4 ms·

I still don't buy the "There is no nature vs. nurture" statement. Maybe there's more than nature vs. nurture, or more complicated than nature vs. nurture. But t

I still don't buy the "There is no nature vs. nurture" statement. Maybe there's more than nature vs. nurture, or more complicated than nature vs. nurture. But totally no nature vs. nurture? Overstatement.

aluren 7y ago
Nature vs. nurture hasn't been a thing since the 2000's when second generation sequencing dramatically expanded the breadth of information we had about species' genomes and (along with other discoveries made at the time) made us realize there was indeed a lot more to it than this dichotomy. It's about as relevant in our modern understanding of genomics as the debate between GOTOs vs. structured programming is to our modern understanding of software engineering.
- educationdata 7y ago
  No. It's not about whether there was "a lot" more. It's about how much it can add on top of "nature vs. nurture" to explain common social phenomena. It is very possible the new knowledge can be 100 times more complicated, but it only adds 1% more explanation power to everyday phenomena. Take physics as an example, quantum physics has "a lot" more than classical physics, but no physicists will discard classical physics as being no longer valid, or no longer useful for explaining everyday physical world, or you should always use quantum physics in engineering, etc.
  - aluren 7y ago
    Explaining common social phenomena with modern human genomics isn't a thing period. If you'd attempted to introduce some sociobiology talking points in a typical genomics conference you'd be laughed out of the room. (That's assuming the organizers would even consider your abstract for a talk in the first place.) No one really discusses 'nature vs nurture' anymore outside of a few circles that somehow still haven't gotten the memo. It's just not relevant anymore to modern fields.
    - educationdata 7y ago
      So what? Civial engineers don't use cutting edge physics, but the construction they designed won't collapse bc of that.

aluren 7y ago

Nature vs. nurture hasn't been a thing since the 2000's when second generation sequencing dramatically expanded the breadth of information we had about species' genomes and (along with other discoveries made at the time) made us realize there was indeed a lot more to it than this dichotomy. It's about as relevant in our modern understanding of genomics as the debate between GOTOs vs. structured programming is to our modern understanding of software engineering.

educationdata 7y ago
No. It's not about whether there was "a lot" more. It's about how much it can add on top of "nature vs. nurture" to explain common social phenomena. It is very possible the new knowledge can be 100 times more complicated, but it only adds 1% more explanation power to everyday phenomena. Take physics as an example, quantum physics has "a lot" more than classical physics, but no physicists will discard classical physics as being no longer valid, or no longer useful for explaining everyday physical world, or you should always use quantum physics in engineering, etc.
- aluren 7y ago
  Explaining common social phenomena with modern human genomics isn't a thing period. If you'd attempted to introduce some sociobiology talking points in a typical genomics conference you'd be laughed out of the room. (That's assuming the organizers would even consider your abstract for a talk in the first place.) No one really discusses 'nature vs nurture' anymore outside of a few circles that somehow still haven't gotten the memo. It's just not relevant anymore to modern fields.
  - educationdata 7y ago
    So what? Civial engineers don't use cutting edge physics, but the construction they designed won't collapse bc of that.