🎥 Support me on PATREON for *scripts, discord, & name in credits* , etc: www.patreon.com/thenandnow 🎤 *PODCAST* : pod.link/1499254204 ✉️ Sign up to the *NEWSLETTER* at: lewwaller.com/newsletter ▶️ *TWITTER* : twitter.com/lewlewwaller 📷 *INSTAGRAM* : instagram.com/thethenandnow
Greetings, I have plugged your channel at the DieM25 Christmas party at our YT channel. I hope you got a boost in subs. Your work is too good and universal to remain in English only. If you decide to reach a wider audience I suggest adding CC in Spanish and Portuguese and I`d be willing to do some translation if needed. Keep up the great work and thank for doing it. Cheers!
This has got to be the cover up of all time. Humans have been abusing offspring throughout time, with intent. We pretend to not know... We're pathetic!
At 24:06 , you said we could see the list of human universals from "The Blank Slate" in a link in the description. I see no such link. (While you're looking there, I should also point out that you typed "Sources:" twice.)
@@ThenNow im only in 1:50, as of yet... but you just listed a whole bunch of interesting things followed by "but i want to avoid being technical as much as possible." please dont do that, be technical, force people to think, thanks. ok i continue video now.
But how am I supposed to feel superior to others when so much evidence suggests that I'm mostly just a product of my environment? How can I look down at others for making bad decisions when so much evidence suggests that they often don't have much say in the matter?
Maybe this is wrong platform to ask this... I'd suggest you ask from far-right conservatives such as Benjamin Shapipo or Steven Crowdeer. I at least would like to hear their answering that question....
Research shows that most successful ppl over attribute their success to their own diligence, hard work etc, & downplay unearned advantages they inherited or were granted; similarly, disadvantaged folks tend to over blame their circumstances for their poor outcomes.
@@chrisfreebairn870 well... yeah.. you may as well just say "Rich people have self serving bias and poor people have self serving bias" because what you are describing is a well known cognitive bias that clouds our judgement of our success/failures
@@trybunt it's not rich & poor, it's biased self perception, which you understand; so your clearly being cleverly sarcastic to make a point about epigenetics & I'm saying the effect you describe occurs regardless of it. Get it, or do you need to be the sharpest little pencil in this chat?
So, let me get this straight: our DNA is actually more like a massive library of natures, in plural, and our bodies select for us the phenotypes that it deems most likely to help us be better adapted to the environment we've been born into. While the DNA is indeed completely static for any given individual, the systems that allow it to manifest are fully dynamic and responsive, adding one extra layer of adaptability on top of what was originally thought to be a completely closed system as far as individuals were concerned. And this revealed an already incomprehensibly massive puzzle we're only now beginning to unravel.
No. There are limits to what epigenetics can do. It can only change what you already have. It cant give you something new like neanderthal / denisovan DNA does.
Our DNA can adapt to environment, but DNA in our sexcells (the ones we pass to our offspring) in the nutsack or ovaries stays same throughout our life's
It's a pity this channel doesn't have at least a million followers. The videos are super well researched and reliable. I can even use them as a reference in academic writing.
It’s because it’s mainly bullshit with a bit of truth sprinkled on top . They are presenting alternative “facts” but skipping painful truths in the true sprit of idealist nonsense. “For the greater good” You will never be as strong as Eddie hall you don’t have the MGNT gene waking around Newcastle isn’t going to change it.
Give this channel a few more months and It will have the million subscribers it deserves. I subscribed today...so one step further towards that moment.
I live in Morocco and have a lot of adopted dogs, some of which were abandoned litters and it's surprising to me how radically different their personalities are even from a very young age.
❤️ "We should treat having children like the most highly skilled job you can possibly do... Because it is... And it has the most consequences for society" ❤️
there is this sort of existential crisis feeling in me when thinking about nature AND nurture, knowing that regardless of whether one of them trumps the other, they both show one thing - I am just a byproduct of my surroundings and or my parents. It makes me wonder just how creative we really are. Do we really have any originality or do we simply copy what we see? Sometimes I wish I was around when no one was really around. Then I could see if I really am the creative individual others say I am. Even in writing, drawing, songwriting, I find myself copying others ideas almost subconsciously, and still thinking I made it up. Are any of us really original?
Depends on how you see it. Red and blue make purple, but is purple something new, or merely the combined pre-existing red and blue? If I draw a picture that combines many gods of different mythologies to create a composite character that has never existed before, is he a new idea, or merely the combined pre-existing ideas of the those gods? How you answer this determines what creativity is, but it doesn't really matter. If you enjoy making things, continue to do it. We only have so long to live on this earth, might as well fill it with little simple joys whenever we get the chance.
To me I make it a dualistic thing to confront the existentialism behind it. So I say internally perhaps its nature. We are and this is just what it is. But also nurture the thing that makes us humans different then nature if even similar.
I feel like the best argument *against* the classical Hobbesian model of human nature is that it pre-dated our discovery and understanding the mechanisms by which it would function -- genetics and epigenetics, etc. -- and then *didn't change* once we discovered and began to understand them. The idea that we got it completely 100% right before we had any way of understanding the underlying causes is just ludicrous.
It is highly doubtfull that people had human nature 100% pinned down. However just because your blind to the whole picture, doesnt mean can you feel around enough to get a sufficient gist until your able to see and understand more.
Both Hobbes and Rousseau put forth theories that were basically "thought experiments" that had little supporting evidence. They also acknowledged this to some degree. Had their adherents keep this in mind over the centuries, and not promoted each set of "theories" as established fact, we might have had more helpful approaches to questions of human nature/nurture.
I mean there are many cases of philosophers deducing something quite accurately by accident. Like Atoms for example. Sure, we ended up using the name a bit prematurely but in the end what we now call elementary particles follow that reasoning quite well.
I think an argument that is based on whether or not someone was able to make a correct assertion before the evidence needed to clarify that assertion had been ascertained is not a very good argument. Einstein predicted black holes in 1916 and there was no recorded or observable evidence of them until the discovery of Cygnus X-1 in 1964. The *only* good argument is an argument that can directly refute the central claim of the initial proposition.
Shame it’s nonsense, Eddie hall won the strongest man because he has the Hercules gene 🧬 (MSTN) not because he’s grew up in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire There’s nothing in the environment that makes him 5 times stronger than the average man. Social constructivism skips over a lot of biological realities to present their rhetoric. It’s both nature and nurture. even if hardware isn’t fully immutable it has as much to do with outcomes as environmental factors
@@allseeingry2487 That is what was said in the video, right!? mate! If I remember correctly, he said that it is neither nature alone, nor nurture alone. It is a beautiful symphony of both pulling each others' chords!
@@vishnukumar4531 Careful with epigenetics and the enormous misunderstood science behind it. There is a lot of bad and confusing information. A lot of quackery. It is still in it's infancy. I would strongly recommend you to read Blueprint by Robert Plomin to understand heritability. Its a truly great book...with some thought provoking conclusions but a good read if this topic interests you.
The image I always go for is that of a map. Our parents give us a map that is just a landscape. Prenatal influences wear it down, creating natural paths. The diversity of this map is also mirrored in how our minds operate, meaning that neurodiverse people are completely normal, natural and cannot be changed from what they are. Infancy gives us some tendencies and more paths are made. Early childhood, when we become more active, we start walking down these both natural and artificial paths. The means our parents have and the way they and others interact with us steer our direction, slowly paving the paths into roads. Kindergarten is also quite important here, starting to build villages where our many skills will live and develop. School and education is when these roads are transformed into streets, solidifying our abilities and ideally encouraging growth in them. This is where individualized education becomes so very important for our mental well-being. As we grow older, it becomes more and more important that we learn about the many forms a human can take. This is to help understand both ourselves and others, and to teach us to be kind to those that are not like us. To be understanding when faced with our own ignorance instead of judging. In adulthood then, the paved roads have become streets and many villages have become towns and cities. We can still change and do so constantly, but an underlying structure has been laid and we truly become fully realized people. In all of this, our material conditions and life events play major roles. We can only hone what we have access to, oftentimes dependent on whom we meet. This is why rich people are often well connected and can introduce their children to people that can help them gain access to certain things much earlier than poorer people. It's not that they are inherently better or spent more time on a thing, but access to better resources does play a huge role as well. Their accomplishments are still their own, you rarely reach the top of a field without time and effort, but they had a lot more assistance in transforming their biggest village not just into a city but a metropolis. Something that this video advocates to provide for poorer families. It's an investment in everyone's future. One with extremely high returns.
I've always though: You can't choose your nature. And you can't choose your environment for many years. By which point so much of who you are has been decided for you (even if you think 'I want to change', it was these things that led to that desire) so you end up with very little control (if any) of who you are. This is very similar to determinism in a way.
Precisely! Even if one wants to/ does believe in free will, it's such a limited version that it's virtually impossible to blame anyone for what they've done. So actions should be rehabilitative vs retributive. Our justice system, especially in the US and similar countries needs to be completely rebuilt from the ground up
Excellent! Thank you. But I have one over riding concern. My concern is for the poor Aristocrats and the Elites in general. If we uplift our fellow human beings and have a general rise in human wellbeing for members of the human family, who will shovel shit in their stables or drive their limousines or act as pawns in their political chess games or mindlessly run off to fight in their wars for power and wealth retention? They have worked for thousands of years to establish an order based on proper breeding and a recognition of their superior qualities and their right to rulership and authority over we lowly folk. Oh my! I fear for their psychological health if they ever come to a realization that it has all been a scam on humanity and a charade on the part of the pompous, dare I say, A-holes?
Look, the elite, whoever they are, wish to maintain a distance from everyone they don't consider in their membership, so be it. The classes cannot relate to each other; therefore, class segregation is the best method for keeping peace. We don't need to suffer them, and the elites don't need to tolerate us. As long as we're fed, fat, and happy, we don't have to live together.
my editorial nature needs to point out that the term is "tabula rasa," literally "clean slate" (think of "rasa" as the basis of "erased"), not "tabula rosa," which translates to "picture of the rose." thank you.
I'm really glad your channel managed to find itself in my recommendations. Not only are they well put together and have high production value, I also feel like every video teaches me something I did not expect to learn from the title. Whether that be the history of the importance of public image or the function of DNA, you always bringing new knowledge to the table. I thank you for what you do.
I remember a quote from a samurai (it was on some random web 1.0 website about samurai quotes), who said something about you shouldn't be harsh on your children, because it would inhibit them in the future. This just randomly popped in my head while watching.
