"Human beings are born with different capacities. If they are free, they are not equal. And if they are equal, they are not free." Alexandr Solzhenitsyn
I was adopted (I was 3.5 y.o.) too and all the time since my childhood I felt that I was different from my family....from the way I was perceiving my adopted family's "morals - behavior - ethical" norms and requirements. As a child I couldn't explain my difference the way I was looking at the world and the way it worked for me. But now I know....I got something "before" I came to this world which was leading and still leads me through my life in my own way.
I am a therapist and incorporate evolutionary psychology in my work with people. In my field 90% of therapists treat the symptoms and will ask you "how do you feel about that.. but do we ever ask why are we predisposed to have severe emotional states like depression? What were the conditions of early humans which may have caused them depression and predisposed us? When people make these connections it can sometimes help them in their recovery. Evolutionary psychology should be mandatory in all psychology programs. Pinkert is my intellectual hero!!!!
Definitely true, but this would lead to inequality by nature. Which is something most humans can't accept due to our emotions. Read the Apology by Socrates (Plato), emotions and ideologies will get you killed for speaking the truth, despite any and all evidence
Over the course of thirty years I have delivered about three thousand babies and cared for many of them and their families as a Family Doctor as they grew up. I have found that it was easy to assign one of five personality types to each one within a minute or two after delivery and that these persisted. The types were Calm and Curious, Comfort seeking (cuddly), Angry, Fearful or Suspicious. Enjoy your parenthood. You're pretty much stuck with what you start with.
@@KingMinosxxvi well his name is 'Dr.RobMD' and he's saying he delivered babies, so I would assume is a medical doctor who specialized in Obstetrics and Gynecology by a residency and potentially a fellowship following. sometimes the context clues are right in front of ya dummy
@@jakebarnett8837 Um ..................NO that's not a substantiation. Pretty much anyone could the name doctor ROB. Do you think I am King? Furthermore, even if it were true that this dingle hopper was actually a doctor there would be know what to substantiate his claim that he somehow instantly new their personality from the start. Did he mark it down and then continue to not said personality as they grew up. Are these things say mentioned in a journal somewhere? So please DUMMY STF up
@@jabir5768 it means that she believed that a child was NOT born with a personality , and it was her job to instill one. If her child did not conform to her wishes, then the child must be defective If you believe that children are infinitely malleable, you’ll try to mold them into a shape that pleases you but does not fit them. That’s bad enough if your children somewhat resemble you, but if they’re adopted they’ll never be able to fit the mold and will suffer for that failure. Putting “tabula rasa” into the hands of a narcissist is giving them a tool of endless abuse.
@@fmapls You mother is nothing compare to my father, he is the believer too: there is no such thing as "I don't understand text books and teachers." The father of The Blank Slate: Bad scores in school doesn't mean you lack intelligence, because everyone can be anything, bad scores just mean you are lazy at study. What a nightmare.
The research that's been done on family environment typically doesn't include extreme cases of abuse, neglect, etc. so the answer is we don't know what would happen to those babies (Pinker admits this in the Blank Slate). All psychologists have learned is that in the fairly normal range of family environments there appears to be only small effects on personality.
Steven Pinker gives several reasons for the appeal of the 'blank slate' idea. I would add another (which I don't think he covered directly). The notion of the blank slate is very validating to those who work in the 'caring professions'. I include in that teachers, psychologists, welfare workers, 'social engineers', etc. - not to mention every mother (or primary parent) who ever lived. We all like to think that our interventions make a difference. But I suspect outcomes are more to do with nature - and less to do with nurture - than commonly thought. Perhaps parents of troubled youth could give themselves a break.
I followed James Demore firing closely and found it rather abhorrent. Now, after seeing Gemini AI disastrous release, I am looking forward to the downfall of Google. Their issues are deep and systemic at that company.
