Nature vs Nurture: Born to Succeed

[devildavid]

The question has been answered. And I also provided some data and factors answering whether, at least in part, the “Asian success” is nature or nurture. And my answer illuminated it had nothing to to do with being “Asian,” which makes your question of “What does their being Asian have to do with it?” inexplicable l, except for, someone as yourself, can’t grasp what I in fact did say.

In case you didn’t notice, Calamity, Mary P, NW Rat, are having a constructive dialogue on the very question of the OP and the answers as to whether it is nature, nurture, both, and the extent of the obstacles. You are the only person so far having difficulty grasping what I said, as you obfuscate by the silly statement I haven’t answered the question when it doesn’t take an Einstein to read my comments ans know I have.

No, the question still remains and will always be point of debate. There is no definitive answer to this. You didn't provide one and neither did I. I provided a general, but inconclusive opinion. There is a mix of nature and nurture. Genetic pre-disposition, in my opinion, weighs more heavily than nurture, but nurture plays a role in gene expression. Which I think is where this thread is focused on now. But what the limitations of nurture are is still an open question. Stating that one must have certain values, attitudes, and behaviors does not answer this question; it states what is obvious. What is not obvious is how one acquires theses values, attitudes, and behaviors. Is any of it innate? Or is it all learned? This is an age old debate that has not been settled to this day.

The dialogue, while fine and interesting, is not about the question at all. It is about what can or cannot be done to help people do better. So the focus is entirely on nurture, as if that is the only factor. Is it?

 

[NotreDame]

No, the question still remains and will always be point of debate. There is no definitive answer to this. You didn't provide one and neither did I. I provided a general, but inconclusive opinion. There is a mix of nature and nurture. Genetic pre-disposition, in my opinion, weighs more heavily than nurture, but nurture plays a role in gene expression. Which I think is where this thread is focused on now. But what the limitations of nurture are is still an open question. Stating that one must have certain values, attitudes, and behaviors does not answer this question; it states what is obvious. What is not obvious is how one acquires theses values, attitudes, and behaviors. Is any of it innate? Or is it all learned? This is an age old debate that has not been settled to this day.

The dialogue, while fine and interesting, is not about the question at all. It is about what can or cannot be done to help people do better. So the focus is entirely on nurture, as if that is the only factor. Is it?

I couldn’t care less about your rephrasing of the discussion as one of “definitive answer.” I wasn’t giving a “definitive answer”.

Stating that one must have certain values, attitudes, and behaviors does not answer this question

I didn’t say “must,” and that you have yet to grasp how a discussion of values, attitudes, and behaviors “answers this question” is the problem because they do provide a answer but not the answer.

What is not obvious is how one acquires theses values, attitudes, and behaviors.

They are capable of being taught and learned, and that does happen. Whether “nature” makes learning more or less conducive is a plausible idea. I wonder though how much “nature” plays a role in leaning values, behaviors, and attitudes since Asians as a group outperform generally all other groups academically.

 

[NWRatCon]

I may have drifted too far from the OP in my musings, but it touched on a passion of mine, and I was triggered.

I think nature-nurture matrix can best be represented by a venn diagram overlaying a bell curve representing success in life. I'm going to try to create one to illustrate my point, but I'm not at a computer where I can do so.

 

[devildavid]

I couldn’t care less about your rephrasing of the discussion as one of “definitive answer.” I wasn’t giving a “definitive answer”.



I didn’t say “must,” and that you have yet to grasp how a discussion of values, attitudes, and behaviors “answers this question” is the problem because they do provide a answer but not the answer.



They are capable of being taught and learned, and that does happen. Whether “nature” makes learning more or less conducive is a plausible idea. I wonder though how much “nature” plays a role in leaning values, behaviors, and attitudes since Asians as a group outperform generally all other groups academically.

You didn't give any answer but to succeed you need to have the right values and attitudes. But you gave no insight into how you acquire these values and what the impact of nature vs. nurture has on acquiring them. How do you determine that someone is capable of being taught and learned and to what extent and what impacts it? Why are some people better at things than others? Why do our brains all process things differently? And what does being Asian have to do with anything? Explain why you think that they do, instead of just saying that they do.

 

[NotreDame]

You didn't give any answer but to succeed you need to have the right values and attitudes. But you gave no insight into how you acquire these values and what the impact of nature vs. nurture has on acquiring them. How do you determine that someone is capable of being taught and learned and to what extent and what impacts it? Why are some people better at things than others? Why do our brains all process things differently? And what does being Asian have to do with anything? Explain why you think that they do, instead of just saying that they do.

You didn't give any answer but to succeed you need to have the right values and attitudes.

Nope. I didn’t say “right” values and attitudes. I specifically and intentionally avoided judgmental claims of “right” or “wrong.” This makes what, the fourth time you attempted to accurately characterize my argument and failed? Did I undercount?

It’s simple. I do not care for your preconceived notion of what I said and then impose your preconception onto my POV. Once is easy to ignore, but you’ve repeatedly misconstrued what I’ve said.

And it’s no wonder you can’t grasp that my replies have provided an answer. You have yet to demonstrate you’ve accurately understood my POV. Words matter, and the words I used to express my POV do not match the words you have used when repeating my POV.

And that you can’t grasp how and why “that” in the quote above does provide a answer to the question is your problem, just one of many.

And what does being Asian have to do with anything?

That sums up the height and extent of your inability to understand what I’ve said. Your question is pointless because I never said being “Asian” mattered.

 

[NotreDame]

I do think it's going to require kids brought up in better circumstances to raise their kids better, and that takes a long time. We're talking about generational changes. It takes consistency and long term planning, and I don't see our country ready to commit to that.

Very well stated.

Head Start is interesting. Studies show it 'levels the playing field' for children during those first critical years (K-3) when they are learning to read.

They do. My wife, 12 year teacher, is a firm believer in head start. But she tells me, while that narrows the gap, unless there’s reinforcement at home or in the child’s life to routinely read, write, and live by the practices in head start, the gap widens again afterward. So, she’s an advocate for identifying kids who perhaps are high risk of falling behind because of the lack of reinforcement at home (she says this can be determined, to an extent, by parent teacher conferences and/or phone contact with parents about the kids grades), and offering after school reading services, math services, etcetera. For this to work, however, she says money needs to be spent to provided transportation from school.

From about 3rd grade on, they perform about the same as children who didn't attend Head Start. However, a long term study shows Head Start graduates are more likely to finish high school and have a more positive attitude toward school.

The regression is in part a result of a lack of reinforcement in the home of what transpired in head start. But I agree, head start should be expanded and widely available.

But ( you knew a but was coming) education is only one factor, and it can't win alone. Somehow, the rest of their lives, the part when they aren't in school, needs to be at least basically stable.

I agree. Although I will say good grades can be a ticket to get out of instability but instability, of certain kinds, can derail getting good grades.
I’d also say who they hang out with when out of school matters, and in general, how the fill their free time. School related activities seem to reduce the risk of juvenile delinquency.

Did you know low income housing won't allow anyone with a felony drug conviction in their past to live there?

Yes, I do, because as an assistant district attorney some defendants desperately seek to avoid a felony conviction because they reside in reduced rent or rent free apartments/housing. The kind of felony matters. Some felonies are not disqualifiers, and this varies by state.

Do you know how many poor people go to prison for drugs?

Yes, I have an informed idea based on my experience. I file all the felony drug offenses for our jurisdiction.

 

[MaryP]

So, she’s an advocate for identifying kids who perhaps are high risk of falling behind because of the lack of reinforcement at home (she says this can be determined, to an extent, by parent teacher conferences and/or phone contact with parents about the kids grades), and offering after school reading services, math services, etcetera. For this to work, however, she says money needs to be spent to provided transportation from school.

For awhile here, Head Start teachers were required to do parent/teacher conferences in the home at least once a year. I don't know if they still do, this was at least ten years ago. I was working CPS at the time and I wondered, knowing our shared client base, how safe it was for them. And I don't know what happened if a teacher didn't like what she saw; maybe they had a pipeline to other family services apart from the state.

Engaging parents in the effort is critical, yes. When I signed on to CPS, I thought I'd be working with kids, but 90% of my work was with parents. I suppose that makes sense when you think about it.

 

[MaryP]

So the focus is entirely on nurture, as if that is the only factor. Is it?

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm focusing on the environment, the nurture part, because I have no control over genes, the nature part of it. If nature is a predominant factor, how does that shape your understanding of this problem? What can you do to modify inherited genes?

 

[NWRatCon]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm focusing on the environment, the nurture part, because I have no control over genes, the nature part of it. If nature is a predominant factor, how does that shape your understanding of this problem? What can you do to modify inherited genes?

That is where this inevitably leads, unless we want to drift into eugenics.

 

[MaryP]

That is where this inevitably leads, unless we want to drift into eugenics.

Or just give up on the genetically inferior.

 

[devildavid]

Nope. I didn’t say “right” values and attitudes. I specifically and intentionally avoided judgmental claims of “right” or “wrong.” This makes what, the fourth time you attempted to accurately characterize my argument and failed? Did I undercount?

It’s simple. I do not care for your preconceived notion of what I said and then impose your preconception onto my POV. Once is easy to ignore, but you’ve repeatedly misconstrued what I’ve said.

And it’s no wonder you can’t grasp that my replies have provided an answer. You have yet to demonstrate you’ve accurately understood my POV. Words matter, and the words I used to express my POV do not match the words you have used when repeating my POV.

And that you can’t grasp how and why “that” in the quote above does provide a answer to the question is your problem, just one of many.



That sums up the height and extent of your inability to understand what I’ve said. Your question is pointless because I never said being “Asian” mattered.

By right values I mean values that inevitably lead to success; nothing to do with right or wrong nor did I even imply it. If Asian does not matter why do you use it as an example? Why not just say Australians?

 

[calamity]

By right values I mean values that inevitably lead to success; nothing to do with right or wrong nor did I even imply it. If Asian does not matter why do you use it as an example? Why not just say Australians?

"Asians" is fine. It's a big continent...lol

 

[devildavid]

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm focusing on the environment, the nurture part, because I have no control over genes, the nature part of it. If nature is a predominant factor, how does that shape your understanding of this problem? What can you do to modify inherited genes?

It is not about doing anything about it, but recognizing its impact when deciding how to help someone succeed. Would you agree that not everyone is equally capable of being a brain surgeon and that the reason is not just due to nurture? You have to work with what is there and temper expectations accordingly. There is a good reason that I did not pursue a career which requires advanced mathematical ability, for example. And it wasn't because of bad upbringing or environment. My abilities in math are there to some extent, but are limited in the upper end. I don't see this as giving up or judging myself too harshly or being too lazy, but just a fact of how my brain works. i am not suggesting pre-judging abilities based on shallow things, but on realistically assessing each individual's abilities and work to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses incoming up with a path to success. I would would attribute these abilities largely to genetic factors.

 

[devildavid]

"Asians" is fine. It's a big continent...lol

Asians is fine how? Saying they are more successful because of what?

 

[devildavid]

Or just give up on the genetically inferior.

There is no genetic inferiority, but there are genetic factors that impact choosing the best path to success.

 

[MaryP]

It is not about doing anything about it, but recognizing its impact when deciding how to help someone succeed. Would you agree that not everyone is equally capable of being a brain surgeon and that the reason is not just due to nurture? You have to work with what is there and temper expectations accordingly. There is a good reason that I did not pursue a career which requires advanced mathematical ability, for example. And it wasn't because of bad upbringing or environment. My abilities in math are there to some extent, but are limited in the upper end. I don't see this as giving up or judging myself too harshly or being too lazy, but just a fact of how my brain works. i am not suggesting pre-judging abilities based on shallow things, but on realistically assessing each individual's abilities and work to maximize their strengths and minimize their weaknesses incoming up with a path to success. I would would attribute these abilities largely to genetic factors.

