Do you believe in Tabula Rasa?

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Cherry Eyed Hamster

Cherry Eyed Hamster

antagonistic bitch cuntlet supreme
kiwifarms.net
Joined
Dec 15, 2022
Tabula Rasa, or; ‘Blank Slate’, is the theory that all humans are born without knowledge of anything, and that our minds are instead shaped completely by our environments and experiences. Believers in Tabula Rasa for this reason tend to put a massive emphasis on education and believe that every individual has the ability to learn and develop. Tabula Rasa is ultimately a principal of Empiricism, the philosophical theory that all knowledge is derived from sensory experience.

The opposite of Tabula rasa is Innatism, the belief that the human mind is born with knowledge pre-programmed knowledge and predispositions. Innatism asserts that our personalities have already begun developing from birth, and environmental and genetic factors dictate how we experience the world and, the most contentious one, intelligence.

I’d be very curious to see where Farmers fall under the Tabula Rasa-Innatism umbrella. Do you believe in the blank slate theory, or that humans are predisposed to genetic factors, or something in-between?
 
It's a half-truth. Children are mostly undifferentiated on birth and have their beliefs programmed by their family & society throughout life. However, it is also true that we all have the underlying biological traits by the virtue of being human, as well as a basic unique personality.
 
No. That shit is stupid. Nature and nurture both interact with one another in a whole lot of ways. They're not even separate, environmental factors if drastic could alter the gene expression of an infant (epigenetics). I'm not the most knowledgeable guy on the matter, so the specifics are beyond me, but even I know that it's not nurture doing all the work. You come off as overtly idealistic at best and a retard at worst for actually believing in blank slatism.
 
The blank slate theory may have made sense to John Locke, but it just aint true. Every time we have improved out knowledge of how nurture and nature shapes us, the conclusion has been that genes matters much more than we thought, and that shared upbringing matters less. This is uncomfortabe to most people, because it essentially means that we have less agency than we would like to think. We are programmed by organic molecules.

Take for example the propensity to steal. We know there is a strong element of heritability in this trait. If your parents are a thief then you are much more likely to be a thief. And if your siblings are a thief, you are also much more likely to be a thief, than the average person. Is the causal mechanism nurture or nature? It turns out to be almost exclusively nature, as this correlation is almost totally absent between adopted children and their adopted parents/siblings.
 
No, I do not.

Here's a little powerlevel:
My head to body ratio is slightly bigger than an average person's. I had scans done and everything and it turns out that I have a big fucking brain, so much so that I need to take painkillers whenever I'm on a plane because it hurts.
I'm like The Leader from Marvel.
While the average dumbass and I can receive the same information, we will understand it differently because of genetics.

I've tried to get a job in the trades because it's good money but I just can't, my brain suffers when I'm not using it to the fullest, so I went into research and that makes me happy.
Now, I get to learn new shit and analyze it for a living, most people would get fucking bored and give up after a week doing that but it comes naturally to me and I do it for half a day every day.
Am I bragging? Maybe a bit but I'm also telling you how things are.

We are not all the same and if you think we are, you need to talk to more people.
 
Cherry Eyed Hamster said:
I’d be very curious to see where Farmers fall under the Tabula Rasa-Innatism umbrella. Do you believe in the blank slate theory, or that humans are predisposed to genetic factors, or something in-between?
Click to expand...
I fall mostly on the Innatist side - the Blank Slate is largely rubbish, and proven so - Steven Pinker wrote an excellent book some years ago that utterly annihilated the theory
 
Token Faggot said:
I fall mostly on the Innatist side - the Blank Slate is largely rubbish, and proven so - Steven Pinker wrote an excellent book some years ago that utterly annihilated the theory
Click to expand...
Wasn’t that the same book where he acknowledged that African Americans have lower IQs than whites, but he’s for censoring studies that examine the correlation between IQ and race because it might cause people to give blacks a lack of benefit of the doubt? Pinker is a hypocrite.
 
