Gregory's ServerWhile I certainly agree that #DNA gives people certain prepositions and varying physiological foundations. My view is that any baby is good, then their surroundings change them. If the surroundings were perfect & individualized for the baby, they would grow up to be a good person. Therefore, I see it as a failure of their surroundings if they don't. E.g. many people have the #MAOA and #CDH13 genes, but only few will become bad people/serial killers.
#NaturevsNurture
|
Top-level
 5 comments
@ScienceCommunicator @madeindex @ScienceCommunicator Then you haven't met people who are really kind and gentle, but one of their kids is the opposite. I guess the environment for all of their kids is the same. But some kids get better with it and some don't. Now you're suggesting that "perfect" babies will develop to be "perfect" adults if the environment (surroundings) is "perfect" What "perfect" environment would, for example, mean that a % of men didn't become jealous of other men, that were with the women they desired? It seems that you believe that jealously & rage are learnt emotions ("surroundings") not inherited (genes) But yea, if cisgender men in general, have access to sex, that does mitigate sexual frustration |
@madeindex @sslaia
Would you be interested in the scientific research that suggests that your opinion is, somewhat, I.e., partially, incorrect.
However, to reiterate, sure, ideally babies should have the environment required to develop to become the better 'version' of themselves. But, "self", personality, has a positive association with genetics.
Also, it sounds religious in idealism, to believe babies are "perfect"