Is the Iceland experiment an example of the social environment being more important than biology?

An analysis of the intergenerational shift in behaviors in that country

In the 1990s, over 40% of Icelandic youths aged 15 to 16 reported excessive alcohol consumption. Other substances—such as cigarettes and marijuana—were also consumed at levels comparatively higher than in other European countries. However, following a series of measures adopted by the Icelandic government, this "hedonistic" youth culture changed dramatically; today, only 5% of young people in the same age group report heavy alcohol consumption, compared to 42% three decades ago. Regarding cigarettes and marijuana, the intergenerational differences in consumption are equally striking: dropping from 23% to 3% and from 17% to 7%, respectively.

https://www.espn.com.br/futebol/artigo/_/id/4306536/lado-b-da-copa-islandia-o-pais-que-usou-o-esporte-para-combater-o-alcoolismo-entre-jovens

If this remarkable behavioral shift is directly linked to the introduction of government measures aimed at fostering healthy habits—such as sports—from an early age, as well as restricting access to alcohol and other drugs, then it serves as a prime example of human plasticity. It illustrates the broader capacity to alter or change behavior—if not about a single individual, then at least within a group (it would be interesting to know the current status of the Icelandic youths who were assessed in the 1990s and reported high consumption of alcohol and other substances). It also demonstrates just how powerful an influence the environment can have on us. ...of just how socially conformist we can be... But it also shows that, even before—when "Icelandic youth" were disproportionately mired in habits harmful to physical and mental health—the situation didn't apply to the entire group; 60% (a majority) did not fall into the "bad habits" statistics... It demonstrates that even when homogenizing forces exist within certain social groups, there is a strong likelihood that at least a minority will not "follow the herd"... This also highlights the power of biology itself as an influence on behavior—perhaps the most important factor. After all, both the young person who falls into the world of addiction and the one who does not are primarily—and, I would argue, deterministically—influenced by their behavioral biology: the morphological characteristics of their brains and the hormonal makeup of their bodies, in constant interaction with the environment, these traits manifest as behavioral tendencies that may be similar or vastly different. There is no such thing as someone "from nowhere" taking up smoking while another person in the same group quits; in terms of behavior, nothing ever happens "from nowhere." There is no *blank slate* inside our heads leading us down completely random paths; the range of behaviors we can adopt is predetermined—provided we aren't born literally without brains, and given that the brains we are born are result from combinations of our parents' genetic material, which already possesses its own specific individual makeup. We are certainly born with developing brains, but never without pre-existing or predetermined elements—contrary to the notion of a blank slate waiting for experience to write upon it. Although many believe this—including supposed experts in related fields—the Icelandic experiment does not prove that human genetics or biology is entirely a product of the social and cultural environment; rather, it shows that because our biology is intrinsically plastic, it allows for a wider range of behavioral variation. Some might still argue that various individual and environmental factors operate as a chain of influences... ...can lead some or many to follow certain paths. The "anatomical structure" of multiple, highly specific causal factors leading an individual or group to adopt certain behaviors is not inherently superfluous, as it can serve to illustrate a trajectory. However, it does not support the argument—which might otherwise be used to bolster the "blank slate" hypothesis—given that intrinsic predispositions remain the most important factor. Indeed, there is a correlation between addiction and certain personality traits, such as neuroticism, as well as physiological predispositions—for instance, the capacity to tolerate high levels of alcohol in the bloodstream and how this can contribute to the establishment of a specific cycle of alcohol addiction. 

Furthermore, there is another interesting fact not shown in the linked report: the crime rate in that country has not decreased significantly since the government began steering younger generations away from cigarettes, marijuana, and alcohol, as illustrated in the linked graph..below, having remained relatively constant (generally very low) from that time until the most recent years of the 2020s. This is interesting because it is common to attribute some irrationally antisocial behaviors to alcohol or drug abuse. And even though there is a logical link between behavioral changes and excessive substance use, even in that dire scenario of total surrender to addiction, intrinsic factors—such as predominant personality traits—continue to exert influence; after all, not every addict goes around mugging people or committing even graver acts, such as unprovoked violence or even homicide. This may demonstrate that certain behaviors or habits are more malleable than others, but it also suggests that this experiment is particularly well-suited to countries with populations ethnically similar to Iceland’s—such as its Scandinavian cousins—whereas populations that are culturally, psychologically, and cognitively distinct might well show different responses... Even if it could be adopted as a medium- to long-term public policy in other countries...

