[claudiawerner]

>Many modern people assume human behavior is an effect of upbringing and social cues. A mental model where it is a mix of upbringing and people's inherent human nature can be shocking to many.

Many modern people don't mean everyone. The actual scientific literature on the nature vs nurture debate shows a surprisingly balanced picture which leaves some room for the hope of change. Still, defining human nature, and using it in a way which is non-trivial, requires a lot of work, especially the more abstract you go. Something along the lines of the quote, "To look at people in capitalist society and conclude that human nature is egoism is like looking at people in a factory where pollution is destroying their lungs and saying that it is human nature to cough."

Maybe we should be receptive to the arguments about human nature rather than (1) assuming it means what we think it does (2) assuming everyone who uses the term shares that meaning (3) assuming we know its essence and appearance right now.

[BurningFrog]

OK, I doubt we disagree on much concretely. I'll happily cosign that this "requires a lot of work" to understand.

For context, this thread started with someone saying I believe that humans are essentially born as blank neural networks, so that's what I'm arguing against.