Nurture or Nature?

Vornnash · 2015-05-11T16:44:22+00:00

Nature denialism is very strong in western culture for political and social reasons. If I had to pull a figure out of my ass I'd say 60/40 in general. Given that most of the men who ever lived never reproduced in the pre-historic era that is bound to create some gender differences. It bleeds over logically into men being risk takers and women as risk adverse and all sorts of other differences.

[deleted] · 2015-05-11T17:09:45+00:00

i would say its around 50/50

Zomaarwat · 2015-05-11T22:48:54+00:00

Why not both?

London-Bananas · 2015-05-11T17:44:22+00:00

There is a Norwegian series of documentaries about this, I'm on my phone now but will link it later.

tl;dr mostly nature and to a lesser degree nurture

Edit: this post has all the links /r/TheRedPill/comments/1vuho8/the_documentary_that_made_scandinavians_cut_all/

taiboworks · 2015-05-11T17:03:34+00:00

if nature is dominant why would red pill men need to be taught how to be masculine. in fact, how could they be taught to be anything but what their nature dictates?

deadally · 2015-05-11T18:15:16+00:00

I think nature feeds nurture in terms of our tendencies. I would be open to the idea that most of our behavior is governed by nature.

Then you run into a problem with the red pill. They feel that nature governs a lot, too, but the difference between us is they think they have biology locked down pretty tight. In reality, the human mind is quite complex, and looking at any one behavior and saying "That's caused by hypergamy." is lazy and misinformed. This goes double for people who have never actually studied evolutionary biology (almost all of them) and seen the strengths and weaknesses of this thought process.

So, men and women are inherently different, in that humans exhibit sexual dimorphism. However, what many attribute to nature you could easily argue a stronger nurture component. My various run-ins with red pillers have always left me disappointed, because they often lack critical thinking. I don't care if you disagree, but at least read what I'm saying, eh?

SirNemesis · 2015-05-11T19:23:59+00:00

It's 70/30 nature/nurture, but some of the nature is a response to the environment. E.g. in a time of abundance people will engage more in more promiscuity i.e. r-selected strategy whereas in times of hardship they'll engage in K-selected trategy.

[deleted] · 2015-05-12T00:40:16+00:00

Civilization is almost entirely predicated on the Nurture aspect. Look at other tendencies of human behavior not often discussed on TRP. Assault, Theft, Murder, etc.. These are all tendencies inherent in the human condition, but as a collective we have applied enough social pressure to minimize their occurrence. We cannot wipe it out entirely, but we can minimize it as much as possible.

In that respect, I think it makes a strong case for the nurture aspect.

StellaSteele · 2015-05-12T06:20:14+00:00

Actually research doesn't usually emphasize such a (nature VS. nurture) dichotomy anymore. In fact, with the recent understanding of epigenesis and neuroplasticity, the phenomenon is now referred to interactionism (nature AND nurture). It is super hard to tease out causality in many cases. So, to answer the question of female sexuality, you would have to look cross-culturally, and as there is exponential human variation in sexual mating/selection preferences, cultural scripts are definitely indicated. Not to discount the role of genetics of course; obviously a huge influence. However, be careful not to assign a 1:1 ratio to abstractions like "attraction" and nature- there are very few traits that are heritable and stable across one's lifetime. Instead, try to answer this...where is attraction (orientation) located precisely? Is it in our brains, our gonads, our hormones, our genitals? Humans are a taxonomically promiscuous species, both males and females.

“And yet, despite repeated assurances that women aren't particularly sexual creatures, in cultures around the world men have gone to extraordinary lengths to control female libido: female genital mutilation, head-to-toe chadors, medieval witch burnings, chastity belts, suffocating corsets, muttered insults about "insatiable" whores, pathologizing, paternalistic medical diagnoses of nymphomania or hysteria, the debilitating scorn heaped on any female who chooses to be generous with her sexuality...all parts of a worldwide campaign to keep the supposedly low-key female libido under control. Why the electrified high-security razor-wire fence to contain a kitty-cat?” ― Christopher Ryan, Sex at Dawn: The Prehistoric Origins of Modern Sexuality

[deleted] · 2015-05-12T06:33:54+00:00

Which is the dominant influence? (nurture/nature)

Nature, obviously.

How much of a role does the secondary influence play? (60/40, 75/25, 100/0)

This is a tricky question because historically, our societal behaviours(nurture) mostly follow our nature. So for example we nurture boys to play cops and robbers, and we nurture girls to play house. Why? Because men make better fighters than women, and women make better caretakers than men.

