Saying it's "fundamental hardwiring" is not science, it's speculation at best. Figuring out what's cultural versus genetic in humans is a difficult scientific problem that can't be solved by vague analogy to other species.
If you want to be "real" just avoid pseudo-scientific claims altogether. If you think there's science behind something at least cite a paper.
True or not, it means that between two strangers on the Internet, there's no reason to believe you.
"Why do you think that?"
"Someone in an Internet forum said so."
Nobody does that.
Telling stories from personal experience sometimes works. (Take Susan Fowler's essay for example.) Linking to articles from credible sources can work (for example, the NYT article). Asserting scientific statements without backing it up doesn't.
Comments
Saying it's "fundamental hardwiring" is not science, it's speculation at best. Figuring out what's cultural versus genetic in humans is a difficult scientific problem that can't be solved by vague analogy to other species.
If you want to be "real" just avoid pseudo-scientific claims altogether. If you think there's science behind something at least cite a paper.
Not posting links to papers also doesn't automatically make what I said any less true.
True or not, it means that between two strangers on the Internet, there's no reason to believe you.
"Why do you think that?" "Someone in an Internet forum said so."
Nobody does that.
Telling stories from personal experience sometimes works. (Take Susan Fowler's essay for example.) Linking to articles from credible sources can work (for example, the NYT article). Asserting scientific statements without backing it up doesn't.