@@pendejo6466 If you've gotten to the point where a slap to the face is the only method of preventing arrogance and unfettered self-interest you've already failed as a parent to a large degree. Either that or you severely lack imagination. This is the kind of thing you'd do to someone else's kid aggressing against you, not your own whom you have far more power to influence from both a material and psychological lens.
The problem in trying to answer this question is in focussing on humans, who are complex. Let´s focus on trees. Trees have DNA, trees adapt to their environment. Does it make sense to talk about nature vs nurture for them? Trees have no innate culture, so no nurture... but humans can subject them to culturing by pruning and care. We could say that would be the nurture part. Everything else is nature. And we see nurture can seem to change nature, we can grow pears on an apple tree by grafting. But still you can only nurture what is in nature (pears and apples are both rosacea, we just don´t look at it that way). Trees interact with other trees and animals in incredibly complex ways without a brain. They love, fight, negotiate and work together. Behaviour that we think somehow requires ethics and a brain. Some examples of the complexity we are talking about: Oaks spread tough leaves in fall, to prevent other seeds taking ground, killing babies.. They have mast years, producing ten times as many acorns every few years to confuse squirls and trick them into forgetting stashes and thus planting their seeds for them. But that only works, if they have a mast-year sparsely and at the same time as fellow trees around them, so they coordinate this (or it is coordinated for them), nobody knows how. It´s one of the unsolved mysteries. They grow and spread leaves that throw shade. Robbing other plants, even their own species, of essential sunlight and water. They trade resources with mycorrhizal trader-funghi and in doing so indirectly work together with other species of tree up to 16 km in distance. They have complex sex and long standing, long distance relationships using pollinators. They trade O2 with CO exhalers (but not impressively, that would be seaweeds, so the whole trees give us our oxygen is plain wrong and about the only thing we acknowledge about trees unless you happen to be a botanist or ecologist, who knows this). But one thing trees do not have is a way to sustain a fear respons and a brain to abstract that fear response into a code for living. That is our affliction. The nurture vs nature debate is one that focuses on ethics and responsibility. It might be prudent to ask in what context we ask this question? In what light do we try and see it? We too, like trees, have innate intelligence, but we don´t trust it. We use our brain-affliction to look for trouble in advance because our innate intelligence is "only" responsive. That's too late for our panicky brains.. We sustain fear in stress (and a sense of individuality) in order to advance solutions before things happen (or "go wrong" according to panicky brain).. Ethics is ultimately based in suspicion of our own nature and an effort to sustain fear. It strives to make clear rules of what one should do and what to do if one doesn´t to make sure as many people as possible do. Politically it is about the justification of punishment and of stick and carrot distribution, scientifically it is about isolation and classification. It is about what SHOULD be. When a code for living is inflicted upon trees by humans in parks and gardens, it is because we think a tree SHOULD have a certain shape, SHOULD be invulnerable to any ´disease´ or ´pest´, SHOULD produce fruits or flowers, or perform some trick like produce fruit and be useful in isolation in black earth and preferably every tree SHOULD have a sign on it that specifies the type of tree, it´s genus, gender and variant.. so that we can classify it, prune it, shape it, support it and care for it. Because this is the behaviour of people who say they like trees, who say they feel this need to care for a tree, completely disregarding the fact that trees predate humans by at least 340 million years and were doing pretty well without humans. Absolutely dominating their arch enemies, the mushrooms after a mere 10-60 million years and basically cruising and partying after that, looking around more and more corners of the earth, climbing mountains as a species, living hundreds, even thousands of years as individuals... Yet... We cannot seem to trust them to do well on their own especially if we love them.. Like an overbearing parent, suffocating a child. That is on us and our mistrust of any other type of intelligence than panicky brain power. We don´t stop at trees, we like to prune and "care for", inflict punishment, sticks and carrots and isolation and definition on everything, including humans. But humans don´t generally like that sort of thing, they rightly perceive it as trouble and limitation and will start looking for solutions the moment they perceive limitations... So it´s called many things to hide it: law, school, medicin, diagnose, love, prison, art, clubs, gangs, peer pressure, nationalism, education, religion, philosophy.. even science... This confuses things a bit.. We have high ideals, but our practice is necessarily watered down with reality. Which means we get to live in perpetual frustration, unable to attain or be, what SHOULD. When done "right"... it leads to strange behaviour like being intolarant of intolerance, killing people to show killing people is wrong and when it goes "wrong" we see all kinds of acting out from sheer frustration and exasperation. We know this and in stead of backing off, giving up, admitting defeat, we double down. Make laws stricter, punish harder, or set higher standards of tolerance, being more intolerant of intolerance.. Until it all collapses, like every culture up to now. But individual humans bounce back from all that. Amazingly.. Usually just before we die, because we have outlived our usefulness and are largely left alone before then. Tibetans based a whole religion on that with their book of the dead. They observed a rare peace in some dying people and started to wonder why. Rarely we bounce back to who we are unpruned, before we procreate. As a result we inflict the same fate on our children by raising them with our values, biases and prejudices. Pruning them. Dooming them to a life of trying and failing to be something else than they are. A life of suffering, like the Buddha called it. This is culture and ethics is a part of culture. Trees don´t have culture, we do... Nurture is part of our nature. So.. that is who we are as a species.. It is a byproduct of overusing a tool for moving around and spotting trouble ahead of time and decide a direction to get an edge in survival. But it is also a creative use of resources. It might be great, it might prove an evolutionary dead end (or both). Like a great Dutch philosopher and soccerplayer once said: "Every advantage has it´s disadvantage". We´ll see or more likely: we won´t. Like a tree doesn´t know if it will grow left or right before it does (and even then it only knows it in the sense it has done so and is living record of it´s action, which influences its further growth or decay) we have no way of knowing if any of the things we are doing are any good or even if "good" exists without our panicky brain. The study of ethics is a rather harmless expression of the inability to accept that fact of life. Don´t worry about it.
this really proves its not just about the choices you make, its also about things you cant control, circumstances in your environment that shape your life. studies show that children adopted later in life have poorer outcomes, but people dont ask the same question about children who grew up for 6 months in an institution and then adopted out. even infants can sense that difference in environment. and it can manifest as trauma later in life. yet people treat babies as a blank slate. my sister had years of separation anxiety, screaming at the window whenever my mom left somewhere for hours, which our pediatrician linked to being adopted at 1 year old from her foster mom. i also always wondered why korean women in korea were so different from me. my hair is lighter and my skin is darker from being in the sun all day as a child, whereas many koreans stay out of the sun at all times. my diet for the first 20 years of my life was different than a typical koreans diet of fermented vegetables and rice. not knowing my birth mothers state of mind when i was born, i always wondered whether my mental illnesses that i developed later in life, and my tendency towards being reserved, resistant to change, and vulnerable to sensory problems stemmed from my birth mother's stress levels when i was in the womb. considering that my birth father supposedly died in a car accident, i can see the possible trauma manifesting in my genes as i got older, where i was stressed for such a long time because i just couldnt understand why i am this way. why am i so anxious all the time. its really interesting.
Great treatise. I´ll leave you with a quote from the Matrix: "don´t try to bend the spoon, that´s impossible, instead realise there is no spoon". I think that firmly applies to boxes and our attempts to define them as well, especially since we have been trying with this particular box for 200+ years and now are seriously circling back to a theory proposed at the very beginning of the debate, when Lamarck was laughed away for lack of evidence by a narrow margin.
Yeah. Lamarck was wrong in the exact significance of epigenetic evolution in individuals, but not overall, completely. His theories were undoubtedly informed by his observation of people's developing physical characteristics that conform to their personality types, which are themselves manifestations of their experienced environments.
Im really glad to see that Social sciences seem to be getting a bit more mainstream with channels like this. Great video and thanks for your amazing work!
17:54 "The thing with methylation is that it's hard, it's hard to get off. It's sticky. So, early childhood experiences can literally get under your skin and affect how your DNA operates for the rest of your life."
The box you presented, with things inside, doesn't just have things inside and out. What's inside can be pushed out, but always pushes back and struggles to get in, so requires more energy to keep far away, and what's outside can be shoved in with enough force, but the box struggles to push it back out. With enough extreme force you can maybe force something to stay out or go in or stay out almost permanently, with a decreased push or pull of the box, but even then there will be a tendency to go in or stay out of the box.
Studies also show children who are under nurtured between 0-7 months suffer from permanent development abnormalities of which babies grew up unable to read others emotions. Or a drug addicted parent who has two children one before addiction and the second after addiction. The second would of been passed the inclination towards addiction genetically. The first would not have the same inclination to addiction genetically. These are some popular examples of epigenetics (nurture/nature axis). Great video thanks!
You're giving me access to opinions opposite to my own and arguing them in a clear and respectful manner, whilst simultaneously making clear where we may disagree. Thank you for that.
Another brilliant work of art. The contribution of new information and ideas your videos have instilled in me have been enormous. Your gift of story-telling, and the range of philosophical thought you cover have introduced me to so much. I would have never know that great thinkers like a Jean Baudrillard if not for this channel. I wonder what would come of taking the nature/nurture argument along with epigenetics (as we now understand it), and apply it to Jaynes' concept of bicameral mind? It seems as though it could lend credibility to parts of his theory.
Awesome video. I've seen this play out in our daughter. Following the best possible scientific path to supporting mom and then both after birth. Looking forward to development of these ideas.
Great work! Someone please send this to all the Jordan Peterson, Steven Pinker, or Richard Dawkins fans in the world, who should see their worldview challenged!
I know that Jordan Peterson himself has a large interest in epigenetics. I think these people are always open to being challenged as long as the opposing argument is both strong and cohesive.
I was trying to watch it and did not find it specially convincing. Yeah, my favourite attack from epigenetic perspective. (Yes, there seems to be such minor effect though its far way from noticing it on some features on mice to make a wild speculation that affects humans exactly on the features and direction that we would need from ideological perspective). Attack on twin studies totally misses the point, as the best (biggest sample) studies are actually raised together identical twins vs fraternal twins. Not IQ 2/3 genetic, but if he picks recent studies for adult IQ raised in Western society we're talking about ~80% heritable, ~10% identifiable social factor and ~10% not accounted for, looks like random though it seems that it's better to be lucky enough not to have low birth rate. Maybe I missed mentioning, but there are studies showing quite many early intervention on IQ tend to mostly fade away.
