The Economic Calculation Problem

Sure it is. Well at least as much so as saying 'not an argument'.

Its not an argument. You claim shit without anything to back it up, claiming all these things are intrinsic to the human dna, its nature.

You can't prove any of that.

And this is exactly the kind of grey area that that you PoMo neo-lefty faggots love so much. Do you realise how much you sound like global warming skeptics?

Honestly, you acknowledge all that I presented as evidence to be true so really all we're discussing here is what to call these aspects of humanity. Presumably you've a better term than human nature to explain human proclivities?

What? How is studying human behaviour in a non-controlled environment the same as doing hard science that proves that co2 and other greenhouse gasses absorb infra-red light that normally radiates back into space, thus heating up earth, which we can see the effects of in numerical data?

You wot m8? Such as?

This entire thing about MUH YUMAN NATJUR boils down to nurture vs nature. As any good marxist I think most of human behaviour is shaped by their material conditions (nurture), of which I see evidence in the world and history, including your "people liked to wear trinkets to show they had money" argument.

Because you ignore the bulk of evidence in favour of the interpretations that suit your favoured outcome. You claim victory because human nature is not falsifiably demonstrable. This is exactly how global warming 'skeptics' operate.


Yes it does. And current evidence is showing that a lot of the intellectual development in humans is genetic. Some of these genetic traits will manifest as preferences. When these preferences are near universal they can be considered natural.

Give me the evidence mate. Give me that sweet science that proves using the scientific methode of controlled environments that whatever you claim to be human nature is actually human nature.

No, they ignore rock-solid science done in controlled environments, call global warming "natural", to push their own views.


Such as?

Such as? Any proofs, papers, research?


See quote up above. The fact that lots of people do something does not mean its human nature. Lots of people used to rape and pillage, raping and pillaging was normal and war was just human nature. So was feudalism, that also was just human nature.

Yet here we are. We dont kill the neighbouring village's men and take their wives as slaves, we abhor slavery, we don't have feudalism anymore, we do not perform human sacrifices anymore. But hey, I guess if it happens a lot in similar circumstances that all humans find themselves in, that means its genetic and not how they are raised and use their brains to not die.

geneticliteracyproject.org/2015/01/07/iq-is-mostly-inherited-new-research-suggests/

From intellectual capacity AND upbringing comes personality.


Some people have defective brains. I'm considering human nature to be inherent to people who are neurotypical.

You're essentially arguing for the 'blank slate' model of human development. Last I heard this has been BTFO.

He's not arguing that. He's saying human nature isn't immutable like you're claming. You have not substantiated your claim, all you did was post an article about how IQ may be inheritable.

You completely skimmed over the part at the end where he listed a bunch of activities that we no longer engage in but were quite "natural" in the past. Human nature is ever changing and dependant on material conditions. Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, fuck off.

so you're conceding the point?
If Upbringing does effect us this way then human nature isn't immutable dum dum