> Is Rousseau correct that adults are correcting and that children in nature are pure, or are humans naturally selfish and children must be taught goodness and

> Is Rousseau correct that adults are correcting and that children in nature are pure, or are humans naturally selfish and children must be taught goodness and culture for them to live good and well. This is a false dilemma. The fact that humans are capable of many different behaviors means that we are biologically prepared to exhibit all of them... in certain circumstances. Actually, the difference between nature and learning is also a false dilemma. The nature of homo sapiens is to learn. Some apes are born smarter than human babies, but the human babies dramatically exceed them at capacity to learn. For example, it is natural to be nice to your family and friends, and hostile to strangers. The culture tries to overcome this. Less hostility to strangers, and less nepotism, so that a large civilization can be built. The civilization brings many good things (food, safety, comfort), but also lot of frustration, as we constantly need to overcome our instincts. Sometimes we find out that we were suppressing our instincts more than was necessary, and can relax a bit. The main thing we teach children is self-control. Children can be super nice, when they are in the right mood. We teach them not to hit or bite their potential friends, when they happen to be in the opposite mood. Does this make friendliness natural or learned? The question is false. We learn how not to ruin the thing that we naturally want. In education, kids are better at learning by observing than by listening. Teachers often err by talking too much. Instead, they should talk less, and let the kids observe each other as they succeed. Still, the teachers should teach; it is not reasonable to assume that kids will reinvent the entire civilization in 10 years.