Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

You’re wrong of course. Females primarily do the selecting (your “choosing,” is an odd term for someone claiming that humans lack free will), today and in the past (although males often seem to delude themselves, thinking they’re controlling things). Females seem to “select” for the traits needed to acquire and maintain turf for the female and her offspring, and to make occasional sperm deposits enabling female production of fit offspring—such traits essentially boil down to “manliness.”

As it happens, Harvey Mansfield, “the Last Conservative Standing at Harvard,” has a new book out that’s somewhat relevant here. I’ve provided a blip below from ABC News on his book. (It’s not necessarily a lot of hard science or evidence, but then the “reality” of most here doesn’t seem to require such things anyway)—
Also, there’s still my unresolved query: Am I still the only one here, that is troubled by Tom’s “It's ultimately not their fault,” regarding whenever humans behave badly (e.g., Hitler, Stalin, etc.)?

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

You say that like you were there.

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

I've maintained all along that there is choice but that choice is predetermined and not free.
This makes both of my points. Their choice is predetermined, they had to take the strongest available. And they didn't have much choice, they couldn't care if he had blond hair or carry a tune.

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

The reason is simple, they don't share your brain.

Maybe they understand what I mean by 'determination is not blind'. That our eyes and minds and written words are actually a part of that determinism.

Maybe they understand that guiltlessness does not directly lead to chaos. That humans have survived for millennia even before your invented 'objective morality'. That our genes have given us an instinctive morality that deterministically causes society to deter and punish cheaters of all sorts.

Your repressor module acts to support your ego. It massages the inputs and ignores those that are too harmful to your self-concept. You can't expect Margaret's repressor module to convince her that your ego is correct. And you can't expect mine to argue for yours.

Like I said, you talk about 1+1=2 but you have a different 1 from anybody else; what's obvious to you is incomprehensible to most and probably completely wrong.

This must be a fascinating case study for those among us without repressor modules. They can see the results of evolved psychology.

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Sure, and ants and various other animals have survived even longer. Or, as a famous socialist once said: “Success is the sole earthly judge of right and wrong.”

And what’s this about a “fascinating case study for those among us without repressor modules?”

Re: Two Cousins: Francis Galton Site
 

Sorry. I wasn't clear. By 'us' I meant the population at large.

If there's a part of the brain that does actively repress, it stands to reason that someone out there either doesn't have one or lost it. I don't know if they can survive psychologically without one but I think it would be interesting to read these posts without a filter. Except by sheer coincidence, they probably have the only chance to know the truth, but only so far as the data lead.

What I'm trying to say is that we're all flawed and have little hope of coming to a consensus. But it's still a fascinating discussion.