476
Learning about investing
(thelemmy.club)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2026
476 points (98.0% liked)
People Twitter
10132 readers
768 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
I think neither the nature or nurture hardliners would be satisfied with the answer to most of these types of questions in psych, because it likely lands somewhere in between.
I also share the frustration with the field being so susceptible to trends of ideology: proposed topics of research, what gets approved, what gets replicated, what gets published (not to mention sloppy methodology that always seems to err on the side of the desired results). In the past, research was rigidly flavored by genetics/evolution/immutable traits because it was built on the model of biology/medicine. In recent history, it's been influenced by the idea that we're largely blank slates, because the questions that would come up if we're not are socially uncomfortable.
As I've gotten older too, I've also had to get more comfortable with the answer being "it depends" or reframing it to a purely objective-oriented perspective (i.e. "Ok, can we actually do with this information?").
What it noticed in my small family system and from working with two- and three-year-olds, we are definitely individuals on a biological level, though this obviously acts (and interacts) with the environment.
I also think that “nature” and “being like your parents” are two different things that often get conflated; there such wild variation everytime you pull the lever on the chromosonal slot machine, you may be naturally quite different from your parents.
I trained as a therapist and was quite shocked to learn how poor the research is on modalities on close examination. For instance, every study automatically selects for people who are congruent w/ the treatment because anyone who isn't, drops out; so any study will have higher success rate than it ever would in the real world where therapists think in terms of conditions and not personal fit.
Very true. I've never worked with kids, but after having kids myself and seeing this "chromosomal slot machine" pull in action, it's so apparent that a lot of personality is baked in. I used to be quite the behaviorist/blank-slatist too.
On the note of research selection bias, how about the realization that most research is done on college students who are trying to get class credit, and that most of the research work is also being done by students? And that it's almost never going to be replicated? I think the general public has this idea that most science is being done by a bunch of specialized men/women in labcoats with decades of experience, not hungover 20-somethings talking to hungover 20-somethings. In reality, that's probably 99% of it.