4 ms·
Why does this need to be genomic? Why is psychological proof not enough? There is plenty of evidence that shows that humans are susceptible to these types of f
by Ozzie_osman 6y ago
Why does this need to be genomic? Why is psychological proof not enough?
There is plenty of evidence that shows that humans are susceptible to these types of fallacies, whether it's at explaining the world around us or even explaining our own behavior. My favorite study on self-justification is the split-brain experiment. But essentially if we are susceptible to after-the-fact narrative fallacies of our own behavior, we are definitely susceptible to it for the rest of the world, about which we know much less and which is far more complicated.
- bryanrasmussen 6y agobecause of the words "biologically inclined", psychological proof has a pretty big inductive gap to leap to get to establishing a biological inclination.
- jessriedel 6y agoAspects of human beings that are widely present in people all over the world, and are therefore likely resistant to effective removal using known practical tools, is generally considered reasonable (but not incontrovertible) evidence for biological inclination. It is not necessary to have linked this to a particular gene, and doesn't cease to be "biological" if it involves gene-environment interactions. It was correct to say that most plants were biologically inclined to use the sun's energy before photosynthesis and DNA were understood.
- bryanrasmussen 6y agosure, a big enough psychological study without any obvious flaws might sufficiently bridge the inductive gap for me. But I'm unaware of any, and I doubt to see one because it would be real difficult to get right. That said I haven't really looked for one, for the reasons given.
- jessriedel 6y agoThere's lots of biological knowledge we have that existed before formal studies. What I said about photosynthesis applies to claims by non-scientists observing plants informally.
- Kbelicius 6y agoBecause that is what the person that coined the terms claims. That it is a biological inclination. On what basis is he claiming that?