Two independent variables lacking a proper relationship will perpetuate confounding factors that are used in place of the controls. The false dichotomy of nature vs nurture creates confusion to overplay nurture for some and underplay it for others. When their relationship is zero sum, the outcomes can only be egalitarian in nature – applied the same to all.
What is hidden by this false dichotomy is that environment’s meditating function between genetic potential and phenotype is exponential, not linear.
When the relationship between nature and nurture is linear, it follows suit that environment affects all to the same degree. In reality, the greater the genetic potential a person has then the more environment can help or harm them – high genetic potential has a much wider spectrum of possible phenotype than a low genetic potential.
Many of those with the highest quality of genetic inheritance will understand how environment has helped or harmed them. When placed in a horrible environment, the high functioning are far more likely to project their own abilities and struggles onto those with low genetic potential – who are nothing like them and are even a part of sustaining the harmful environment. In fact, the current paradigm of nature v nurture almost guarantees projection because it gives a narrative that reinforces this innate tendency. Thus, in a declining society the dwindling high-functioning will support wasting resources in an egalitarian fashion on those it will not help, instead of restoring the natural order that protects loss of potential.
Projection and guilt of the high functioning – who can see how much environment has influenced their own potential – perpetuates the false nature v nurture debate as normative, especially those that have had their potential brought down from the highest peaks. It is the catch 22 that the only capable of figuring this out are the ones projecting the most to reinforce it. This is yet another case of circular reasoning woven into the false reality created by nature v nurture.
The perfect example of the downward spiral created by accepting an egalitarian (linear) importance of environment is the failure of Blacks in America. No matter how many Whites project themselves onto Blacks and do for Black communities what they would need to help themselves – they cannot make Blacks, as a whole (see unemployment, incarceration, and fatherless household rates compared to the amount of scholarships and aid out there for them), civilized or a functional part of society. There is no amount of aid or affirmative action that will change this because Blacks will waste instead of utilize it, yet this waste of resources is only increasing.
It is understandable how those not made for a civilization would feel overwhelmed by it and oppressed; Sub-Saharan Africans have shown throughout history that they can neither create nor sustain a civilization. Instead of accepting this as their nature, liberals go on pretending they can change the genetic potential of Blacks – as if environment is an independent variable not restricted to genetic potential – which has time and again show to be futile. This has escalated to the point that the monster they created is turning on them, yet they still refuse to see it for what it is because of their projection.
Bernie Sanders is continually interrupted by Black Lives Matter protesters. They are emotional and unreasonable, which seems to be confusing for so many in the coverage of this fiasco (around the three minute mark is just hilarious). The leftist emotional tier system has no method to their madness and that is because it is based off of the same premise of nature v nurture. Their latest attempt at giving some logical form to this victim hierarchy is to use the word “power” – as if this magical thing is granted to some over others, yet no one seems to ask where power comes from.
The truth is that many of the “oppressed” are just dysfunctional and meant for a more primitive environment. Blacks can’t even see the strategy in not biting the only hand in the world that feeds them, yet it is the shock of leftists that truly shows how ingrained their projection is into their ideology. Bringing the third world into a first world environment won’t turn savages into high functioning beings, it will only turn a high trust civilization into a third world hell hold.
The reality that is hidden by Nature v Nurture needs to be understood to stop the downward spiral of the world. Keeping the primitive in line is not enough, since projection will harm the high functioning over time and lead to guilt for the plight of those with genes that no one can change. It is important to keep the lowest functioning separate from those with more potential, as to not bring down their betters. By apportioning resources to prevent substandard environments from destroying those with the best genetic potential, they are able to uphold all – this is the beauty of restoring natural order. It is hard to accept the most functional reality when being idealistic feels better, but it will only make reality worse to deny it’s optimal ordering – The world needs it’s natural leadership, and to stop the unnatural expansion of the least capable.
Setting the normative mindset to view the world in terms of nature v nurture has a snowballing effect and is driving civilization downhill. Genetic potential is the independent variable, environment the mediator variable, and phenotype the dependent variable for the Individual Epigenetic Spectrum. The mediating function of environment in this is exponential, with the vastness of the possible phenotypic range directly proportionate to the greatness of genetic potential. Nature v Nurture needs to be recognized as fallacious; every study and mindset derived from it is fruit from a poisonous tree.
Some closing ideas for the reader to consider:
How would this change in seeing reality affect food aid, both in-state and internationally? If the quality of genes is important in population percentages, then expanding the mosts reckless people exponentially with food aid would be a ridiculous solution to poverty. Resources would be better apportioned if the right framing was given then there wouldn’t be so much guilt for those that can’t improve. Duty to future generations would return over guilt to the lowest functioning that are growing en masse. How would this new framing effect affirmative action, both de facto or de jure? Schooling systems catering to the least common denominator would be recognized as a horrible idea. This small shift in how reality is understood could reverse the current shaming of excellence and success. Hierarchy becomes preferable to egalitarianism, as it is more functional and just. Unequal rights proportionate to the amount of responsibility the person can handle would be properly gauged and valued above idealistic human rights. There are numerous ways this could apply, this just outlines the jist of it.