[deleted] · 2015-05-11T17:15:33+00:00

Culture is a flower that grows in the soil of nature.

Bakerofpie · 2015-05-11T18:41:12+00:00

Maybe 70/30 nature over nurture. Last I knew it was pretty widely accepted in the scientific community that parents cannot alter their child's personality by raising them a certain way and the only thing they can really influence is their morals and beliefs. I also find it interesting how similar in behavior identical twins separated at birth and raised by completely different families tend to be.

TheGreasyPole · 2015-05-11T16:07:23+00:00

The question is really too broad...

Which is the dominant influence? (nurture/nature)

It depends :)

For question on which your genes believe they have a very clearly defined requirement. It would be nurture (e.g. Is this guy symmetrical, of ideal weight, of ideal musculature, shows other markers of genetic fitness).

For question on which your genes believe they DO NOT have a very clearly defined requirement. It would be nurture (e.g. Do I like guys who wear red baseball hats, or blue baseball hats.).

How much of a role does the secondary influence play? (60/40, 75/25, 100/0)

It depends on the interest your genes show in the question.

On sexual mate choice ? 80:20 Genes over rational brain.

On what restaraunt to go to on Friday night ? 80:20 rational brain over genes.

Your genes are really only interested in a very small subset of the things your rational brain are interested in. Where they are interested, they dick with your rational brain using their "tool" (the emotions they have programmed into deep, subconscious brain levels) and nature beats nurture.

"Because he just feels right because, ya know, he's just so hot and really it is my time to be happy because he could be my soulmate so I really should just give him a try. I'm hot for him so tonight I'll relax my usual rules and just see what happens. Because how could something that feels so right actually be wrong ?"

Her genes are heavily dicking with this womans brain with lust and excitment emotions and forcing her rational brain to play along and support it (all the he could be my soulmate shit).

It's not just sex. There is a reason you are drawn to the chocolate bar rather than the celery sticks too... Genes have a few things they dick quite heavily with.

When you are choosing something your genes couldn't give two fucks about it's pretty much nurture in the driving seat.

Finally, you also have to be careful... A useful genetic emotional programme is "Just do what everyone else is doing. They are probably right, and if you stick out too much that may not end well for you"... So genes will programme "Find the guy with good fashion sense hot" and let your rational brain work out "good fashion sense" from nurture clues, then push the emotions on that. Oh I wouldn't normally like him but he looks so good in those tight jeans all the other girls like the guys in tight jeans, they'd be so jealous if I snagged tight-jean guy etc. etc.

Nitzi · 2015-05-11T16:20:23+00:00

I say that our culture is largely rooted in our biology. Biology plays a huge role in the forming of social constructs. The logical consequence of our biology is our culture. If you want to make a social construct that is against our biology you have to use more energy to overcome the biology factor. It is like a chemical equation, there are reactions that happen despite reducing the entropy.
This is the nurture fallacy or social construct fallacy: We can teach a lion to be a vegetarian, it is a social construct in the lion community that they mostly consume meat.
It is stupid to say that it's all biology, it's also stupid to say that biology plays no role in social construct forming.
I guess you could say that thee are biological constructs and social constructs.

Culture is like a tree, it didn't grow out of nothing, it is rooted in our biology.

alreadyredschool · 2015-05-11T15:54:36+00:00

Woman are less promiscuous because of slut shaming

TRP says that men are polygynous , so according to TRP the men are indeed naturally more promiscuous, right ? If hypergamy is true ,then women would have no reason to be promiscuous, or could it be that a few women might just enjoy casual sex like men?

attraction is largely socially constructed

Yes and no. I personally believe that the majority of women is attracted to masculine men and the majority of men is attracted to feminine women. However, AWALT is not true there are several people who don't conform to the norm.

Which is the dominant influence? (nurture/nature)

I don't know it depends on what we're talking about. I personally believe that we might have some instincts and tendencies but nurture plays a huge role in the development of our character , but that's my opinion.

For example TRP says that women are naturally unempathetic. I personally disagree with that. I believe it's our culture that encourages women to not empathize with men and view them as the "bad guys".

How much of a role does the secondary influence play? (60/40, 75/25, 100/0)

We have no way to measure something like that.

Title	Nurture or Nature?
Author	GaiusScaevolus
Upvotes	3
Comments	69
Date	May 11, 2015 3:47 PM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/35lu0g/nurture_or_nature/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/nurture-or-nature.282227 https://theredarchive.com/post/282227