• Donjuanme@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      60
      ·
      3 months ago

      As a biologist,

      We can’t even get the actions of water bears down.

      We have the entire genetic code and brain mapping of a fruit fly, and can get, very slow, good guesses about how they respond to very basic stimulus.

      Let’s not even get into epigenetics.

      I would never downplay the importance or difficulty of psychology.

      But I get nothing but kicks on this house of “science” memes.

    • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 months ago

      They would, but like… It’s just it’s such a broad statement that it’s kinda meaningless. As a term it encapsulates basically everything that’s going on in your brain.

  • BluJay320
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    ·
    3 months ago

    There’s an arguable overlap in neurobiology and neuropsychology, but the gap hasn’t been bridged yet.

    In the same vein, all biology can be explained by chemistry, and all chemistry can be explained by physics. Doesn’t mean we have all the pieces to effectively due so, though

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    3 months ago

    Psychologists are trying to get in on the act with ‘evolutionary psychology’. An exciting new field of unfalsifiable just-so bullshit.

      • shneancy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        determinism as an idea can be harmful to the human psyche. It’s easy to fall into a nihilistic trap of “my actions are not my own, and nothing i do matters”. People with that mindset turn to hedonism or nihilism. If they truly accept those words there would be no escape through existentialism or absurdism, they’d just be trapped.

        i imagine only a tiny number of people would find the ideas determinism presents comforting, as they can feel free of consequences that are truly their fault (which is also a bad thing)

        we have no way of telling which one is true in the determinism/free will debate, but if we live believing we have no real choice or say in what we do - it’s going to be universally worse for everybody, as people explain away ever bad action with “i guess it was always meant to be”

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          I look at it like this.

          1. Do you have the power to change your mind? If yes, Free will is real
          2. Do you have the power to question free will? If yes, Free will is real

          It’s probably some Quantum bullshit we don’t fully understand or something

  • Fushuan [he/him]@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    3 months ago

    We are genetically conditioned to learn from our experiences while we grow up, which are influenced by our environment.

  • Wes4Humanity@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    Genetics= nature, neural structures= nurture… Human brains aren’t developed at birth, it takes a couple decades for the neutral structures to develope completely and it’s everything going on around the person that decides how those structures get wired (nurture)

  • fckreddit@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    A lot of factors influence behaviour. I highly recommend a book called Behave by Robert Sapolsky.

    • Phineaz@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Well, what else is there to human behaviour? There are some serious hypothesis about the interface between neurology and quantum mechanics, but if you break humans down to their foundations they will invariably die. Don’t do that, it’s bad.

      • flora_explora@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        The difference is between having absolute knowledge or being limited in our knowledge (like we will always be). We cannot fully explain human behavior by genetics and neurobiology. Biologists who say otherwise are not serious scientists. There is a lot of bullshit in neuroscience that gets projected onto the brain and that gets debunked some years later.

      • flora_explora@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        You are posing a different question though. The argument in the meme is that all behavior is explainable through genetics and neurobiology. This would be true for someone with absolute knowledge, but no biologist is able to fully explain human (and most other animals’) behavior by genetics and neurobiology.

        Regarding your question: the building blocks and involved factors might be simple, but you can still have synergies at play that are not fully described by the basic level parameters.

        • WldFyre@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Oh I 100% agree with you here! I thought your first comment was more of a free will/non-deterministic universe POV. I guess I read more into the “CAN BE” part of the meme.

          It always annoys me how determinist viewpoints are misappropriated by racist “all nature no nurture” morons instead of the provably true and effective systemic approaches instead of the dumb individualistic ones.