Scholars who believe nurture trumps nature also tend to doubt the scientific method

>sociologists, humanities, gender studies
>not literal marxism
Sure thing bud.

Postmodernism is about as anti-marxist as you can get, senpai. Radical skepticism towards any and all "meta-narratives" obviously precludes any attempt to make a science of history.
I wonder who benefits from rejecting a rigorous materialist analysis of our mode of production in favor of "identity" and subjective experience? Could it be the bourgeoisie?
Hint: yes

>religious studies

What a curious mistake that you re-transcribed it as gender studies.

>Postmodernism is about as anti-marxist as you can get, senpai.
If you had a passing familiarity with postmodern work you would know this isn't true. You can at best describe it as "anti-soviet." Foucault, who might be the single most influential philosopher to late twentieth century social theory, is almost entirely a synthesis of Marx and Nietzsche

>Gender studies

It's religious studies, idiot. Not everything fits your stupid worldview

>psychologists, economists and philosophers favor nature/ scientific method while sociologists, humanities and religious studies favor nurture/ non-scientific method.
people who actually study society and know how much influence it has on humans know better than scientists whose knowledge on that topic is as narrow as baby's anus.
Wew, who possibly would guess it?

If you had a passing familiarity with Marxism you would know it is. Marx demystified Hegel's dialectic by making it conform to the real world through the basic processes society must engage in to continue existing, and the petty-bourgeois "radical" theoreticians who deny and attack class forces as the motive force of society and instead locate it in the conflict between subjective, arbitrarily defined social categories did their darndest to re-mystify it.

People who call postmodernism "Marxist" generally lack even the most basic, bare-bones understanding of things like historical materialism and argue in bad faith. If we mean "synthesis" to include heavy modification and refutation, then sure, postmodernists "synthesized" Marx with other thinkers - but so has literally everyone. All philosophical works are the acceptance, refutation, or modification of all previous ones.

>anti-soviet
The Frankfurt School authors were taken for a hell of a ride. They were passively optimistic for far too long and became critical of the Soviet Union only after the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. Whereas the leftcoms, Trotsky, and most all of the old bolsheviks were critical of Stalin's feeble theoretical justifications and weaker grasp on classical marxism the moment it reared its head, they were the very last to the party. Their response was not to reevaluate their own clearly lacking theoretical foundations, but to strike at and reject the theoretical foundations of Marxism -itself,- setting the stage for almost a century of "radical" bourgeois social theory centering on fuzzy "socially constructed identities" and parading as "progressive" to the death of revolutionary movements across the first world.

You have to ask if such a "synthesis" is at all needed, and even so, if its core methodological tenets and lack of rigor don't cheapen the theory to where it is effectively worthless. philpapers.org/archive/SHATVO-2.pdf

"people are not affected by the environment or any conditions external to themselves, and emerge from the womb with destinies fully formed according only to their genes. also epigenetics doesn't exist"
vs
"people are impacted by the environment, which induces variance in some traits within the realistic bounds established by their genes"

One is based in reality, the other is /pol/.

Those individuals who don't follow the scientific method don't belong in academia, period. I don't view Gender Studies as being any more of an intellectual pursuit than reading comic books or playing video games. Calling it a field of study is a misnomer.

When will this Lamarckist nonsense die? It's more clear than ever that genes do have a huge impact on behavior and general life outcome. Genes aren't everything, but they are more important than the environment, and they help create the environment in the first place.

>When will this Lamarckist nonsense die?

It won't because some part of Lamarckism was right even if the overall narrative was wrong.

>Genes aren't everything, but they are more important than the environment,

Quantum theory may say otherwise user, physics and math aren't the only fields slowly getting rethought biology and neuroscience is following the same path too.

>humanities
>knowledge

>"people are impacted by the environment, which induces variance in some traits within the absolute bounds established by their genes"
/pol/

>Lamarckist nonsense
"circumstances and the environment impact an individual's behavior and temperament" =/= "people inherit the acquired characteristics of their parents"

>quantum theory may say otherwise
Jesus christ the depths you retards have descended to

Reminder to report anyone who defends containment board or its brainlet shills

Religious studies being on the side of nurture makes total sense IMHO since that is basically the entire point of religion. Tell people some stories to influence their behavior.

>it's not knowledge because I don't like it!
>dismissing entire fields with greentext

>people who believe nurture over nature tend to be more skeptical
>even about the tools they use
I dont see the problem.

The eternal STEMlord strikes again!

Guess Christians must really hate the field of behavior analysis.

The whole nature vs nurture discussion is fucked because the terms are too vague. I put into 2 categories of things that are being examined: personality and skills. Personality is highly genetic, while skills (like playing violin) are highly nurture. I don't even know what implications people want to draw from this nurture vs nature debate. It probably comes down to the old question of "are people born good/bad and can they be reformed/corrupted throughout their lives or are they immutable?"
(bonus question: are people more likely to read your post if you include a picture of a cute anime gril??)