https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/isl/iceland/crime-rate-statistics

To answer the question posed in the title: the social environment certainly influences human behavior. However, behavior is never shaped solely by the environment; for the interaction to be complete, it depends first on the behavioral biology of the population or the individual. Secondly, if the "environment" is merely a set of factors determined in arbitrary and variable ways, the only true agent—and the primary one in this dynamic—is always the living being/ human being. Consequently, the most important directives and determinants originate from within that individual. Just as a human being cannot fly unaided without the necessary biological machinery and physical and mental capabilities, neither can they overcome their own limitations—specifically, the very traits that define and characterize them. For if—based on the example in the text—he lacks the psychological and even physiological predispositions to become addicted to alcohol or drugs, it is highly likely that he will not end up trapped in that problematic cycle of reward in his daily life, even if he happens to be exposed to it...

A Pseudo-Paradoxical Validation of Biological Determinism

Epigenetics Does Not Prove the Tabula Rasa/Blank Slate Ideology...

During a few months of the harsh European winter of 1944-45, Nazi invaders cut off all food supplies to 4.5 million people in the still-occupied regions of the Netherlands, resulting in a mass famine that killed approximately 20,000 people from severe malnutrition. Decades later, its consequences continued to be felt in the children of women who were pregnant during that critical period in the history of the Netherlands, as they were found to have a higher incidence of metabolic diseases, such as diabetes and obesity, cardiovascular problems, and schizophrenia, than the rest of the population of the same country.

It seems obvious that extreme conditions, depending on what is considered extreme for each species, often cause extreme effects on the organisms of living beings. However, it is also necessary that these organisms are not adapted to withstand such conditions, as is the case with humans. Therefore, it is not only the environment that influences them, because they respond and interact according to their own natures (their adaptive limits and potential).

Regarding the famous example above, often used to demonstrate transgenerational epigenetic effects, it does not prove that the environment is more important than biology, even though many have reached that conclusion. In fact, it proves that it is biology that determines the behavioral and/or organic reactions of living beings to the different environmental conditions in which they find themselves, always providing the final response. Therefore, if the human organism were fully adapted to a situation of food shortage, it would not suffer major repercussions if subjected to the same.

After all, what makes some species more adapted to extreme conditions, such as some bacteria, and others not?

Mainly their biology.

On the flat-earthism of behavior

 Flat-Earthism has become an informal synonym for pseudoscience on social media in recent years. It's no wonder, because it's one of the most obvious pseudosciences, an absurd falsification of currently very basic scientific facts, such as the shape of the planet Earth, has become an easy target for mockery, especially among those who consider themselves to be more knowledgeable about science. That's why I also decided to adopt it to refer to a series of pseudo-knowledge, but about human behavior, that have become hegemonic in the government, the media and academia, and that, ironically, tend to be wrongly ratified as legitimate knowledge by many of those who love to mock the original flat-earthers... I've also gotten used to calling these flat-earthers "good pseudosciences" (ideologically biased to the "left" on the political-ideological spectrum). So, without further ado, let's get to them:

1. That human behavior is the product only of environmental circumstances or that we are mere reagents, with little will of our own

A kind of denialistic "circumstantialism" because it disregards the importance of the biology or nature of the human individual in relation to his or her own behavior, which is probably inspired by the belief in the blank slate, that we are born as blank sheets of paper and that our mental characteristics are shaped only by life experiences. As if our mental traits were not also, on average, inherited from our parents, just as happens with "physical" traits. In fact, our psychological and cognitive behaviors are predominantly stable expressions of the morphology and constitution of our brains, as well as of other more closely related organic aspects, such as hormones, in interaction with the environment. They are also "physical". And this brings us to the second flat-eartherism of behavior...

2. That human behavior is exclusively mental, in the supposed sense of being metaphysical or unrelated to "physical patterns"

As if the mind, and only or especially the human mind, presented a radically different nature from the rest of the body, as if it were not physical and chemical either, but a kind of abstraction that transcends such "limitations"... I have already called this type of thinking, which can be considered fallacious, semanticalism, in which an exaggerated significance is attributed to the word in relation to the element or phenomenon it symbolizes, even more so when it is a term that is more imaginary than real or that does not present confirmed evidence. As for this type of flat-earthism that denies the physical-chemical nature of the mind, I could call it "mentalism", an absolutely excessive emphasis on the "mind" to the point of treating it as a reality in itself and not as what is most likely to be: a derived expression.

