARE IT WITH A LOVED ONE!"-Reichu

"I have a fetish for naked women with stigmata playing ping pong in the mud. Is there a name for that?" -Kaiser O-Ornette-dono-sama

“Don’t do that; that was probably hooker money.” -SSD on me holding money with my mouth


Return to “Evangelion TV Series + EoE Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests