16 ms·

They have natural inclinations and their experiences and core memories during early life will form the seed of their personality. Their interactions with their

They have natural inclinations and their experiences and core memories during early life will form the seed of their personality. Their interactions with their parents will shape their interactions with others (and not all parents treat their children equally). Early trauma will stunt their mental development both in subtle and not so subtle ways. As they grow older their instinctual inclinations are tempered by cultural and social norms and by whatever reinforcement style the parents and teachers employed. Even entertainment like cartoons and the internet constantly impart cultural lessons upon them. They are constantly being told what is right and what is wrong, what is good and what is bad. Even though they might not necessarily feel like they agree with it. And that is what shapes their morals, which in turn shape their behavior, which in turn shapes their growth, which ultimately shapes their intelligence. If they developed some behavioral or mental issues, they will learn coping and masking mechanisms to compensate. If they were rewarded for something they were naturally proficient at, they will learn to excel at it. So I don't see how it's so easy to settle what is obviously not even a debate. Both nature and nurture are important in varying amounts at different points in time because the world is complex. As for intelligence, it's not surprising to me that some people are just born smarter than others and that this trait carries over genetically. It's how intelligence evolved in the first place. But with persistence and a positive environment it's possible to overcome many unfair setbacks in life (and vice-versa).

m3t4man 2y ago
From what I know, I think intelligence evolved as a result of us being fragile relative to other animals. Our offsprings are completely helpless for the first year. We aren't as fast, strong, or resilient as most wild animals; So we had to compensate with something. Our total weakness pushed us to use our brain to survive. For example, open confrontation without a plan, even with a pray animal like deer, would result in a total failure. Yes, we are in part endurance hunters, but no amount of endurance would help with something that's categorically faster than you. So we hunted in groups, using tools and schemes to survive. And here we are now. Conversations about intelligence, imo, often miss an important caveat. Humans have a unique ability of plasticity, this constant adaptation and growth that all of us are capable of in a single lifetime. I'm of opinion that if you are capable of speaking a language, that means you are capable of learning and understanding anything. Information, ultimately, is causal relationships and compositions; The more you can see and meaningfully categorise given the circumstance, the more 'intelligent' you are; More specifically - how much can you transcend your cognitive barriers - the way things can be thought of, [permissible/assumed to be valid] modes of engagement with what you experience so to speak. We sometimes corner ourselves into limitations to maintain a sense of comfort, validity, and alignment with what we think "actually is"; Rather than accepting and understanding things as they are without any stakes and generalisations. Point I'm trying to make is, sometimes intelligence is stagnant due to inner dissonance, conflict, alterior to understanding motives. Apart from complex motivations varying from person to person, things like malnutrition, and trauma that takes up cognitive bandwidth and sets limits on cognition, also affect us; What we even think of as good and bad, everything we are that we accumulate over the time of being alive - affect the way we think about what we are experiencing. Let's not forget the effects on who you are during developmental period in womb and the circumstance of said womb (overall hormonal and chemical circumstance). I believe, in some cases, we are eager to explain intelligence away as mostly genetic because it's easier to understand variance that way, rather than having to swift through circumstantial nuances and complexity; Sometimes as means of not changing anything about ourselves and our conduct with eachother, the way we organise; Sometimes to maintain a sense of superiority and inferiority relative to others. List goes on.
DangitBobby 2y ago
Obviously a culture will impact behavior once it's ingrained. But at a very young age, children's personalities will differ vastly even before "core memories" or "parental interactions" will have had a chance to form them. The question is not whether "Nature" or "Nurture" have an impact, it's whether and which one of them is dominant overall, and whether and which one of them is dominant for specific behavioral traits. We certainly do not have an answer to either of those questions.

m3t4man 2y ago

From what I know, I think intelligence evolved as a result of us being fragile relative to other animals. Our offsprings are completely helpless for the first year. We aren't as fast, strong, or resilient as most wild animals; So we had to compensate with something. Our total weakness pushed us to use our brain to survive. For example, open confrontation without a plan, even with a pray animal like deer, would result in a total failure. Yes, we are in part endurance hunters, but no amount of endurance would help with something that's categorically faster than you. So we hunted in groups, using tools and schemes to survive. And here we are now. Conversations about intelligence, imo, often miss an important caveat. Humans have a unique ability of plasticity, this constant adaptation and growth that all of us are capable of in a single lifetime. I'm of opinion that if you are capable of speaking a language, that means you are capable of learning and understanding anything. Information, ultimately, is causal relationships and compositions; The more you can see and meaningfully categorise given the circumstance, the more 'intelligent' you are; More specifically - how much can you transcend your cognitive barriers - the way things can be thought of, [permissible/assumed to be valid] modes of engagement with what you experience so to speak. We sometimes corner ourselves into limitations to maintain a sense of comfort, validity, and alignment with what we think "actually is"; Rather than accepting and understanding things as they are without any stakes and generalisations. Point I'm trying to make is, sometimes intelligence is stagnant due to inner dissonance, conflict, alterior to understanding motives. Apart from complex motivations varying from person to person, things like malnutrition, and trauma that takes up cognitive bandwidth and sets limits on cognition, also affect us; What we even think of as good and bad, everything we are that we accumulate over the time of being alive - affect the way we think about what we are experiencing. Let's not forget the effects on who you are during developmental period in womb and the circumstance of said womb (overall hormonal and chemical circumstance). I believe, in some cases, we are eager to explain intelligence away as mostly genetic because it's easier to understand variance that way, rather than having to swift through circumstantial nuances and complexity; Sometimes as means of not changing anything about ourselves and our conduct with eachother, the way we organise; Sometimes to maintain a sense of superiority and inferiority relative to others. List goes on.

DangitBobby 2y ago

Obviously a culture will impact behavior once it's ingrained. But at a very young age, children's personalities will differ vastly even before "core memories" or "parental interactions" will have had a chance to form them. The question is not whether "Nature" or "Nurture" have an impact, it's whether and which one of them is dominant overall, and whether and which one of them is dominant for specific behavioral traits. We certainly do not have an answer to either of those questions.