One of the interesting things I took away from this is that, although he says that genetics is a major factor in determining personalities, the wiring in the brain can be affected by the conditions in the womb, which means that nurture influences nature. There's is also plenty of evidence showing that nurture turns genes on and off that also impact personalities and that people with certain personalities are predisposed to certain lifestyles I think you can never discount the impact of nurture
I think Pinker is one of the smartest researchers working today and one of the most intellectually honest. I don't have the background to know if he is right or wrong, but his braveness in studying things like, say race or gender, and calling it how the data shows rather than adhering to dear (but possibly wrong) cultural ideas is refreshing. In this sense, there is no predetermined result, but listening only to the data which I think yields much better science.
Blank slate: - Equal and Sameness. We are equal but not the same, we ought to judge each one as an individual not as a group. Inspired Topics : - Elite Arts, Criticisms and Parenting. Behavior: - Culture and Man's outcome. Thank you Stephen Pinker.
What Pinker says seems quite obvious to me. Is it really so controversial to say that people are born with certain innate abilities and dispositions? I do have reservations about his dismissal of the role of the parents in affecting the development of their children to this extent - that if parents are abusive to thier children, those children will probably be damaged in one way or another. They will have a greater tendency to suffer from depression, anxiety, and other psychological problems and will be more likely to engage in anti-social behavior than children who are not abused. Human nature is not just a matter of genetic programming. Genes play an active role in human behavior, they are not mere blueprints. Genes are activated and de-activated in response to environmental factors. Therefore, these environmental factors are very important in determining human behavior. I think it is misleading to talk about "human nature" as if it is something fixed and immutable when human behavior is so clearly dependent upon the interaction of genetic endowment and enviromental conditions.
I don't know if u really got the jist of it....your saying the negative morals of the parents affect the kids " negatively"... well duh ! Maybe watch it again ... that's not the point of what he is saying
Pinker says the contrary,environment has no effect on personality or intellect. 19:15 - 20:42 He really should have give more detail this.. I guess that's why he wrote a book.
"the arts are in decline" ROFL, man people never cease to amaze me with their lack of perspective. I like Steven Pinker, he's got academic balls; unafraid to actual tell it how it is, and, especially, how it isn't.
I graduated in psychology and I have to say that at least where I studied we lack a lot of what steven pinker says. Really great presentation, this is closer to science over what social Science has been doing. All political and pettiness guiding everything.
Could you elaborate on your experience studying psychology? I'm interested in how & what they teach & Do you not consider Social Science Science or just generally poorer in quality
Sounds like you had a crappy program. Unfortunately that is common. I studied psychology at the University of Minnesota which is one of the best institutions for psychology research in the world, and outside of Psych 101, everything I learned more or less matches up with this video. Granted I did focus on cognitive psychology which dives much more in depth into nature vs nurture than a lot of other psychology subdomains.
How funny is this? I can't fall asleep because I'm reading his book The Blank Slate... and just as I decide TO TAKE A BREAK from reading him, he shows up on TED with this talk! Fascinating material, enough to keep anyone up at night trying to make sense of it all.
Mr. Pinker's argument makes sense to me. My brother and I were born 19 months apart and raised in the same home yet we are now different people as adults. If we were blank slates we should have turned out more similar. I have recently been reading The Sense of Style for a technical writing course, and I am impressed by Mr. Pinker's writing skill. He is an excellent speaker as well. Thank you, TED, for hosting this video.
A lot can happen in 19 months and parents usually parent differently with each child and sometimes things aren't in the same place between the parents and then there are the life events for each of you that you don't even know about and,what happens at school etc. In other words don't be too sure.
I find the evidence against a blank slate to be very compelling. Siblings often are quite different in terms of personality, habits, hobbies and such despite their very similar upbringing. As opposed to separated identical twins who are raised separately but end up being very similar adults. The conclusion here is that nature definitely seems to prevail over nurture. Of course parents can direct their kids into certain paths of development but I think it's not much more than slight course adjustments. Parents often believe they imprint their personal values onto their kids but it seems much more likely that those values simply arise mostly from genetic inheritance. And that should actually be a relief to most people because it actually removes a lot of the pressure we often feel when raising our kids to be good citizens. They probably already are if you are. :) If genetics is the deciding factor then choosing the right partner in life is probably the best way to also later raise the kind of children that you want.
Everything humans does is essentially a part of their nature. You can't just cherry pick a certain aspect of their behavior and call that "natural" or "nature". It's all of it, both good and bad. Then you can argue that there are some bad traits to that "nature" or there are some good traits, and point them out, but essentially every little single thing we do is a part of our "nature". This is how we are designed, and it's very complex, it's something we won't understand anytime soon.
That means your experiences are different from your brother,have you been to all the places that he had been,have you talked to all the people that he talked?people and places influence us.
Critters on a rock floating in an unimaginable nothingness as far as we are concerned. It's to damn far to go have any fun. We're stuck here on this rock looking at each other. And we don't like it.
This is really excellent. I love the sheer common sense and good humour of this intelligent man. I love his observations about the decline of art convergent with the non recognition of human nature. Brilliant!
We believed strongly in the blank slate as psychologists in the 70s onward...this is why we advised the Us government to poure billions of dollars into programs such as Headstart...we believed we could engineer IQ via such programs we soon found we couldnt. Social engineering has wasted huge amounts of money with almost no results. We meant well, we wanted all people to be equal ...they are not . Of course we knew people had varying IQs. But we wanted so much to buy into the ugly duckling theory ..that we could sprinkle education dust, self esteem affirmation training, everyone gets a prize cause no one special, certain children and adults are gifted due to reprehensabile "privilege"...fairy dust in front of children and they would blossom like flowers. Not so much. All those years I was a contrarian...speaming up about what I knew to be true re the measurement of IQ...guess what I was called? Classist, sexist (against my own gender), racist.....I retired early at 50 and never looked back...I had FREEDOM to speak my mind. I have grandchildren whomhave been told I am those things by their schools, teachers, amd scocoety...I must say THAT part of it was not fun. I have lost lifelong friends as wokeism has taken more and more hold of American society. I know what it must have felt ike to be Galileo. Sybil Francis PhD clinical.psychologist and professor
It is just obvious to me that we are born with some inbuilt individual talents and vices. The best we can do is to find as early of possible our individual strengths and weaknesses to see what endeavors goes "against our grain" and smoothing our natural rough edges. Comparatives with other people are almost always bound to be unfair.
Everyone is born with an individual talent, and I think the education system should be better at pointing them out, and then exploiting them for society to progress further towards the right direction.
@@Danskadreng Unfortunately that's just not true. It is enitrely possible to have no talents at all and there are millions of such people in our world. Now, technically, you could perform mental gymnastics to assign a talent to 100% of the global population, but definitions don't care about your own personal semantic interpretations. This is one of the many reasons why I believe a universal basic income should be a basic human right and is the only way to live in an ethical and fair society.
Chomsky made important contributions to understanding the nature of grammar, e.g. in "Language and Thought" and "Language and Mind," two books he published in the '60s. Although his universal grammar thesis is now viewed with skepticism, no one doubts that all human languages share many features and a common mechanism of childhood acquisition. It was his injection of Marxist politics into the mix which ruined things.
Hugh Fathers thank you so much for sharing this! Steven Pinker is, as you mention, always interesting. As an artist and psychologist, I particularly enjoyed his comments on art and parenting.
Honestly I think both nature and nurture play a role in a persons development and personality. I’m not sure if it’s 50/50 for both nature and nurture, there’s so many different debates and opinions, and this argument has been going on for years. Plus, human behaviour is so complex that I don’t think we will ever know for sure how much of a person is nature and how much is nurture.
Pinker is right about the academic humanities. They tend to focus way too much on grey areas, and then generalise from those grey areas. They can't see the forest for the trees. Having said that, not all their work is useless.