Great video. Thouroughly enjoyed it as someone involved in behavioural genetics. A few thoughts; I think in these discussions it should be made clear that for many traits, it seems quite clear that genetics plays a huge role in, at the very least, determining a range of values in which a person is likely to fall into on a trait (all of these things are highy probabalistic). This holds true for cognitive traits like IQ, executive functioning, andpersonality. To a much lesser degree, there is very solid evidence that genetics explains as much variation in some social outcomes (such as money earned or educational attainment in adulthood) as do social determinants (like wealth of birth family). I'm no genetic determinist by any means, but, and Kathryn Hardy, a behavioural geneticist from the US, makes this point well; an acknowledgement that genes play a role in outcomes we care about need not lead us to pessimism about our ability to structure society in ways to help people, nor does it necessarily need to led us to non-interventionist/social darwinist/eugenic views on social equality etc. In fact, admitting these things will allow us to create more effective policy that actually changes outcomes, because we will have a better understanding as to what variables are actually causing outcomes we care about. For example, many programs fail to achieve significantly better outcomes in education for example, and this may be because genetics are not being controlled for in the samples used for the studies. It's very difficult to causally link any environment provided by the parent to childhood outcomes for this reason; the same genes that caused the parents to supply that environment to the child might also be operating in the child to produce the outcome that we think is a result of the parental environment. I can't be bothered to cite all my sources but a really great book on this is The Genetic Lottery by Kathryn Hardy. Like you mentioned, our policies should be geared towards early intervention, prevention of deleterious childhood environments, and educational programs that aid people in achieveing their potential, whatever that is. Interetsing critique about twin studies frequently using twins who were not actually reared apart; I'd not heard that before. The other critique about how much epigenetic imprinting occurs before twins are seperated is also fair. Twin studies very likely overestimate heritability for these very reasons. But even if they do, many well controlled GWAS have shown that heritability for many traits, while less than twin studies show, are significant and non-zero. Awesome video man. I don't comment very frequently on anything but I very much enjoy your content, it's always very well researched and the topics are great. I'm a behavioural geneticist who also studied philosophy in uni and continues to in my own time now, so it's cool to see discussion that synthesises scientific and philosophical thought - it definitely doesn't happen enough!
code as a metaphor for a genome I think still works, like code for an operating system. But of course with an operating system you can do all kinds of different things, and most operating systems can run most programs, though there are differences in how things are done, and how easy it is to do certain things.
That's a good point. Our genes are more like the code behind the operating system which various internal and external factors work in tandem to create a self-modifying algorithm for creating the various software that make up the overall state of our system and the data therein, to expand the analogy a bit
As a more conservative leaning individual that’s also a big fan of the channel, I think this is some of your best work, and also thank you for your non-confrontational approach to these kinds of topics. I would say I have a few issues with the arguments presented here; but agree with the overall premise that positive assistance as early as possible in a child’s life is the best way to improve outcomes.
Prenatal and early childhood nutrition is so important, and it seems to be the weakest link in the US. The fat, poor, and mindless masses love their McDonald’s and Marlboros.
@@mtlewis973 I know you said that in jest, but actually I enjoy my particular shade of purple. (I'm unsure if you're from the US, but "purple" means someone is a mix of conservative and liberal) I ended up here by genuinely listening and taking into account all political perspectives. I have found that the core issue isn't what the opposite side believes; it's what you've been TOLD they believe. People are more reasonable than you think. Give them a chance.
@@goingforgold_8536 i was joking, of course, whether someone’s a good person usually isn’t reflected in their politics. i come from the UK where the tory government (but not the voters of course) are genuinely uniformly dishonest, corrupt and cruel. i just find it hard to relate to anybody who could support this particular lot
What an inspiring channel! Thanks for your well researched position, it's always refreshing to find a 'hot take' that's actually just extrapolating the research we're doing. I love it.
If we stick with obvious physical traits as an analogy, I think it is pretty easy to see that it is a mixture of nature and nuture. Take height as an example. A child is born with a genetic template for how tall they will be, but it is a range... or moreover a "maximum potential". Lets say a random child has a maximum potential of being 6 feet tall (1.83m). If that child gets a perfect diet, and avoids all toxins, they will reach that potential. But if they are malnourished in the womb, and during their childhood, and have a sedentary lifestyle and are exposed to toxins, they might end up being 5'10" (1.78m). But no amount of special diet and exercise and clean environment will make them taller than 6' (1.83m). So, nurture matters to reach your maximum potential. But the potential itself is nature. Same would apply for more less obvious physical attributes, or mind based attributes. "propensity for violence", "IQ", "musical talent", "coordination and athleticism", "determination", "propensity for fear" There is a range you are "born with", but intervention can help you make sure you reach the maximum of that range (or minimum if it is a negative attribute) Someone might be born with a propensity for anxiety due to their genetics AND due to the epigenetic expression of their genes due to their parents and even grandparent's life experience. But careful intervention can make the difference between manageable anxiety and crippling anxiety.
It's possible to make someone taller than their "maximum genetic potential". For example using growth hormones. We actually do this with cows in agriculture, give them rBGH (bovine growth hormone) to make them huge. So it's possible to override the genetic limit with certain environmental stimuli, like medications.
@Stirgid Lanathiel Lots of things are used as words. That doesn't mean you should avail yourself of them when trying to have your ideas taken seriously.
children are treated more like pets than they are treated as the future of humanity, and that bothers me immensely. for as much as people seem to care about children, they dont often act like it. or atleast those in power dont.
Thank you for the video, this is one of the discussions that need to be had. Without pretense of impartiality, but with the intention of advancing our understanding
So wait, if i cant eat cutris fruit because of a genetic abnormality making me have an alergic reaction to them when consuming and therefor hinderncing my internal nutricional harmony which will influence my gene expression further making it virtually impossible for me to develop normally from nutricion incomparison to the rest of society, is that a sealed box or an open casket?
There is a book the reframes question of “nature versus nurture” in to “nature VIA nurture”. Both nature and nurture are inter twined. Both brung out the other. There is no debate needed, simply a redefining.BTW, video unseen/watched.
As someone who has worked in peri-natal mental health, let me tell you, the powers that be aren't listening to the likes of you and me. Likely because it's women who know the crucial importance of early childhood and nurturance.
I think he's got a bias to downplay the evidence that we have a somewhat strong genetic tendency. There are many twin studies pointing out to the same conclusion. He did not mention that siblings that are not twins, have a much lower correlation in IQ, interest and other areas, and adoped child raised in the same family an even lower long term correlation. These data is a very important piece of evidence to show how much the actual DNA plays a role on population.
@@TheTroutyness some of them. But a lot of them are reliable and point out to the same direction. The point is: the more shared DNA, the more similarities in a lot things that matters (interest, IQ, personality and others). Twins have a high correlation even if they don't share the same enviroment. Even if you consider the argument that he uses in the video, and look at twins that share enviroment, you will see a much higher correlation on them than in siblings that share the same enviroment. Adopted kids raised in the same enviroment have a lower correlation in all those measures than sibilings. Another way to look at it is considering that we know that a lot of this traits are heritable, so must be influenced be genes at some level. There are also some research using DNA samples and analysing for example IQ correlated actual DNA pairs. There is no single gene that is responsible for intelligence, but we know that a lot of spefic genes are very correlated to IQ. Of course, personality, intelligence and other stuff is not determined only by genes. That would be absurd, but i thought that the video underplayed the importance of the genes.
It sounds like you have a bias when it comes to the outdated idea of genetic determinism. Which isn’t surprising seeing as this is the kind of subtle and sophisticated propaganda we have been bombarded with since birth on a near daily basis, designed to shift the blame for the worlds problems from the system (capitalism/imperialism) to us as individual.
This is a positively glorious video. Unfortunately I can't binge watch them like I want to because I usually need a little time to process afterwards. I think Sure Start, and Head Start were mixed up. Not like it affects the content much, but I'm in the US and my brothers and sisters went to Head Start. The "first head of Head Start," was taking about the success of the Sure Start program. Even the logo you used for Head Start looks vaguely like a 'Murican flag. Still a wonderful video, and incredibly informative. That's for all the work you put into it.
The social machines of the 70s,& 80s, & 90s when i was growing up, separated the parental unit from the children. I saw a wide pattern of this. Parents, & children start their day going away from one another, only to return together briefly at days end. Many, many Alcholic/addict parents existed in this era. Leaving me personally in the hands of Mr. Busch, & Ms. Gallo daily, & a double shot every weekends starting at exactly 12pm Saturday Sunday. School further separated those units philosophically, by implementing 'DRUGSRBADMKAY' programs, knowing good & well, over half of us went home to these parents. We children Armed with new thoughts, went home where we were tasked with figuring out how to take the authority of a parent in the throws of 'DRUGSRBADMKAY'. That pretty much left me with the Television to work out how to run my program. You can play 'Mortal Combat', with a friend in Vietnam '....
I believe Robert Plomin, (the author of the 1994 study mentioned in the video) would say that class size has zero impact on school outcomes. Some of this science is still contested, because the term "Environment" needs a clearer definition for every realm in which it's brought into the discussion. The problem with this whole field may be that (to go all deconstructionist) is that the science exists subject to the politics of the scientist; because it's so fundamentally important. It is nice to see the fundamentally conservative statement that raising a child should be treated as the "most highly skilled job you should possibly do", from a left wing analysis.
Human universals, in Brown's terms, have a very different meaning to that is described to them in the video. Brown studied cultural anthropology, not biology, and he talked about cultural universals first and foremost. For instance, fire is obviously not in human nature, but the use of fire is universal across human societies in different historic periods. In that regard, universals can rather be understood as common patterns in "self-imposed nurture" that people create that may or may not have any connection to human biology.
I don't care about the box. Not what's in nor out of it. It's not my box. It's your box. We might reveal the content of our boxes to each other, and it would be beautiful. If we don't reveal it, it can't be helped. Mind your own box, people.
If you look at cultures around the world and how different they are, it's pretty clear that, to whatever extent "nature" does form people, it does it in a way that's completely indirect, and that the ways it manifests within one culture are fixed only by the culture. And since there's no scientific basis for the concept of race, then any person, had they been adopted into *any* other possible culture, they would have ended up completely different. That isn't to say that they would have conformed to that other culture, just that it would have channeled and brought out their brain's natural impulses differently. And there have been millions of different cultures over the history of the human species, and it stands to reason, wherever culture is concerned, that the possibilities that *have* manifested in the real world are only a minute fraction of the possibilities that could have happened. All people are born with the maximum possible creativity, it just gets beaten out of them by society. The world needs to move towards an open culture than actively encourages non-conformity and new possibilities, so that as many different cultural patterns as possible can be made reality. Studies of human behavior mean nothing whey they only study people who are passable in real-life societies. Even if you take people from every continent, rich and poor, religious and atheist, etc., the cultures are still too similar to get a clear view.
Yeah endless possibilities, sounds great, but .. Its the usual bs about endless potential. Culture already has & is running this experiment. This includes invasion, colonisation, immigration etc .. these are the great mixing forces that throw up new human possibilities. Its a well recognised social evolutionary force.
God that was an awful book. Form the start the guy attacks the "selfish gene" theory. Not seeming to realize that's the mechanism of moral behavior. Not an argument against it. Despite the authors best efforts I do agree with him, but frankly go read The Selfish Gene. It's the same argument, with the exception that it's actually a good argument.
It appears to me that if many people are involved in the development of a person then we are all interconnected. Norms and social behavior could be an expression of each generation and its experience of the physical world. This could explain societal norm shifts over time and also social problems and mental illness on a societal level. Maybe the four turnings concept is an expression of this.
Most of the time it's a mixture of nurture creating bad habits and a person's unwillingness to break these habits. Other times it's just a lack of intelligence. Before beginning college, I was terrible at math, and struggled with basic algebra throughout high school. Since I was forced to take the courses online due to my remote proximity, I knew that I would basically have to teach myself and get my ass in gear, and I fully expected to fail. Surprisingly, I passed all these classes with an A+ despite receiving zero help and having no friends or social structure which I could consult. This experience made me realize that much of what happens, perhaps 80%, falls on the individual.
I am glad I found this channel. I don't think responsibility should depend on answers to the nature or nurture questions, people are responsible for their actions either way. However, answers to nature or nature questions are very important in deciding how we will react to what other people do.
Being responsible for your actions is important but factoring in why someone may act differently than expected is also important. Having empathy for people, even people who do bad things, is necessary
@0:30.. to answer your excellent question.. If it is unaffected human nature, then in the box is the stream of consciousness. The feedbackloop in prelayered, but flexible adversarial neural nets we call self awareness, resonating with memories, emotion and selftalk, continously fed by subconscious interpretation of sensation.. Unaffected and effortless. It´s not the subconscious, not interpretations, not thought, not concepts like events or even "the observer". It is in Hinduist Veda´s described as: "neti, neti", not this, not that. Thisness and thatness arises from it combined with the illusion of seperation. It usually goes unnoticed, but the focus can be steered there and habits (prayer, contemplation, meditation, mindfullness, play, love, thankfullness, appreciation) can be formed to seek balance there from overthinking or refuge from emotional storms (negative reinforcement resonance) until the constant awareness of it balances out the illusion of seperation that causes us to cling to things and suffer. All life arises from it, not all have an accompanying brain powerful enough to ignore it, none possess it. The rest is outside the box, but we have no direct knowledge of it, some sensations and even concepts are closer, some are further away, none are ever accurate, none last. The inside of the box lasts. It will be with you in your dying second, as it was even before birth, because it had to arise before any sensation, has to be there for any sensation. It is the ultimate solace that we do not have to cling to, simply because it is always there, because it continuously causes us. But we cling to it, since we want to relate to it, instead of be it, out of habit. To say it will die in death, or continue in a different person after death or even to say it will cause a new person is all meaningless hangups, bandaids put on unbroken skin. To say there is something causing it or to say anything of its future or past is purest conjecture and an attempt to cling to it out of temporary existential dread, like someone kissing the ground after a difficult flight or sea-voyage. Now that was a BIG queston, possibly rethorical, but I don´t do rethorical questions well.... Now let´s see what you actually have to say..
@@cheyemily6066 Absolutely! The video is presented formally, though. Listen to the tone, consider the topic, look at the framing/camerawork... informal language is jarring in context, and makes it harder to take the rest as seriously.
We are influenced in so many ways, since the moment of conception, every second of our lives changes occur on us, and there are within us two persons, me and my subconscious, that's makes me wonder, what is freedom, ice cream or coffee? righrt or left or those decitions were also influenced??
All the while, we must remember that the field of genomics is advancing more every day while simultaneously, so is archeology and anthropology. Always keep an open mind and the ability to say "we used to think that...." Or "science now shows that...".
Fascinating video. I think the topic is very interesting and since I've very limited knowledge, at least limited in the sense to make a cohesive argument for or against any viewpoint, I'm going to do some more research into it. However, one thing I thought about was how you described the enviroment as a "fixed" thing in how it relates to for example humans. If our nature is a two-way street as you put it, changing depending on external factors, couldn't it also be said that the enviroment and those external factors can be changed depending on our nature in turn? And if not changing them, depending on our nature we can approach those factors differently. For example, when you describe the effect that the conditions of our early childhood has on us, you don't seem to take into consideration how the "nature" of the parents might have caused those circumstances to begin with. Either by actively changing the enviroment around them or by how they react to and adapt to it if confronted by something outside of their control.
So many things here are simplified, but it's a good video for people who just became interested in the topic, oh, believe me, the further you go the more fascinating it becomes
The environment is nature as well, and human nature isn't what's in the box, it's how the box responds to the environment. Every different way that the box can respond to the environment, to methylation, is it self determined by the box, and millions of years of evolution. Social responsibility for this is like with all responsibility, is wherever we can meaningfully assign responsibility to build a better society, as technology progresses to influence our being so will our collective responsibility for it progress.
In some way, fire can be seen as part of our nature. This is why our jaws and intestines are smaller than those of other primates. We've been cooking things, and lighting the night with fire, for at least a million years, and our genes have adapted to that.
Watching the mother holding a radiation device up to her right ear just over her baby's head near the end there was quite disconcerting, as obviously young brain tissue does absorb more radiation than older tissue.
"Nature vs nurture" is a silly question: it's all nature. "Nurture" / environment is a subset of nature. It's like asking, "Is my food in my kitchen or is it in my refrigerator?" My refrigerator is _in_ my kitchen, so .. "Yes?"
You can't have one without the other. There is no nature-nurture dichotomy to address. It's not a real question. We are the sum of our decisions. 'What decisions are we allowed to make?' is the question.
There are things in the box when you are convinced and when you are born, some of those things will remain until your death. Lots of things go into the box and a lot comes out of the box.
It's not a coincidence that the countries with the happiest citizens are the ones in which the government accepts some responsibility for the wellbeing of those citizens. Governments that take an active role in nurturing their people end up with a citizenry that is more content and well adjusted, and less inclined to conflict. On the other hand, when we look at countries where the dominant ideology is non-interventionist hyper individualism we see profound unhappiness, violence, corruption, a distrust of government and civil institutions, and political polarization. What epigenetics shows us is that different gene expressions can be passed on, and so these good and bad effects can accumulate from generation to generation. A happy, well adjusted, and secure generation is much more likely to produce a generation that is the same, both through the genetic expressions passed down and their capacity for creating a nurturing environment. The flip side is that an unhappy, stressed, insecure, or traumatized generation is more likely to produce a generation that receives all of the negative impacts of that, effectively baking it further into the genetic makeup of each successive generation. This can be witnessed in different families on a smaller scale and different parts of the world on a larger one.
🎥 Support me on PATREON for *scripts, discord, & name in credits* , etc: www.patreon.com/thenandnow
🎤 *PODCAST* : pod.link/1499254204
✉️ Sign up to the *NEWSLETTER* at: lewwaller.com/newsletter
▶️ *TWITTER* : twitter.com/lewlewwaller
📷 *INSTAGRAM* : instagram.com/thethenandnow
Greetings, I have plugged your channel at the DieM25 Christmas party at our YT channel. I hope you got a boost in subs. Your work is too good and universal to remain in English only. If you decide to reach a wider audience I suggest adding CC in Spanish and Portuguese and I`d be willing to do some translation if needed. Keep up the great work and thank for doing it. Cheers!
This has got to be the cover up of all time.
Humans have been abusing offspring throughout time, with intent.
We pretend to not know...
We're pathetic!
At 24:06 , you said we could see the list of human universals from "The Blank Slate" in a link in the description. I see no such link. (While you're looking there, I should also point out that you typed "Sources:" twice.)
@@ThenNow im only in 1:50, as of yet... but you just listed a whole bunch of interesting things followed by "but i want to avoid being technical as much as possible."
please dont do that, be technical, force people to think, thanks.
ok i continue video now.
@@ThenNow 'Irregardless' isn't a word, silly.
But how am I supposed to feel superior to others when so much evidence suggests that I'm mostly just a product of my environment? How can I look down at others for making bad decisions when so much evidence suggests that they often don't have much say in the matter?
Don't worry about that, you will find a way.
Maybe this is wrong platform to ask this... I'd suggest you ask from far-right conservatives such as Benjamin Shapipo or Steven Crowdeer. I at least would like to hear their answering that question....
Research shows that most successful ppl over attribute their success to their own diligence, hard work etc, & downplay unearned advantages they inherited or were granted; similarly, disadvantaged folks tend to over blame their circumstances for their poor outcomes.
@@chrisfreebairn870 well... yeah.. you may as well just say "Rich people have self serving bias and poor people have self serving bias" because what you are describing is a well known cognitive bias that clouds our judgement of our success/failures
@@trybunt it's not rich & poor, it's biased self perception, which you understand; so your clearly being cleverly sarcastic to make a point about epigenetics & I'm saying the effect you describe occurs regardless of it. Get it, or do you need to be the sharpest little pencil in this chat?
So, let me get this straight: our DNA is actually more like a massive library of natures, in plural, and our bodies select for us the phenotypes that it deems most likely to help us be better adapted to the environment we've been born into.
While the DNA is indeed completely static for any given individual, the systems that allow it to manifest are fully dynamic and responsive, adding one extra layer of adaptability on top of what was originally thought to be a completely closed system as far as individuals were concerned. And this revealed an already incomprehensibly massive puzzle we're only now beginning to unravel.
yeah man and RNA is like the compiler
No.
There are limits to what epigenetics can do.
It can only change what you already have.
It cant give you something new like neanderthal / denisovan DNA does.
@@bjrnn.2689 Never implied otherwise.
@@bjrnn.2689 It cannot change the 'history' you already have, but that was not what the commenter said. Epigenetics deal with environmental factors.
