Why do teenagers think/act the way they do today?

[brooksieb]

camden is way better....

[sam_levi_11]

and i care? islington is one of the best places in london.

[Snorri1234]

I'm pretty gangsta. Watch me crank dat centrifuge. Watch me crank dat Buchner funnel.

Word up yo!

[Koesen]

When I was in school, back in the eighties, I read a letter from one father to another, in which he complained about his useless son. His son, he wrote, was only interested in girls and music, and he drank too much.

The letter was written in Latin and it was about 2000 years old.

Nothing new under the sun.

[Mjinga]

When I was in school, back in the eighties, I read a letter from one father to another, in which he complained about his useless son. His son, he wrote, was only interested in girls and music, and he drank too much.

Read the same letter, only a bit more recently.

Hormonal young chaps have always been the same. Give me a thousand kisses, and then a hundred, and then a thousand more!

[brooksieb]

and i care? islington is one of the best places in london.

ok ok i know i was only messing with ya

[Snowpepsi]

Last night my daughters car, and my in-laws motorhome got egged. We think we know who's doing it. My 16 year olds response, was to go beat the crap out of the little punk (who is 18). I'm all, " That isn't the way to handle it, just go down and talk to him, tell him that we know it's him and if he continues we'll press charges."

I called my husband to ask him if he knew about the egging. He didn't, but he thinks he knows who it is, (same guy). My husband says, " Street Justice, we need to let the boys go beat the crap out of the little punk."


I think we influence our kids a lot more than we think we do. Either that or they inherit our personalities. (or in this case, their fathers)

edit: The guy is 18, don't know how that smiley got there.

[suggs]

Its all just physical. Ask a biologist.

[Neoteny]

Its all just physical. Ask a biologist.

As a biologist, I would say it's clearly due to the lack of religiously-motivated morality.

::struggles to avoid bringing up Olivia Newton John::

[got tonkaed]

Its all just physical. Ask a biologist.

i just died a little inside.

[suggs]

Its all just physical. Ask a biologist.

i just died a little inside.

What the f*ck is that supposed to mean?
Surely to god you're not a dualist?

[Neoteny]

Its all just physical. Ask a biologist.

i just died a little inside.

What the f*ck is that supposed to mean?
Surely to god you're not a dualist?

That would make tonka an interesting study... but I think he might have interpreted your statement as leaving no room for "nurture" in the age old equation.

[got tonkaed]

Its all just physical. Ask a biologist.

i just died a little inside.

What the f*ck is that supposed to mean?
Surely to god you're not a dualist?

That would make tonka an interesting study... but I think he might have interpreted your statement as leaving no room for "nurture" in the age old equation.

it is pretty much the core of everything that i do that we are not simply biological beings.

[suggs]

I called my husband to ask him if he knew about the egging. He didn't, but he thinks he knows who it is, (same guy). My husband says, " Street Justice, we need to let the boys go beat the crap out of the little punk."

Then your husband is basically a criminal. Get rid of him. God, what chance is there if kids aren't brought up to always use violence as the ABSOLUTE LAST resort.

[Neoteny]

Its all just physical. Ask a biologist.

i just died a little inside.

What the f*ck is that supposed to mean?
Surely to god you're not a dualist?

That would make tonka an interesting study... but I think he might have interpreted your statement as leaving no room for "nurture" in the age old equation.

it is pretty much the core of everything that i do that we are not simply biological beings.

Oooh... I think I can finally disagree with you on something... "simply" catches my eye...

Yes, I'm nitpicking.

[suggs]

Its all just physical. Ask a biologist.

i just died a little inside.

What the f*ck is that supposed to mean?
Surely to god you're not a dualist?

That would make tonka an interesting study... but I think he might have interpreted your statement as leaving no room for "nurture" in the age old equation.

it is pretty much the core of everything that i do that we are not simply biological beings.

To be honest, as usual i was being extreme, to get a reaction.
It seems unlikely that we are purely biological.
But Tonkaed, read some J.J.C. Smart, or another physicalist before you dismiss what i said out of hand-it has a great deal of validity.

[got tonkaed]

i was joking a bit myself...

i might look into checking out what he has to say. It is one of those things that we are incredibly biased toward in the type of disciplines i am in (could possibly be in down the line). If you ever want to get us riled up bring in bits of evidence which claim primarily if not purely elements of biological reasons for human behavior.

Dont be surprised to see people make loud noises act akwardly and then not be able to make a coherent point, because we dont usually use the type of methodology that is used in many of those arguments.

[Neoteny]

i was joking a bit myself...

i might look into checking out what he has to say. It is one of those things that we are incredibly biased toward in the type of disciplines i am in (could possibly be in down the line). If you ever want to get us riled up bring in bits of evidence which claim primarily if not purely elements of biological reasons for human behavior.

Dont be surprised to see people make loud noises act akwardly and then not be able to make a coherent point, because we dont usually use the type of methodology that is used in many of those arguments.

...what?

[Snowpepsi]

I called my husband to ask him if he knew about the egging. He didn't, but he thinks he knows who it is, (same guy). My husband says, " Street Justice, we need to let the boys go beat the crap out of the little punk."

Then your husband is basically a criminal. Get rid of him. God, what chance is there if kids aren't brought up to always use violence as the ABSOLUTE LAST resort.

Yes, because it would be so much better to send the guy to jail. Or sue him for property damage. Because bruises last for a while and a police record lasts forever. My husband suggested letting the kids dad (who is a sheriff) watch. Better than having to watch him in jail, I guess.

