evolution and humans: nature vs society
 

Since this same debate popped up in multiple other threads and there are always complaints that it's off topic, here's a thread to continue that discussion should it continue to pop up.

Me and elph were having a back and forth regarding nature vs society and I was challenging him to explain the distinction he was making and he said he can't explain something so obvious. Imo when you can't explain something obvious that's a good sign you don't actually understand it yourself but rather are taking it for granted

oh cheers for making a proper thread for it

There’s no competing with nature because everything is part of nature. Even Casper.

ok but you understand learned behavior isn't unique to humans right?

Learned behavior is just a subcategory of instinct. They’re not separate phenomena.

No he's right that there's a distinction between learned behavior and instinct, but once again that is not just humans. Honeybees have been observed to operate on learned behavior.

The nature vs nurture distinction generally refers to what is genetic vs environmental

But those environmental factors are often if not always perfectly natural. That's why we're talking past each other. We need to clarify our terms.

Everything is perfectly natural.

Plants have learned behavior.

Sure. If you live before the advent of neuroscience.

So there are people who still think there’s living organisms that have a part of them that isn’t formed through genetics and it reacts to the environment? Do they have any theory where this mysterious puppet master resides?

It's actually mainstream science lol. Your environment affects how your genetics manifest into your phenotype. It's been documented for a long time.

A simple example would be that you can take two seeds from the same plant and grow them with different amounts of light and different soil and they will come out differently. There's nothing mysterious about it. Your genes are just a blueprint for your phenotype but you still need actual material to build said phenotype and your environment can affect this.

On a more abstract level, information you're exposed to is contingent on your environment. How you respond to said information is affected by your genetics but also by learned information which is once again a function of your environment.

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

A real conversation would be hard because it would be about what part of the anatomy dictates behavior and how and then on how environmental factors change the biological hardware that dictates behavior and how. If it’s not in the language of hard science and real biology it’s just pulling theories out of your ass that mean nothing.

Start with a specific like frontal lobe development

@jwb I admire your perseverance man

It shouldn’t be taught that way. You can oversimplify things for children but you shouldn’t do it if the oversimplification makes it incorrect.

It would be much more admirable to see the question beyond the perspective of a third grader.

the **** are you talking about? The more generic/mainstream it is, the easier it is to convey on a lay person level. The more specific you get the more expertise you need. Neither of us are qualified to do so. But I know enough generic science to be confident in everything I've said thus far and I can back it up with sources if need be. None of it is my own speculation.

It would, you should strive for that

**** you, Marie

I suggested frontal lobe development.

thank you. And now I see him saying "they spl shouldn't teach it that way"... Ok OH the whole world is wrong and you're right. I'm working 12 hour shifts. Perseverance? Yeah I don't have time for this ****.

God forbid you be expected to discuss biology when you start a thread about biology.

Why Nature vs Nurture is a False Dichotomy – Jason Dean, MD

Why Nature vs Nurture is a False Dichotomy

https://www.newscientist.com/article...urture-debate/

Why it’s time to call time on the ‘nature vs nurture’ debate

https://behavioralscientist.org/the-...ersus-nurture/

The End of Nature Versus Nurture

Love you too man ;)

Lmao. Don't let me stop you bruh go ahead and school us on the frontal lobe.

https://www.apa.org/pi/families/reso...nitive-impacts

Imaging. You take person who has been abused, neglected, and or subjected poverty and you scan their brain to discover what’s up. You don’t just use ghost work mysticism you look at the actual biology.

https://www.cdc.gov/violencepreventi...y%2Findex.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...nd-doesnt-mean

What’s your ace score?

Here’s a practical application

Identify children at high risk for a high ace score. Use advanced imaging technology to get a picture of their brains. Correct the problematic situations and monitor the biological development of the brain and learn how to steer a course away from cognitive dysfunction where you actually monitor the source of cognition which is obviously the brain.

Whatever sorts of CBT or mindfulness meditation or changes in diet and exercise or medicine and every combination in between brain structure has to be monitored so we’re not caspering this **** with ethereal ghost theories. Any **** rhetoric that lends itself to false intuitive beliefs that emotions and behavior are intangible need to be dropped because it perpetuates the unproductive thinking that keeps real solutions out of reach. If neural plasticity and new neural pathways are supposedly being created proof through imaging should be the standard.

And yes I do think there’s a link between this language that pretends there’s a separation or dichotomy between nature and nurture is archaic, ignorant, and harmful.

Whether the behavior is homophobia, transphobia, violence, or acceptance, generosity, love - it’s all biological- it’s all brain function: language that suggests some force outside of or separate from nature or behavior that is not instinctual is counter productive.

Jesus christ lol. I'm on break bro. Yeah congrats you found a single way in which environment has an impact. It's not the only way though. Any not every question can be answered with brain scans. No neurologist or psychologist worth their salt would tell you different. There's more to say but tbh don't have time for this right now I'll deal with it in the morning

So where do feel his "pulling theories out of you ass" comes from: Nature or Nurture? Does he have a genetic trait predisposing him to pull theories out of his ass, or was it family life or perhaps society nurturing this tendency?

You’re worthless. Every brain is in constant contact with an environment and it’s development is the process of that interaction. A brain without an environment is as absurd as a brain without biology because the perception of surroundings, all forms of consciousness in fact, which includes the processing of the surroundings is biological which means even the environment that reacts with the brain is a part of the brain’s biology as consciousness.

You’re going to lol and say neurologists wouldn’t do this or that. Idgaf, because I know the casperism of today’s mental health treating the brain like it’s in spirit land and never even looking at it. It’s stupid bull**** straight out of the Middle Ages like your thread idea and your ignorant conversations with elph. So lol on deez nutzzz

Everything is nature. There’s no dichotomy. It’s a false question whose time has passed.

I... I said at the beginning of this convo that you're fixated on semantics. I clarified that irl both are always hard to disentangle, but conceptually there is still a distinction to me made between factors that are environmental vs genetic. If you concede that the two always work together, which is what I said in the beginning and if what every link you've since posted has said, then you concede that both environmental and genetic influences exist. Even if it's impossible to disentangle them precisely through experiment in every single case.

Keep in mind this entire convo started cause you got pissy when I corrected you that elph was right that there is a distinction between learned behavior and instinct. Please do a frantic Google search to find some click bait pop sci article proclaiming that learned behavior is just instinct since everything is instinct.. professor hawk