this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
100 points (98.1% liked)

Ask Lemmy

26884 readers
1688 users here now

A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions

Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world


Rules: (interactive)


1) Be nice and; have funDoxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them


2) All posts must end with a '?'This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?


3) No spamPlease do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.


4) NSFW is okay, within reasonJust remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com. NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].


5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions. If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.


Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.

Partnered Communities:

Tech Support

No Stupid Questions

You Should Know

Reddit

Jokes

Ask Ouija


Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Let hear them conjects

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (2 children)

Do you think (on the balance) its more nurture than nature to be shitty to other humans?

[–] moonlight@fedia.io 9 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I definitely do. Those who act the worst towards others were usually raised that way, or encountered some kind of struggle that made them bitter.

I strongly believe that if everyone was raised with compassion, and if everyone was supported and had their needs met, then we would see very little evil in the world.

Our society seems structured to bring out the worst in us, and rewards those who behave unethically. A better world is possible though.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is pretty harsh on people whose children turn out badly in spite of anything they did. And there are many such cases.

On this subject it seems best to stick to the science rather than to cling to intuitions.

[–] moonlight@fedia.io 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Maybe I phrased this badly, but I definitely don't think it's 100% on parents, society and life experience play a huge role as well.

There will always be a very small percentage of people who just turn out cruel, but I believe 99.9% of people are fundamentally good. It's just fear or pain in their past or present that causes some to be bad to others.

Also I think this is pretty firmly in the realm of philosophy, at least for now. I'm not aware of any research that can really answer this, although more broadly nurture seems to matter more than nature.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I’m not aware of any research that can really answer this, although more broadly nurture seems to matter more than nature.

In my understanding, the research shows it's rather the other way round. But these things are pretty hard to quantify so the debate is always going to be a bit sterile.

I do however take objection when science is instrumentalized in the service of political ideology. As you surely know, a core tenet of Marxism is that human beings are socially constructed. Therefore, rather like religious fundamentalists on the subject of evolution, doctrinaire leftists have a strong incentive to deny science on this subject.

[–] moonlight@fedia.io 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I do however take objection when science is instrumentalized in the service of political ideology.

I didn't bring up politics at all, and I don't think that really applies here. It feels like you have an agenda to push...

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

You agreed that nurture is "definitely" is more important than nature. That's a scientific truth claim, it can be answered without philosophy, and the scientific jury is out on it. And yet the claim is often deployed in the service of Marxist political ideology as if it's a proven fact. Which it's not. Maybe you're not aware of this context. It's true you didn't explicitly bring up politics.

[–] moonlight@fedia.io 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

I'll assume you're commenting in good faith.

I actually didn't claim nurture was more important than nature as a sweeping statement. It clearly isn't in cases like eye color for example. I haven't done a deep dive on this, but research seems to show that genetics play a significant role in predicting personality in general, but less than 50%.

Regardless, whether or not people are 'fundamentally good' or not is a moral statement, not a quantifiable one, as is "being shitty to other humans". It's a different question than personality, which is the closest topic that there seems to be any science on. Is there any specific research that actually makes a claim like this? (also, take a step back and remember what post this is on)

Also as a sidenote, while believing in the good in humanity probably makes someone more likely to be leftist, I don't think Marxism actually relies on people being 'fundamentally good' at all.

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I’ll assume you’re commenting in good faith.

Paradox. Personally I do this with everyone without commenting on it, and yet I don't believe they're almost all good people. Or bad. Every individual has the capacity for both, as far as I can tell, and the outcome depends on incentives. Particularly social ones, in my reading.

[–] OwenEverbinde@lemmy.myserv.one 1 points 4 weeks ago (1 children)

Have you heard of DeVone Boggan and how he managed to reduce gun violence in Richmond, CA?

How does a nature-over-nurture person interpret the success of such a program?

[–] JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world 1 points 4 weeks ago

I never said that it's unimportant, just that it's not the whole story.

[–] randomdeadguy@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago

This question has gone back and forth a lot, and the data says: both! The overall development of organisms depends the sum of the effect of the genes, the environment, and the gene-by-environment interaction. In conclusion, to predict human behaviors and personalities, we need a new zodiac system that accounts for multiple hemispheres, precipitation, elevation, socioeconomics, pandemics, popular movies, climate change, and the genome.

"I was a Porky's kid, born in the southern hemisphere, I ate well, was raised in good home, I had access to education, and it was back when climate change was still deniable. Most people did not know what a pandemic was. I'm genetically predisposed to hair loss."

"Ma'am, you are, what we call, a Jaguar-5-hypercrab-superbear, and I'm going to have to ask you to go with the nice officer now."