Our DNA can adapt to environment, but DNA in our sexcells (the ones we pass to our offspring) in the nutsack or ovaries stays same throughout our life's
It's a pity this channel doesn't have at least a million followers. The videos are super well researched and reliable. I can even use them as a reference in academic writing.
It’s because it’s mainly bullshit with a bit of truth sprinkled on top . They are presenting alternative “facts” but skipping painful truths in the true sprit of idealist nonsense. “For the greater good”
You will never be as strong as Eddie hall you don’t have the MGNT gene waking around Newcastle isn’t going to change it.
Give this channel a few more months and It will have the million subscribers it deserves. I subscribed today...so one step further towards that moment.
Then add me too! There you go.
Maybe yes
This channel is crap. Worse than Big Think; go to school.
I live in Morocco and have a lot of adopted dogs, some of which were abandoned litters and it's surprising to me how radically different their personalities are even from a very young age.
@The Snow Nigro I couldn’t find anything about “plurozygotic” - I think you meant “polyzygotic.”
Unrelated to the video, just wanna thank you for being nice to the doggies and adopting them.
Even kittens from the same litter have this.I have two,one is more shy and the other exploratory.
Why do we call this "personality"?
Extrapolated analogues of human behaviour from animal husbandry, has a history of catastrophic outcomes!
❤️ "We should treat having children like the most highly skilled job you can possibly do... Because it is... And it has the most consequences for society" ❤️
100% THIS!! 🙌
there is this sort of existential crisis feeling in me when thinking about nature AND nurture, knowing that regardless of whether one of them trumps the other, they both show one thing - I am just a byproduct of my surroundings and or my parents. It makes me wonder just how creative we really are. Do we really have any originality or do we simply copy what we see? Sometimes I wish I was around when no one was really around. Then I could see if I really am the creative individual others say I am. Even in writing, drawing, songwriting, I find myself copying others ideas almost subconsciously, and still thinking I made it up. Are any of us really original?
Depends on how you see it. Red and blue make purple, but is purple something new, or merely the combined pre-existing red and blue? If I draw a picture that combines many gods of different mythologies to create a composite character that has never existed before, is he a new idea, or merely the combined pre-existing ideas of the those gods? How you answer this determines what creativity is, but it doesn't really matter. If you enjoy making things, continue to do it. We only have so long to live on this earth, might as well fill it with little simple joys whenever we get the chance.
To me I make it a dualistic thing to confront the existentialism behind it. So I say internally perhaps its nature. We are and this is just what it is. But also nurture the thing that makes us humans different then nature if even similar.
I feel like the best argument *against* the classical Hobbesian model of human nature is that it pre-dated our discovery and understanding the mechanisms by which it would function -- genetics and epigenetics, etc. -- and then *didn't change* once we discovered and began to understand them.
The idea that we got it completely 100% right before we had any way of understanding the underlying causes is just ludicrous.
It is highly doubtfull that people had human nature 100% pinned down. However just because your blind to the whole picture, doesnt mean can you feel around enough to get a sufficient gist until your able to see and understand more.
Both Hobbes and Rousseau put forth theories that were basically "thought experiments" that had little supporting evidence. They also acknowledged this to some degree. Had their adherents keep this in mind over the centuries, and not promoted each set of "theories" as established fact, we might have had more helpful approaches to questions of human nature/nurture.
I mean there are many cases of philosophers deducing something quite accurately by accident. Like Atoms for example. Sure, we ended up using the name a bit prematurely but in the end what we now call elementary particles follow that reasoning quite well.
and humans didnt need the leviathan in hunter gatherer times
I think an argument that is based on whether or not someone was able to make a correct assertion before the evidence needed to clarify that assertion had been ascertained is not a very good argument. Einstein predicted black holes in 1916 and there was no recorded or observable evidence of them until the discovery of Cygnus X-1 in 1964. The *only* good argument is an argument that can directly refute the central claim of the initial proposition.
This may be one of the most important videos on this platform. I hope it reaches a wide audience.
If you loved this, do also check out Veritasium's video on Reversing aging! It was my first video on Epigenetics♥️♥️.
@@vishnukumar4531
Will do. Thanks!
Shame it’s nonsense,
Eddie hall won the strongest man because he has the Hercules gene 🧬 (MSTN) not because he’s grew up in
Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire
There’s nothing in the environment that makes him 5 times stronger than the average man. Social constructivism skips over a lot of biological realities to present their rhetoric. It’s both nature and nurture. even if hardware isn’t fully immutable it has as much to do with outcomes as environmental factors
@@allseeingry2487 That is what was said in the video, right!? mate!
If I remember correctly, he said that it is neither nature alone, nor nurture alone. It is a beautiful symphony of both pulling each others' chords!
@@vishnukumar4531 Careful with epigenetics and the enormous misunderstood science behind it. There is a lot of bad and confusing information. A lot of quackery. It is still in it's infancy.
I would strongly recommend you to read Blueprint by Robert Plomin to understand heritability. Its a truly great book...with some thought provoking conclusions but a good read if this topic interests you.
The image I always go for is that of a map.
Our parents give us a map that is just a landscape. Prenatal influences wear it down, creating natural paths. The diversity of this map is also mirrored in how our minds operate, meaning that neurodiverse people are completely normal, natural and cannot be changed from what they are.
Infancy gives us some tendencies and more paths are made.
Early childhood, when we become more active, we start walking down these both natural and artificial paths. The means our parents have and the way they and others interact with us steer our direction, slowly paving the paths into roads. Kindergarten is also quite important here, starting to build villages where our many skills will live and develop.
School and education is when these roads are transformed into streets, solidifying our abilities and ideally encouraging growth in them. This is where individualized education becomes so very important for our mental well-being.
As we grow older, it becomes more and more important that we learn about the many forms a human can take. This is to help understand both ourselves and others, and to teach us to be kind to those that are not like us. To be understanding when faced with our own ignorance instead of judging.
In adulthood then, the paved roads have become streets and many villages have become towns and cities. We can still change and do so constantly, but an underlying structure has been laid and we truly become fully realized people.
In all of this, our material conditions and life events play major roles. We can only hone what we have access to, oftentimes dependent on whom we meet. This is why rich people are often well connected and can introduce their children to people that can help them gain access to certain things much earlier than poorer people. It's not that they are inherently better or spent more time on a thing, but access to better resources does play a huge role as well. Their accomplishments are still their own, you rarely reach the top of a field without time and effort, but they had a lot more assistance in transforming their biggest village not just into a city but a metropolis. Something that this video advocates to provide for poorer families. It's an investment in everyone's future. One with extremely high returns.
When comments section is full of well educated intelligent people, it enrich the video. Thanks for your import ☺️
I've always though:
You can't choose your nature. And you can't choose your environment for many years. By which point so much of who you are has been decided for you (even if you think 'I want to change', it was these things that led to that desire) so you end up with very little control (if any) of who you are.
This is very similar to determinism in a way.
Precisely! Even if one wants to/ does believe in free will, it's such a limited version that it's virtually impossible to blame anyone for what they've done. So actions should be rehabilitative vs retributive. Our justice system, especially in the US and similar countries needs to be completely rebuilt from the ground up
@@raunking5234 Decided by whom? What if our present understanding is still wrong?
You thought wrong
@@Anthony-ru7sk Thanks Anthony
you can never choose anything because choice does not exist in the Universe.
Excellent! Thank you. But I have one over riding concern. My concern is for the poor Aristocrats and the Elites in general. If we uplift our fellow human beings and have a general rise in human wellbeing for members of the human family, who will shovel shit in their stables or drive their limousines or act as pawns in their political chess games or mindlessly run off to fight in their wars for power and wealth retention? They have worked for thousands of years to establish an order based on proper breeding and a recognition of their superior qualities and their right to rulership and authority over we lowly folk. Oh my! I fear for their psychological health if they ever come to a realization that it has all been a scam on humanity and a charade on the part of the pompous, dare I say, A-holes?
Very Swiftian of you. Well done!
Look, the elite, whoever they are, wish to maintain a distance from everyone they don't consider in their membership, so be it. The classes cannot relate to each other; therefore, class segregation is the best method for keeping peace. We don't need to suffer them, and the elites don't need to tolerate us. As long as we're fed, fat, and happy, we don't have to live together.
The nobles of one age are descendents of pirates, Vikings and bandits of another age.
The only problem is that we have had a significant general rise in human wellbeing...
@@randomnerd9088 well, we'd better not Change anything then: wouldn't want to risk all that lovely Progress.
my editorial nature needs to point out that the term is "tabula rasa," literally "clean slate" (think of "rasa" as the basis of "erased"), not "tabula rosa," which translates to "picture of the rose." thank you.
I'm really glad your channel managed to find itself in my recommendations.
Not only are they well put together and have high production value, I also feel like every video teaches me something I did not expect to learn from the title.
Whether that be the history of the importance of public image or the function of DNA, you always bringing new knowledge to the table. I thank you for what you do.
I remember a quote from a samurai (it was on some random web 1.0 website about samurai quotes), who said something about you shouldn't be harsh on your children, because it would inhibit them in the future.
This just randomly popped in my head while watching.
Yes, but if you spare the slap to the face when necessary, you may also raise an arrogant, selfish jerk who is useful to no one.
@@pendejo6466 hitting kids is abuse, youll raise a traumatized child, your worth isnt measured by your usefullness to others.
@@pendejo6466 Slapping your child in the face is NOT discipline. It is ABUSE. That is an example of being HARSH.
Don't do it.
@@midgetwthahacksaw Slapping child who deserves it is a necessary form of punishment, though it should fit the crime.
@@pendejo6466 If you've gotten to the point where a slap to the face is the only method of preventing arrogance and unfettered self-interest you've already failed as a parent to a large degree. Either that or you severely lack imagination.
This is the kind of thing you'd do to someone else's kid aggressing against you, not your own whom you have far more power to influence from both a material and psychological lens.
I’m giving a lecture tomorrow during my social studies class and I’m using the conclusion of this video. Thank you so much for making this!
The problem in trying to answer this question is in focussing on humans, who are complex. Let´s focus on trees.
Trees have DNA, trees adapt to their environment. Does it make sense to talk about nature vs nurture for them?
Trees have no innate culture, so no nurture... but humans can subject them to culturing by pruning and care.
We could say that would be the nurture part. Everything else is nature.
And we see nurture can seem to change nature, we can grow pears on an apple tree by grafting.
But still you can only nurture what is in nature (pears and apples are both rosacea, we just don´t look at it that way).
