More on the Determinism vs Nature vs Nurture Question. You can’t reduce behavior to one cause.
The one thing we find hardest to teach is full accounting by disambiguation, enumeration, and equilibrium, instead of ‘It’s just reducible to this”.
Causes: Genetic vs Biological, vs Metaphysical (strategy, narrative) vs Political (institutions), vs Social (class), vs Sex vs Generation.
See Michael’s comment from yesterday:
—- Michael—–
By reasoning in the shorthand (sets and ideals), academia Fails to account for causal constraints in each of their fields, promotes the lie that all ideals are equally shared by all people(s), and furthers our ignorance of how differing ideals originated in their host populations.
Instead of educating people in sets, logic, and wordplay, We need to educate people in:
Operations: Old Set —> New Set
Logics: plural, both classical/formal AND ternary logic of decidability ( @curtdoolittle pioneers this work)
Exchanges: tests of reciprocity, full accounting.
My own speculation based on teaching experience says that most people natively think in sets as young children, as a way to negotiate with parents
Set thinkers argue with your CHOICE OF WORDS 🙃 to describe the set bc the causal property of a “set” = “definition”.
—–Michael End—
In philosophy, we call this ‘oversimplification’ reductionism. Names of sets, and set logic are insufficient for the complexity of concepts we are trying to compare.
So, we seek reduction to first principles (causes), where all first principles (causes) are in equilibrium(supply demand) because that’s the only way the universe can know anything: survival (persistence).
In the sense of Nature vs Nurture, if we are speaking of maximum potential, it’s 80% nature and 20% idiosyncratic experience during development: meaning we don’t really know because genetics are probabilistic and recombinant so mathematical prediction is of lower resolution than genetic computation of outcomes. Mostly parents (nurture) can screw you up, or reduce your frictions (help) but your potential is genetic.
There is no sense in bringing in determinism unless we disambiguate categorical determinism (abilities, biases, and preferences) that recognizes sex class culture and other differences, from soft determinism (tendency of similar people to come to similar conclusions when subject to the same stimuli) from hard determinism (we are purely reactive creatures). When given our brains are prediction engines, and given how poorly we predict outcomes, and how dependent we are on established experience, skills, knowledge, norms, traditions, and institutions, and metaphysical presumptions, ignorance, bias, and ERROR alone prevent hard determinism.
We have categorical free will.
And that’s before we get to all those aforementioned priors that prevent hard determinism.
Hugs, Cheers, and All That.