Jason (jcreed) wrote,
Jason
jcreed

This is how I feel about arguments about "nature vs. nurture". Wikipedia says this sort of unasking the question is fairly standard among certain subsets of people, which is a little comforting (Hebb's "which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?") but then everything that follows still seems very couched in language like "In only a very few cases is it fair to say that a trait is due almost entirely to nature, or almost entirely to nurture" which still seems to betray a way of thinking that is out of touch with causual reality.

On the other hand, it seems necessary to say something about the apparent extremity of traits like "which language you speak" and "what color your eyes are". While it's possible in principle that you could genetically engineer a person to speak 15th century French, or modify someone's eye color after birth, the range of variation we expect in genes or post-birth environment amounts to a negligible effect on language or eye color in practice.
Tags: javascript, science
Subscribe

  • (no subject)

    I doubt any of the 5+/-2 people still reading this need to be encouraged to vote. One more day. Fingers crossed.

  • (no subject)

    I guess I have watched all three debates for whatever reason. I have as an axiom in the back of my head to generally distrust statements of the form…

  • (no subject)

    Uh-oh, elder gods invading the midwest, y'all.

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

  • 12 comments

  • (no subject)

    I doubt any of the 5+/-2 people still reading this need to be encouraged to vote. One more day. Fingers crossed.

  • (no subject)

    I guess I have watched all three debates for whatever reason. I have as an axiom in the back of my head to generally distrust statements of the form…

  • (no subject)

    Uh-oh, elder gods invading the midwest, y'all.