Everyone agrees that our experiences and environment play a role in our cognitive development, but that's where the ageeement stops.
Do you think that genetics aren't as important as experiences in defining personality and behavior, or do they rule us?
I think, also, there is some disparity between HOW each plays its role. Do genetics implement the specific personality style, or do they develop certain abilities and properties through which a personality style forms?
pic non-related
This is /sci/
Polite sage
>>488782
It can be debated philosophically
I think it is exceptionally hard to prove which genes modulate which behavior.
I find it hard to believe that science could ever pin-point which gene makes someone want to be a lawyer, if there even is such a thing.
>>488770
If you read Marx, you'd know only our material existence determines our social being.
So the answer is neither (but closer to nurture)
>>489443
I wouldn't take Marxism any more seriously than evolutionary psychology. Both are pseudo-intellectual justifications for one's pre-existing biases
I believe that genetics just gives us the clay. Our experiences in the world is what sculpts the clay into ourselves.
>>488770
Various studies on identical twins separated at birth have put the nature nurture split at anywhere from 50-50 to 70-30. Genes play a huge role- separated twins often work in similar fields, have similar hobbies and interests, similar spouses, and even identical 'ticks' like tugging an earlobe when nervous.
Nurture has a big effect, but its been overblown for the past century. The evils (real or perceived) of Hitler and Social Darwinism caused a moral backlash against "nature."
The IQ gaps between races only strengthened the backlash, but we're approaching a tipping point. The masses are getting tired of identity politics and the pro-nature evidence is becoming overwhelming.
>Book related
>>489525
>I called two different ideologies psuedo-intellectual, so I'm objective and smart
10/10 Rhetoric
>>490902
>I'm being an asshole, maybe daddy will go soft tonight
>>490902
Made me giggle
>>488822
No it cannot because it has already been proven by science that nurture to a great extent beats nature.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed
Feel free to educate yourself.
>>492492
Unsubstantiated claims, a link that leads to a search engine, and a passive aggressive comment at the end.
>Quality post
>>492533
>Unsubstantiated claims
No, that's what you are doing.
I'm simply telling you you're a fucking low IQ ignoramus with no license to discuss a scientific topic hiding behind the supposed "philosophical" worth of fascist ideologies.
If you don't want to educate yourself about biology do not try to give opinions about it, I could post papers to substantiate my claims but a retard with no education will not be able to comprehend them, or give a counter argument so there is no reason for me to do so.
If you had even the most basic understanding of the topic there wouldn't be an argument at all.
>>492550
Next time don't use three paragraphs to say "you're dumb." You know, brevity is the soul of wit and all that.
Look, I'm not dogmatically attached to my nature heavy split, it just makes the most sense to me from the literature I've read and twin studies I have seen. Twins, ie. genetic clones, are extremely similar in disposition, personality, intelligence, and life outcomes. That is worth looking into.
On top of that, children adopted by high IQ parents will end up with IQ's closer to their biological parents. Now IQ isn't everything, but it is undeniably important- and also informs my opinion on nature/nurture.
Do you believe that males/females are, for the most part, genetically the same and that disparities between the sexes are caused by culture? Cause if you do I'll just tap out now- I can't turn a religious fanatic.
>>488770
>but that's where the ageeement stops.
That is factually untrue.
It's been known for decades that nature accounts for around 80% of the variance in intelligence, and the non shared environment accounts for 20%. The shared environment (things such as which school you go to, how your parents raise you, etc.) accounts for 0%
