Your Vision of Human Nature

Once upon a time I was a Graduate student in Psychology. One thing that really surprised me was how many of my colleagues believed in the idea of the 'blank slate'..the idea, in simple terms, is the notion that we are born as a blank canvass and that the environment dictates what we become. Now, in my view, this is wrong, and the research is quite clear on this question.

From all of my reading, it appears pretty clear that genetics dictate the range of possibilities, (a minimum and maximum amount, for let's say IQ) and the environment dictates where in that range we end up.

It turns out that our vision of human nature is quite relevant for the policy positions we end up fighting for. But we don't often even realize this.

So, where do you fit in? Are humans constrained from their birth..or are we born with endless possibility and it is only our environment that dictates what we become?

 

Sounds like a reference to cultural capital. Do we need to go further than that though, given it reads more like an economic stance in capital exploitation? Take bigotry! Those psychologists have a lot to say over the sources...

 

We're individuals, each with our own inherent strengths and weaknesses. Just as warriors were more likely to thrive in the violence inherent to life a thousand years ago, philosophers are more likely to thrive in the decadence of today. Some peoples strength is the ability to adapt to become either, though they're less likely to accel to the same extent that those 'born to be' one or the other can.

I don't think our environment ever dictates who we become. While it is a huge factor, so is our will to overcome it, and likewise our willingness to be defeated by it.

 

It seems to me that those who believe in the "endless possibilities" model are probably deficient of many of the factors that boost intelligence and honest self-reflection. It is probably why we are where we are today in our society.

 

I basically came from a poor family. My father died a few days before I was born. My mother was stuck with four boys and a girl with no pension except for a very small one from the VA. In spite of that, we all did rather well in life. We all went to college except one brother and he still did well. . One of my sons summarized it very well. He said we were a family of over achievers.

 

Small sample and factor in luck? We know that, for example, there's very little mobility in the US: Daddy poor, son typically poor.

Psychology is individual focused, but ultimately has to go back to Marx and class limitation.

 

I think the difference was that we were expected to do well For as long as I remember, I was expect to attend college. When I came to time to go to college, I worked my tail off. I got very little help from anyone else and a few times I was not sure where my next meal was coming from, but I did it. Looking back, I must have been incredibly stupid to think that I could actually pull it off.

 

I come from a large family. We all had the same get up and go; we all had the same basic intelligence. I was the only lucky one to get ahead in the freedom stakes.

There's no nature or nurture here. There's only the reality of social immobility.

 

@Adfundum Long gone from a scientific point of view, post modernism is very present today. The idea of a blank state generated a lot of harm for autist people and their family.

@ed1984 Well by the way, there is no obvious answer. Imagining a human being pure without culture isn't possible as human being is a being of culture even if the tribal state seems to me the closest of what are "natural" human as it was our reality for hundred of thousand of worlds.

I suppose from birth a human could become a billion of different being depending of the environnement while alway sharing a common base.

We could compare that to a block of marble, you can do a billion different things with a block of marble, but never you could make it a block of wood (even if you could make it take that appearance).

 

You have to make your own social mobility. No one can do it for you. When I was in engineering school, I worked in the school lab doing all sorts of dirty work such as dusting and cleaning the machinery. One other young man came to work. He just happened to be black. He could not stand the dirty work and quit. That was unfortunate, because he was in a class behind me in AFROTC and he would have made a good officer, but he lacked the willingness to stick with it.

Later on, I got to help out in a machine lab handing out tools. The students had a chit with a number. I memorized the chits so that I knew what tool was checked out to what person without looking it up. One of the wise a$$ students said he could teach a monkey to do the same thing. Maybe so, but I worked to be the best I could be.

 

You've missed the point. Social mobility is understood at society level. The likes of the US has low social mobility. It means, by definition, that the likelihood of individual success is much lower. Work ethic is much more likely to get you ahead in a country with high mobility.

 

My point is that I started at the bottom and I worked my way up. If I could do it, other people can do it. I was not special except that I was willing to try and persist even when the likelihood of failure was high. So much for your theories.

I can give you another example. Some of my high school classmates were off making good money while I was working my way through college and even after I was commissioned into the Air Force. They pointed to what they were making and what I was making and laughed. My college education was earning me $212 per month plus allowances. The difference was that I was in it for the long hall. I am not wealthy, but I don't have to worry about money. I paid off our house in just over five years and we haven't had to finance a car for over ten years. We don't have a debt in the world except a credit card which we pay off every month.

