Nature or nurture?

[York_Curmudgeon]

This has been an argument that has gone for ages, or at least, it seems like it. A few days ago, I checked out Blank Slate by Steven Pinker from my local library. Pinker argues that while we both nature and nurture influences our development, the pendulum leans closer to nature, than to nurture. Pinker points out studies regarding twins, as well as findings regarding a person developing two "selves" if the corpus collussum is cut.:shock:

So, which is the greatest influence on human behavior?:fueltofir

 

[nerv14]

I can't believe I am responding to this but I really like the Obama option. when i was reading the choices down the list, so worked Obama so worked being in the list.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

This has been an argument that has gone for ages, or at least, it seems like it. A few days ago, I checked out Blank Slate by Steven Pinker from my local library. Pinker argues that while we both nature and nurture influences our development, the pendulum leans closer to nature, than to nurture. Pinker points out studies regarding twins, as well as findings regarding a person developing two "selves" if the corpus collussum is cut.:shock:

So, which is the greatest influence on human behavior?:fueltofir

Everything starts from nature, which is really evolutionary psychological development.

To see a prime example, look at the effects of bringing civilization to people with archaic cultures. It completely destroys them.

Its a subject that has a lot of minor effects that add up to the whole of a person.

Most (not all) of everything we do is directly influenced from nature.

 

[nerv14]

Everything starts from nature, which is really evolutionary psychological development.

To see a prime example, look at the effects of bringing civilization to people with archaic cultures. It completely destroys them.

Its a subject that has a lot of minor effects that add up to the whole of a person.

Your example just relates to how if people are "nurtured" with a primitive culture, then anything else will destroy them.

I don't believe you are saying that those people inherently have genetic traits that makes them incompatable with modern society.

All people have very simillar genes, people's enviornments therefore influence most things.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Your example just relates to how if people are "nurtured" with a primitive culture, then anything else will destroy them.

I don't believe you are saying that those people inherently have genetic traits that makes them incompatable with modern society.

All people have very simillar genes, people's enviornments therefore influence most things.

It genetically inherited responses to stimuli.

Everyone has them, I guess my example was ****ty but I think it shows the extreme of what is nature. That only develops from reactions from environmental changes and/or general situations.

I guess I should of slowed down a bit to explain it more. Sometimes nature and nurture are the same thing.

I thought the OP was talking about nurture from a standpoint of humans changing other humans behavior.

 

[nerv14]

It genetically inherited responses to stimuli.

Everyone has them, I guess my example was ****ty but I think it shows the extreme of what is nature. That only develops from reactions from environmental changes and/or general situations.

I guess I should of slowed down a bit to explain it more. Sometimes nature and nurture are the same thing.

I thought the OP was talking about nurture from a standpoint of humans changing other humans behavior.

Yeah, because people can only be nurtured to deal with their enviornment.

I was just taking the "nature" as not being literal "nature" but being genetics.

 

[tlmorg02]

Our genetics predispose us to respond to stimuli a certian way, however how we are nutured or raised will determine how we control or even change these behaviors. Genetics only gives humans the basic animal programming, but nuture cultivates the sophistication to direct and control those instincts and motivations.

 

[Oftencold]

This has been an argument that has gone for ages, or at least, it seems like it. A few days ago, I checked out Blank Slate by Steven Pinker from my local library. Pinker argues that while we both nature and nurture influences our development, the pendulum leans closer to nature, than to nurture. Pinker points out studies regarding twins, as well as findings regarding a person developing two "selves" if the corpus collussum is cut.:shock:

So, which is the greatest influence on human behavior?:fueltofir

Be very leery of "twin studies." My understanding is that such studies often do not limit themselves to identical twins.

Also, question the numbers. How many twins are there born and separated every year. I would be that the number of identical twins available for such studies are so small as to be invalid for drawing broad conclusions.

 

[York_Curmudgeon]

Our genetics predispose us to respond to stimuli a certian way, however how we are nutured or raised will determine how we control or even change these behaviors. Genetics only gives humans the basic animal programming, but nuture cultivates the sophistication to direct and control those instincts and motivations.

Your comment is what Pinker hints at in his book. He takes on the "nurture only" school of thought by pointing out what we already know about innate tools that humans have from birth. We are not truly blank slates, but rather, we have innate systems that allow us to do many things. Noam Chomsky's universal grammar is a big part of this as no matter what language you have, there is a pattern and routine to language development and structure.

 

[tlmorg02]

Your comment is what Pinker hints at in his book. He takes on the "nurture only" school of thought by pointing out what we already know about innate tools that humans have from birth. We are not truly blank slates, but rather, we have innate systems that allow us to do many things. Noam Chomsky's universal grammar is a big part of this as no matter what language you have, there is a pattern and routine to language development and structure.

Right on. You mention Chomsky and you are my friend for sure!

 

[Real Talk]

its a never ending feed back loop.
but compare how differant people are in differant spaces and times to see that differances in nurture produce more observable outcomes than the differances in nature that exist.
In saying this, nurture is constantly influenced by nature, and without a biological basis, we would not be human at all. THeir could be no nurture.

In short:

Nature is what makes us human
Nurture is what contributes the msot to the differances in eprsonalities and behaviours between humans.

And they both influence eachother (yes, nurture impacts "nature")

 

[UtahBill]

The natural man needs nurture to make a better person out of him. If it was all natural, and we were not nurtured my parents, teachers, other mature persons who see to it that we learn, we might still be savages living in caves.
So I say nurture more so than nature....with women being better at it than men....
Men are typically too competitive to be good at nurture.

 

[Voidwar]

Nature has more impact than nurture, because guess who nurtures you 95% of the time, the same people you got your nature from. Their nature, is acting on both them and you during development.

 

[American]

Obama has had more affect on me than anything in my whole life. :mrgreen:

 

[UtahBill]

Obama has had more affect on me than anything in my whole life. :mrgreen:

you are in love with the guy, right? :lol:

 

[Voidwar]

Not that there's anything wrong with that. People's personal political preferences are nobody's business but their own.