"social" learning. It is like talking about the "social sciences" as a way to introduce the presupposition that human behavior is primarily a social rather than an innate, genetically determined biological activity.
You literally don't know anything about children, do you?
Yes, children have to develop social skills in a social environment, and a major component of that is the ability to read facial expressions.
Social development is not a genetic activity, it's a social activity, that's how learning works. We can prove this because if you keep children in isolation, they develop no social skills... because it really is that alarmingly obvious.
There's also the fact that personality is also not solely genetically determined. If you want to claim genetic determinism for personality, why are you complaining about bullying. If personality and behavior are purely genetically determined, bullying will have exactly zero effect.
Except you know that pathological socialization actually does effect personality and social development, that's why you don't want it to happen.
Stop lying to yourself about how social skills work.
I'd probably argue the numbers, because I don't think that's a good explanation of how genetics would actually effect personality.
Like I've said elsewhere, genetics should give you an emotional range that you are capable of, and then environment will cultivate something within that range. Same why you might be predisposed to being tall, but lack of food, injury, and nutrition is going to have a major impact of where you fall in that range.
You made the terrible strawman, and now you are moving the goal posts.
Anyone who has children knows that they are born with their own little personalities and that - aside from drastic physical interventions - that little personality never changes. Society largely slides off them like water off a ducks's back. Because your personality is a genetic endowment.
By your own logic, social isolation should have almost no effect on their personality.
Well, it does. Your statement is wildly off base. You don't even need physical alterations to see personality changes.
I don't know if you are just very young, or very bitter, but personality changes massively over your life. You might be generally pre-disposed to some general trend or another, but your personality will swing as you age from all of the experiences you will have in your life.
Hell, I know people who's personality changed from diet. Social development is way more impactful than any of that.
Hell, this is an experiment that you can do with animals. Not that you really need one, because you'll see it all the time anyway. If you keep a horse in their stall for too long and they don't socialize you'll see significant behavioral changes, including increased aggression, defensiveness, fear, and violence.
You literally don't know anything about children, do you?
Yes, children have to develop social skills in a social environment, and a major component of that is the ability to read facial expressions.
Social development is not a genetic activity, it's a social activity, that's how learning works. We can prove this because if you keep children in isolation, they develop no social skills... because it really is that alarmingly obvious.
There's also the fact that personality is also not solely genetically determined. If you want to claim genetic determinism for personality, why are you complaining about bullying. If personality and behavior are purely genetically determined, bullying will have exactly zero effect.
Except you know that pathological socialization actually does effect personality and social development, that's why you don't want it to happen.
Stop lying to yourself about how social skills work.
To add to this, I seem to recall reading that part of moral development depends of children having disputes and resolving them on their own.
Regarding personality, I think it was Personality: What Makes You The Way You Are by Daniel Nettle that claimed roughly 50% of personality is genetic.
I'd probably argue the numbers, because I don't think that's a good explanation of how genetics would actually effect personality.
Like I've said elsewhere, genetics should give you an emotional range that you are capable of, and then environment will cultivate something within that range. Same why you might be predisposed to being tall, but lack of food, injury, and nutrition is going to have a major impact of where you fall in that range.
Of course, because the only alternative to the state's schools and their "social learning" is complete isolation.
Straw man alert.
You made the terrible strawman, and now you are moving the goal posts.
By your own logic, social isolation should have almost no effect on their personality.
Well, it does. Your statement is wildly off base. You don't even need physical alterations to see personality changes.
I don't know if you are just very young, or very bitter, but personality changes massively over your life. You might be generally pre-disposed to some general trend or another, but your personality will swing as you age from all of the experiences you will have in your life.
Hell, I know people who's personality changed from diet. Social development is way more impactful than any of that.
Hell, this is an experiment that you can do with animals. Not that you really need one, because you'll see it all the time anyway. If you keep a horse in their stall for too long and they don't socialize you'll see significant behavioral changes, including increased aggression, defensiveness, fear, and violence.