does Nature (in opposition to Nurture) being marginally more important to human development suggest a policy of greater social economic transfers?
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I would be tempted to explain that in terms of egalitarianism (or at least marketing to low-status cohorts) coming first, and the justifications being post hoc constructions. I think "the hierarchy is bad" is the operative idea, not a desire to understand cause and effect.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
i support social transfers *because* i dont deny nature the people who separate humans from nature, and who think concepts like "deserve" point to some deep truth and not a shallow game are delusional
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Moving towards Determinism vs Agency/"Free Will" suggests larger transfers (imo). If you hold Determinism constant then more Nature -> less Nurture, suggesting smaller xfers because of implication that social xfers like public schools or helping poor parents are less efficient.
-
And I think this largely resolves the "social transfer people emphasize nurture" - the big social transfers are all Nurture focused. Easy to imagine spending endless money on schools, but what's the equivalent Nature intervention? Iodized Salt? Banning leaded gasoline?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Huh Tricky
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.