Skeptic Project

If not, I'll do it.

I havent seen anyones online debunking of it yet, thats why they throw it around like its a heavyweight champ.

Get her done.

It fails from the beginning. A few things I would agree with, though.

Well I shall call it a "skeptical analysis" then.

"I think it makes very many accurate observations about various things but then takes giant leaps in order to get where it wants to take you."

I'm very skeptical about these very many accurate observations.

But we shall see.

This fucking sucks. I do not believe the average Zeitgeister has read this crap.

I honestly don't know how to go about doing this. Suggestions?

The problem is that there is just so much...

It is quite easy to take statements out, such as:

"This study reveals how suffering and aggression can be the results of environmental depravity, and
how powerful the environment is in shaping our behavior and values."

Later, it says:

"As the Merva & Fowles study presented previously clearly shows, socially offensive behavior is directly related to socioeconomic circumstances."

At one point, he says that the study shows that environment can be simply "powerful." Then later he claims that same study showed that socially offensive behavior is directly related to socioeconomic circumstances. Well, it doesn't say that and whoever wrote this stupid thing flat out said so two pages before.

"Some people who consider the tenets of a Resource-Based Economy think that the system would be

difficult due to something called “Human Nature”. The argument is that humans are inherently

competitive, greedy and blindly self-serving, implying that no matter how technically good things are
in society, there will always be ‘corrupt’ people who want to abuse others and seek dominance.
"

That isn't the argument at all. The argument is that humans are inherently influenced by the combination of genes that created them. This is nothing more than a misanthropic straw man.

Yes, but on one page he says it "can be powerful."

Then two pages later he says the study showed it was "directly related."

How does he go from "can be powerful" to "directly related"?

The environment can be powerfully influential (as in, not directly correlated), yet a subsection of it - socioeconomic status - is directly correlated. He doesn't say environment is directly correlated because he doesn't think all aspects of it are.

What you can say is that he's contradicting his blank slate stance by saying the environment has a "powerful" effect. Granted, the word "powerful" is subjective. But why doesn't he just say the environment has total control over behavior?

You can also analyze the study that apparently shows a direct correlation.

That is a good idea. Edward could we get some sort of Wiki page that everyone can edit going on this?

So, there's a contradiction to point out. This whole blank slate theory can be criticized as being a major theme of the guide.

That's why I said I only read "most" of it; and ONLY so I could help people cheat on that quiz.

It's not just environment though, and I guess a good way to debunk that claim is to find sources of studies that show that certain genetic traits make people predisposed to certain personality traits.

But not all wealthy people do coke!

I am so mad at myself for saying I would do this.