(But again, we digress.)

[got tonkaed]

just basically that the more of a social constructionist you are, the more likely you will argue until you are blue in the face against purely biological or physical explanations for human behavior.

Its usually a pretty uphill battle for us though, as if i was to argue about why behavior occurs in a certain way against someone like a sociobiologist, they would have the entire upperhand most likely in terms of evidence.

But since its the incredible bias of our discipline, we argue against those explanations anyway.

[Neoteny]

just basically that the more of a social constructionist you are, the more likely you will argue until you are blue in the face against purely biological or physical explanations for human behavior.

Its usually a pretty uphill battle for us though, as if i was to argue about why behavior occurs in a certain way against someone like a sociobiologist, they would have the entire upperhand most likely in terms of evidence.

But since its the incredible bias of our discipline, we argue against those explanations anyway.

That's what I figured. It's more fun to argue from the extremes anyway. I'll agree with the bias aspect in that it's often intensely difficult to argue against nature when you steep yourself in genetics like I have. I usually find that it's usually best to concede that the truth is at the 50/50 mark before the entire thing comes to blows.

[got tonkaed]

just basically that the more of a social constructionist you are, the more likely you will argue until you are blue in the face against purely biological or physical explanations for human behavior.

Its usually a pretty uphill battle for us though, as if i was to argue about why behavior occurs in a certain way against someone like a sociobiologist, they would have the entire upperhand most likely in terms of evidence.

But since its the incredible bias of our discipline, we argue against those explanations anyway.

That's what I figured. It's more fun to argue from the extremes anyway. I'll agree with the bias aspect in that it's often intensely difficult to argue against nature when you steep yourself in genetics like I have. I usually find that it's usually best to concede that the truth is at the 50/50 mark before the entire thing comes to blows.

i would agree. we probably would intensly half heartedly disagree about certain elements of human behavior. Most likely because of the way we would frame the questions and response from what we know the most about.

Take something like human sexuality, i think we could have some widely divergent opinions if we stumbled upon the right way to ask the questions. Its just a question of somewhat different premises, which lead to different skills and ultimatly different answers. Though im not sure either one of us would be too willing to establish something like casuality.

[Neoteny]

just basically that the more of a social constructionist you are, the more likely you will argue until you are blue in the face against purely biological or physical explanations for human behavior.

Its usually a pretty uphill battle for us though, as if i was to argue about why behavior occurs in a certain way against someone like a sociobiologist, they would have the entire upperhand most likely in terms of evidence.

But since its the incredible bias of our discipline, we argue against those explanations anyway.

That's what I figured. It's more fun to argue from the extremes anyway. I'll agree with the bias aspect in that it's often intensely difficult to argue against nature when you steep yourself in genetics like I have. I usually find that it's usually best to concede that the truth is at the 50/50 mark before the entire thing comes to blows.

i would agree. we probably would intensly half heartedly disagree about certain elements of human behavior. Most likely because of the way we would frame the questions and response from what we know the most about.

Take something like human sexuality, i think we could have some widely divergent opinions if we stumbled upon the right way to ask the questions. Its just a question of somewhat different premises, which lead to different skills and ultimatly different answers. Though im not sure either one of us would be too willing to establish something like casuality.

My science is harder than yours.

[got tonkaed]

just basically that the more of a social constructionist you are, the more likely you will argue until you are blue in the face against purely biological or physical explanations for human behavior.

Its usually a pretty uphill battle for us though, as if i was to argue about why behavior occurs in a certain way against someone like a sociobiologist, they would have the entire upperhand most likely in terms of evidence.

But since its the incredible bias of our discipline, we argue against those explanations anyway.

That's what I figured. It's more fun to argue from the extremes anyway. I'll agree with the bias aspect in that it's often intensely difficult to argue against nature when you steep yourself in genetics like I have. I usually find that it's usually best to concede that the truth is at the 50/50 mark before the entire thing comes to blows.

i would agree. we probably would intensly half heartedly disagree about certain elements of human behavior. Most likely because of the way we would frame the questions and response from what we know the most about.

Take something like human sexuality, i think we could have some widely divergent opinions if we stumbled upon the right way to ask the questions. Its just a question of somewhat different premises, which lead to different skills and ultimatly different answers. Though im not sure either one of us would be too willing to establish something like casuality.

My science is harder than yours.

way harder.

[Neoteny]

just basically that the more of a social constructionist you are, the more likely you will argue until you are blue in the face against purely biological or physical explanations for human behavior.

Its usually a pretty uphill battle for us though, as if i was to argue about why behavior occurs in a certain way against someone like a sociobiologist, they would have the entire upperhand most likely in terms of evidence.

But since its the incredible bias of our discipline, we argue against those explanations anyway.

That's what I figured. It's more fun to argue from the extremes anyway. I'll agree with the bias aspect in that it's often intensely difficult to argue against nature when you steep yourself in genetics like I have. I usually find that it's usually best to concede that the truth is at the 50/50 mark before the entire thing comes to blows.

i would agree. we probably would intensly half heartedly disagree about certain elements of human behavior. Most likely because of the way we would frame the questions and response from what we know the most about.

Take something like human sexuality, i think we could have some widely divergent opinions if we stumbled upon the right way to ask the questions. Its just a question of somewhat different premises, which lead to different skills and ultimatly different answers. Though im not sure either one of us would be too willing to establish something like casuality.

My science is harder than yours.

way harder.