This is just hand waving nonsense at this point.

The problems I have elucidated are clear cut, robust, rational and intellectually sound and come from a place of detached critical analysis rather than your total emotional investment in a given outcome.

The idea that I am attempting to refute something with the same status as 2+2=4 is just a naked emotional assertion of victory with zero substantiation, its pure semantic waffle.

Nothing that has been shown in this thread gets close to putting the claim toy preference is innate on the level of math, only a dim wit would conceive that idea.

To the critically rational the matter is ambiguous and needs more work and evidence, to the emotionally invested its as clear cut as 2+2, which is simply a nonsense ontological claim.

right, the person who ceases a discussion because he doesn't like the data so prefers no data and then abandons that and moves on to anyone who disagrees is "too emotionally invested" then proceeds to accuse others of hand waving

right on ted, you keep on truckin

The above is just word pie that bears no resemblance to anything that has occurred itt.

Hypothetically a child could develop preferences for toys due to innate factors or socialisation or combination of both.

We did some studies that did not account for socialisation and found preferences, preferences became more pronounced the older the child was.

Umm the preferences must be innate.

Could not make this **** up.

what i would give to walk in your shoes for a day and see how your mind works, i don't for a second belief that trolly and uke post in good faith but i genuinely think you believe all this nonsense you spew because you're like this in every thread picking fights with everyone over literally nothing, i can't even tell what you're arguing with people about half the time and yet i don't believe i've ever seen you concede anything even once

must be amazing to bat 1.000 in everything, we have a genuine genius gracing us with his presence

So yep onto the ad hominems. Standard from the emotional posters.

You have engaged in this thread over literally nothing, what does that even mean?

What topics in which threads are not about nothing, let me know so I can engage in them.

Really really triggered by someone having the perfectly reasonable idea that toy preferences are to some extent socialised. Not even a remotely controversial opinion.

So to pick out some further problems in the study cited by Elrazor.

As I pointed out the degree of preference is heavily weighted by the forced choice methodology studies which find a much higher degree of preference than other studies using other methods.

However even when using that methodology:

Which corroborates the claim made in the study I cited that 5-6 month olds show no typical preferences but more socialised infants at 12 months do.

It’s very strange that you can’t answer a simple question. Where’d you find the article?

You're both pretty horrible at arguing. Oaf will go on for endless miles without any consideration of the other side, and rickroll will eventually resort to challenging the other to a boxing match.

This nature vs nurture debate was hot stuff 40 years ago. Today, if either of you spent more than 3 min on google and actually studied this, you'd both know this is no longer viewed as an either/or proposition.

The fact that you two are tarding up this thread with a 40 year old debate is really on brand

can you point to a single instance in all your years on 2p2 where you changed your position and admitted you were wrong

can be anything, poker strat, soccer talk, or things like this

just one, that's all i ask

Such a weird take.

Do you internet much?

He already told you he found it on google scholar, and sure af not lexis nexis, where it would be interred

see, i point out a hard truth you'd rather not acknowledge, instead of agreeing and moving on or providing evidence to the contrary you just chalk it up as an attack and then when pressed on it redirect the attack to me

you have that undertitle for good reason ted, just own it

this could be a good spot for you to break the cycle fyi

We already did that, try and keep up instead of actually tarding things up with a complete wiff of a grunch which is standard to your mo ironically.

Also lol at the idea that this thread was some bastion of enlightened debate before this tangent, get the absolute **** out of town with that take.

The way the thread has proceeded over the last few pages is standard for every page.

Haha my under title has nothing to with that.

Sorry for not running off to necro my whole posting history looking for a retraction, which btw do exist, sure they are few and far between, but I can count the number of times I have seen retractions by posters on this forum on one hand not using all fingers.

So poster never retracts is a near absolute redundant description of any given poster.

So yea this is just more total wiff and miss from you, sad.

This is such an AIDS and pointless tangent, rickroll gona rickroll.

when you're the biggest guy in p&s you gotta go to your strengths

for the record i never stated it was either or, razor and i are both on the "it's a mix" which is pretty much the accepted version in the scientific community - i apologize if i was unclear about that, seems i was too focused and telling ted he was wrong and not focused enough on representing how he was wrong

Total backtrackaments.

Oaf still thinks any bit of compromise is backtracking. You must be bored bc you cannot be this dumb.

remarkable for you to have been here for almost 30k posts and 2 decades and not once been wrong, as i said, absolute genius gracing us with his presence in the thread

Why grunch a thread just to attack someone?

Just fly past **** posting.

Yea the cap fits.

Goddamn, thank you. I don’t know why people can’t just answer simple questions sometimes.

Sort of wild that this study from the 70’s is the top result for whatever it is he was incompetently searching for. That’s A+ Google Scholar skills, champ.

Remarkable for any grown adult to think the above is a gotcha of any kind.

The brush you are trying to tar we with applies to the majority of posters so yea whatevs cool story bro.

Also its relative, does not take a genius to be right all the time on the internet, you just have to be not stupid, because you will always find stupid people voicing opinions.

See post quoted above for evidence of such.

Can we move on from the X poster is like Y tangent, its a great way to pointlessly stink up a thread.

Aren't you the guy who refused to admit Disney only gaf about subs and merchandising with star wars when I was explaining to you that obi is geared toward kids? Like if you can't even admit that then what can you admit.

You need help with definitions

Compromise is not back tracking. It is called being an adult. Pointing out what you literally do all the time is not attacking you, it's called observation