• moonlight@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    5 hours ago

    I do however take objection when science is instrumentalized in the service of political ideology.

    I didn’t bring up politics at all, and I don’t think that really applies here. It feels like you have an agenda to push…

    • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      You agreed that nurture is “definitely” is more important than nature. That’s a scientific truth claim, it can be answered without philosophy, and the scientific jury is out on it. And yet the claim is often deployed in the service of Marxist political ideology as if it’s a proven fact. Which it’s not. Maybe you’re not aware of this context. It’s true you didn’t explicitly bring up politics.

      • moonlight@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        I’ll assume you’re commenting in good faith.

        I actually didn’t claim nurture was more important than nature as a sweeping statement. It clearly isn’t in cases like eye color for example. I haven’t done a deep dive on this, but research seems to show that genetics play a significant role in predicting personality in general, but less than 50%.

        Regardless, whether or not people are ‘fundamentally good’ or not is a moral statement, not a quantifiable one, as is “being shitty to other humans”. It’s a different question than personality, which is the closest topic that there seems to be any science on. Is there any specific research that actually makes a claim like this? (also, take a step back and remember what post this is on)

        Also as a sidenote, while believing in the good in humanity probably makes someone more likely to be leftist, I don’t think Marxism actually relies on people being ‘fundamentally good’ at all.