Re: Nature vs Nurture...?
Posted by Uncle Al on May 27, 2003 at 13:46
(68.5.243.16)Re: Nature vs Nurture...? (R.G.)
Being able to do a Jacobi transformation is an objective qualification. Wondering whether to take a hit of alcohol, marijuana, or heroin has no objective qualifiers at all. Some folks prudishly abstain, most occasionally indulge, some find themselves embracing a discovered god and implode.
Psychology is definitely not Theodore Sturgeon's residual 10%. Behavioral studies are ghastly. The only valid comment one can put upon social engineering is that its best results are invariably worse than random chance. That fully qualifies it for Theodore Sturgeon's 90%.
Nature/Nuture is a strawman. What good is intrinsic genius absent knowledge? Chimps do not become bus drivers. Humans exercise free will. There are no constaints at all upon human behavior at any given instant.
The necessities of education and national culture are thus evident. You want a polity that appreciates the long term results of its decisions. You want a polity that views itself as family at some level, because strangers are always killed to protect kin. Then, you hope for the best. All psychology will give you is heteroskedasticity.
heteroskedasticity 26,300 hits
heteroscedasticity 21,200 hitsWhen you appreciate the meaning of "heteroskedasticity," you cannot help but fall over laughing at the preceding. It is Psychology at its finest!
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/eotvos.htm
(Do something naughty to physics)