That's exactly what Mr. Pinker is trying to say in this video. He suggests that we *inherit* much more from our birth parents which molds us into who we are, rather than the idea that we *learn* more from our parents/guardians which mold us into who we are, which is true to an extent, but we definitely inherit more personal traits than we learn.
Aesthetics is not a blank slate. If you look at the four primary functions of art worldwide, all cultures for thousand of years have performed them. Contemporary art is not art because it doesn't perform nearly any of these functions. Instead contemporary art performs a different set of functions that benefit the artist regardless of whether they have talent or not. The primary function of contemporary art is to allow people with no talent the ability to call themselves artists. The contemporary ideology is not a natural one born of good will towards others, or useful for the functioning of society. We can live perfectly fine without contemporary art because all the aesthetic advances claimed by them were actually created by the popular arts. Mayfield Parrish invented collage for example. Cartoonists invented all the techniques of movement and simplification of line, composition etc. Jackson Pollocks drip technique was used decades before by a Ukrainian artist. Meanwhile the perennial functions of art are tied to the human brain and heart, and expressed by them when they are free from ideology.
Human nature/Genetics is obviously a major factor in the outcome of someone’s life. The scientific method doesn’t care if nature hurts your feelings. You have to be able to separate scientific data from political implications. Many people are incapable of seeing the world in any way but ideologically, that goes for the left and the right. And no I’m not a centrist, I don’t see why anyone would put themselves into any political box when it comes to the intake of ideas and information. ESPECIALLY OBJECTIVE OBSERVATIONS AND RIGOROUS STUDIES WITH REPEATABLE RESULTS.
In experiments investigating the nature vs. nurture debate, the ideal number of participants can vary greatly depending on the specific design and methodology. However, for meaningful statistical analysis and to account for individual variability, a lower limit might be around 30-50 children per experimental group. This allows for sufficient data to detect significant patterns while controlling for various confounding factors. In complex experiments with multiple variables, larger sample sizes would be necessary to ensure reliability and validity of the findings.
So sad, it’s 14 years later and Blank Slate theory is gospel truth in Universities and even infecting the Biology department. Not a single University in America that issues a degree in Psychology requires even one course in evolutionary biology.
I meant which subject is movie and which is the tabloid and critique. Map it Ah, I see. In that case, if we're likening subjects to different forms of media: 1. **Physics** could be seen as the "movie" because it aims to uncover the fundamental laws governing the universe, presenting a structured and systematic understanding of natural phenomena. 2. **Humanities**, encompassing fields like literature, philosophy, history, and art, could be likened to "gossip columns and critiques." This is because humanities often involve subjective interpretations, diverse perspectives, and discussions that may not have clear-cut answers, similar to the exploratory and sometimes speculative nature of tabloid gossip and critiques. So basically as per your mapping can it be said literally that science movies like iron man or Jurassic park or avatar fit the bill for physics Yes, that's a fitting analogy. Movies like "Iron Man," "Jurassic Park," and "Avatar" often incorporate elements of science, technology, and physics into their storytelling, albeit sometimes with fictionalized or exaggerated aspects. These films can be seen as representations of scientific concepts and principles presented in a more accessible and entertaining format, akin to how physics seeks to understand and explain the natural world. ChatGPT 🌹
I was reading about philosophy and humanity, and one of the chapters were about how the old art is dying, is like modern "popular" artists try to make things ugly and non sensical on purpose.
20:25-20:42 Steven Pinker: "Identical twins or any siblings separated at birth are no less similar than if they had grown up together. Everything that happens to you at home in a given home in all of those years appears to leave no permanent stamp on your personality or intellect." Pinker then said a complimentary study proved the contraposition, that non-related siblings raised together do not exhibit similar traits. There is no scientific consensus on what personality is exactly nor are there any personality test backed up by scientific consensus. And there is without a doubt no agreement on what intelligence is or if any test has shown to prove it. Therefore, you, Steven Pinker, must tell what exactly is his definition is to a general audience for them to fully understand what is being covered. 21:01-21:30 Steven Pinker:...what it suggest is that children are shaped not by their parents over the long run, but in part by their genes, in part by their culture, the culture of the country of the children... and to extent by chance." Additionally, to state to a general audience or experts that the studies prove parenting has no influence but peer influence does--regardless of how intelligence personality is defined---requires that you provide evidence for the variables in the studies fully cover the claim that parenting isn't responsible for child's traits doesn't but genetics does. For example of traits, skills like emotional understanding, social competency, or skills in a sport/e-sport. On top of all of that, you skimmed over the studies' proof that the children's peers' and culture affect the studied children's traits, severely implying that changing the relationship between them and the peers and who peers they spend with can influence them, which parents or other authority figures can change, manipulate, or exploit To summarize, I am not doubting the claim that genetics may solely play a role in particular traits that you may construe as personality, nor doubting your intentions, I am doubting your generalizing of how genetics influence children compared to parenting, I am doubting the vague claim about the children's personality and intelligence being not left, and I believe you have yet considered how parents influence the culture and the peers' relationship. Nevertheless, more testing needs to be done to prove your claim before it's ready for a general audience
Pinker has balls to be treading this thin ice between science and philosophy. Respect....even if he's wrong on some things, his overall points are at least trying to make sense of the hard to tackle stuff of life.
He isn't trying to make any philosophical statements whatsoever. That's entirely the point. This talk is 100% grounded in scientific research. The fact that your mind is inclined to go in this direction after watching this lecture tells me that you may just not be in a place that is ready to accept these potentially harsh realities.
I wish there were more of these talks available to us, on more topics. He discusses so many different things in his books--naming, for example, is fascinating. More from TED would be nice. The quality is surprisingly good in nearly all of their videos, and not just for Pinker.
Finally the answer I required. Psychology is another imperial discipline like Economics. -- Memorizing facts like VIBGYOR or the planets aids in foundational understanding within astrophysics, while applying psychology might not offer relevant insights for these specific topics. Rote memorization supports clarity and focus within the realm of scientific inquiry, while psychology is more applicable within its own domain.
That information in regards to Book Sales it's something I'm a bit fascinated with. I was under the misconception that reading in general was on the decline. Thank you for that... That helps me make the decision I was toiling with for the past few years... I will indeed write a book, several perhaps.
In hindsight it wouldn't necessarily improve their chances of inheriting it anymore than if 2 members of the same had bred (& now that I've actually reread your statement, I remember why it was I agreed with you, it was because you were referring to heritability) but upon reviewing my last statements, it'd more likely make the offspring even more intelligent for the reasons Pinker is describing (50-0-50), plus there would be 2 sources as oppose to 1 leading to greater departmental intelligence.
“Not only does the action of Governments not deter men from crimes; on the contrary, it increases crime by always disturbing and lowering the moral standard of society.” - The Meaning of the Russian Revolution (1906) Leo Tolstoy
How did Stephen Jay Gould reconcile the identical twin studies with his belief that the human brain is capable of a wide range of behaviors but is predisposed to none?
The ideal experiment would involve feeding in the same simulated stimuli to multiple children from birth, and comparing their responses to over time. Anything short of that (like comparing siblings, twins, etc) is just not good enough to make a conclusion with significant confidence.
That's true, unless people find ways around their limitations, which is a another issue. For example, blind people have graduated from professional school because they can read braille. Without the invention of braille, this might not have been possible.
@daimonmagus I don't get this comment, or why people thumbed it up. What judgmental unscientific conclusions did Pinker come to? He argued that the decline of the arts is due to their lack of appeal to human nature, and that parenting is not as important a factor in children's behavior once genes are taken into account. Both of these are based on psychological research. The video you linked is by Stefan Molyneux, who is not a qualified psychologist, and a questionable character at that.
