How come every time you make this judgement, you find something else which is a direct result of you thinking about this - something that you've never thought before?

You can keep saying that it's biology but something else will just pop out.

**In short: for biological determinism to be true, everyone including you must be biologically-determined, but you must prove this by showing that all possible actions that you and others make are owed to biology - but you cannot do this because you would have to be dealing with an explodingly-infinite amount of things which escape your reach simply because you've been thinking about this in the first place.**

**Given this and your inclusion in society, you therefore cannot explain how we think through biological models or through any model which does not include us as thinking, self-determining forces.**

***It means that the way in which you approach politics and economics is fundamentally missing what we are - you are instead opting to focus on frozen understanding of ourselves which you take as being representative of ourselves.***

This is a metaphysical and epistemological controversy - it concerns what kinds of things there are in the world and how we know anything about them.

You do nothing but implying creating a strawmen that you then talk about for ages

"you must be purely acting in accordance with you biology, and you can say that you know this."

impltini

i never said its just biology its both, which you are now argueing despite earlier saying it its enviorment

flip flop aand taking my stance, then imply a assumtion strawmen and scold me for it

i was the one who said the biology creates the enviorment

the parents biology effects the enviorment of the child who has a biology

"how can you say that you're fully determined by something?" where do i say fully ?

"but you must prove this by showing that all possible actions that you and others make are owed to biology " C;ear;y upi dont know what the term biological determinism means. Your bais clouds your understanding.
It doesnt means soly caused by biology, you misunderstand another concept, think you know what you talk about, then rant vaguly about it for paragraphs on end

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism

**Biological determinism, also known as genetic determinism[1] is the belief that human behaviour is controlled by an individual's genes or some component of their physiology**

i already showed you several biological determinated traits

And now you ask for it again

Cranium capacity relates to genes, genes relate to skin color. genetics relate to iq.

>not having actaul aussies in the ausie channel

```You do nothing but implying creating a strawmen that you then talk about for ages
"you must be purely acting in accordance with you biology, and you can say that you know this."
impltini
i never said its just biology its both, which you are now argueing despite earlier saying it its enviorment```

...which is a convenient straw man of my argument. I did not say that you were not talking about the environment. I said that you were talking about biology being the determining factor. You served up Beaver 2003 and more studies to defend this and they talked about 'environmental' factors. Your get-out was this:

**My actual point all along is that you're attributing the cause of human actions to *biology*, and that even if you try to explain 'environmental' factors through biology, you will have to include your own actions right up to the very act of you thinking that you're biologically determined.**

```i was the one who said the biology creates the enviorment
the parents biology effects the enviorment of the child who has a biology```

***Which means that you consider 'biology' to be the determining factor of all human action.***

```"how can you say that you're fully determined by something?" where do i say fully ?
"but you must prove this by showing that all possible actions that you and others make are owed to biology " C;ear;y upi dont know what the term biological determinism means. Your bais clouds your understanding.
It doesnt means soly caused by biology, you misunderstand another concept, think you know what you talk about, then rant vaguly about it for paragraphs on end```

So you admit that *not all human action is owed to biological processes*? If so, __how does it follow that we cannot and should not do anything about our biology__, and ***how does it follow that we will always be living with the same actually-existing barriers (rather than highly-generalised, static abstractions which are either trivial or nonexistent) to doing what we want and need to do***?

__***Why bother even hiding behind biological determinism as an argument against ruthless self-engineering if you admit that human action is not in perfect correspondence with biology? If the limitations of our present biologies can be overcome, then what's the point of screaming about any kind of determinism which relates to that?***__

```>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_determinism```

>Biological determinism, also known as genetic determinism[1] is the belief that human behaviour is controlled by an individual's genes or some component of their physiology, generally at the expense of the role of the environment, whether in embryonic development or in learning.[2] __Genetic reductionism is a similar concept, but it is distinct from genetic determinism in that the former refers to the level of understanding, while the latter refers to the supposedly causal role of genes.[3]__ It has been associated with movements in science and society including eugenics, scientific racism, the debate around the heritability of IQ,[4] the biological basis for gender roles,[5] and the sociobiology debate.

**You could weasel your way out here and say 'oh, see, biological determinism is not about causal links. That's biological reductionism! I never said that because I never neglected the environment!'**

But this is simply a matter of terminology, because *the fact remains that you also think that changes in the environment are also owed to biology*. Even if you think it's a two-way street of both affecting each other, you still leave human subjectivity and the dimension of human thought out of the question. **So if we switch to the style of terminology that the article is using, *you're also a biological reductionist*.**

```Biological determinism, also known as genetic determinism[1] is the belief that human behaviour is controlled by an individual's genes or some component of their physiology
i already showed you several biological determinated traits
And now you ask for it again
Cranium capacity relates to genes, genes relate to skin color. genetics relate to iq.```

Bringing up pseudo-Mortonite analyses and correlations which relate to IQ (a notion which is fundamentally based upon some notion of 'general intelligence', referred to as *g*) does not prove biological reductionism.

Nor does it prove that our actions are in fact *determined/caused* by our biology, or even that there is a hard limit on what people can do with regards to their mental capacity.

I could talk about neuroplasticity, sure, but the notion of *g* is itself owed to extrapolations and quantifications of what it means to be 'intelligent' and 'cognitively-powerful'.

Such quantifications can be warranted, but only insofar as they analyse *the past*, and *in hindsight*.

**In fact, *g* is related to success in performing tasks which seem trivial enough to be part of any possibly-existing society - for example, noticing patterns - when those patterns might not exist at all. At best it relates to how one deals with patterns which, without the context of the existing order putting some kind of emphasis on them, are ultimately meaningless in themselves.**