Back when I was heavily into studying psychology, the studies involving 'feral children' were great examples of this debate, one key individual would be Genie who was abused through isolation throughout her childhood by her abusive father and neglectful mother.
From my own hypothesis, we aren't starting as blank slates (Tabula Rasa) but what we have is fundamental building blocks and instincts, like your starter kit in a survival game. Nurture however, determines how developed these basic tools become or which skills are developed. With the feral children, a lot of it was developing fir survival such as withdrawing to protect mental functions or in another case where a child was essentially raised by dogs a more pack like mentality.
People aren't born evil, they can have the basic kit to easily become it like psychopathic tendencies but there's probably thousands if not more that live like the rest of us despite having no sympathy to everyone around them. Likewise on the otherside, a person who is extremely empathetic could easily be twisted to evil acts believing that their actions will help people more.
I saw this frequently in college. On the surface, most examples I'd seen were benevolent in their intent, but it doesn't take a genius to see how easily this could be abused or exploited.
There's a specific psychological term for how this can create an emotional vulnerability on the part of a person who feels aided, helped, or rescued. I want to say transference, but that doesn't look quite right when I read up on the definition.
I think there is some choices in here. I grew up in some really mean streets, but come off as a academic middle class. I had to teach myself how to talk to others because my mother is that quiet. Because I talked to people, my parents thought I had ADHD. I chose to talk to people, and to be smart.
My wife basically chose to go with whatever they gave her. People are shocked to find out we grew up in similar areas and both have high IQs. She's an emotional mess because her family loves stress drama. She has to choose to understand, and is scared to do that from time to time, but is very smart when she does.
We foster, and can see that choice a lot. I've had really smart kids with shocking athletic abilities that schools treat like they are slightly smarter than warm milk with bread. Some of it is manipulation to get what they want. Showing them the better choice is the nurture we give.
But a better analogy is a friend moved from east Germany to west Germany. He had difficulty learning English. When he found out a job he really wanted required English, he became a lot better at it.
We choose what nature or nurture we keep as part of our personalities. Being shown the choice is the hard part.
assume a meek person becomes a very good public speaker and as a result becomes more assertive in all aspects of life. Are they still a meek person
This somewhat applies to me (though I'm a mediocre public speaker at best, but I'm no longer intimidated by public speaking like I was when I was younger). For me I find the confidence/assertiveness is localized: I can be confident/assertive in familiar environments, but if I'm in an unfamiliar environment I tend to revert back to my normal self.
Then when I'm in an environment where confidence/assertiveness is required, it does tend to wear me out over time, because it's an aspect of my personality I have to "turn on".
Many years ago I knew someone who I thought was quite extroverted but admitted he too was introverted by nature and that it was something he had to "turn on". He was better at it than I am, but I think it still tended to wear him out the same way (though perhaps not as quickly as it wears me out).
This is most likely going to be a controversial take here, but I really do think it has more to do with matters of spirit then biology. Whatever it is at work has biological effects. Never the less I don't think many humanoids existing today can be well rounded human beings.
That's the tl;dl version of it. There's a hierarchy here from genes, to the proteins that they code, to cells and tissues....these aren't even that well understood by people that have much more precise ways of measuring these types of things than twin studies and such. So that was an orange flag, getting dog piled by people in love with the bell curve was a red flag. I can't reason people out of things that they didn't reason themselves into.
And ultimately for what? My battle? It's not "Tyrone can learn calculus, you leave him alone!" So why argue? Especially because we exist in a time where now currently many people are essentially part virus (and you know what I mean by that), the same technology from the vax can theoretically be used as an intelligence booster...this is me pretending that intelligence is directly related to your base genes.
Yeah, I really do think it's something that flows through the dna, not IN the dna.
Yes and no? The question as framed, using "truly" sort of implies "completely changing the nature of someone through training", but "mitigated" by definition only implies putting restraints on something without changing its true nature. So no you can't truly fix someone with enough nurture. Yes you can mitigate their nature.
Depends on the nature of the person in question. I'd say nurture operates as a "modifier", but cannot outright change the starting baseline value. Also, there's a lot of other kinds of modifiers you can throw into the mix that don't exactly fall under "nurture".
Some adaptive behaviors that produce a wide range of positive benefits (IE, exercise) can alleviate some of the negative effects caused by mild yet inherent psychological challenges.
Substances with mild psychoactive effects can also be of some benefit for people. Caffeine, supplements, certain nutritional sources, even keeping regularly hydrated. And there's others too of course with varying degrees of potency and usefulness, as per individual.
Still, there that baseline value can only be modified, trained, or enhanced so far, at least without bordering into areas like cybernetic enhancement or gene therapy (and the mess that comes with that entire mixed bag).
Back when I was heavily into studying psychology, the studies involving 'feral children' were great examples of this debate, one key individual would be Genie who was abused through isolation throughout her childhood by her abusive father and neglectful mother.
From my own hypothesis, we aren't starting as blank slates (Tabula Rasa) but what we have is fundamental building blocks and instincts, like your starter kit in a survival game. Nurture however, determines how developed these basic tools become or which skills are developed. With the feral children, a lot of it was developing fir survival such as withdrawing to protect mental functions or in another case where a child was essentially raised by dogs a more pack like mentality.
