I know all that. It’s called biology. It’s nature. And there’s nothing about any of it that is any less instinctual than ducking when someone swings at you with a baseball bat. The lol is framing it as nature vs nurture like it’s 1960. The only question is how does nature work. Going beyond the natural by definition implies it’s supernatural. The language is important because no matter how obvious it is to someone who understands it, it seems to remain completely counterintuitive to people who don’t. And unfortunately many people who don’t understand it work in fields like sociology, psychology, and education and their failure to understand nature and consciousness actually causes harm. If you and elph want to have an argument about something that was settled decades ago go ahead but the entire discussion is antiquated and built on a premise that’s at least 50% false.

There’s no but also after genetics. Genetics determine how you respond to everything period. That doesn’t mean that you’d have the same outcome in different settings. Every setting, every experience, alters your biology and only your biology because all you are is biology. My point may seem simplistic and unnecessary but we live in a world where people with no understanding of neuroscience treat the mentally ill as if it’s still 1650.

Sorry but you're just factually wrong.

Learned behavior vs instinct is a distinction made in mainstream biology


Nature vs nurture in terms of genetics vs environment is another distinction that is made. You can say it's all 'natural' as in not supernatural but that's just semantics. Nature in this context refers to genetics. And if you say it's all just genetics, which you basically just did, you're actually wrong and at odds with modern mainstream biology.

It’s only a debate among biologists inclined to humor sociologists or lack the ability to understand the depth of their field. It may seem like mainstream science to you from your pop science knowledge but no real biologist worth his salt even bothers to join such a fruitless debate in the same way they don’t get on stage with religious weirdos and evolution deniers. No one with an iota of understanding thinks that the environment can provoke a reaction that isn’t genetically rooted so again the only question that can possibly remain is how does the environment affect the biological. If you still don’t get it, and I’m quite certain elph won’t either I’ll put this in the they’ll probably never get there column with free will and overpopulation.

It's clear you're the one who doesn't understand it.

You're arguing semantics. Nobody is saying the environmental impact isn't affecting biology. I'm saying it does and that there's a distinction between a difference that is due to an environment vs one that is purely genetic. If you take two seeds from the same plant and grow them in different settings, the difference is environmental by definition. The genetics haven't changed, only the environment. If you take 2 seeds from different strains and grow them in the same environment, the difference is purely genetic. Since in the real world the conditions aren't nearly so stable, most things are a mish mesh of environmental and genetic factors which are hard to disentangle irl.

Going back to learned behavior vs instinct.. a simple Google search would show you that you're wrong. Don't try to posture with me and act like you have some expertise that we don't. I see right through it.

I’m not aware of any organism that can live without an environment. That’s wild.

I’m aware how widespread these ignorant misconceptions are.

It's not a misconception, you just have a very reductive view of biology. You're basically saying all life has genes therefore everything is genetic. That's not how scientists talk about it. If they notice a difference between 2 populations they look at both genetic and environmental factors. That's nature vs nurture in a nutshell. You don't like the phrase cause everything is nature? Ok whatever. You still aren't challenging what the phrase references.

And learned behavior is distinct from instincts in that it is contingent on observing other creatures and variables in your environment. Instinct refers to behavior that is inherent from birth and will manifest independent of any outside influence. Once again, you don't like the terms? Tough ****. This is how scientists describe them. If you don't see a meaningful distinction there regardless of what you want to name it then I don't know what to tell you.

All behavior is instinctual.

No behavior happens without outside influence. That’s 100% true from fertilization to death.

That’s a good start. Keep quiet until you’ve recognized your misconceptions.

Yawn. You're like the anti-elph. You just repeat platitudes till the other person gets tired. You've yet to make a single decent point. I wish there was anyone who was actually interested in having a dialogue instead of constant dick waving.

This is literally a 3rd grade class lmao