Yes, yes, "physicalism" is by far the most sensible hypothesis about what the human mind would be, basically what has been said at this point, and which is the most accepted by science. Yet another useless discussion raised and sustained by philosophy, or by this "philosophy" without a quality filter, in which ideas divorced from a minimum and necessary collaboration with scientific thought continue to be considered in the field of intellectually pertinent discussions, even if they do not present any evidence (or indirect clue) that they are feasible.

3. That human behavior is invariably logical

A kind of excessive emphasis on the logical character of human behavior, more in the sense of reciprocal action and reaction, such as the example that, if an individual has an upbringing devoid of affection and understanding during his formative years, he will inevitably become an adult of dubious character. However, personality is a very relevant factor in this dynamic, which makes this idea of ​​directly reciprocal or "logical" reaction less evident. And since personality traits, in addition to being reactive patterns, also tend to be more stable or variably independent of what happens around the human individual... Another example is the idea that environmental conditions unilaterally favor certain behaviors, such as in the case of being in a situation of poverty and committing crimes, even as a justification for committing such actions, and which still usually comes with the generic solution of combating social inequalities, as if only the environment were causal in relation to this or that behavior and as if all human action were reciprocally logical, here, in which poverty or social neglect would justify the practice of crimes. And even though there is always an obvious and constant interaction between the environment and the human being, what determines our behaviors, in the sense of "giving the final answer", is "ourselves" or what we present in terms of personality, intelligence... of how we have reacted, interpreted and concluded from our experiences. Once again, an appeal to my defense "heterodox" approach to validating biological determinism as an absolute truth, quite different from what, especially, the so-called flat-earthers of behavior, tend to position themselves on...

Because one of the most basic technical mistakes that has been made to exhaustion in the area of ​​psychology, and that contributes to the emergence of these flat-earthers, is the confusion between correlation and causality, for example, the positive correlation between the type of upbringing received and the capacity for moral discernment, in which many academic researchers have come to the conclusion that the type of upbringing is a causal factor in the development of the character of a human individual, instead of thinking about the less generalist and, therefore, less extraordinary possibility, that parents tend to produce children who inherit similar personality traits from them, with this more robust statistical agreement occurring, primarily based on one of the most basic facts of biology, not just human biology, heredity, and not just "physical traits", since the type of upbringing also reflects the personality traits of an individual, in this case, the parents, in interaction with their family environment. So, in simpler words easy, we have: more intrinsically loving parents are more likely to have more loving or empathetic children (although this rule does not seem to be significant, even due to the relatively random nature of the inheritance patterns of traits among human beings. In any case, this tendency for concordance of personality traits and intelligence between parents and their biological children is greater than the tendency for discordance, hence the more positive than negative correlation).

4. That human behavior is the exclusive product of upbringing or education

A type of "behavioral creationism" in which everything about human behavior is credited to the upbringing received during the formative years, again, denying the fact that we are practically born with psychological and cognitive predispositions (which can also be called patterns) that we inherit from our parents (more in a combinatorial sense than directly transmitted) and that we even begin to express them from the first years of life. An example of a hypothesis that has been raised based on this pseudoscience is that of the "cooler mother", to explain autism.

4.1 That human behavior is the exclusive product of culture

A denialist variation of the influence of biology on human behavior of what has already been shown above, but focusing on the belief that culture is the most important factor of influence. But culture, on average, reflects psychological and cognitive characteristics of the population that expresses it, including the common tendency for social conformity, in the case of a highly social species, such as ours. Culture did not come first or out of nowhere. And even in the case of absolute dictatorships, such as that of North Korea, where a more direct imposition of a culture on a population is perceived, the latter always ends up adapting, also out of conformity, although, in this example, it is a more traditional culture that has changed little since before the socialist revolution, whose most notable changes were the introduction of a personality cult of leaders and the significant increase in the restriction of individual and/or democratic freedoms. But even in the case of more significant cultural (behavior or customs) or intergenerational changes, such as those that have occurred in the Western world, first of all, they could not be happen without there being a biological possibility for this, based on that very basic logic that it is not possible for an individual to become something that is not available as a possibility in his/her list of behavioral plasticity, such as in the example of an individual with modest cognitive abilities who, in a normal life trajectory scenario, cannot become gifted (in a more academically traditional sense) just by effort or dedication to this goal. Therefore, these changes cannot be or are not totally divorced from biology. Secondly, not everyone in a generation reacts in the same way to their cultural environment, as seen in the existence of individuals explicitly opposed to the behavioral tendencies of their generation. Thirdly, it is also important to note the existence of a porcentage of the population that adheres only superficially to the prevailing culture, by conformity, but more in the sense of social pressure to, at least, not position themselves contrary to the postulates determined as the order of the day, to conform through silence. In short, different human beings tend to react in different ways to the same pressures from the cultural environment. Yes, especially compared to other species, we are very generalists. But this does not mean that our behavioral plasticity is indefinite or infinite...