Trees interact with other trees and animals in incredibly complex ways without a brain. They love, fight, negotiate and work together. Behaviour that we think somehow requires ethics and a brain.
Some examples of the complexity we are talking about:
Oaks spread tough leaves in fall, to prevent other seeds taking ground, killing babies..
They have mast years, producing ten times as many acorns every few years to confuse squirls and trick them into forgetting stashes and thus planting their seeds for them. But that only works, if they have a mast-year sparsely and at the same time as fellow trees around them, so they coordinate this (or it is coordinated for them), nobody knows how. It´s one of the unsolved mysteries.
They grow and spread leaves that throw shade. Robbing other plants, even their own species, of essential sunlight and water.
They trade resources with mycorrhizal trader-funghi and in doing so indirectly work together with other species of tree up to 16 km in distance.
They have complex sex and long standing, long distance relationships using pollinators.
They trade O2 with CO exhalers (but not impressively, that would be seaweeds, so the whole trees give us our oxygen is plain wrong and about the only thing we acknowledge about trees unless you happen to be a botanist or ecologist, who knows this).
But one thing trees do not have is a way to sustain a fear respons and a brain to abstract that fear response into a code for living. That is our affliction.
The nurture vs nature debate is one that focuses on ethics and responsibility. It might be prudent to ask in what context we ask this question? In what light do we try and see it? We too, like trees, have innate intelligence, but we don´t trust it.
We use our brain-affliction to look for trouble in advance because our innate intelligence is "only" responsive. That's too late for our panicky brains.. We sustain fear in stress (and a sense of individuality) in order to advance solutions before things happen (or "go wrong" according to panicky brain)..
Ethics is ultimately based in suspicion of our own nature and an effort to sustain fear. It strives to make clear rules of what one should do and what to do if one doesn´t to make sure as many people as possible do. Politically it is about the justification of punishment and of stick and carrot distribution, scientifically it is about isolation and classification. It is about what SHOULD be.
When a code for living is inflicted upon trees by humans in parks and gardens, it is because we think a tree SHOULD have a certain shape, SHOULD be invulnerable to any ´disease´ or ´pest´, SHOULD produce fruits or flowers, or perform some trick like produce fruit and be useful in isolation in black earth and preferably every tree SHOULD have a sign on it that specifies the type of tree, it´s genus, gender and variant.. so that we can classify it, prune it, shape it, support it and care for it.
Because this is the behaviour of people who say they like trees, who say they feel this need to care for a tree, completely disregarding the fact that trees predate humans by at least 340 million years and were doing pretty well without humans. Absolutely dominating their arch enemies, the mushrooms after a mere 10-60 million years and basically cruising and partying after that, looking around more and more corners of the earth, climbing mountains as a species, living hundreds, even thousands of years as individuals...
Yet...
We cannot seem to trust them to do well on their own especially if we love them.. Like an overbearing parent, suffocating a child. That is on us and our mistrust of any other type of intelligence than panicky brain power.
We don´t stop at trees, we like to prune and "care for", inflict punishment, sticks and carrots and isolation and definition on everything, including humans.
But humans don´t generally like that sort of thing, they rightly perceive it as trouble and limitation and will start looking for solutions the moment they perceive limitations...
So it´s called many things to hide it: law, school, medicin, diagnose, love, prison, art, clubs, gangs, peer pressure, nationalism, education, religion, philosophy.. even science... This confuses things a bit.. We have high ideals, but our practice is necessarily watered down with reality. Which means we get to live in perpetual frustration, unable to attain or be, what SHOULD.
When done "right"... it leads to strange behaviour like being intolarant of intolerance, killing people to show killing people is wrong and when it goes "wrong" we see all kinds of acting out from sheer frustration and exasperation.
We know this and in stead of backing off, giving up, admitting defeat, we double down. Make laws stricter, punish harder, or set higher standards of tolerance, being more intolerant of intolerance..
Until it all collapses, like every culture up to now.
But individual humans bounce back from all that. Amazingly.. Usually just before we die, because we have outlived our usefulness and are largely left alone before then. Tibetans based a whole religion on that with their book of the dead. They observed a rare peace in some dying people and started to wonder why.
Rarely we bounce back to who we are unpruned, before we procreate. As a result we inflict the same fate on our children by raising them with our values, biases and prejudices. Pruning them. Dooming them to a life of trying and failing to be something else than they are.
A life of suffering, like the Buddha called it. This is culture and ethics is a part of culture.
Trees don´t have culture, we do... Nurture is part of our nature. So.. that is who we are as a species..
It is a byproduct of overusing a tool for moving around and spotting trouble ahead of time and decide a direction to get an edge in survival. But it is also a creative use of resources. It might be great, it might prove an evolutionary dead end (or both). Like a great Dutch philosopher and soccerplayer once said: "Every advantage has it´s disadvantage". We´ll see or more likely: we won´t.
Like a tree doesn´t know if it will grow left or right before it does (and even then it only knows it in the sense it has done so and is living record of it´s action, which influences its further growth or decay) we have no way of knowing if any of the things we are doing are any good or even if "good" exists without our panicky brain.
The study of ethics is a rather harmless expression of the inability to accept that fact of life.
Don´t worry about it.
this really proves its not just about the choices you make, its also about things you cant control, circumstances in your environment that shape your life. studies show that children adopted later in life have poorer outcomes, but people dont ask the same question about children who grew up for 6 months in an institution and then adopted out. even infants can sense that difference in environment. and it can manifest as trauma later in life. yet people treat babies as a blank slate. my sister had years of separation anxiety, screaming at the window whenever my mom left somewhere for hours, which our pediatrician linked to being adopted at 1 year old from her foster mom. i also always wondered why korean women in korea were so different from me. my hair is lighter and my skin is darker from being in the sun all day as a child, whereas many koreans stay out of the sun at all times. my diet for the first 20 years of my life was different than a typical koreans diet of fermented vegetables and rice. not knowing my birth mothers state of mind when i was born, i always wondered whether my mental illnesses that i developed later in life, and my tendency towards being reserved, resistant to change, and vulnerable to sensory problems stemmed from my birth mother's stress levels when i was in the womb. considering that my birth father supposedly died in a car accident, i can see the possible trauma manifesting in my genes as i got older, where i was stressed for such a long time because i just couldnt understand why i am this way. why am i so anxious all the time. its really interesting.
I just found you and subscribed. I love how you make philosophical subjects easy to understand, and that your videos are so calm and reasoned.
Great treatise.
I´ll leave you with a quote from the Matrix: "don´t try to bend the spoon, that´s impossible, instead realise there is no spoon". I think that firmly applies to boxes and our attempts to define them as well, especially since we have been trying with this particular box for 200+ years and now are seriously circling back to a theory proposed at the very beginning of the debate, when Lamarck was laughed away for lack of evidence by a narrow margin.
Yeah. Lamarck was wrong in the exact significance of epigenetic evolution in individuals, but not overall, completely. His theories were undoubtedly informed by his observation of people's developing physical characteristics that conform to their personality types, which are themselves manifestations of their experienced environments.
Thank you soooo much...I've been struggling to explain the issue for years and this video marks the end of my struggles
So happy to hear this :)
Im really glad to see that Social sciences seem to be getting a bit more mainstream with channels like this. Great video and thanks for your amazing work!
17:54 "The thing with methylation is that it's hard, it's hard to get off. It's sticky. So, early childhood experiences can literally get under your skin and affect how your DNA operates for the rest of your life."
The box you presented, with things inside, doesn't just have things inside and out. What's inside can be pushed out, but always pushes back and struggles to get in, so requires more energy to keep far away, and what's outside can be shoved in with enough force, but the box struggles to push it back out. With enough extreme force you can maybe force something to stay out or go in or stay out almost permanently, with a decreased push or pull of the box, but even then there will be a tendency to go in or stay out of the box.
Studies also show children who are under nurtured between 0-7 months suffer from permanent development abnormalities of which babies grew up unable to read others emotions. Or a drug addicted parent who has two children one before addiction and the second after addiction. The second would of been passed the inclination towards addiction genetically. The first would not have the same inclination to addiction genetically. These are some popular examples of epigenetics (nurture/nature axis). Great video thanks!
You're giving me access to opinions opposite to my own and arguing them in a clear and respectful manner, whilst simultaneously making clear where we may disagree. Thank you for that.
Another brilliant work of art. The contribution of new information and ideas your videos have instilled in me have been enormous.
Your gift of story-telling, and the range of philosophical thought you cover have introduced me to so much. I would have never know that great thinkers like a Jean Baudrillard if not for this channel.
I wonder what would come of taking the nature/nurture argument along with epigenetics (as we now understand it), and apply it to Jaynes' concept of bicameral mind? It seems as though it could lend credibility to parts of his theory.
This has made my evening, thank you
That is a ridiculously great hypothesis. The Bicameral mind is quite a hypothesis itself.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicameral_mentality
I’m amazed by the quality of this channel and the discussion. Thanks!
I loved this 💕❗️You are a brilliant researcher and writer ✨ Thank you for sharing 🙏🏾
Awesome video.
I've seen this play out in our daughter. Following the best possible scientific path to supporting mom and then both after birth.
Looking forward to development of these ideas.
Great work! Someone please send this to all the Jordan Peterson, Steven Pinker, or Richard Dawkins fans in the world, who should see their worldview challenged!
I came on my own. Thanks
I know that Jordan Peterson himself has a large interest in epigenetics. I think these people are always open to being challenged as long as the opposing argument is both strong and cohesive.
@@urbanpkrider31 Let's hope you're right!
I was trying to watch it and did not find it specially convincing. Yeah, my favourite attack from epigenetic perspective. (Yes, there seems to be such minor effect though its far way from noticing it on some features on mice to make a wild speculation that affects humans exactly on the features and direction that we would need from ideological perspective).
Attack on twin studies totally misses the point, as the best (biggest sample) studies are actually raised together identical twins vs fraternal twins.
Not IQ 2/3 genetic, but if he picks recent studies for adult IQ raised in Western society we're talking about ~80% heritable, ~10% identifiable social factor and ~10% not accounted for, looks like random though it seems that it's better to be lucky enough not to have low birth rate.
Maybe I missed mentioning, but there are studies showing quite many early intervention on IQ tend to mostly fade away.
@@urbanpkrider31 jordan peterson is absolutely not open to being challenged! he’s a fascist
Great video. Thouroughly enjoyed it as someone involved in behavioural genetics.
