Digging through pieces I never really posted, this was an idea I had in stream as if dead by daylight were to make a collab with fall guys, chose Oni because I wanted to draw a different character than the ones I usually do (kinda feel like it now honestly)

Also, wanted to remind if anybody is interested my commissions are open, and in about two weeks or less I’ll be back to background commissions, you can find my prices in here

“Causation is not an excuse, however, for all behaviour is caused. If causation were an excuse, no one would ever be held responsible for any behaviour… Causation is not the issue; nonculpable lack of rationality and compulsion is.”

— S J Morse, “Excusing the Crazy: The Insanity Defense Reconsidered” (1985)

In celebration of #DarwinDay we went into our archives and dug out these pages from ‘The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals’.

This was Charles Darwin’s third major work on evolutionary theory and laid out his early ideas about behavioural genetics.

It explored emotions in animals and humans and attempted to work out their evolutionary origins, like why we raise our eyebrows when we are surprised.

This page below is often referred to as ‘Screaming infants’, for obvious reasons.

The bottom photo on the page below is from a study by Darwin’s contemporary, neurologist Guillaume Duchenne (who’s work gave rise to the term ‘Duchenne smile’).

The book was quite revolutionary in using biological illustrations and paved the way for future works.

Though by the end of working on the book, Darwin wrote that he was 'sick of the subject and myself, and the world’.

The world ain’t sick of you, Darwin - Happy Birthday!

Pictures from the Royal Institution Archival Collection. The book was published on Albemarle Street in London, where the Royal Institution also finds its home.

your personality type determined by nurture or nature explained forever so you won’t need any other.

sometimes it’s determined by nurture mostly and sometimes totally nature.

if you born as a very introverted baby, nurture have to be really intensely in the other direction to turn you into an extravert and that’s still in theory. you will probably stay an introvert.

but not all babies born very “introverted” or very “extraverted”. in fact, most babies will born with normal values so for these babies nurture going to play a very important role.

okay but how and why babies born as an introvert? or as a feeler? hormones and neurotransmitters can explain a ton.

for example a high dopamine baby will be more energetic, then they will explore more and cry harder and be restless. naturally, for this baby to become an extravert will be much more likely.

then, if a baby has more testosterone than usual this will further make them more direct, brave and masculine-like what else to expect?

but if a baby has low testo as a boy or high estrogen as a girl, then chances of these to become feelers gonna increase too.

see, i just talk about two hormones and so many stuff explained already. there are many other hormones:

and neurotransmitters:

• low noradrenaline maybe contributes to xxxp personality type development and high noreadrenaline to xxxj?
• high serotonin / gaba maybe increase the chances of high si and makes you chill?
• read this about acetylcholine / dopamine. which is all about introversion vs extraversion.
• and the things endorphins does can be read as a very stereotypical se definition.

so yeah, once again: the more normalized your values on these, the more nurture will affect you, the more open are you as a system to change. the more anomalies there are the more nature will determine things.

When you are adding days to your cuckolds chastity for bad behaviour, tell him the only way to reduce that time is to find you a new guy to fuck or to let you fuck one of his friends.

…The approach of behaviorism is in some respects different from that of panphysicalism, but it resembles the latter in its hopeless attempt to deal with human action without reference to consciousness and aiming at ends. It bases its reasoning on the slogan “adjustment.” Like any other being, man adjusts himself to the conditions of his environment. But behaviorism fails to explain why different people adjust themselves to the same conditions in different ways. Why do some people flee violent aggression while others resist it? Why did the peoples of Western Europe adjust themselves to the scarcity of all things on which human well-being depends in a way entirely different from that of the Orientals?