>bonus question: are people more likely to read your post if you include a picture of a cute anime gril??)
They're more likely to conclude you're a virgin that wanks off to cartoon women

>are people more likely to read your post if you include a picture of a cute anime gril??
Yes, but only the actual line containing the words "cute anime girl."

I know most folks on campus don't like Trump, so why would they want to nurture his nature?

>social science
not real science
btfo'd by your own retardation

thanks for the (you)'s

Lol @ people who worry about Nature vs Nurture.

Yeah, nobody is born the same, some have better memories, some think faster, some have more muscle, some are bigger some are smaller.

Not a fucking excuse to not work out/study shit.

You can still be fit nigguh, and you can still not be a brainlet.(Unless you are one of the actual exceptions and you suffer from a mental disability or physical but even then most of the time those are aquired through bad habits mentally and physically.)

You're forgetting that the speed and efficacy at which a person learns is also genetic.
So learning the violin could be considered genetic if there were a time component.

yeah there could be genetic component
the hard part is determining it
maybe the time it takes to learn violin has a strog correlation with certain alleles
but the same experiment with piano has non correlation with anything
and we all know correlation doesn't imply causation, so what are some other explanations for the correlation?

>some have better memories, some think faster, some have more muscle, some are bigger
Fuck, 3.5/4 isn't bad. I remember facts and movies, but not yesterday.

>Not a fucking excuse to not work out/study shit.
Yes it is. If I can meet every expectation without effort, why should I try when the result is the same?

What you mean is that it's not an excuse to give up. Just because some have to work harder, does not mean they should not do so.

something something brain listening functionality activation something something why do beevers feel compelled to dam.
I suspect it's because slant eyes are small and a violin is cheaper than a proper child's piano.

>the scientific method

Only exists in popsci and elementary schools. #1 signaler that the author hasn't actually studied science.

yep, that's definitely true. There's plenty of overlap between one's skills and one's personality since a personality will partially determine the types of skills a person will likely invest time in (ie be interested in) and how quickly they will acquire said skills. But my statement was only meant to be a very rough outline of the distinction

>Only exists in popsci and elementary schools. #1 signaler that the author hasn't actually studied science.
What do you mean?

Not him. But a large number of psychologists will form a theory first (such as how memory works) then perform experiments to deduce whether or not that theory is true. Compared to doing the experiment first on a more observable question and then using the results to form your experiments to form a theory.

Ironically, the only field in psychology that does the latter is the one that believes most heavily in environment causing behavior over genetics.

>making a hypothesis
>wrong somehow

>said a literary studies scholar.

Literary scholars can go fuck themselves, so many are contemptuous fuckwits that hold any idea of science or truth in contempt especially in any area of human behaviour and biology.

Its problematic when you make the theory first and then draw facts from said theory. Its the same way pseudoscience works; they assume their product works, then try to draw facts from said conclusion.

>make hypothesis
>disprove hypothesis
wut

Perhaps you aren't understanding something about how deductive theories work. You have to assume that a deductive theory is correct before you can attempt to draw facts from it. With a hypothesis, you are merely trying to predict the outcome of an experiment.

Here is an example that clarifies the difference

Deductive Theory: "Memory goes through short term, then working, then into long term memory. From this model, we can deduce that doing X, Y, and Z will increase memory."

Hypothesis: "If we present a rat with sugar food pellets, it will perform more lever presses per hour compared to normal food pellets."

The real difference between those two is that one is testable and does not rely on an untestable assumption and the other is reliant on the assumption that the model is correct.

they both seem like fine hypotheses to me
you have to test them
Well I guess you could say the first one is a theory but you can still take a hypothesis from that and test it
no problemo

You get a positive result for the first one. Does it actually prove that your theory is correct? No, it doesn't. It merely fails to disprove it. Did your experiment work because your model is accurate or is it because of some other reason? Is the model even a necessary assumption?

The other way is much better. You take the results from a plethora of experiments and form theories from that.

Sorry user but there is evidence that Quantum mechanics is involved and thus the role of environment maybe bigger than what some might have expected.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_biology

medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-origin-of-life-and-the-hidden-role-of-quantum-criticality-ca4707924552

theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/quantum-brain/506768/

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orchestrated_objective_reduction

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001188

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1571064513001917

This entire thread was pre-determined by physical causes and biological programming encoded by nucleic acids whose existences is determined upon other natural causes and those causes are determined by preceding causes and so on to infinity.

look at it this way: a person 1000 years from now will have different abilities than you purely because of his environment. the nature vs nurture "debate" is retarded though -- it is obvious that both are factors and that there are traits where one predominates (e.g. height, knowledge of german literature)