"The nature versus nurture debate concerns the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature," i.e. nativism, or innatism) versus personal experiences ("nurture," i.e. empiricism or behaviorism) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits."
Do you think we are what we are or are we formed by our community and society? In other words are we born good/bad or does our environment and upbringing make us so?|||Quote:
"The nature versus nurture debate concerns the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ... versus personal experiences ... in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits."
There's your answer. Some things are mostly nature, some things are all nurture, some are a mix of the two. There is no debate on this. There is debate on how much influence each has on specific traits.|||Combo, but much, much more nature than people are willing to admit.|||Yep combo. And studies on twins who have been raised apart suggests that nature is a very strong determining factor.|||I'd be really interested to see what you guy's can provide to back up the nature angle. Maybe i'm naive, but I like to think we're a blank slate at birth and imprinted by our surroundings, and that governes how we relate to each other and what's right and wrong, sets our social perimeters. Gives some wriggle room for redemption. Nature sees like there's no choice.|||Quote:
Nature sees like there's no choice.
No, not no choice but more predisposed to. There's still wiggle room for most of our personality. I'll see what I can find about those studies I mentioned before later.|||Quote:
Nature sees like there's no choice.
Just because a thing is desirable doesn't mean it's true.|||Quote:
Just because a thing is desirable doesn't mean it's true.
It doesn't necessarily follow from nature that there's no such thing as free will.|||Do keep in mind that (1) some studies on twins raised apart were faked (e.g. Cyril Burt), so make sure your sources are clean, and (2) in psych at least the tech to split nature and nurture is not that good. I mean, I've seen studies where they were trying to argue one way or the other, and I was sitting there not being convinced. The results were suggestive at best.
To clarify, we're not able to really split nature & nurture in human studies. What we can do is split at younger and younger ages on some of those questions, or correlate results with gene similarity (approximated). It's a bit messy.
And so far it seems that many things are complex results of the two. Like, non-additive. For example, you might get a mental problem if you have the genes AND are exposed to the right environment, but if either lacks you're fine.|||I think it depends on the person, without a doubt. I am very much my own person and I pretty much always have been. I came from a pretty crappy environment, but I don't let me own me at all. At the same time, I'm wayyy different from my brothers.
No comments:
Post a Comment