>Which is why there is such a thing as "human nature" that is meaningful to talk about.
That kind of "human nature" that comes as a conclusion from the fact of what's hardcoded in a newborn baby is only a trivial kind, and not generally what people mean when they talk about "human nature" any more than the fact that babies are born with different eye colours tells us about human nature. Human nature, by definition, is found common to all humans, so a difference in "skills and aptitudes" does not say anything with regards to human nature (or the essence or appearance of it) other than "humans have skills, aptitudes and personality traits hardcoded" (which seems like a very strong claim to me anyway), but that itself would only be a trivial statement. It wouldn't tell us whether it's human nature (in the transhistorical, transsocietal sense) to be cooperative or greedy, violent or peaceful, etc.
Even so, understanding the fact that there is a human nature does not bring us much closer to what that human nature entails. Anthropologists, historians, economists, philosophers, and (some) evolutionary psychologists have a lot to say on the topic. To say that something is "just human nature" requires more evidence than "human nature is unchanging, applicable to all, and transhistorical".
Accepting that there is such a thing as "human nature" is a big thing, and at odds with much current thinking.
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.
Turkheimer's Three Laws of Behavior Genetics is a good world shaking introduction to this world:
>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.
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.
There are a zillion skills, aptitudes, and personality traits more or less hardcoded in a newborn.
Which is why there is such a thing as "human nature" that is meaningful to talk about.