[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 2.90 MB, 350x197, 7ec594744db03e19a246ade4470aa95a.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5476716 No.5476716 [Reply] [Original]

Is the whole "nature or nurture" polarity in psychology and cognitive studies just a left over tendency toward being a dualist?

I mean:

>nurture-mind
>nature-body

It's all the same damn thing, way don't people admit it?

>> No.5476721

It's a little like when people use human nature as a buzzword to justify the shit parts of society they don't want to face: it sounds scientific enough and has been repeated by enough people that it must be true.

>> No.5476726

It's not all the same thing, it's clearly a combination of both, yes, but what is disputed is how much of either side makes up the whole

>> No.5476732

>>5476721
I think the majority of people in my country at least still genuinly believe there's such a thing as a solid human nature.

It's a shame they don't treat philosophy like any other subject and teach it in schools.

>> No.5476742

>>5476726
But "nurture" is just a function of nature in the same way "big ball of nuclear fusion" is a function of nature.

You wouldn't ask how much of the suns behaviour the sun is responsible for and how much is outside stimulus, because it's all just one thing.

>> No.5476746

>>5476721
I don't think anyone seriously claims there is a solid human nature just that there is tendency for humans to act certain (often deplorable) ways when there life exists in a certain context

>> No.5476774

>>5476746
As a dude in bible belt America I can tell you from experience that there's still plenty of people who believe in human nature as an actual thing.

>> No.5476783

>>5476774
I mean anyone who is taken seriously

>> No.5476796

>>5476783
By who?

>> No.5476805

>>5476742
So? They are still separate starting points, even if they do work together. The question is about which starting point drives which actions. Is it external data or internal circuitry. Yes, they are distinct

>> No.5476816

>>5476716
well its propagated in academia, the leftist intelligentsia that demand mutable human behaviour as a pre requisite to their genocidal social engineering experiments.

ask dave reimer what he thinks about 'nuture'

>> No.5476830

>>5476816
>pure shit

>> No.5476838

Humans are nature. Just because we made something with tools doesn't mean it's not natural. We exist in nature and are therefore always natural. Artificial doesn't exist. Computers are as natural as beaver dams. Unnatural is something fundamentally contrary to the physical laws of nature. Saccharine is natural; gravity being the strongest of the four forces is unnatural. GMOs are natural (their healthiness is unrelated); helium atoms with 18 protons are unnatural.

>> No.5476854

>>5476830
John Money is that you?

Mutilate any young boys lately? How progressive!

>> No.5476863

>>5476838
Depends on your definition of 'natural'. One definition and I think probably the one which will be first in the dictionary is essentially: not man made

>> No.5476872

>>5476716
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75g4d5sF3xI&t=5m8s

>> No.5476883

>>5476863
But why is man-made different from bee-made or beaver-made? Such a sharp distinction between humans and every other form of life in existence is symptomatic of an ugly romanticism.

>> No.5476912

>>5476883
Yes, I understood your point, the vague dictionary definition goes against it is what I'm saying. If anything you could be a pedantic fag and claim due to the huge impacts of humans on the earth that nearly everything is man made

>> No.5476984

>>5476883
because humans are both self-aware and creative

>> No.5477031

>>5476984
both because of nature. both because of evolution (as a product of /natural/ selection) and the fact that /natural/ laws allow it. self-awareness (something we conveniently define as "as self-aware as humans; no dolphins/chimps/elephants/gorillas you don't count because you're not *as* self-aware as we are") as a separate-from-all-other-forms-of-life-tier phenotype (as opposed to hair color or bone structure) is silly. our creations are still natural because we are natural, our self-awareness is natural, and the mechanism by which everything we do/think/create is a natural one.

>> No.5477076

>>5477031
so in your logic a beaver dam could be described as "solar" because the sun played a part in the formation of the beaver

>> No.5477091

>>5477076
it's as much solar as it is natural.

>> No.5477116
File: 8 KB, 260x258, 1394593207471.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5477116

>>5476716

>tfw ariana marie

just fell in love with a porn star