A few thoughts;
I think in these discussions it should be made clear that for many traits, it seems quite clear that genetics plays a huge role in, at the very least, determining a range of values in which a person is likely to fall into on a trait (all of these things are highy probabalistic). This holds true for cognitive traits like IQ, executive functioning, andpersonality. To a much lesser degree, there is very solid evidence that genetics explains as much variation in some social outcomes (such as money earned or educational attainment in adulthood) as do social determinants (like wealth of birth family). I'm no genetic determinist by any means, but, and Kathryn Hardy, a behavioural geneticist from the US, makes this point well; an acknowledgement that genes play a role in outcomes we care about need not lead us to pessimism about our ability to structure society in ways to help people, nor does it necessarily need to led us to non-interventionist/social darwinist/eugenic views on social equality etc. In fact, admitting these things will allow us to create more effective policy that actually changes outcomes, because we will have a better understanding as to what variables are actually causing outcomes we care about. For example, many programs fail to achieve significantly better outcomes in education for example, and this may be because genetics are not being controlled for in the samples used for the studies. It's very difficult to causally link any environment provided by the parent to childhood outcomes for this reason; the same genes that caused the parents to supply that environment to the child might also be operating in the child to produce the outcome that we think is a result of the parental environment. I can't be bothered to cite all my sources but a really great book on this is The Genetic Lottery by Kathryn Hardy. Like you mentioned, our policies should be geared towards early intervention, prevention of deleterious childhood environments, and educational programs that aid people in achieveing their potential, whatever that is.
Interetsing critique about twin studies frequently using twins who were not actually reared apart; I'd not heard that before. The other critique about how much epigenetic imprinting occurs before twins are seperated is also fair. Twin studies very likely overestimate heritability for these very reasons. But even if they do, many well controlled GWAS have shown that heritability for many traits, while less than twin studies show, are significant and non-zero.
Awesome video man. I don't comment very frequently on anything but I very much enjoy your content, it's always very well researched and the topics are great. I'm a behavioural geneticist who also studied philosophy in uni and continues to in my own time now, so it's cool to see discussion that synthesises scientific and philosophical thought - it definitely doesn't happen enough!
code as a metaphor for a genome I think still works, like code for an operating system. But of course with an operating system you can do all kinds of different things, and most operating systems can run most programs, though there are differences in how things are done, and how easy it is to do certain things.
That's a good point. Our genes are more like the code behind the operating system which various internal and external factors work in tandem to create a self-modifying algorithm for creating the various software that make up the overall state of our system and the data therein, to expand the analogy a bit
As a more conservative leaning individual that’s also a big fan of the channel, I think this is some of your best work, and also thank you for your non-confrontational approach to these kinds of topics. I would say I have a few issues with the arguments presented here; but agree with the overall premise that positive assistance as early as possible in a child’s life is the best way to improve outcomes.
it’s never too late to stop being a conservative leaning individual, good luck x
Prenatal and early childhood nutrition is so important, and it seems to be the weakest link in the US. The fat, poor, and mindless masses love their McDonald’s and Marlboros.
@@michaelrobertson1736 hard to believe you’ve called the working class of america “mindless” after watching this video tbh
@@mtlewis973 I know you said that in jest, but actually I enjoy my particular shade of purple.
(I'm unsure if you're from the US, but "purple" means someone is a mix of conservative and liberal)
I ended up here by genuinely listening and taking into account all political perspectives. I have found that the core issue isn't what the opposite side believes; it's what you've been TOLD they believe. People are more reasonable than you think. Give them a chance.
@@goingforgold_8536 i was joking, of course, whether someone’s a good person usually isn’t reflected in their politics. i come from the UK where the tory government (but not the voters of course) are genuinely uniformly dishonest, corrupt and cruel. i just find it hard to relate to anybody who could support this particular lot
What an inspiring channel! Thanks for your well researched position, it's always refreshing to find a 'hot take' that's actually just extrapolating the research we're doing. I love it.
Extremely well done! As a student in sociology and philosophy this video has been of great help to me. thank you!
Excellent, this channel has now become my new favorite.
Thanks!
If we stick with obvious physical traits as an analogy, I think it is pretty easy to see that it is a mixture of nature and nuture.
Take height as an example. A child is born with a genetic template for how tall they will be, but it is a range... or moreover a "maximum potential". Lets say a random child has a maximum potential of being 6 feet tall (1.83m). If that child gets a perfect diet, and avoids all toxins, they will reach that potential. But if they are malnourished in the womb, and during their childhood, and have a sedentary lifestyle and are exposed to toxins, they might end up being 5'10" (1.78m).
But no amount of special diet and exercise and clean environment will make them taller than 6' (1.83m).
So, nurture matters to reach your maximum potential. But the potential itself is nature.
Same would apply for more less obvious physical attributes, or mind based attributes. "propensity for violence", "IQ", "musical talent", "coordination and athleticism", "determination", "propensity for fear"
There is a range you are "born with", but intervention can help you make sure you reach the maximum of that range (or minimum if it is a negative attribute)
Someone might be born with a propensity for anxiety due to their genetics AND due to the epigenetic expression of their genes due to their parents and even grandparent's life experience. But careful intervention can make the difference between manageable anxiety and crippling anxiety.
It's possible to make someone taller than their "maximum genetic potential". For example using growth hormones. We actually do this with cows in agriculture, give them rBGH (bovine growth hormone) to make them huge. So it's possible to override the genetic limit with certain environmental stimuli, like medications.
I really hope this channel blows up
Pro tip I learned from my editor father: “irregardless” actually isn’t a word!
@Stirgid Lanathiel Lots of things are used as words. That doesn't mean you should avail yourself of them when trying to have your ideas taken seriously.
@Stirgid Lanathiel Well then I guess nothing means anything.
@Stirgid Lanathiel Common understanding? Like the common understanding that an intellectual is more effective using technically accurate language?
@Stirgid Lanathiel You're making the case that an intellectual won't be evaluated by the language they choose to use.
children are treated more like pets than they are treated as the future of humanity, and that bothers me immensely. for as much as people seem to care about children, they dont often act like it. or atleast those in power dont.
Thank you for the video, this is one of the discussions that need to be had. Without pretense of impartiality, but with the intention of advancing our understanding
So wait, if i cant eat cutris fruit because of a genetic abnormality making me have an alergic reaction to them when consuming and therefor hinderncing my internal nutricional harmony which will influence my gene expression further making it virtually impossible for me to develop normally from nutricion incomparison to the rest of society, is that a sealed box or an open casket?
There is a book the reframes question of “nature versus nurture” in to “nature VIA nurture”. Both nature and nurture are inter twined. Both brung out the other. There is no debate needed, simply a redefining.BTW, video unseen/watched.
Excellent work, as always.
As someone who has worked in peri-natal mental health, let me tell you, the powers that be aren't listening to the likes of you and me. Likely because it's women who know the crucial importance of early childhood and nurturance.
I think he's got a bias to downplay the evidence that we have a somewhat strong genetic tendency. There are many twin studies pointing out to the same conclusion. He did not mention that siblings that are not twins, have a much lower correlation in IQ, interest and other areas, and adoped child raised in the same family an even lower long term correlation. These data is a very important piece of evidence to show how much the actual DNA plays a role on population.
Many of the twin studies were disproven and dissavowed. Look into those.
@@TheTroutyness some of them. But a lot of them are reliable and point out to the same direction. The point is: the more shared DNA, the more similarities in a lot things that matters (interest, IQ, personality and others). Twins have a high correlation even if they don't share the same enviroment. Even if you consider the argument that he uses in the video, and look at twins that share enviroment, you will see a much higher correlation on them than in siblings that share the same enviroment. Adopted kids raised in the same enviroment have a lower correlation in all those measures than sibilings. Another way to look at it is considering that we know that a lot of this traits are heritable, so must be influenced be genes at some level. There are also some research using DNA samples and analysing for example IQ correlated actual DNA pairs. There is no single gene that is responsible for intelligence, but we know that a lot of spefic genes are very correlated to IQ. Of course, personality, intelligence and other stuff is not determined only by genes. That would be absurd, but i thought that the video underplayed the importance of the genes.
It sounds like you have a bias when it comes to the outdated idea of genetic determinism. Which isn’t surprising seeing as this is the kind of subtle and sophisticated propaganda we have been bombarded with since birth on a near daily basis, designed to shift the blame for the worlds problems from the system (capitalism/imperialism) to us as individual.
This is a positively glorious video. Unfortunately I can't binge watch them like I want to because I usually need a little time to process afterwards.
I think Sure Start, and Head Start were mixed up.
Not like it affects the content much, but I'm in the US and my brothers and sisters went to Head Start. The "first head of Head Start," was taking about the success of the Sure Start program. Even the logo you used for Head Start looks vaguely like a 'Murican flag.
Still a wonderful video, and incredibly informative. That's for all the work you put into it.
If we are also cells/eggs in our grandmothers how far back might we be impacted ?
you are impacted since the start of evolution billions of years ago.
The social machines of the 70s,& 80s, & 90s when i was growing up, separated the parental unit from the children. I saw a wide pattern of this.
Parents, & children start their day going away from one another, only to return together briefly at days end. Many, many Alcholic/addict parents existed in this era.
Leaving me personally in the hands of Mr. Busch, & Ms. Gallo daily, & a double shot every weekends starting at exactly 12pm Saturday Sunday.
School further separated those units philosophically, by implementing 'DRUGSRBADMKAY' programs, knowing good & well, over half of us went home to these parents. We children Armed with new thoughts, went home where we were tasked with figuring out how to take the authority of a parent in the throws of 'DRUGSRBADMKAY'.
That pretty much left me with the Television to work out how to run my program.
You can play 'Mortal Combat', with a friend in Vietnam '....
Super concise! I will be using this video as a resource for my research paper. Thank you.
I believe Robert Plomin, (the author of the 1994 study mentioned in the video) would say that class size has zero impact on school outcomes. Some of this science is still contested, because the term "Environment" needs a clearer definition for every realm in which it's brought into the discussion. The problem with this whole field may be that (to go all deconstructionist) is that the science exists subject to the politics of the scientist; because it's so fundamentally important. It is nice to see the fundamentally conservative statement that raising a child should be treated as the "most highly skilled job you should possibly do", from a left wing analysis.
Human universals, in Brown's terms, have a very different meaning to that is described to them in the video.
Brown studied cultural anthropology, not biology, and he talked about cultural universals first and foremost.
For instance, fire is obviously not in human nature, but the use of fire is universal across human societies in different historic periods.
