5 ms·

> Why does it matter so much for everybody, whether the preference is nature or nurture? Because you cannot change nature, while nurture can be changed. If the

by ordu 9y ago

> Why does it matter so much for everybody, whether the preference is nature or nurture? Because you cannot change nature, while nurture can be changed. If there are huge differences caused by nature, then it would be stupid to invest efforts to remove this differences by changing society. If there are huge differences caused by nurture, then changes to society can change nutrure and reduce differences. > I like garlic, and hate cauliflower, and my mother's preferences are exactly opposite. It is quite obviously a nurture thing. Does it mean, ipso facto, that I should change? No, it does not. Any improvement is a change, but not every change is an improvement. Changes is not the terminal goal but instrumental one. If there are reasons to make everyone to like garlic and to hate cauliflower, then we should consider to change nurture to change individual preferences. If there are no reasons than there are nothing to consider. If your preferences lead to economic inequality, if this preferences make hard to you to find job you like, than you should change your preferences, or at least shouldn't allow them to propagate to your descendants. > There is nothing wrong with having preferences determined by nurture! I cannot agree more.

js8 9y ago
> If your preferences lead to economic inequality Except they can't, by definition (hence the word, "preference", as in prefer A to B). If you accept a less paid position A rather than better paid position B, because you prefer doing job A rather than job B, then it's a CHOICE. Why you should be forced to take position B for some higher societal goal of "equality"? That's completely insane, and I say that as a leftist who understands what is economic inequality (which is always, by definition, driven by either lack of choice or non-rational choices).
- ordu 9y ago
  You are making mistake thinking that person is something whole. Person could want a high paid job but at the same time couldn't stop drinking. Or not drinking but eating garlic every morning, or hating math or someting else. Mind easily can hold any number of inconsistent ideas. It is the reason why sometimes people needs psychologist help. Moreover preferences is something that person could change. For example one can stop smoking, drinking, or start to love math. But not everyone is able to do it. It needs some psychological traits that not everyone possesses. You seems to believe that person have free will from birth and have ability to consciously choose which preferences she would have as an adult. if you are than it is the second your mistake. If person nurtered in white supremacy environment from birth to twenty, it would be very hard for him to change his views later. It would be very hard to society to change his view later. Because as I said, not everyone is capable to change himself. I do not know when person becomes able to think himself about his preferences and choose them consciously. Is it age of 12, 18, 21? I don't know, really. But I'm sure that at age of 12-16 when the love or hate to math can be nurtured, person is not ready to manage strategically his/her personality traits. No one at that age is ready. And notice, than I didn't even tried for now to talk about how girls average attitude to math affects society in a way to make society more unequal for girls who like math. One of the reasons why I'm afraid to touch this topic is my bad English, it is hard to me to think such an ideas in English. I'm more stupid when I think in English. Therefore I need to think such a controversial ideas in one language and than translate to other. It is a pain and translation inevitable lose something. The other reason: before we start to discuss society we need to find some common understanding what person is. > I say that as a leftist who understands what is economic inequality If you was a PhD in social sciences I might want to get two days pause to rethink all my understaning of inequality and personality before continuing to argue. If you was a PhD in STEM I might just ignore that, because it didn't matter when we speak about society. But "leftist" or "democrat" or any other political attachment is not an evidence of deeper than average understanding. Even other way round: people who have political attachment tends to be believers and to have faith. Therefore there are more likelyhood that their views is not better then average.
  - js8 9y ago
    No, again, you got it wrong. Preferences are not addictions or anxieties. They are possible choices, by definition. They are basically informed answers to a honest question, "what do you want?". It's your approach that's very patronizing. You are effectively saying that you know better than somebody else. I believe people should be considered to have free will (not saying they actually have it, by the way) and make their own choices in life (mostly - children and mentally ill are the exceptions). I hear the same argument you present in other contexts. For example, muslim women should not be allowed to wear hijab because it's a sign of oppression. No, sometimes these women decided to do it, because they consider it as a part of their culture, and it has nothing to do with oppression. Unfortunately, some people choose to misinterpret it as a political choice, but that's an error those people make. Or it was raised against gays - that what they do is immoral and therefore they should change their sexual behavior. > I didn't even tried for now to talk about how girls average attitude to math affects society in a way to make society more unequal for girls who like math Because that's a bad argument to begin with. The girls have some preferences, and make some choices, and whatever they are, those girls should not be held morally responsible for how society treats them as a result! That's blaming the victim. It's the same argument as the one against hijabs, which I mention above. It's important that they have the choice (also known as "non-discrimination"), and that's it. (Actually also important is that they can change their mind later, if they want.) > If you was a PhD in social sciences I might want to get two days pause to rethink all my understaning of inequality and personality before continuing to argue. Don't give me that! Again, it's very patronizing and undemocratic idea (coming from Plato, among other places), that people who don't have PhD in social science or what not cannot have a preference in social issues. Or that we cannot make an informed choice. Yourself, you show not understanding even elementary philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem Of course I am a democrat and leftist and I have an excellent idea why and what these terms mean. > Therefore there are more likelihood that their views is not better then average. Of course, my view is not better than average, and you should understand it by now. I don't have a better idea about life than a young woman who decides not to work in computing, or to wear a hijab. Unlike you, who would probably want to dictate them. And you should totally read this after two days and rethink your position. Because your position is actually more conservative (patronizing) than mine.