So this belief that we are more generalists than/what we really are leads us to the fifth flat-earthism...

5. That human behavior is very plastic or adaptive, also in the sense of being undefined/without absolute limitations

As if our emotional and cognitive limits were always and only a matter of mental block and that, with an appropriate intervention, it were possible to overcome them. For example, the hypothesis that it would be a specific anxiety that explains difficulties in learning mathematics and not that they could be reflections of characteristics of the individual's own cognitive profile, something more intrinsic, and that, therefore, cannot be absolutely changed.

This leads us to examples of flat-earthism in the behavior of some specific disciplines:

Education

It is based on the belief that every student who does not present evident intellectual disabilities has a similar or identical potential for developing their cognitive abilities and that, what most differentiates them in terms of academic performance, is the effort put into studying plus the environmental conditions (how favorable or unfavorable they are). It is also applied to behavior or personality differences, in which they are attributed to the same factors: cultural, upbringing, or environmental, and never to the student's own nature (biology or "genetics").

There are other expressions of flat-earthism in behavior in the area of ​​education, more specifically in subjects such as history and geography, in which there is a dominance of narratives of the same type, but applied in social and historical contexts, such as that the main or only reasons for the differences in social and economic development between nations are their historical and cultural trajectories, completely disregarding biological factors, such as the average intelligence and temperament of their populations.

From psychology

It can be considered as the original flat-earthism of behavior, as it relates to knowledge that deals directly with human behavior. And as has already been mentioned, it is based on a kind of scientific illiteracy disguised as human sciences, for example, by always proposing hypotheses that confuse correlation with causality in relation to the factors that influence our behaviors, always pointing to environmental factors as the most influential, delegating an irrelevant role to biology.

Biology

In this discipline, the denial of the predominant influence of biology  on human behavior is more sophisticated, precisely because it is biology itself, especially with the rise of epigenetics, a branch derived from genetics that is probably valid in scientific terms, but which has been used to confront and invalidate the importance of genetics in human behavior and development and not to add knowledge. Hence, as is the norm of a typical pseudoscience, lacking in multidisciplinarity, everything about a phenomenon or situation, in this case, behavior, is attributed to the same cause, "epigenetics" or "supposedly independent, parallel and/or external influences on genetic variation and determination", whereas a more scientifically adequate analysis considers all the factors involved and seeks to construct a hierarchy from the most influential to the least influential factors (which, in this case, would be biology as more influential than the environment in determining human behavior, a fact ratified by the perception of patterns that positively corroborate this conclusion, such as by the predominant failure of pedagogical interventions in promoting a substantial improvement in students' academic performance). 

From criminology

The same inversion of the relationship between cause and effect, but within a judicial context, in which the human subject is placed in a more secondary position of importance in relation to his own behavior and in a situation where crimes are committed, the beliefs that environmental factors, and not character, is predominate (the first flat-earther theory), and also in the complete moral regeneration of anyone who commits crimes (the third, fourth and fifth)...

There are also some ideologically related and radical ideologies, such as penal abolitionism, which advocate the end of penitentiaries, that is, based on these flat-earther theories, in addition to other philosophically and scientifically dubious sources...

The evolution of a species is the evolution of a matrix and the archaic-epigenetic variables that turn off the alternate reality sense of geniuses and wises

Genius among others (predominant) virtuosities tend to express himself fundamentally by their individuality.

The development of a species also constitutes development / enhancement of a mental centric culture, i.e., natural emphasizing / mechanically its own existential perspectives instead of reality itself or surrounding it. In other words, all species have a high latent inhibition when they met instinctively concentrated in their own natural way of life, interpreting the world in accordance with their respective  perceptive potential.

All forms of life have their respective matrix (instinctive cultures), ie the idiosyncratic and limited range of their minds regarding the perception of reality that surrounds us. Therefore, the evolution of a species reverberate both in the evolution of a matrix, secure, full of certainties retained its perceptive potential and not in relation to perceptual absolute, maximum degree of perception. And this process obviously tends to give firstly at collective level. That is, the macro-scale, even humans, all species evolve by this orchestrated manner as was visually exemplified above.