People aren't born evil, they can have the basic kit to easily become it like psychopathic tendencies but there's probably thousands if not more that live like the rest of us despite having no sympathy to everyone around them. Likewise on the otherside, a person who is extremely empathetic could easily be twisted to evil acts believing that their actions will help people more.
Commies enforce/propagate through weaponized empathy, so that makes sense.
I saw this frequently in college. On the surface, most examples I'd seen were benevolent in their intent, but it doesn't take a genius to see how easily this could be abused or exploited.
There's a specific psychological term for how this can create an emotional vulnerability on the part of a person who feels aided, helped, or rescued. I want to say transference, but that doesn't look quite right when I read up on the definition.
I think there is some choices in here. I grew up in some really mean streets, but come off as a academic middle class. I had to teach myself how to talk to others because my mother is that quiet. Because I talked to people, my parents thought I had ADHD. I chose to talk to people, and to be smart.
My wife basically chose to go with whatever they gave her. People are shocked to find out we grew up in similar areas and both have high IQs. She's an emotional mess because her family loves stress drama. She has to choose to understand, and is scared to do that from time to time, but is very smart when she does.
We foster, and can see that choice a lot. I've had really smart kids with shocking athletic abilities that schools treat like they are slightly smarter than warm milk with bread. Some of it is manipulation to get what they want. Showing them the better choice is the nurture we give.
But a better analogy is a friend moved from east Germany to west Germany. He had difficulty learning English. When he found out a job he really wanted required English, he became a lot better at it.
We choose what nature or nurture we keep as part of our personalities. Being shown the choice is the hard part.
Yeah, my working with AI is similar. I'm aiming it at a goal. I know a ton based on that goal.
I prefer the phrasing "What can change the nature of a man?"
This somewhat applies to me (though I'm a mediocre public speaker at best, but I'm no longer intimidated by public speaking like I was when I was younger). For me I find the confidence/assertiveness is localized: I can be confident/assertive in familiar environments, but if I'm in an unfamiliar environment I tend to revert back to my normal self.
Then when I'm in an environment where confidence/assertiveness is required, it does tend to wear me out over time, because it's an aspect of my personality I have to "turn on".
Many years ago I knew someone who I thought was quite extroverted but admitted he too was introverted by nature and that it was something he had to "turn on". He was better at it than I am, but I think it still tended to wear him out the same way (though perhaps not as quickly as it wears me out).
Essentially what you're asking here is whether blacks can rise above their genetics.
Some can. Sowell and Thomas leap to mind.
Most cannot. Thus the real question is not whether some can rise above the rest, it's whether the some are worth having to deal with the rest.
This is most likely going to be a controversial take here, but I really do think it has more to do with matters of spirit then biology. Whatever it is at work has biological effects. Never the less I don't think many humanoids existing today can be well rounded human beings.
That's the tl;dl version of it. There's a hierarchy here from genes, to the proteins that they code, to cells and tissues....these aren't even that well understood by people that have much more precise ways of measuring these types of things than twin studies and such. So that was an orange flag, getting dog piled by people in love with the bell curve was a red flag. I can't reason people out of things that they didn't reason themselves into.
And ultimately for what? My battle? It's not "Tyrone can learn calculus, you leave him alone!" So why argue? Especially because we exist in a time where now currently many people are essentially part virus (and you know what I mean by that), the same technology from the vax can theoretically be used as an intelligence booster...this is me pretending that intelligence is directly related to your base genes.
Yeah, I really do think it's something that flows through the dna, not IN the dna.
Yes and no? The question as framed, using "truly" sort of implies "completely changing the nature of someone through training", but "mitigated" by definition only implies putting restraints on something without changing its true nature. So no you can't truly fix someone with enough nurture. Yes you can mitigate their nature.
A sufficiently strong nature can overcome a sufficiently weak nurture. That's how you get kids who are out of control.
A sufficiently strong nurture can overcome a sufficiently weak nature. That's how you get North Korea.
As for your example OP. One is defined by what they do. If he's not showing meek behaviour for whatever reason, they are probably not a meek person.
"Truly be mitigated"
No. Not "truly mitigated".
You can do a bit, but you're born to be what you are.
Depends on the nature of the person in question. I'd say nurture operates as a "modifier", but cannot outright change the starting baseline value. Also, there's a lot of other kinds of modifiers you can throw into the mix that don't exactly fall under "nurture".
Some adaptive behaviors that produce a wide range of positive benefits (IE, exercise) can alleviate some of the negative effects caused by mild yet inherent psychological challenges.
Substances with mild psychoactive effects can also be of some benefit for people. Caffeine, supplements, certain nutritional sources, even keeping regularly hydrated. And there's others too of course with varying degrees of potency and usefulness, as per individual.
Still, there that baseline value can only be modified, trained, or enhanced so far, at least without bordering into areas like cybernetic enhancement or gene therapy (and the mess that comes with that entire mixed bag).
dats wacist
Yes.jpg