/sci/ - Science & Math

>>15957112
if we'd have some preset neural networks and also plastic areas that can be formed depending on experience then ...both?

She's got a bay-B

>>15957119
Sheeeee
>heeeee

And it's grey

>>15957123
3 code words.

>>15957112
There are no geniuses here bar Barkun, soz.


GOASH

>>15957126
Believe

more genetic than they would like to admit

>>15957146
>more epigenetics than they would like to admit

>>15957119
Well?

>>15957112
There isn't a "debate" going on, genetics is overwhelming.

>>15957112
the people who think it's all nurture/social constructivism are operating on the weirdly non-scientific, quasi-religious faith that we aren't actually biological animals like horses and dogs and chimps with literally hundreds of millions of years of evolutionary hard wiring. it's essentially one lateral step away from saying we have a "soul"

>>15957112
Both.

>>15957177
Both of those are mainline opinions both now and historically.

Which is why it is extra sad that a soul would be forced to supervene on an inferior genetic substrate.

>>15957112
Both of course, but experience take the shape of the container they fall into. So the self is genetics.

>>15957112
97% nature.
3% nurture.

>>15957112
nonsense statement. there is no situation where genes arent operating in an environment

>>15957112
Neither. Lack of lead, the metal, makes you subhuman.

People are so defective from the lack of heavy metals and iron poisoning that caring about anything else is pointles.

>>15957177
>the people who think it's all nature/genetics are operating on the weirdly non-scientific, quasi-religious faith that we aren't actually irrevocably social creatures with literally hundreds of millions of years of compounding socialization. it's essentially one lateral step away from saying we have a "soul"
Do you see how useless this ad-hom analogy is for truth-seeking purposes?

>>15957661
This answer makes the most sense. You can tell because it reduces the question to a tautology. We are genes expressed in an environment. Starting out, genetic factors are primary in determining the first iteration of ourselves. As these genes are expressed and responded to, they grow into an environmental-personal feedback loop that continues to reiterate and build up and affect itself. This demonstrates the uselessness of this question in obtaining any valuable information, so it's probably the most correct.

>>15957112
Metal comes from hell.

>>15957112
Both

>>15957112
neither, shit people are just shit people, its just their qualia

>antisocial behavior isn't innate, a predisposition towards the extreme end of anti social behavior exists within some people, possibly, but people's behavior is heavily determined by their environment. so, you have to examine an excessively anti-social person's upbringing to understand why they'd do such a thing.
>SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST BORN BAD PEOPLE, ANON! NOT DECENT FUCKING PEOPLE LIKE US, BAD PEOPLE, AND HECKIN' NARCISSISTS! DOWNVOTED! ARE YOU SERIOUSLY EXCUSING THIS BEHAVIOR? DO BETTER.
>your genes don't determine everything about you. though they're an obvious factor in your reality, the way people respond to said genes is very important. for example, a person could have psychopathic traits from genetics, but not have fallen into harmful behavior due to having nurturing and guiding parents and plenty of support growing up. the predisposition is there, but no outcome is just fixed by genes, which should be self-evident.
>WHAT ARE YOU, A KIKE?? GENES ARE EVERYTHING!! SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST BORN BAD PEOPLE!! ARE YOU SERIOUSLY EXCUSING THEM?? SAGE
do you people realize how much in common you have with reddit pop psych tards?

>>15957682
Aping and parroting isn't being social, it's being retarded.

>>15957839
>that word is actually another word that means the same thing but looks different, debunked

>>15957112
who nurtured the first nurturer?

>>15957146
much less genetic than you want to be true

>>15957845
based retard

>>15957845
Its nurturers all the way down.

>>15957840
What?

>>15957848
He's making a good point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueprint_(Plomin_book)

It's mostly nature. Twin studies proved it a long time ago. Mass SNP analysis is proving it even more today.

>>15957888
>linking a wikipedia page of a book

>>15957893
Fastest way for someone to check out the synopsis and decide if they're interested in reading it.
Here's the full text if you'd prefer
https://www.hoplofobia.info/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Robert-Plomin-Blueprint.pdf

>>15957888
based plomin

>>15957899
>Plomin foresees private, direct-to-consumer companies selling sets of polygenic scores to academic programmes or workplaces. Yet, as this “incorrigible optimist” assures us, “success and failure — and credit and blame — in overcoming problems should be calibrated relative to genetic strengths and weaknesses”, not environmental ones
this sounds pretty ZOG

A cuckoo will use other bird nest independentlythe fact she was nurtured by other,caregiving bird. Its genetic

>For some areas of behavioural research—especially in psychiatry—the pendulum has swung so far from a focus on nurture to a focus on nature that it is important to highlight a second law of genetics for complex traits and common disorders: All traits show substantial environmental influence, in that heritability is not 100% for any trait.
t. Robert Plomin

>>15957911
a cuckoo was nurtured by a caregiving bird and thus see it appropriate to lay eggs in another caregiving bird's nest, it's nurture

>>15957911
>animals hunt for food by nature
>if humans give them food, they associate humans with food, and when humans vanish, their environmental conditioning causes them to starve

>>15957980
The newly-hatched cuckoo chick pushes all the other eggs and chicks out of the nest. Nature.

>>15957987
ah shit got me there

>>15957682
granted, i should have included the sentence "and these same people who believe it's all 'nurture' would recoil at the assertion that humans have a 'soul,'" which was my broader point - abandoning genetics for social constructivism is a religion by another name

>>15957112
It's a matter of both.

A dog won't solve Einstein's field equations.
But neither would Einstein if he were raised by dogs.

>>15957112
It's both.
>it's all genes bro, environment doesn't do shit
Okay, so if I give you shitty nutrition and a steady diet of lead I guess that doesn't do shit to you.
>it's all environment bro
No environment is going to fix having extra chromosomes.

fuck genetic determinists, literally nazi motherfucks, I will fist you shoulder deep

>>15957112
It's both but the greater environment i.e. weather patterns, oxygen level, general terrain, temperature and/or exposure to sun that dictates the conditions nature and nurture operate under.

>>15957112
It is both but probably a little more of the right

Nature results in nurture and is the more determinant influence