6 ms·
"Nature vs nurture" in the hairless ape presupposes free will, which is a linguistic universal but a metaphysical unprovable. Look closely enough and there is
by tnzm 5y ago
"Nature vs nurture" in the hairless ape presupposes free will, which is a linguistic universal but a metaphysical unprovable.
Look closely enough and there is no essential difference between genetics and other causative factors. Other than maybe some people jumping to the conclusion that one has an axe to grind with minorities when one attempts to explain certain things with genetics. Which is just as much an arbitrary social taboo as the preceding taboos that constitute what we today call bigotry. (For the record, I'm a staunch opponent of all forms of violence and oppression.)
For me it makes exactly zero difference. Even if free will does exist in some essential sense, I do not believe that people generally choose what opinions to espouse. They simply acquire them through mimesis of their social environment. If that makes me a nihilist and a coward, then so be it.
Thought experiment: English Prime but also excluding any constructs expressing intentionality. I dream of a world where the concept of free will is considered just as poor taste as racial slurs. I think that, perhaps paradoxically, it will be a much more free and just world.
- EllieEffingMae 5y agoThere are too many causitive factors to attempt to make a point at genetics. Any attempt to do so is racially motivated, or will be co-opted to institute racist policies. Studying genetics and how they affect one's life, future, cognitive ability, ect, is interesting and worthwhile. But genetics are not easily separated from other causal factors. However, there are certain other things that we know affects ones outcomes, mainly socioeconomic status and education level. These issues have not been addressed, nor fixed. Until then, I would like to keep research that can be very very easily twisted towards the goal of eugenics off the table.
- tnzm 5y agoFair enough. I still believe that tiptoeing around these issues gives power to those who consciously perpetrate and benefit from institutionalized violence. Like another commenter said, operating with a comfortably skewed mental model doesn't help resolve the actual socioeconomic issues.
- EllieEffingMae 5y agoI was a little hyperbolic in my original answer. In all honesty, I think it's probably best to continue research in this area. However, in the current state of the world I don't see how that research is especially beneficial. Every finding would have to be taken with such a massive grain of salt that I have a hard time imagining we would find practical applications for it.
- tnzm 5y agoIn the current state of the world, most scientific research will be co-opted by some violent apparatus or another. Does that mean we should lose hope and stop doing any research altogether?
- EllieEffingMae 5y agoBy current state of the world, I mean that any research into this topic can't control for all the possible variables. That's why we'd have to take it with such a large grain of salt. Good try at the "gotcha" though ;D
- tnzm 5y agoThat's why I brought up metaphysics and e-prime actually. We can't resolve societal contradictions in a fundamental way if we do not have the tools to reason about them, and the main tool we have for that, human language, can at times be pitifully inconsistent and ambiguous - even if one does, in fact, control for people's automatic emotional reactions to controversial subjects.
- colordrops 5y ago> Look closely enough and there is no essential difference between genetics and other causative factors. How is this any different from saying "all is one, separateness is an illusion"?
- tnzm 5y agoArbitrarily.
- colordrops 5y agoI'm not fluent in e-prime, sorry.
- tnzm 5y agoSaying "there is no essential difference between genetics and other causative factors" is arbitrarily different from saying "all is one, separateness is an illusion". That is, it differs in connotations and not in the essential content of the statement. Which is exactly what you said, except that you chose to ignore that connotations conduct meaning, when you asked your rhetorical question. This is not e-prime, it is a plain old adverb answering the question "how?" like adverbs normally do.
- colordrops 5y agoIt's not arbitrary. "Other causative factors" is boundless.
- tnzm 5y agoYou now seem to be talking about something else entirely.
- colordrops 5y agoNo, I'm not. Can you be more precise in what you mean by "causative factors"? Without further context, and based on my understanding of the world, virtually anything internal or external to a person could cause them to be more or less skilled at something. It contains everything, and so seems that your statement could be interpreted that genetics and everything else in existence are one in the same.
- Y_Y 5y ago> Thought experiment: English Prime but also excluding any constructs expressing intentionality. I like this idea of a "deterministic" language. In fact it reminds me of Nonviolent Communication, and is probably a good tactic for discussions that might otherwise devolve into personal attacks.