4 ms·

Yeah, sadly the conversation is dominated by extremists. The answer to nature or nurture is probably just 'both'.

klyrs 5y ago
Good science validates, disproves, or quantifies common sense. The nature vs nurture question is especially complicated, because a proper study effectively requires horrible experiments on isolating children from "culture" starting from infancy -- and that's under the optimistic assumption that culture isn't absorbed in the womb
- francisofascii 5y ago
  If you were to study children from a diverse range of cultures, and found similar results regardless of culture, could you come to a conclusion? Might be easier than the removal of culture.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    Did those "diverse range of cultures" arise separately, or did humans originate in one location and spread their culture from there? Contrast to a drug trial -- imagine you only test penicillins, and nobody gets a placebo or a non-treatment, could you come to a conclusion? Are the potential outcomes / conclusions of the experiment the same as an experiment where there are placebo and non-treatment controls?
    - seneca 5y ago
      > Did those "diverse range of cultures" arise separately, or did humans originate in one location and spread their culture from there? If you define cultural influence as broadly as pre-historic shared origins, I fear you've stepped into the territory of unfalsifiable claims. Interesting conversationally, but useless scientifically.
      - klyrs 5y ago
        If you'd like to claim that one culture is totally independent from another culture, there's a pretty big burden of proof there and I reject it out of hand. Humans don't spontaneously materialize, abandoned infants rarely survive to adulthood, and nearly all cultures interact with their neighbors in some form or another (so even if they started independent, they won't remain so for long) Moral monstrosity aside, it should be possible to answer nature-vs-nurture questions by raising humans from infancy in a robo-nursery where they only interact with other such "culturally pristine" humans. Seed a dozen such communities and watch their culture evolve over several generations, and you'd have a pretty good basis to draw conclusions on nature vs nurture.
        nairboon 5y ago
        How will you teach them a language in the robo-nursery without adding any culture?
        klyrs 5y ago
        I wasn't imagining any such education, just provision of physical needs. More like commercial chicken farming, less like an actual nursery you'd send a child to. I did say this was monstrous, after all. One may hope that altruism, compassion, and child-rearing are human nature, and the robo-nursery could be phased out.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  The idea that the article uses is that if you find commonalities across widely dispersed and different cultures, that strongly points to a common biological cause.
- systemvoltage 5y ago
  > Good science validates, disproves, or quantifies common sense. The problem is even more insidious - good science is prevented from being conducted for political reasons largely by extreme progressives. It is unsettling to me that we have so much politics mixed in with scientific understanding of humans. The chilling effect of this is that no professor or researcher would these days attempt to conduct good science around gender differences - they fear their life, liberty and right to pursuit a prosperous career. Just look at the number of gray comments in this thread - it shows how intolerant, childish and absolutely infuriating it is to discuss something that should not be contentious or confrontational. We're not acting like adults.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    I'd encourage you to read your own comment here. You're pointing a finger at "extreme progressives" and calling folks intolerant, childish and confrontational. Does this framing facilitate a reasoned conversation, or further polarize it?
    - throwaway3699 5y ago
      How can we un-polarize science of we cannot discuss it?
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - klyrs 5y ago
        Here it is, being discussed. Therefore, we can discuss it. Can we do so without name-calling? That seems to be a good place to start.
        google234123 5y ago
        Imagine trying to discuss the US's stem cells laws/prohibitions in the early 2000s without being able to "point fingers at" Bush, the far right, or religion.
- Workaccount2 5y ago
  Twin studies have done a lot of work in this area. Two genetically identical children, separated at birth and raised in 2 separate families. At least from these studies, genetics play a far larger role than expected.
  - excepttheweasel 5y ago
    How do twin studies separate those children from the culture they're raised in?

Good science validates, disproves, or quantifies common sense. The nature vs nurture question is especially complicated, because a proper study effectively requires horrible experiments on isolating children from "culture" starting from infancy -- and that's under the optimistic assumption that culture isn't absorbed in the womb

francisofascii 5y ago
If you were to study children from a diverse range of cultures, and found similar results regardless of culture, could you come to a conclusion? Might be easier than the removal of culture.
- klyrs 5y ago
  Did those "diverse range of cultures" arise separately, or did humans originate in one location and spread their culture from there? Contrast to a drug trial -- imagine you only test penicillins, and nobody gets a placebo or a non-treatment, could you come to a conclusion? Are the potential outcomes / conclusions of the experiment the same as an experiment where there are placebo and non-treatment controls?
  - seneca 5y ago
    > Did those "diverse range of cultures" arise separately, or did humans originate in one location and spread their culture from there? If you define cultural influence as broadly as pre-historic shared origins, I fear you've stepped into the territory of unfalsifiable claims. Interesting conversationally, but useless scientifically.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      If you'd like to claim that one culture is totally independent from another culture, there's a pretty big burden of proof there and I reject it out of hand. Humans don't spontaneously materialize, abandoned infants rarely survive to adulthood, and nearly all cultures interact with their neighbors in some form or another (so even if they started independent, they won't remain so for long) Moral monstrosity aside, it should be possible to answer nature-vs-nurture questions by raising humans from infancy in a robo-nursery where they only interact with other such "culturally pristine" humans. Seed a dozen such communities and watch their culture evolve over several generations, and you'd have a pretty good basis to draw conclusions on nature vs nurture.
      - nairboon 5y ago
        How will you teach them a language in the robo-nursery without adding any culture?
        klyrs 5y ago
        I wasn't imagining any such education, just provision of physical needs. More like commercial chicken farming, less like an actual nursery you'd send a child to. I did say this was monstrous, after all. One may hope that altruism, compassion, and child-rearing are human nature, and the robo-nursery could be phased out.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
The idea that the article uses is that if you find commonalities across widely dispersed and different cultures, that strongly points to a common biological cause.
systemvoltage 5y ago
> Good science validates, disproves, or quantifies common sense. The problem is even more insidious - good science is prevented from being conducted for political reasons largely by extreme progressives. It is unsettling to me that we have so much politics mixed in with scientific understanding of humans. The chilling effect of this is that no professor or researcher would these days attempt to conduct good science around gender differences - they fear their life, liberty and right to pursuit a prosperous career. Just look at the number of gray comments in this thread - it shows how intolerant, childish and absolutely infuriating it is to discuss something that should not be contentious or confrontational. We're not acting like adults.
- klyrs 5y ago
  I'd encourage you to read your own comment here. You're pointing a finger at "extreme progressives" and calling folks intolerant, childish and confrontational. Does this framing facilitate a reasoned conversation, or further polarize it?
  - throwaway3699 5y ago
    How can we un-polarize science of we cannot discuss it?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - klyrs 5y ago
      Here it is, being discussed. Therefore, we can discuss it. Can we do so without name-calling? That seems to be a good place to start.
      - google234123 5y ago
        Imagine trying to discuss the US's stem cells laws/prohibitions in the early 2000s without being able to "point fingers at" Bush, the far right, or religion.
Workaccount2 5y ago
Twin studies have done a lot of work in this area. Two genetically identical children, separated at birth and raised in 2 separate families. At least from these studies, genetics play a far larger role than expected.
- excepttheweasel 5y ago
  How do twin studies separate those children from the culture they're raised in?