The human species is unique because of its extreme evolutionary capacity, comparatively speaking, that is, his intelligence. The defining characteristic / separates humanity is  amplified self consciousness, or delayed potential instinctive response. Between thinking and acting, we can reflect our thoughts and change our actions. But most of our species remains subdued by macroevolution or 'evolution of the masses''. We belong to the masses, we are their shape and their movement. We are, on average, hybrids with conscious and sub/inconscious will, which is not by reflective thought, but by instinct. In micro-scale experience, we, as individuals, are the bottom of the phenomenological hierarchy of evolution and / or adaptation. We received the sub / or unconsciously, all evolutionary guidelines, and this proves partially that the  complete free will is an illusion. We are overwhelmed. We are involuntary heirs, products, fruits. And we reflect with great realism our natural dispositions to mass behavior.

But not all humans are synchronized toward the anthropocentric world, our natural matrix, where perhaps many if not all human behavior can be predicted with great accuracy margin.

The sense of 'individuality', caused by changes of epigenetic nature, even during the formation of the fetus, or even, as in the conception of life, has a key role in many of the most powerful phenomena of the human mind, as the genius and wisdom.

Again with the held literary metaphor of the classic '' Brave New World '', where we can see represented clearly the differences between the more cognitively intelligent human types regarding those who are the most intellectually smart, respectively, the types '' alpha and beta '', and the perceptual / existential outliers.
The mental capacity of the alpha and beta types, is mainly cognitive nature, that is manifested based on the potential for seizing / learning tasks that are designed to support the civilizations where they live.

The mental capacity of outliers / perceptual existential outsiders, is based primarily on critical-analytical thinking or perception, relating closely with the wisdom, or the basis for all kinds of cognition that characterize human mental diversity.

Perceptive / existential outliers/outsiders, because of their epigenetic nature, is very likely to inherit various biological defects, which together with high capacity critical and analytical thinking, will make them more disconnected from the collective trance and orchestrated that is the human matrix, anthropocentrism, which diversifies in various cultural expressions wherever the human animal is living.

The filter of the reality of this type is virtually nonexistent, making him prolific in his ability to perceive truisms or trample details that go unnoticed by the common people and are often identified as' creative insight ''. They see the reality, in fact, while much of the people, including alpha and beta types, the most cognitively intelligent, tend to see personalized versions (which will be in accordance with its bio-cognitive class or subgroup) of reality .


The alternative sense of reality which produces all types of mass behavior, or behavior induced by bio-cognitive similarities, will disconnected in more wandering minds in all its organic composition, precisely because of these mutations more than make them transcend rule and be able to see it in a privileged perspective. The relationship between genius, among others virtuosity and mental disorders is significant, especially when we are dealing with existential-perceptual genius, because it is a burden, a lot to see, understand a lot more than others. Moreover, the essential / fundamental existential doubt, that terrifies us all, because whe are naturally aware of it, will be made even more realistic for most intellectually prodigious minds, with the place / common product melancholy.

The righteous are realistic, individual (and not necessarily individualistic), honest and / or sincere


... And most of his insights are derived from the fact that they can see as well. In other words, most human evolutionary transgression is not to lock himself inside a bio-cultural bubble centric, but precisely to burst any '' alternative reality '' and begin by observing and living on site all the phenomenology that involve ourselves, and submitting ourselves to your whims.

We all have mental or thought and action that will be constant patterns. As I've talked superficially in earlier texts, the reactions may be largely instinctive, emotional '' or '' rational (usually, we are mostly reactive hybrid, but will tend to be usually unilateral responses / emphasized for one of three types) .

Sincerity and honesty are not exactly the same thing, because while the sincerity manifests itself without the need for an empathetic approach, honesty will be made irreducibly through thinking about the other, the shared instinct / reflected (or life guard's instinct yourself and the next) and sophisticated.

However, the sincere will be more likely to understand the reality of what the honest, or one that has a disposition / natural / behavioral gift for this kind of reaction. The wise among other virtuous tend to be both.


A '' simple '' perception of reality can make you more creative and wise, realize that the '' simple '' act of begin by impersonal truth however balanced / harmonic way, it consists of a differential that qualitatively separates the spectrum of virtuosity and other human exceptionalities from collective / common landscape, orchestrated, predictable, binary and adaptively psychotic, those who despise reality / truth or can not understand it.