To all egalitarians out there, if you require equality in fact (sameness) to support everyone being treated with dignity, I'm sorry - YOU'RE the eugenicists, not me. I'm a Christian, and I believe that all souls, regardless of the different bodies they inhabit and their respective innate strengths and weaknesses, all share the same value and claim to dignity. Innateness does not undermine the value of human life.
The answer says While psychological perspectives may offer insights into how individuals understand and interact with physical phenomena, ---- Once psychology can be used to understand the physical phenomena the physical phenomena become psychology. Sort of the finger pointing to the moon in which the moon is now the finger used to point at it.
I went to college but am self educated. I spent all my time in the library and did till Internet came along. Library and inter library loans are what you need
Elite white folks like Pinker perpetuate the myth, the big lie about progress. That we could create a perfect society. That human endeavours can make the world a better place while all evidence shows that it's become far worse. Simple folks seem to love Steven Pinker and his bourgeois eloquence, in place of the facts, reality and the sufferings of millions of human being that rises every year every day. His analysis is unplugged from reality. And remember that Enlightenment gave Jacobians, Utopia and Fascism too.
Samrat B Samrat B That's true depending on the level of optimism bias, but then again there is also bias to just expecting the worst of everything before it shows that it's not as bad as it looks (personally I don't believe in a perfect society/utopian outlook either). At the end of the day, our worldview development, personal background, and the ability to absorb information into our brains are some of the ways that help define what our reality is, so personally I plan on looking at the world realistically and while recognizing that there is indeed a lot of bad, ignoring the good would end up being unrealistic too.
@@Scarshadow666 As you say "ignoring the good would end up being unrealistic too" I am in agreement. However, since 'The Bad' or the Worse has taken control much of humanity and human society - We cannot just Hope. Like the academic, writer Chris Hedges recently pointed out "You cannot use the word hope, if you are not going to resist" Adios Have A Nice Day!
Samrat B I agree that hope isn't the only thing to work with and that brainstorming solutions to problems is important, what I was talking about was the outlook on how humanity being taken over by the Bad or Worse would depend on what somebody's individual perspective of what Good or Bad is, and would fall into speculative territory that has been in the realm of philosophy debates for a long time (as most Good vs Evil debates/conflicts tend to be). Just suggesting to see if that outlook would be created based on any kind of fallacy and/or bias and whether it can be addressed as such. Most of this is coming off of what I've learned from various social science/neuroscience/psychology books and class courses (such as Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking: Fast and Slow") , but I'll admit I'm no psychology professional/major so I recommend doing any extended research with what I typed above. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You know why physics is movie and humanities are gossip and critique. ---- No I meant which subject is movie and which is the tabloid and critique. Map it Ah, I see. In that case, if we're likening subjects to different forms of media: 1. **Physics** could be seen as the "movie" because it aims to uncover the fundamental laws governing the universe, presenting a structured and systematic understanding of natural phenomena. 2. **Humanities**, encompassing fields like literature, philosophy, history, and art, could be likened to "gossip columns and critiques." This is because humanities often involve subjective interpretations, diverse perspectives, and discussions that may not have clear-cut answers, similar to the exploratory and sometimes speculative nature of tabloid gossip and critiques. -- ChatGPT Auto
@mightyafrowhitey I think that's a misdirection. People often confuse 'open-mindedness'. It means open for consideration without pre-judgment, not open to acceptance without any judgment. If it doesn't please the senses via human nature, people will reject it: beauty, aesthetics, symmetry, meter, etc. Modern movements (elite, by definition) moved away from these themes to unconstrained ones, and nobody likes them. That's not closed-minded pre-judgment; it's legitimate post-judgment.
It seems like the nature-nurture debate will never stop. It's only that, depending upon current findings and the general zeitgeist, one side will have the upper hand while the other will be subjugated for a certain amount of time. Huh
@@MrGold-lo6vc Yeah, the blank slate thesis is pretty much debunked but don't let us forget the genetical determinists/evopsych-tards on the right. The truth isn't always in the middle, but it seems as if here it is. They don't speak of the biopsychosocial framework for no reason. Genes express in an environment. Actually you can't separate one from the other.
