intelligence is not strictly innante and they dont say so in the bell curve eigther
This claim has not been adequately supported by empirical research. In fact, after the Bell Curve has been published, strict emphasis has been placed on the claim that its not largely hereditary. In fact, mostly it is an outcome of a person's experiences and significantly, educational background.
Furthermore, a few years after the Bell Curve was published; when experts on intelligence were requested to publish their views, they stated that although IQ is not innate, it matters a great deal in life.
Scholars have accepted this claim, however, another notion was a topic of controversial debate. This notion was why it is important. Is it because people of high IQ genuinely can figure out how to make choices that benefit the most, or is it because our society has a bias favoring people of high IQ. For instance, education plays a big role in a person's life. Since we assume that much of it is innate, we feel comfortable turning students down who don't do well gradewise or on standardized tests. Some nations do not even allow teenagers of poor performance to continue their education, or they force them to drop out of high school.
In short, the supposition that intelligence is largely hereditary is far from a fact, and is generally not accepted as such.
intelligence is not purely innane. it is, however, largely hereditary.
identical twins reared apart develop iqs close to each other even when one is adopted to a less-stimulating environment than the other
The majority of studies that purported to prove that this claim is true were conducted by Cyril Burt. Today, he is well known to have comitted fraud. Thus, we still lack reliable data with respect to such studies and that is a profound reason why the question of how innate intelligence is still has not been settled and experts are inclined to think that it likely isn't.
I haven't argued for this point yet, but I would like to in the future: there are purely philosophical reasons to believe that intelligence is not largely innate, or reasons independent of expert opinion or empirical inquiry. This is perhaps to be saved for another post.
when can indeed speak about human nature. there is not a single culture in the world where the claims i listed earlier are upside down. even in the supposedly matriarchal societies, women havde been shown to rule only nominally
You're missing the subtlety of my point. In principle, if it is possible to construct any society where the propositions you've listed are false, they are not notions of human nature. We are not talking of societies that already exist, we are talking of societies that can in principle exist.
insofar as there are no cultures that contradict the above claims, we can speak of a human nature
insofar as gould would not accept them, that would be because he was blocked from doing so
No, we could speak of human nature if we had a complete collection of all possible societies and in every single one of them, the claims you've listed were true.
Why is it the case that in all large societies that exist, the claims you've listed are true? Because they have all adapted similar regimes on a fundamental level. Obviously, men have taken the dominant role as in all of them someone had to be the breadwinner and in the past, the physically strongest had to be the breadwinners as they'd simply do a better job. This is how that has been done in most societies and formed traditional roles which to this day are efficacious.
In fact, eventually, people have evolved or changed their nature to function in this society. As a result, it has in some sense become part of human nature to behave in a way you described, however, this tendency is not yet strong enough to function under all circumstances. I'd still like to argue (perhaps in the next post) that its possible to construct a society where this tendency would be eradicated. In other words, those attributes are not fundamental to human nature and only manifest in certain scenarios and it happens to be the case that such scenarios are rampant throughout the world today.
If that village was supposed to represent a nurture-based approach to creating a society with specific traits, how would the next generation have a different gene pool?
I guess you could factor in social sanctioning as a reproductive limiter.
Thanks for raising this issue as it points out a notion that I haven't explained with sufficient clarity or thoroughness in my previous post.
I argued that the qualities Blackwater listed aren't strictly part of human nature as they depend on environmental factors for flourishing, at least to some degree. As you mention, social sanctioning can create an environment where people will not have such tendencies. If those qualities were part of human nature, no environment and no sanctioning could cause people to not have them. Once such a society is created, it will be possible to produce humans who have weaker tendencies towards the behaviors listed.
To sum it all up, the qualities Blackwater listed aren't part of human nature because its possible to have a community where people will not engage them without any social sanctioning. However, they may have a mild tendency or subtle desire to do so. With social sanctioning, its possible to eventually create humans who won't even have that.