Let hear them conjects

  • moonlight@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 month 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.

    • JubilantJaguar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 month ago

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

      Paradox. Personally I do this with everyone without commenting on it, and yet I don’t believe they’re almost all good people. Or bad. Every individual has the capacity for both, as far as I can tell, and the outcome depends on incentives. Particularly social ones, in my reading.