3 ms·

I used to view things this way as well. It has a lot in common with blank slate psychology. I have come to not believe things like this anymore. As I get older

I used to view things this way as well. It has a lot in common with blank slate psychology. I have come to not believe things like this anymore. As I get older, I am returning more to it's more about nature than nurture: genetics matter much more than environment. I've realized just how hard it is to do some of these things, even with all the resources and tools at your disposal. I spent much time thinking of how environmental cultivation can help, and I do think it matters to a degree, but genetics matter much more, in as much that the only reason environment matters at all is that it helps bring forth expressions of your genes. Having children made me realize this even more. While they pick up on some things and mannerisms of their parents, I have no idea where their unique little personalities came from, and their tendencies towards certain subjects, hobbies, or activities. It amazes me every day I see them change and grow into their own person. Additionally, it belittles the consistent effort and energy spent by these individuals to train their minds. Genius to an extent has a lot in common with madness, in that you have to be almost mad to take ideas they did to their conclusion. We see the result of their works, but not the countless hours and sleepless nights put in to get to that point, driven by the idea of novelty and discovery.

yrimaxi 6y ago
> Additionally, it belittles the consistent effort and energy spent by these individuals to train their minds. If we have to choose between these two dichotomies, “nature” “belittles” it more.
bmitc 6y ago
> As I get older, I am returning more to it's more about nature than nurture: genetics matter much more than environment. It is my understanding that modern science supports this. I’ve seen either a book or article (none of which I can recall at the moment) that echoes this sentiment.
- coldtea 6y ago
  Off-topic, but a book or article though could be something totally different than "modern science". Even if it mentions dozens of studies. You can find a book on every position in science. In some you can find tens, or thousands supporting a position. And they all references studies and statistics, and such. But they can still not reflect any real consensus in "modern science". Either because they cherry pick from a side far away from the consensus (e.g. there are hundreds of such books from climate change denier scientists, but the consensus is elsewhere). Or because the consensus itself is broken to 2 or more equally strong directions. I now tend to only consider "settled" science (and that's mostly "settled for now") what has been studied and distilled so long, it's in 101 university books and such.
willmw101 6y ago
>Additionally, it belittles the consistent effort and energy spent by these individuals to train their minds Not following this logic and this seems to be at odds with the rest of your comment. You seem to be saying that the idea of 'nurture/environment' being more or as important than 'nature/genetics' belittles the effort made by individuals to train their minds? Isn't the complete opposite actually true, ie acknowledging the importance of 'nurture/environment' or epigenetic enabled knowledge/skill acquisition, would actually be to recognise rather than belittle the 'consistent effort and energy spent by these individuals to train their minds'?
- dimitrios1 6y ago
  I didn't finish the train of thought because I felt like it was getting too wordy, but, yes training can bring you to a certain level, but you need to have the right genes as well to be even above everyone else. I am a big sports buff so my mind instantly thinks of all the thousands upon thousands of players across the world, people who train night and day, sleep 8+ hours, have perfect diets, and still come up short. Then you have a Michael Jordan, or my favorite example of pure genetic specimen: Bo Jackson. You need it all: the right genes, the skill acquisition, the grit, the determination, the right mindset, and finally, a little bit of luck.
  - SJC_Hacker 6y ago
    Shaquille O'Neal is the perfect example of this. He hit the genetic jackpot. Being 7' feet tall is a one in 1 million shot. Being 7'2 with that type of frame is like a 1 in a billion shot.
    - dimitrios1 6y ago
      So glad you brought up Shaq. He is the perfect example of if he had say half the madness of a Michael Jordan, he probably would have went down as the greatest of all time, surpassing Kareem. He made grown men look like children in the same way Wilt did in his generation.
  - willmw101 6y ago

yrimaxi 6y ago

> Additionally, it belittles the consistent effort and energy spent by these individuals to train their minds. If we have to choose between these two dichotomies, “nature” “belittles” it more.

bmitc 6y ago

> As I get older, I am returning more to it's more about nature than nurture: genetics matter much more than environment. It is my understanding that modern science supports this. I’ve seen either a book or article (none of which I can recall at the moment) that echoes this sentiment.

coldtea 6y ago
Off-topic, but a book or article though could be something totally different than "modern science". Even if it mentions dozens of studies. You can find a book on every position in science. In some you can find tens, or thousands supporting a position. And they all references studies and statistics, and such. But they can still not reflect any real consensus in "modern science". Either because they cherry pick from a side far away from the consensus (e.g. there are hundreds of such books from climate change denier scientists, but the consensus is elsewhere). Or because the consensus itself is broken to 2 or more equally strong directions. I now tend to only consider "settled" science (and that's mostly "settled for now") what has been studied and distilled so long, it's in 101 university books and such.

willmw101 6y ago

>Additionally, it belittles the consistent effort and energy spent by these individuals to train their minds Not following this logic and this seems to be at odds with the rest of your comment. You seem to be saying that the idea of 'nurture/environment' being more or as important than 'nature/genetics' belittles the effort made by individuals to train their minds? Isn't the complete opposite actually true, ie acknowledging the importance of 'nurture/environment' or epigenetic enabled knowledge/skill acquisition, would actually be to recognise rather than belittle the 'consistent effort and energy spent by these individuals to train their minds'?

dimitrios1 6y ago
I didn't finish the train of thought because I felt like it was getting too wordy, but, yes training can bring you to a certain level, but you need to have the right genes as well to be even above everyone else. I am a big sports buff so my mind instantly thinks of all the thousands upon thousands of players across the world, people who train night and day, sleep 8+ hours, have perfect diets, and still come up short. Then you have a Michael Jordan, or my favorite example of pure genetic specimen: Bo Jackson. You need it all: the right genes, the skill acquisition, the grit, the determination, the right mindset, and finally, a little bit of luck.
- SJC_Hacker 6y ago
  Shaquille O'Neal is the perfect example of this. He hit the genetic jackpot. Being 7' feet tall is a one in 1 million shot. Being 7'2 with that type of frame is like a 1 in a billion shot.
  - dimitrios1 6y ago
    So glad you brought up Shaq. He is the perfect example of if he had say half the madness of a Michael Jordan, he probably would have went down as the greatest of all time, surpassing Kareem. He made grown men look like children in the same way Wilt did in his generation.
- willmw101 6y ago