THE MOST SURPRISING, UNDER-APPRECIATED DISCOVERIES OF PSYCHOLOGY
Parents have much less impact on their kids than we usually think.
Choosing a good partner, with good genes, is the top factor.
Selfish parents, who want to prioritize their own happiness over their children’s genes, will scream otherwise
“It’s just obvious that nurture is the most important factor bro!”
No, it is not obvious.
It is a lie.
One of the most prevalent, convenient lies.
Nature > Nurture.
Parents have much less impact on their kids than we usually think.
Choosing a good partner, with good genes, is the top factor.
Selfish parents, who want to prioritize their own happiness over their children’s genes, will scream otherwise
“It’s just obvious that nurture is the most important factor bro!”
No, it is not obvious.
It is a lie.
One of the most prevalent, convenient lies.
Nature > Nurture.
💯5
Forwarded from DoomPosting
Top 10 Replicated Findings from Behavioral Genetics
NUMBER 1: ALL PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAITS SHOW SIGNIFICANT GENETIC INFLUENCE
No, being exposed to X does not cause people to do Y.
Psychological traits are profoundly innate, not due to any kind of nurture or environment, to a degree we never even imagined.
If you’re still denying it at this point then you’re an extremely left liar.
Meta-Analysis Study
NUMBER 1: ALL PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAITS SHOW SIGNIFICANT GENETIC INFLUENCE
No, being exposed to X does not cause people to do Y.
Psychological traits are profoundly innate, not due to any kind of nurture or environment, to a degree we never even imagined.
If you’re still denying it at this point then you’re an extremely left liar.
Meta-Analysis Study
💯4
Wedge & Lever
Allow me to coin a name for one of the lefts most prolific and effective argument techniques, one which is extremely effective against NPCs,
(1) The wedge: Find a true pathological edge case — which is virtually always truthfully possible for practically anything. Jam your wedge into that tiny crack.
(2) The lever: Falsely lever that crack open, falsely claiming that this rare pathological case is actually the norm, implying it should be the exemplar upon which all future reasoning should be based. If accepted, the floodgates are now open, and can convince adversary of the most inane things.
= Extremely common argument technique of the left.
Works extremely well on NPCs, since they are way too lazy to ever look up, or even think about how common (2) is.
NPC readily accept the extreme exceptions as the norm.
So, to wit,
No bro, I don’t think that locking someone in solitary confinement for their entire life would have zero effect on them psychologically.
Prolonged solitary confinement is one of the most psychologically destructive things to exist.
Do you think we’re unfamiliar with Harlow’s Pit of Despair?
Is Harlow’s Pit of Despair really a good representative analogy to be using here?
Classic left-style wedge & lever argumentation, for lack of a better name, because AFAIK no one ever even coined any name for this.
Absolutely prolific among left arguments, always portraying extremely exceptional cases as the rule. Don’t recall seeing it used by the right, but if anyone does see that then lmk.
You have taken us for absolute fools.
(To answer the question: Bad environment can, particularly in pathological situations, hurt the kids, yes. What the papers are essentially saying is that nurture at best is about giving children what they need to thrive, but then it’s largely in their hands, largely up to their innate predisposition from there. Want to change their innate predisposition? Then you have to do that before they’re born. Vastly more advanced gene therapy and brain rewiring tech might change this in the distant future.)
Allow me to coin a name for one of the lefts most prolific and effective argument techniques, one which is extremely effective against NPCs,
(1) The wedge: Find a true pathological edge case — which is virtually always truthfully possible for practically anything. Jam your wedge into that tiny crack.
(2) The lever: Falsely lever that crack open, falsely claiming that this rare pathological case is actually the norm, implying it should be the exemplar upon which all future reasoning should be based. If accepted, the floodgates are now open, and can convince adversary of the most inane things.
= Extremely common argument technique of the left.
Works extremely well on NPCs, since they are way too lazy to ever look up, or even think about how common (2) is.
NPC readily accept the extreme exceptions as the norm.
So, to wit,
No bro, I don’t think that locking someone in solitary confinement for their entire life would have zero effect on them psychologically.
Prolonged solitary confinement is one of the most psychologically destructive things to exist.
Do you think we’re unfamiliar with Harlow’s Pit of Despair?
Is Harlow’s Pit of Despair really a good representative analogy to be using here?
Classic left-style wedge & lever argumentation, for lack of a better name, because AFAIK no one ever even coined any name for this.
Absolutely prolific among left arguments, always portraying extremely exceptional cases as the rule. Don’t recall seeing it used by the right, but if anyone does see that then lmk.
You have taken us for absolute fools.
(To answer the question: Bad environment can, particularly in pathological situations, hurt the kids, yes. What the papers are essentially saying is that nurture at best is about giving children what they need to thrive, but then it’s largely in their hands, largely up to their innate predisposition from there. Want to change their innate predisposition? Then you have to do that before they’re born. Vastly more advanced gene therapy and brain rewiring tech might change this in the distant future.)
💯5
Imagine using Harlow’s Pit of Despair to argue nurture over nature
“If you accept this pathological case to truly exist, then you must accept that the pathological case is the norm, and base all further reasoning on it!”
Not a good-faith argument at all
But an extremely effective argument form when used on NPCs
You have taken us for absolute fools
“If you accept this pathological case to truly exist, then you must accept that the pathological case is the norm, and base all further reasoning on it!”
Not a good-faith argument at all
But an extremely effective argument form when used on NPCs
You have taken us for absolute fools
💯6