Behaviorism proposes to study human behavior according to the methods developed by animal and infant psychology. It seeks to investigate reflexes and instincts, automatisms and unconscious reactions. But it has told us nothing about the reflexes that have built cathedrals, railroads, and fortresses, the instincts that have produced philosophies, poems, and legal systems, the automatisms that have resulted in the growth and decline of empires, the unconscious reactions that are splitting atoms.Behaviorism wants to observe human behavior from without and to deal with it merely as reaction to a definite situation. It punctiliously avoids any reference to meaning and purpose. However, a situation cannot be described without analyzing the meaning which the man concerned finds in it. If one avoids dealing with this meaning, one neglects the essential factor that decisively determines the mode of reaction. This reaction is not automatic but depends entirely upon the interpretation and value judgments of the individual, who aims to bring about, if feasible, a situation which he prefers to the state of affairs that would prevail if he were not to interfere. Consider a behaviorist describing the situation which an offer to sell brings about without reference to the meaning each party attaches to it!

In fact, behaviorism would outlaw the study of human action and substitute physiology for it. The behaviorists never succeeded in making clear the difference between physiology and behaviorism. Watson declared that physiology is “particularly interested in the functioning of parts of the animal… Behaviorism, on the other hand, while it is intensely interested in all of the functioning of these parts, is intrinsically interested in what the whole animal will do.”2 However, such physiological phenomena as the resistance of the body to infection or the growth and aging of an individual can certainly not be called behavior of parts. On the other hand, if one wants to call such a gesture as the movement of an arm (either to strike or to caress) behavior of the whole human animal, the idea can only be that such a gesture cannot be imputed to any separate part of the being.

But what else can this something to which it must be imputed be if not the meaning and the intention of the actor or that unnamed thing from which meaning and intention originate? Behaviorism asserts that it wants to predict human behavior. But it is impossible to predict the reaction of a man accosted by another with the words “you rat” without referring to the meaning that the man spoken to attaches to the epithet.

Both varieties of positivism decline to recognize the fact that men aim purposefully at definite ends. As they see it, all events must be interpreted in the relationship of stimulus and response, and there is no room left for a search for final causes. Against this rigid dogmatism it is necessary to stress the point that the rejection of finalism in dealing with events outside the sphere of human action is enjoined upon science only by the insufficiency of human reason. The natural sciences must refrain from dealing with final causes because they are unable to discover any final causes, not because they can prove that no final causes are operative. The cognizance of the interconnectedness of all phenomena and of the regularity in their concatenation and sequence, and the fact that causality research works and has enlarged human knowledge, do not peremptorily preclude the assumption that final causes are operative in the universe.

The reason for the natural sciences’ neglect of final causes and their exclusive preoccupation with causality research is that this method works. The contrivances designed according to the scientific theories run the way the theories predicted and thus provide a pragmatic verification for their correctness. On the other hand the magic devices did not come up to expectations and do not bear witness to the magic world view.

It is obvious that it is also impossible to demonstrate satisfactorily by ratiocination that the alter ego is a being that aims purposively at ends. But the same pragmatic proof that can be advanced in favor of the exclusive use of causal research in the field of nature can be advanced in favor of the exclusive use of teleological methods in the field of human action. It works, while the idea of dealing with men as if they were stones or mice does not work. It works not only in the search for knowledge and theories but no less in daily practice.

The positivist arrives at his point of view surreptitiously. He denies to his fellow men the faculty of choosing ends and the means to attain these ends, but at the same time he claims for himself the ability to choose consciously between various methods of scientific procedure. He shifts his ground as soon as it comes to problems of engineering, whether technological or “social.” He designs plans and policies which cannot be interpreted as merely being automatic reactions to stimuli. He wants to deprive all his fellows of the right to act in order to reserve this privilege for himself alone. He is a virtual dictator.

As the behaviorist tells us, man can be thought of as “an assembled organic machine ready to run.”3 He disregards the fact that while machines run the way the engineer and the operator make them run, men run spontaneously here and there. “At birth human infants, regardless of their heredity, are as equal as Fords.”4 Starting from this manifest falsehood, the behaviorist proposes to operate the “human Ford” the way the operator drives his car. He acts as if he owned humanity and were called upon to control and to shape it according to his own designs. For he himself is above the law, the godsent ruler of mankind.5

As long as positivism does not explain philosophies and theories, and the plans and policies derived from them, in terms of its stimulus-response scheme, it defeats itself.

          — Ludwig von Mises, Theory & History, Chapter 11