by ordu 9y ago

js8 9y ago

> If your preferences lead to economic inequality Except they can't, by definition (hence the word, "preference", as in prefer A to B). If you accept a less paid position A rather than better paid position B, because you prefer doing job A rather than job B, then it's a CHOICE. Why you should be forced to take position B for some higher societal goal of "equality"? That's completely insane, and I say that as a leftist who understands what is economic inequality (which is always, by definition, driven by either lack of choice or non-rational choices).

ordu 9y ago
You are making mistake thinking that person is something whole. Person could want a high paid job but at the same time couldn't stop drinking. Or not drinking but eating garlic every morning, or hating math or someting else. Mind easily can hold any number of inconsistent ideas. It is the reason why sometimes people needs psychologist help. Moreover preferences is something that person could change. For example one can stop smoking, drinking, or start to love math. But not everyone is able to do it. It needs some psychological traits that not everyone possesses. You seems to believe that person have free will from birth and have ability to consciously choose which preferences she would have as an adult. if you are than it is the second your mistake. If person nurtered in white supremacy environment from birth to twenty, it would be very hard for him to change his views later. It would be very hard to society to change his view later. Because as I said, not everyone is capable to change himself. I do not know when person becomes able to think himself about his preferences and choose them consciously. Is it age of 12, 18, 21? I don't know, really. But I'm sure that at age of 12-16 when the love or hate to math can be nurtured, person is not ready to manage strategically his/her personality traits. No one at that age is ready. And notice, than I didn't even tried for now to talk about how girls average attitude to math affects society in a way to make society more unequal for girls who like math. One of the reasons why I'm afraid to touch this topic is my bad English, it is hard to me to think such an ideas in English. I'm more stupid when I think in English. Therefore I need to think such a controversial ideas in one language and than translate to other. It is a pain and translation inevitable lose something. The other reason: before we start to discuss society we need to find some common understanding what person is. > I say that as a leftist who understands what is economic inequality If you was a PhD in social sciences I might want to get two days pause to rethink all my understaning of inequality and personality before continuing to argue. If you was a PhD in STEM I might just ignore that, because it didn't matter when we speak about society. But "leftist" or "democrat" or any other political attachment is not an evidence of deeper than average understanding. Even other way round: people who have political attachment tends to be believers and to have faith. Therefore there are more likelyhood that their views is not better then average.
- js8 9y ago
  No, again, you got it wrong. Preferences are not addictions or anxieties. They are possible choices, by definition. They are basically informed answers to a honest question, "what do you want?". It's your approach that's very patronizing. You are effectively saying that you know better than somebody else. I believe people should be considered to have free will (not saying they actually have it, by the way) and make their own choices in life (mostly - children and mentally ill are the exceptions). I hear the same argument you present in other contexts. For example, muslim women should not be allowed to wear hijab because it's a sign of oppression. No, sometimes these women decided to do it, because they consider it as a part of their culture, and it has nothing to do with oppression. Unfortunately, some people choose to misinterpret it as a political choice, but that's an error those people make. Or it was raised against gays - that what they do is immoral and therefore they should change their sexual behavior. > I didn't even tried for now to talk about how girls average attitude to math affects society in a way to make society more unequal for girls who like math Because that's a bad argument to begin with. The girls have some preferences, and make some choices, and whatever they are, those girls should not be held morally responsible for how society treats them as a result! That's blaming the victim. It's the same argument as the one against hijabs, which I mention above. It's important that they have the choice (also known as "non-discrimination"), and that's it. (Actually also important is that they can change their mind later, if they want.) > If you was a PhD in social sciences I might want to get two days pause to rethink all my understaning of inequality and personality before continuing to argue. Don't give me that! Again, it's very patronizing and undemocratic idea (coming from Plato, among other places), that people who don't have PhD in social science or what not cannot have a preference in social issues. Or that we cannot make an informed choice. Yourself, you show not understanding even elementary philosophy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem Of course I am a democrat and leftist and I have an excellent idea why and what these terms mean. > Therefore there are more likelihood that their views is not better then average. Of course, my view is not better than average, and you should understand it by now. I don't have a better idea about life than a young woman who decides not to work in computing, or to wear a hijab. Unlike you, who would probably want to dictate them. And you should totally read this after two days and rethink your position. Because your position is actually more conservative (patronizing) than mine.