Transcending the Nature/Nurture Debate

Mr. Stolyarov challenges both sides of the conventional, age-old "nature" versus "nurture" debate. Both genetic determinism and environmental determinism are highly simplistic and false. Moreover, determinism regarding human beings is false altogether. Mr. Stolyarov argues that the nature/nurture debate should be transcended via an understanding that free will and choice place an individual in control of his destiny. While Mr. Stolyarov does not present any simple, generalized answers, he does urge for a recognition that human beings and their paths in life are much richer and more sophisticated than deterministic theories suggest.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• free
• will
• determinism
• nature
• nurture
• philosophy
• ideas
• growth
• choice
• intelligence
• personality
• character
• outcome
• human
• being
• meaning
• dilemma
• morality
• ethics
• environment
• influence
• birth
• genetics
• genes
• hardship
• suffering
• oppression
• debate
• psychology
• volition

[twistedbydsign99]

You are great at not using filler words, I'm jealous :)

[GStolyarovII]

@twistedbydsign99 Thank you! :-) I hypothesize that this is at least partly due to my relatively slow and deliberate pace of speech. As a result, I can think of and formulate the conclusion of the sentence before I actually say it. Other contributing factors may be years of debate/speech practice.

[GStolyarovII]

@Neilgs A punishment for a criminal may be unpleasant for the criminal, and in that way he/she is held responsible for the crime. But, ultimately, no one else should justly be punished except the person(s) who actively committed (and/or masterminded) the criminal deed – because, in spite of all the external influences that may have played a role, the direct and proximate cause of the crime was the criminal’s act and his/her choice to commit it.

[GStolyarovII]

@Neilgs However, as a consequentialist, I also hold that once a crime has been committed, the most important consideration is how to prevent people from coming to harm from the criminal in the future. In that sense, it would make no sense to punish the larger “society” for the criminal’s actions. Rather, it would make sense to put the criminal in a position where he/she would be unlikely or unable to commit the crime again.

[GStolyarovII]

@Neilgs Can influences in a person’s environment “nudge” him in the right direction and lead to the avoidance of harm? Of course. As a consequentialist, I would support the creation of incentives that would enable prevention of crime (e.g., more individual liberty to enable positive, productive self-expression and more technology to serve as an outlet for emotions that might otherwise be channeled onto people).

[Neilgs]

to be in a positive and meaningful manner if he hasn't maintained conscious recollection or gained sufficient access to his own emotional/psychic injuries (e.g., be able to blame the original perpetrator, his parents) rather than (unconsciously) take it out on innocent victims. In the larger and immanent picture it is society's responsibility for missing, for example, the cues and the signals that should have (in most cases) be noticed by other in the "environment" earlier on!

[Neilgs]

At 16:18. While it might not be plausible explanation for the serial killer to escape punishment (i.e., his own early childhood injuries) it is certainly understandable if s/he hasn't gained access to his/her early emotional injuries. If s/he hasn't it almost invariably necessitates transferring his rage onto victims because of lack of accessing his own anger, rage, guilt,humiliation, shame of what was done to him by his caregivers. Does s/he have a "choice?" certainly. However, it is unlikely

[williamhcarlton]

I'd just also like to add that you need to get your hands on "Freedom Evolves" ASAP. Dennett makes the best case I have seen for what in previous works he has dubbed "varieties of free will worth wanting". It's the most reasonable position I have found between dualists who think that free will is this magic stuff that levitates itself out of the chain of causation and incompatibalists who think it doesn't exist at all.

[williamhcarlton]

You replied to my disappointment in your criticism of Sam Harris's free will position with a recommendation to watch this video. I will make the same criticism here that I did there: you have a bad habit of simply making bald assertions with nothing to back them up. I appreciate that you are very sure of the words you string together. But it would be great if there were more SUBSTANCE to the words themselves. You seem to expect the listener to just sort of take your word for it. :/

[sharpword9]

Once you transcend you don't have those questions.

Delete your programms and open to your feelings.

Create more love

C U

[eyhexs]

intelligence and temperament are subject to a great deal of biological determinism, much like all other traits of an organism;

enviromental (aka external) influences only regulate the expression of what was already determined at conception (and to some extent during embriological development);

monozygotic twins are a walking proof that iq and personality do not reside in some mystical plane apart from other characteristics of a given human being;

nature > nurtrure

[LoverOfTruth2010]

The real question is where exactly does free-will come from?