> Who wants to believe this? It seems pretty lop-sided to accuse the "nature"-skeptics (or "nurture"-proponents) of falling prey to confirmation bias, when our

> Who wants to believe this? It seems pretty lop-sided to accuse the "nature"-skeptics (or "nurture"-proponents) of falling prey to confirmation bias, when our history is littered with much more evidence of the atrocities committed by eugenicists. Ugh, eugenicist atrocities have literally nothing to do with the science. Believing that nature is the leading cause of characteristics does not justify eugenics. And even if this did, how on earth does this disprove that nurture proponents are experiencing confirmation bias? I'm not a nature proponent (or a nurture proponent). The fact that many nurture proponents experience confirmation doesn't prove them wrong; I'm merely saying that they're believing what they believe for the wrong reason. > Even today, it seems that many people who are successful are desperate to find out how much it is their innate destiny, due to genetics. This does not in any way disprove that some nurture proponents are experiencing confirmation bias. Overall you've made this gigantic logical leap that because a small subset of nature proponents did bad things, nurture proponents must not be experiencing confirmation bias. And before you make yet another logical leap and assume I'm talking about all or most nurture proponents experiencing confirmation bias, I'm not. I've said "we" to talk about a common human motivation, but I'm really talking about what I think the motivation of the author of the article is. I'm not making any claims about other people.