Hacker News Reader

Comment by 0942v8653 | Hacker News Reader

Yep, the fact that this question is even being asked shows that flawed assumptions have been made.

We don't even have to get into the nature/nurture debate: It's possible that your daughter learned to play baby dolls by watching and imitating her mother. This counts as socialization according to these nature/nurture studies, but ...

To attempt to take away the human being from society, from parents, etc., and find out what this human being would do outside of human society is an act of extreme cruelty, because human beings cannot grow up and function in total isolation. This is why, although science can be applied to specific biological processes such as reflexes, it will never be able to describe a person or a person's behavior. This is why psychology and sociology are considered "soft sciences".

View on HN

There absolutely is a genetic basis for behaviour though. A bird doesn't sing because it likes music. But because genes that exhibit that trait have a competitive advantage. And the same kind of thing can be seen in humans, and most keenly in babies and toddlers. Suddenly something happens in their brain and behaviours emerge by instinct.

There could easily be a genetic basis for why girls and boys like different things. And that is interesting. And obviously other factors play a role (like TV and siblings). The mistake is to believe that this is somehow a restriction on free will. The amazing thing about humans is out ability to break out of our genetic mold. The robin can never make rock music, but we can.

Also, no one is suggesting that we isolate some kids on a desert island to see what would happen. But there is nothing wrong with running that thought experiment! And maybe that understanding can help us break out of our genetic mold. We might be able to catch bad instinctive behaviours in ourselves and moderate them.

Memory in gene expressions might even account for the difference. Gene expressions can change during a lifetime and across a couple of generations (ie. memory of famine can last 2 generations in gene expression). There are outliers that go against the norms, so seems not hardcoded on chromosone level.

Funnily, this would make both "camps" correct!

It would be interesting if environmental factors had unexpected consequences down the line at a population level. Like famine leading to behavioral changes and effecting world events. There could be very compelling evidence out there to support claims like that, although obviously very difficult to establish causality.

I wouldn't be surprised to find gene expressions making Western-style education and standardized tests sub-optimal for whole swaths of people (hypothesis). Imagine if your very makeup go against what you're told should be just routine, but it goes against your innate body-mind preferences. Imagine that for whole tribes of people, and that maybe there are better paths more optimized to grow and educate different populations. Being able to communicate the gap or avoid misgivings, would be next to impossible.

A discussion of such would be less about identity, and more about who-we-shall-become, the evolving versions of ourselves, though also respecting heritage.

This is only possible with trust and common ground.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com