but, to be clear - am i picking nurture over nature? no. i'm redefining the debate, and not in the usual "it's a complicated mix" sort of cop-out way.

the debate is usually between whether you're born a certain way and can't change it, or whether you're subject to gramscian conditioning and can be completely defined by your masters.

i don't think either of those things are true. what i think is that the premise that you can control the laboratory conditions in this experiment is horribly naive! so, it's almost like a heisenbergian reanalysis of the basic question: how well can we control the environment, in the first place? how much of this is subject to randomness in ways that are not inherent, but that no amount of nurture can possibly overturn? are there paradoxical and ultraparadoxical phases linked to the nurture argument, and how much of this is triggered in ways that can't be controlled for, either?

so, i don't want a nature v nurture argument - i think this is deprecated. biological determinism is absurd. rather, what i want is a nurture v error argument, a controlled v uncontrolled debate, and then i'll argue that error is the evolution of nature in the equation.

and, then we can talk about how it's complicated.