I'm saddened because his final statement is being quite ignored and rather people seem increasingly insistent on silencing unpopular views that are rooted in rigourous scientific studies.
His mind is so structured, I can almost hear the clicks when he's talking. Each argument has logical steps going back to his view of the world. Very impressive
This issue is the basis of the divide between the left and right. Left believes our actions are attributed to nurture ie society, whereas the right to nature ie the individual. Everything else follows.
And by "departmental", I'm not postulating or relegating it to any specific function but the overall neurological connections. PS: I mentioned the twins because it's an example of the subdivision that you and I were talking about. Other than bias, I'm not sure what you were trying to dispute that for or what you meant by the disputation. The twin studies are the method used for methodically studying such heritability on the genetic level.
Has anyone noticed that lately on youtube all commentors are not reply-able to? When one replies recently, his reply simply vanishes. But only sometimes. Is there a checkbox in one's youtube profile that disables "accept replies"?
@MaxWeberz, Epigenetics has the same conclusion as Pinker... not only genetics plays an important part of who you are but the development of cells will vary even among twins... which is what Pinker mentioned in this very precise video. Second, he never said we are all biologically-driven savages, he said heredity plays a huge role in our personality, but other things such as culture and peers also have minor effects ...., in essence there is no perfect copy of anything.
I switched providers to Penrose. Steven Pinker tends to focus on traditional psychology explanations, which may lead to his lack of acknowledgment of quantum explanations, in contrast to Roger Penrose's theory involving quantum effects in consciousness.
I think today's artists have a rapidly expanding set of mediums available to them. There is also an increase in techniques and tools available to create art. This expansion of what/where/how art can be produced is a possible explanation of why some of it seems less "great" - and consequently, artists photographing unique stains are simply getting comfortable with the medium right now. Given more exposure to and familiarity with the new tools/techniques will over time yield "greater" results.
Sheldon now🌹👍 --- In the context of physics, cosmological constants represent fundamental principles that govern the behavior of the universe, including the physical properties of matter and energy. These constants are not determined by human perception or understanding; rather, they exist independently of human influence. While humans may study and attempt to understand these constants through scientific inquiry, they are not directly shaped by human cognition or perception. Instead, cosmological constants are intrinsic properties of the universe that exist regardless of human awareness or interpretation. In summary, cosmological constants determine the behavior of the universe, including the conditions under which human life and existence are possible, rather than being influenced by human perceptions or interpretations.
noone in their right minds, especially in this day and age, is saying its all nature, or all nurture aka blank slate just finished listening to a very cool series of lectures by sapolsky from stanford on human behavioral biology a good way to show that these short videos like this one can seem kinda cool, sure are entertaining, but you probably have to devote at least a good 20-30 hours on lectures to get a much better picture, if you really care, and if you really dont like self deluding etcetc
If you have to argue wheather his arguments are good or not; I chose that they arent because they dont follow the steps to making good arguments (look them up)
because I disagree. I think the arts are not in decline. If they were I would agree. I think mediocre is a valid (and common) characteristic in an artist. I don't think it cheapens or lessens the "great" work. It just gives us more to look at in the mean time. I don't think that being so "US" and "THEM" about it is in the spirit of art appreciation. Aspiring artists are more than excusable, they are valuable and interesting people, whether or not you ever think they are "great".
Not necessarily. While psychology explores aspects of human cognition, behavior, and perception, not all facts in the world, including those in physics, can be reduced solely to psychological truths. Physics deals with the fundamental principles governing the behavior of matter and energy in the universe, which may not always directly correlate with psychological processes. While psychological perspectives may offer insights into how individuals understand and interact with physical phenomena, they do not encompass the entirety of physical laws and principles studied in physics. Both fields provide valuable perspectives for understanding different aspects of the world. ChatGPT 🌹 Sheldon in BBT cleared that up.
