[ 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.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 132 KB, 704x528, 0008157116.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2269454 No.2269454 [Reply] [Original]

The apple doesn't fall far from the tree. In other words, people tend to resemble their parents. They resemble their parents not only in physical appearance but also, to some degree, in psychological characteristics.

The question is: Why? Two competing answers have been offered: nature (the genes that people inherit from their parents) and nurture (the way their parents brought them up). Neither of these extreme positions stood up to scrutiny and they eventually gave way to a compromise solution: nature + nurture. Half nature, half nurture. This compromise is now an accepted belief, widely held by scientists and nonscientists alike.

But the compromise solution is wrong, too. Genes do indeed make people turn out something like their parents, but the way their parents brought them up does not. So nature + nurture is wrong: it's nature + something else.

The evidence has been piling up since the 1970s; by now it's overwhelming. And yet few people outside of psychology know about this evidence, and even within psychology only a minority have come to terms with it.

>> No.2269459

Evidence or GTFO

>> No.2269484

twin studies seem to be pretty damn good evidence that a lot of seemingly novel and individual behaviors are in fact genetic and only genetic.

in so many cases it's not nature+nurture, or nature+anything.

It's just nature.

>> No.2269486

You're fucktarded. You cause needless -and wrong- dilemmas with your fucktarded shit
Nature + nurture does not mean half nature, half nurture. Just like chocolate milk is not half milk, half chocolate. The two combine, but rarely in any quantifiable scenario.

And it's not nature + nurture because that removes a lot of compounding influnences. It's called genes and environment.

Christ.
And sage

>> No.2269495

>psychological characteristics

Explain what you mean. Your argument holds ground if this definition is loaded.

>> No.2269606

>>2269454
I can only imagine that by the 22nd or 23rd century we will have answered these questions. The only question is, how will that affect society? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the majority of social issues (crime and poverty) can be traced back to "psychological characteristics". So once we refine the human personality to be so... crass, how long will we sustain? what will life be like with so few problems? Will we finally be able to collaborate, establish world peace, and reduce our environmental impact on the Earth?

>> No.2269616
File: 8 KB, 200x200, 1+scruffy[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2269616

>>2269486
second