In that regard, universals can rather be understood as common patterns in "self-imposed nurture" that people create that may or may not have any connection to human biology.
Wonderful as always. You're a blessing to have on UA-cam.
I don't care about the box. Not what's in nor out of it.
It's not my box. It's your box.
We might reveal the content of our boxes to each other, and it would be beautiful. If we don't reveal it, it can't be helped.
Mind your own box, people.
If you look at cultures around the world and how different they are, it's pretty clear that, to whatever extent "nature" does form people, it does it in a way that's completely indirect, and that the ways it manifests within one culture are fixed only by the culture.
And since there's no scientific basis for the concept of race, then any person, had they been adopted into *any* other possible culture, they would have ended up completely different. That isn't to say that they would have conformed to that other culture, just that it would have channeled and brought out their brain's natural impulses differently.
And there have been millions of different cultures over the history of the human species, and it stands to reason, wherever culture is concerned, that the possibilities that *have* manifested in the real world are only a minute fraction of the possibilities that could have happened.
All people are born with the maximum possible creativity, it just gets beaten out of them by society.
The world needs to move towards an open culture than actively encourages non-conformity and new possibilities, so that as many different cultural patterns as possible can be made reality.
Studies of human behavior mean nothing whey they only study people who are passable in real-life societies. Even if you take people from every continent, rich and poor, religious and atheist, etc., the cultures are still too similar to get a clear view.
Yeah endless possibilities, sounds great, but .. Its the usual bs about endless potential. Culture already has & is running this experiment. This includes invasion, colonisation, immigration etc .. these are the great mixing forces that throw up new human possibilities. Its a well recognised social evolutionary force.
Well this is very interesting. Just one thing. "Irregardless" , famously, isn't a real word.
Book recommendation: Rutger Bregman: Human kind - A Hopeful History
God that was an awful book. Form the start the guy attacks the "selfish gene" theory. Not seeming to realize that's the mechanism of moral behavior. Not an argument against it. Despite the authors best efforts I do agree with him, but frankly go read The Selfish Gene. It's the same argument, with the exception that it's actually a good argument.
Great video by a man who knows how to teach.
It appears to me that if many people are involved in the development of a person then we are all interconnected.
Norms and social behavior could be an expression of each generation and its experience of the physical world. This could explain societal norm shifts over time and also social problems and mental illness on a societal level.
Maybe the four turnings concept is an expression of this.
Most of the time it's a mixture of nurture creating bad habits and a person's unwillingness to break these habits. Other times it's just a lack of intelligence.
Before beginning college, I was terrible at math, and struggled with basic algebra throughout high school. Since I was forced to take the courses online due to my remote proximity, I knew that I would basically have to teach myself and get my ass in gear, and I fully expected to fail. Surprisingly, I passed all these classes with an A+ despite receiving zero help and having no friends or social structure which I could consult.
This experience made me realize that much of what happens, perhaps 80%, falls on the individual.
nature and nurture is what is called lock and key, also known as yin and yang. the universe is full of lock and key/yin and yangs.
First of all huge fucking fan your content is top tier
But do you say irregardless at 11:38 ?
Great video - you might like to consider the work of professor Reuven Feuerstein on the importance of “mediated learning experience”
I used to be more toward the nature side of the debate until I had children.
This entire episode reminds me of the 1997 film Gattaca with Ethan Hawke and Jude Law.
I am glad I found this channel.
I don't think responsibility should depend on answers to the nature or nurture questions, people are responsible for their actions either way. However, answers to nature or nature questions are very important in deciding how we will react to what other people do.
Being responsible for your actions is important but factoring in why someone may act differently than expected is also important. Having empathy for people, even people who do bad things, is necessary
@@briannawaldorf8485 I agree and would only add " .. is necessary for a just society"
@0:30.. to answer your excellent question.. If it is unaffected human nature, then in the box is the stream of consciousness. The feedbackloop in prelayered, but flexible adversarial neural nets we call self awareness, resonating with memories, emotion and selftalk, continously fed by subconscious interpretation of sensation.. Unaffected and effortless. It´s not the subconscious, not interpretations, not thought, not concepts like events or even "the observer". It is in Hinduist Veda´s described as: "neti, neti", not this, not that. Thisness and thatness arises from it combined with the illusion of seperation. It usually goes unnoticed, but the focus can be steered there and habits (prayer, contemplation, meditation, mindfullness, play, love, thankfullness, appreciation) can be formed to seek balance there from overthinking or refuge from emotional storms (negative reinforcement resonance) until the constant awareness of it balances out the illusion of seperation that causes us to cling to things and suffer.
All life arises from it, not all have an accompanying brain powerful enough to ignore it, none possess it.
The rest is outside the box, but we have no direct knowledge of it, some sensations and even concepts are closer, some are further away, none are ever accurate, none last. The inside of the box lasts. It will be with you in your dying second, as it was even before birth, because it had to arise before any sensation, has to be there for any sensation. It is the ultimate solace that we do not have to cling to, simply because it is always there, because it continuously causes us. But we cling to it, since we want to relate to it, instead of be it, out of habit. To say it will die in death, or continue in a different person after death or even to say it will cause a new person is all meaningless hangups, bandaids put on unbroken skin. To say there is something causing it or to say anything of its future or past is purest conjecture and an attempt to cling to it out of temporary existential dread, like someone kissing the ground after a difficult flight or sea-voyage.
Now that was a BIG queston, possibly rethorical, but I don´t do rethorical questions well....
Now let´s see what you actually have to say..
Great video. Irregardless should be irrespective or regardless.
Irregardless is just a commonly spoken form of the word "regardless". It's informal language, essentially.
@@cheyemily6066 Absolutely! The video is presented formally, though. Listen to the tone, consider the topic, look at the framing/camerawork... informal language is jarring in context, and makes it harder to take the rest as seriously.
We are influenced in so many ways, since the moment of conception, every second of our lives changes occur on us, and there are within us two persons, me and my subconscious, that's makes me wonder, what is freedom, ice cream or coffee? righrt or left or those decitions were also influenced??
All the while, we must remember that the field of genomics is advancing more every day while simultaneously, so is archeology and anthropology. Always keep an open mind and the ability to say "we used to think that...." Or "science now shows that...".
Fascinating video. I think the topic is very interesting and since I've very limited knowledge, at least limited in the sense to make a cohesive argument for or against any viewpoint, I'm going to do some more research into it. However, one thing I thought about was how you described the enviroment as a "fixed" thing in how it relates to for example humans. If our nature is a two-way street as you put it, changing depending on external factors, couldn't it also be said that the enviroment and those external factors can be changed depending on our nature in turn? And if not changing them, depending on our nature we can approach those factors differently.
For example, when you describe the effect that the conditions of our early childhood has on us, you don't seem to take into consideration how the "nature" of the parents might have caused those circumstances to begin with. Either by actively changing the enviroment around them or by how they react to and adapt to it if confronted by something outside of their control.
So many things here are simplified, but it's a good video for people who just became interested in the topic, oh, believe me, the further you go the more fascinating it becomes
32:14 the next ~30 seconds - absolutely, yes.
You did it again. Infinitely thought provoking stuff.
This guy performs his script like a 1990s rapper 💛
last quote is brilliant and reflects a lot of what i feel about people in general
After watching this I was surprised to see the relatively low view count. Good video.
The transcendent state of Samadhi, or Moksha, leads US to the Blanc State🧘 where our actions are not contrived☯️, but expressed in the Moment👣🎺🎶.
11:36 "irregardless" 🙃
It's a real word
I love the last part about consequences for society if you don't raise your children right
A quote from Ortega y Gasset in 1914 "Yo soy yo y mi circunstancia" which translates as: "I am me and my circumstances"
I do remember learning about epigenetics but never really thought about its correlation to nature and nurture. Very interesting
I knew the idea of twins would come here, it gives a lot of information on this topic
Great video. This was very enlightening.
Amazing as always. Love from Kentucky man!
Ohio!
Much love
Woops, I've learned something today, irregardless
The environment is nature as well, and human nature isn't what's in the box, it's how the box responds to the environment.
Every different way that the box can respond to the environment, to methylation, is it self determined by the box, and millions of years of evolution.
Social responsibility for this is like with all responsibility, is wherever we can meaningfully assign responsibility to build a better society, as technology progresses to influence our being so will our collective responsibility for it progress.
Dr. Michael Levin's work with bio electricity is quite amazing and related to this video.
In some way, fire can be seen as part of our nature. This is why our jaws and intestines are smaller than those of other primates. We've been cooking things, and lighting the night with fire, for at least a million years, and our genes have adapted to that.
Watching the mother holding a radiation device up to her right ear just over her baby's head near the end there was quite disconcerting, as obviously young brain tissue does absorb more radiation than older tissue.
"Nature vs nurture" is a silly question: it's all nature. "Nurture" / environment is a subset of nature.
It's like asking, "Is my food in my kitchen or is it in my refrigerator?" My refrigerator is _in_ my kitchen, so .. "Yes?"
Nature in the video is not defined by our common use of the word "nature" as in "environmental".
All I could think of during the wonderful intro was the climax to the classic film se7en.
Wonderful explanation. Thanks so much🤩🙏
You can't have one without the other. There is no nature-nurture dichotomy to address. It's not a real question.
We are the sum of our decisions. 'What decisions are we allowed to make?' is the question.
Dang. Real shame you don't have more subs
There are things in the box when you are convinced and when you are born, some of those things will remain until your death. Lots of things go into the box and a lot comes out of the box.
It's not a coincidence that the countries with the happiest citizens are the ones in which the government accepts some responsibility for the wellbeing of those citizens. Governments that take an active role in nurturing their people end up with a citizenry that is more content and well adjusted, and less inclined to conflict. On the other hand, when we look at countries where the dominant ideology is non-interventionist hyper individualism we see profound unhappiness, violence, corruption, a distrust of government and civil institutions, and political polarization.
What epigenetics shows us is that different gene expressions can be passed on, and so these good and bad effects can accumulate from generation to generation. A happy, well adjusted, and secure generation is much more likely to produce a generation that is the same, both through the genetic expressions passed down and their capacity for creating a nurturing environment. The flip side is that an unhappy, stressed, insecure, or traumatized generation is more likely to produce a generation that receives all of the negative impacts of that, effectively baking it further into the genetic makeup of each successive generation. This can be witnessed in different families on a smaller scale and different parts of the world on a larger one.
Great work as always!
Then & Now, Stupendous!
I love it, regardless of pointless prefixes xo