Posts by Taylor Wright

Sam Green73 said:You didn't either.
That’s exactly what I’m getting at here.

You need to distinguish between whether the topic itself is scientifically valid, and whether my arguments regarding the link between culture and biology happen to be convincing to you—which is why scientific topics exist in the first place, to debate the strength of an argument.

If you're suggesting that the subject matter can't be scientific at all (rather than just questioning if my or anyone else's arguments about the specific nature of the evolutionary-cultural connection are correct), then you need to provide evidence for that—and that burden falls squarely on whoever is trying to dismiss the topic.

But honestly, that won't work. Simply posing the raw question about the possibility of an evolutionary-cultural link is itself a legitimate scientific inquiry (essentially asking: "is there a correlation between A and B?"). It shouldn't be disqualified unless you're relying purely on ideological arguments.

It’s also worth noting that other users here have actually agreed that such a connection exists, even going so far as to offer their own supporting arguments...

Sam Green73 said:Honestly, if you ask me, I’d just shut down that first thread right away or move it over to off topic without giving it a second thought.
As for the second one, I haven't said anything about it, and I don't have any plans to start now.

Your argument regarding that first topic wasn't exactly "rock solid"...

You really ought to provide some actual science-based reasoning—not just ideological stances or appeals to authority—to explain why there couldn't be a link between culture and biological evolution...

Sam Green73 said:Reading through this complaint, I honestly thought you had actually started a discussion on a legitimate science topic.
That first part doesn't even come close to being scientific; maybe it could pass as philosophy, but I'm pretty sure those folks have certain standards they hold themselves to.

Have you ever heard of sociobiology? It involved actual scientists who once theorized about the link between culture and biology. That theory was pushed aside for ideological reasons—and also because of an overly simplistic attempt to link specific genes directly to culture, or at least that’s how it was framed in the science media.

That said, my approach is much broader, looking into logical indicators that connect biological evolution with culture.

It isn't entirely impossible that you didn't quite grasp some of my arguments.

And hey, if you aren't a fan of "the first part," what's your take on "the second one"?

Moderator Endimion wiped two of my threads from the science subreddit—threads that were completely legitimate from a scientific standpoint. My arguments were backed exclusively by natural science; people can agree or disagree with them, sure, but that’s just how science works—that's the whole reason these discussions exist in the first place.

Based on that, we're looking at... Political censorship of content just because moderator Endimion doesn't like the ideology behind it..

Is this kind of thing even allowed on Reddit? Political censorship.?

FIRST TOPIC: The impact of culture on human biological evolution.
(Here’s the link to the Google cache—thankfully, I managed to snag a snapshot of the thread before it vanished.)

New TopicGoogle didn't manage to cache it in time, so I’m just pasting the intro here:

Biosemiotics. It's a field of science focused on investigating the various signals within biological systems.

We all know about the semiotics of facial expressions—you know, the whole business of smiles, frowns, and everything in between. But does biosemiotics extend to physiognomy itself? I’m talking about the actual anatomical makeup of the face, rather than just the muscle-driven expressions we pull on command.

I can't help but think how incredible things would be if it simply didn't exist. We’re all constantly reading "who other people are" through their facial structures—not just their expressions, but the actual anatomy itself. It's an incredibly powerful scientific indicator of how much the physical constitution of a face plays a role in biosemiotics.
We end up debating whether someone is being fair or unfair, clever or crude, brilliant or dim, intuitive or just plain oblivious... and so on. We do this all the time—often without even realizing it, acting entirely on a subconscious level.

It seems evolutionarily improbable to me that such consistent and widespread behavior could ever be purely accidental—or that it wouldn't carry some kind of significant weight.

Some might argue we’re just checking to see if someone is healthy or whatever.
Honestly, I feel like there’s way more going on here than meets the eye—there's a much deeper, more complex layer of biosemiotics at play. It seems to mirror those intricate dynamics we see in human society, almost like different social "ecological niches" playing out in real-time.

If there were actually such a thing as a true biosemiotics of facial anatomy—one that could bridge the gap between physiognomy and a person's psychological or mental traits (and honestly, my entire life experience tells me it exists, much like the logic I laid out earlier)—then it would absolutely have to carry some kind of evolutionary significance.

That brings up the real question: what kind of selection mechanism could actually create a correlation between someone's psyche and their facial features? We have to start from the assumption that in the beginning, there is no such link—that personality traits and facial structure aren't inherently connected at all.

I can think of two different mechanisms that might explain this.

The first step would be the gradual refinement of a correlation that started out as nothing more than a very rough outline—something like: higher hormone levels being linked to specific facial features, which then correlate back to how that same hormone actually affects the brain.

Eventually, we’d see a gradual refinement of those more subtle factors that impact both the face and the brain. We might even see selection favoring specific mechanisms that influence both simultaneously, rather than just one or the other—essentially, the selection of biosemiotic versus non-biosemiotic facial features. This would imply a selective process for individuals where there is a true congruence between psychological traits and facial characteristics.

The second mechanism would be linked to the first, yet it transcends it—in the sense that when we choose a partner, we’re essentially choosing ourselves, too. It’s as if we're deciding that our own psychological and mental traits should be biologically intertwined with our partner's facial features—or conversely, that our own physical appearance should mirror specific aspects of their psyche.

That’s how you actually establish—and strengthen—the correlation between facial features and psychological traits.

Of course, I'm not saying this correlation is absolute—or even suggesting there aren't exceptions here and there. That would be illogical. But from a statistical standpoint, it seems like such a correlation would definitely exist.

Beyond that, the fact that many individuals with cognitive impairments also exhibit certain facial irregularities suggests there might be a genetic link between facial structure and brain development.

What are your thoughts?

Here