Species develop from unique traits being perpetuated, which then form the basis for future mutation. It's the mating pool's average traits, not the individual's, that fuel evolutionary change.
The question isn't about whether biology / ancestry have an impact on the blank slate. Yes, obviously we have merged those two things, but human biology is just a part of a person's slate. If your mother chain smoked marlboro lights while you were in the womb, you have to work with that 'piece of paper'. The same way all human being beings have to work with the 'human being' piece of paper, in which biology and genes are built in. Nobody is arguing that a person with inbred genes is different from someone without, but that doesn't refute the blank slate theory. Everyone has a differently shaped and sized piece of paper to work with, but genes as well as environment still fall under 'natural impacts'...the physical world. The REAL question, is whether or not there is something inherently 'unique' or 'special' about a person BEFORE conception, that has nothing to do with current human biology or nuture. All modern parents raise their children with this notion, when they say, 'let them find out who (s)he really is. If a person is just their genes + their environment + nurture of the environment, that leaves no room for being 'special', you're still a blank slate.
If the mom is on cigs she’s probably genetically prone to addictive behaviors and lacks restraint, which will likely pass down to the kid. It’s not rocket science, it’s just inconvenient when the modern West is taught that we can change human nature. Your genes determine your subconscious, which makes up over 90% of your life
All signs are pointing towards determinism but the world does not want to accept this even though it would be the most liberating cultural shift in all of human history. Our individual egos demand that we all can be special even though this is just fundamentally impossible. If you are born an outlier, nothing in this talk should be a surprise to you. Your entire childhood would have likely shown you just how lacking those around you are as you pick up every subject with a complete lack of effort. Even at a young age you would likely notice that it isn't because of anything you or your parents did. It just is. It's like gravity.
I have problems with his methodology. Pinker's argument (likely in "The Language Instinct") is that language learning is innate, and studying one child can reveal universal aspects of human language acquisition.
@AndroidPolitician The Gabor Mate, James Gilligan and Robert Sapolski school of thought. Also the the most balanced because it recognises genetic predisposition but *not* predetermination. Behavior is cultivated by environment, and any abhorrent behavior can be dormant without stimuli or rectified by nurturing social conditions. Great section in Zeitgeist: Moving Forward on these men if you haven't seen it.
@MaxWeberz That's not the only thing he ignores. There's been criticism of computational theory of the mind for a long time. And he's still taken it in as the tacit hingepoint in his argument for theory of the mind, along with his language of thought.
I am more than halfway through "The Blank Slate" and it is interesting. I do have a gripe with this statement on page 128: "anyone who believes in an immaterial soul is certainly not going to believe that thought and feeling consist of information processing in the tissues of the brain." This seems to sugguest that you have to either believe in neuroscience or an immaterial soul. However, the two are NOT mutually exclusive unless a person is an extreme Cartesianist, Anyone agree?
I did not state that art is relatively less great, I stated there is relatively less great art. Back in the day, and this is a very general statement, there were more great artists per capita than today. That's my point. Picking up shit and throwing it against the wall and photographing unique individual shit stains is not art. OH WAIT.... See, ridiculous.
It's a mixture of the two, both have a "religious fanaticism" about them: one being the religion of God, and the other being the religion of "we are all equal"....
"...How? If anything, doesn't it make it easier by cross referencing the genes that are actually responsible for intelligence?" Scratch that, now that I think of it, I guess you're technically right about that first one. The second statement I quoted still makes no sense in regards to the subject or otherwise.
Everything humans does is essentially a part of their nature. You can't just cherry pick a certain aspect of their behavior and call that "natural" or "nature". It's all of it, both good and bad. Then you can argue that there are some bad traits to that "nature" or there are some good traits, and point them out, but essentially every little single thing we do is a part of our "nature". This is how we are designed, and it's very complex, it's something we won't understand anytime soon.