 

You're referring to individual 'luck'. Someone can put in the same level of work and achieve nothing. Indeed, most won't. I've already used my family's example to illustrate that.

 

I never considered my life 'luck'. I worked for it. They won't achieve the same, if they give up. That is for sure.

 

It is luck as many folk similarly work and do not achieve the same outcome. Crikey, I've already referred to that with my family. Same nature, same nurture, different outcome.

 

Where was the luck? I worked. I kept on working. I never quit. I suppose that if I quit trying and still made it, it could be called luck, but that was not the case.

 

In 1959 I was drafted into the army. Despite having a masters degree I thought of myself as just an average guy. Nothing special; then I encountered people I didn't know existed. Guys who couldn't make a bed or shine a pair of boots. These lost souls were all white guys. I can't believe any of them would be able to function in the real world. I think when we say I started with nothing but through hard work I was able to make something of myself. Anyone can do it. The inference is that some people aren't willing to put in the work. I think that is bullshit.There are many people who would work hard, but they just don't have the talent. Trump is an example of someone who lacks the talent and the desire to work hard.On top of that there is still a lot of discrimination in the workplace.

 

Same goes for those that don't succeed. They work, they don't quit. The idea that its up to individual work ethic is a myth. And that's a fact.

 

Doesn't matter about controls for work ethic or intelligence. Its simply factual that society constraints will often make the individual just pissing in the wind.

 

Well, I'm not religious, but I am pretty spiritual. I believe that before we come into this life we decide what lessons we wish our souls or whatever to learn in this lifetime. Some lessons can only be learned from the perspective of a mentally handicapped person. Some lesons can only be learned from the point of view of a rocket scientist or rockstar. Whatever lesson it is we are trying to get out of this life, that is the genetics and conditions we are born into. If we successfully learn the lessons we meant to learn, we might choose different conditions for our next incarnation, until our souls are ready for evolution into what comes next.

 

eD, we are the product of nature- and nurture. It's never been one of the other. Nature does give us a range of things; nurture controls what we do with them. Nurture is the most important, because it teaches us how to find what we have, manage it wisely and maximize our potential. That is, IF the first teacher is wise and mature enough to demonstrate that. The parent and environment they create is the first teacher, and the child is learning even before leaving the womb. They hear, they feel, they sense before birth. Before they can understand language, they learn from our reactions and interactions, learn from our anger, out kindness, the way we handle responsibility, what we put first, and the consistency of our values. From the arguments or violence they see- all of which is forming personality, interpreting the natural assets as well. By the time a child is two, the critical fundamentals of their personality are in place. Children learn from the imprints of the behavior of those around them long before they learn from the instructions we give, or the books we will eventually want them to read.

By the time we get around to thinking it's time to "teach" them- the fundamental values that will dictate the way they interpret that teaching and all the events of life that follow- are already there, and extremely difficult to change.

Immature adults cannot raise children with sound values- because they lack the ability to demonstrate them or explain them. While it's true that each child has the ability to make their own choices and re-write those fundamentals, most will not find that possible, even if they realize the need and try hard.

This is something I've done and taught and understand very well. Many practicing psychologists have attended my classes, trying to understand how it could be done and how I did it. Point is- I'm not guessing. Best professional information, in my opinion came from a Dr Albert Ellis. I had people ask if I was teaching his material before I even knew who he was, but the similarity was close. He's passed away some time back but his work continues through the Ellis Institute-
https://albertellis.org/

 

"When you blame it all on luck, you are just making excuses."
All? where did he type "all"?

Hard work is a given, assume any further examples its implied the individual worked as hard as possible at the given moment ok. Its does wonders to clear the confusion you seem to present.
Why would he be talking about lazy people?

 

What research is quite clear on the idea that we don't start with a blank slate?

 

Same family does not mean = same personality, work ethic, IQ, or any other factor. Parents also rarely treat all their children the same.

There are also factors outside of work ethic. How about interest? If I want to be an artist, unless I'm brilliant, I am going to be poor. This skill just isn't generally valued in society. Is this a lack of social mobility or is individual interest dictating my socioeconomic status?

The biggest lie that leftists tell people is that they don't have opportunity because others have taken it from them..almost all the time, the actual answer is that often is comes down to interest.
You want to be a firefighter and nothing else..yeah, you're not going to be rich. Jeff Bezos didn't do that to you.