Ignoring the spicier racial case. The sadder examples are children of criminals being adopted by normal families even from infant stage. Those children will very likely grow to be fucked up like their birth parents. Usually repeating the same mistake.

Of course the opposite also isn't correct. Most cows on the site could have led functional life but were corrupted by their environment.
 
green&brown said:
You come off as overtly idealistic at best and a retard at worst for actually believing in blank slatism.
Click to expand...
I lean much more heavily towards Innatism. I have no idea how you even came to the conclusion that I believe in the blank slate theory. I was just curious to see where Farmers slanted on the idea.
wtfNeedSignUp said:
Those children will very likely grow to be fucked up like their birth parents. Usually repeating the same mistake.
Click to expand...
Adopted children are a lot more likely to grow up with mental problems because they were separated during a critical stage when the infant is meant to be bonding with their mother. It fucks up everything down to the regulation of the immune system. Compounded with the fact that there’s a nagging psychological aspect where a child sees themselves as unwanted by their original family. Parents with higher rates of criminality are more likely to have their kids adopted, but children that were adopted from families without this pattern overwhelmingly still exhibit significant emotional and mental disturbance in adulthood.
 
Beelzebub's Lawyer said:
No, I do not.

Here's a little powerlevel:
My head to body ratio is slightly bigger than an average person's. I had scans done and everything and it turns out that I have a big fucking brain, so much so that I need to take painkillers whenever I'm on a plane because it hurts.
I'm like The Leader from Marvel.
While the average dumbass and I can receive the same information, we will understand it differently because of genetics.

I've tried to get a job in the trades because it's good money but I just can't, my brain suffers when I'm not using it to the fullest, so I went into research and that makes me happy.
Now, I get to learn new shit and analyze it for a living, most people would get fucking bored and give up after a week doing that but it comes naturally to me and I do it for half a day every day.
Am I bragging? Maybe a bit but I'm also telling you how things are.

We are not all the same and if you think we are, you need to talk to more people.
Click to expand...
Nice, it's been awhile since I've seen new copypasta.
 
You know the 80/20 rule where like 80% of a grocery store's business and profits are done by 20% of customers every day, and then 80% of your problems are from 20% of your issues, and all that shit? I think that applies to nature/nurture too. I think people can still change themselves, and can fight against their 'nature', but it's hard, and it doesn't happen nearly as often as anybody would like.
 
No. Don't let the blackpillers fool you into believing that genes are destiny though. You can take all the best cards that your genes dealt you and discard the bad ones if you try. Most people just never actually try to do this. They just make up some random cope about how free will isn't "real"
 
1778071420203.jpeg
Lysenko believed in Tabula Rasa.
So do modern libtards.
Genetics exist and they shape everything including personality and behavior. Yes enviroment is also important, but you can't just take newborn and turn him into anything you want.
 
No, it is a 20th century liberalism that was as much based on feelings and Judeo-Christian dogma than soyence.

Genetic determinism is true. However nurture is a second hurdle that can fail you.
Your genes determine what you will be in a broad sense.

For example, you will be a shy nerdy white introvert. That still can lead to basement dwelling nerd or academic, that is the part where of nurture and environment factors come in.

Or you can be a skizoid merchant with charisma. You can still end up as crazy Talmud humper in a cave with 4 cultists or a Hollywood (((star))) , as your nurture dictates.

Or you are a lazy nigger. If your baby mammy was good, you can be a lazy youtube reaction streamer, or a lazy thief in the big house if not.

Of course these odds are stacked. Usually for the worse.

I would say it is 70% genetic nature, 20% nurture and 10% random chance.

Even if you are Einstein, if you are born into a jewish caravan in 1000 AD in Somalia the chances are you are fucked.

For Einstein to do science shit, he needed the right genes to be born, the right environment where his parents didn't beat him tarded, and into a society that had access to advanced math and physics. He also needed to avoid being hit by a random accident.

Life isn't fair, it isn't nice, and sometimes it is just dumb luck.

To succeed, you need the right genes, and then the right upbringing, and then the right circumstances/luck. It is 3 loops to jump through. Fail just one and it is over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom