3 ms·

So... is this a tentative win for the nurture crowd then? Or did they strictly only show that there is no correlation between testosterone, without going into a

So... is this a tentative win for the nurture crowd then? Or did they strictly only show that there is no correlation between testosterone, without going into alternative options? EDIT: glaugh's comment[0] explains why it is not. TLDR: this research debunks earlier research with a similar scope, but more long-term effects of testosterone are not accounted for. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21143846 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21143846

jeffreyrogers 7y ago
I don't think nature vs. nurture is a good way of thinking about complicated biological phenomena. For example, take height. We know from recent GWAS[0] that many genes are associated with height[1]. We also know that poor nutrition in early life will lead to severe stunting, regardless of genetics. My model for thinking about these things is genes delimit the scope of possibilities, environment (some of which is prenatal or early childhood and very hard to change) determines what possibilities turn into reality. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wide_association_study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wide_association_study [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30124842 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30124842
kerkeslager 7y ago
Nature versus nurture is such a boring debate, honestly. The driving force behind the nature versus nurture debate seems to be people attempting to use science to justify their positions on pop philosophy, but the science rarely actually connects to the pop philosophy position. It's basically: take a specific scientific fact, try to use it to prove a very nonspecific idea (nature or nurture?) and then use that nonspecific idea to prove a very specific idea (for example: criminals can be rehabilitated because it's their nurture, not their nature, that causes them to commit crimes). But that's just thinly-veiled Bulverism: we can just study those specific ideas directly (we know that current rehabilitation methods work well for some crimes and not for others) and the very general ideas of nature versus nurture add nothing to the conversation.
- homonculus1 7y ago
  >(we know that current rehabilitation methods work well for some crimes and not for others) Somewhat off-topic but I find this interesting, can you elaborate on which ones we know this for?
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    I don't have anything resembling a full list, but rehabilitation seems to be effective for drug-related crimes[1]. I was going to say that sex offenders seem resistant to rehabilitation, but apparently that is no longer the case[2] (good news!). The cited meta-analysis of studies from 1995-2002 found little-no benefit from rehabilitation then, but the 2015 meta-analysis I linked shows rehabilitation to have "proven" or at least "promising" results--this is probably due to progress in rehabilitation methods. It's widely believed that serial killers can't be rehabilitated, but as far as I can tell there really isn't data to back that up (most of them stay in jail forever, so we don't have recidivism data). So I don't think we can add serial killers to the list of non-rehabilitatable (sp?) crimes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism#Drug-related_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism#Drug-related_crime [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25575803 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25575803
- vanderZwan 7y ago
  Tell that to the people who study the heritability of intelligence. There are some nasty pieces of work in that field. EDIT: I should clarify: I agree with your point. This is not stopping actual brain scientists from making really disturbing claims about genetic determinism, completely oblivious to their own political leanings. I'm speaking from experience of having shared departments with them.

jeffreyrogers 7y ago

I don't think nature vs. nurture is a good way of thinking about complicated biological phenomena. For example, take height. We know from recent GWAS[0] that many genes are associated with height[1]. We also know that poor nutrition in early life will lead to severe stunting, regardless of genetics. My model for thinking about these things is genes delimit the scope of possibilities, environment (some of which is prenatal or early childhood and very hard to change) determines what possibilities turn into reality. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wide_association_study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome-wide_association_study [1]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30124842 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30124842

kerkeslager 7y ago

Nature versus nurture is such a boring debate, honestly. The driving force behind the nature versus nurture debate seems to be people attempting to use science to justify their positions on pop philosophy, but the science rarely actually connects to the pop philosophy position. It's basically: take a specific scientific fact, try to use it to prove a very nonspecific idea (nature or nurture?) and then use that nonspecific idea to prove a very specific idea (for example: criminals can be rehabilitated because it's their nurture, not their nature, that causes them to commit crimes). But that's just thinly-veiled Bulverism: we can just study those specific ideas directly (we know that current rehabilitation methods work well for some crimes and not for others) and the very general ideas of nature versus nurture add nothing to the conversation.

homonculus1 7y ago
>(we know that current rehabilitation methods work well for some crimes and not for others) Somewhat off-topic but I find this interesting, can you elaborate on which ones we know this for?
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  I don't have anything resembling a full list, but rehabilitation seems to be effective for drug-related crimes[1]. I was going to say that sex offenders seem resistant to rehabilitation, but apparently that is no longer the case[2] (good news!). The cited meta-analysis of studies from 1995-2002 found little-no benefit from rehabilitation then, but the 2015 meta-analysis I linked shows rehabilitation to have "proven" or at least "promising" results--this is probably due to progress in rehabilitation methods. It's widely believed that serial killers can't be rehabilitated, but as far as I can tell there really isn't data to back that up (most of them stay in jail forever, so we don't have recidivism data). So I don't think we can add serial killers to the list of non-rehabilitatable (sp?) crimes. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism#Drug-related_crime https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recidivism#Drug-related_crime [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25575803 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25575803
vanderZwan 7y ago
Tell that to the people who study the heritability of intelligence. There are some nasty pieces of work in that field. EDIT: I should clarify: I agree with your point. This is not stopping actual brain scientists from making really disturbing claims about genetic determinism, completely oblivious to their own political leanings. I'm speaking from experience of having shared departments with them.