I get it. You're zeroing in on individuals. The rest of us are speaking more generally of issues relevant to many poor people, regardless of their personal strengths and weaknesses.

I have often railed at the current push to send all students to college; a lot of people aren't equipped for it. It's a well meaning push, meant to help, but it might be better to figure out a way that folks without high IQ's or tolerance for academics can lead a modestly successful life with dignity without a college degree or advanced technical training. That's all a lot of people want. They know they're not rocket scientists; they want a job within their capabilities they can do well and be proud of. Their contributions--as the guy who mops the floors or mows our lawn, or the gal who does Gramp's shopping or checks us out at Rite Aid--are valuable too and they deserve to be able to put a roof over their heads and have a kid or two, like everyone else, without being afraid of eviction or hunger.

Of course, if a person has the ability to be an engineer, a lawyer, a master electrician, a writer, they should have that opportunity and every child should be supported in living up to their potential. Give them their best shot, but don't call them failures for not becoming a middle class professional either if that's not who they are.

You speak like a teacher. I was one for a number of years and loved it. Are you?

 

[calamity]

Asians is fine how? Saying they are more successful because of what?

In reality they are not. Asia is a huge continent. I can rattle off a dozen ethnicities there that are not doing well at all. However, when the term is used here, we all know the people speaking are referring to successful Asians from India, China, Japan and Taiwan, mostly.

BTW: There are also quite a few sharp cookies in a place called Israel. And, lets not forget Iran and Pakistan. Quite a few holders of high tech patents are expats from there.

 

[devildavid]

I get it. You're zeroing in on individuals. The rest of us are speaking more generally of issues relevant to many poor people, regardless of their personal strengths and weaknesses.

I have often railed at the current push to send all students to college; a lot of people aren't equipped for it. It's a well meaning push, meant to help, but it might be better to figure out a way that folks without high IQ's or tolerance for academics can lead a modestly successful life with dignity without a college degree or advanced technical training. That's all a lot of people want. They know they're not rocket scientists; they want a job within their capabilities they can do well and be proud of. Their contributions--as the guy who mops the floors or mows our lawn, or the gal who does Gramp's shopping or checks us out at Rite Aid--are valuable too and they deserve to be able to put a roof over their heads and have a kid or two, like everyone else, without being afraid of eviction or hunger.

Of course, if a person has the ability to be an engineer, a lawyer, a master electrician, a writer, they should have that opportunity and every child should be supported in living up to their potential. Give them their best shot, but don't call them failures for not becoming a middle class professional either if that's not who they are.

You speak like a teacher. I was one for a number of years and loved it. Are you?

No, not teacher, just a student of human behavior. I sure agree with the case you make for providing opportunity. My father, who said he was not a great student, got to attend college on the GI Bill. And this is how he climbed out of the poverty that he grew up in. But he also had a stable and loving home. So what you have been suggesting I am in total agreement with. There are those who think that individual's can just do it on their own, but that is because they ignore what happens in reality. Everyone needs help to make it.

 

[calamity]

Does anyone doubt that Salmon Rushdie is one smart mofo? Well, he’s from Pakistan, not a place one usually associates with learned men.

Point being, geographical generalizations can often be misleading. Another example is Myanmar. There are a lot of extremely smart people there, but the place itself is a ****ed up mess. However, if we planted a random 1000 people from that country in NYC, i bet well over 900 succeed.

 

[phoenix2020]

You didn't give any answer but to succeed you need to have the right values and attitudes. But you gave no insight into how you acquire these values and what the impact of nature vs. nurture has on acquiring them. How do you determine that someone is capable of being taught and learned and to what extent and what impacts it? Why are some people better at things than others? Why do our brains all process things differently? And what does being Asian have to do with anything? Explain why you think that they do, instead of just saying that they do.

I can provide some insight into this, being part of the demographic in question. I do not think it is a matter of nature; I’ve spent enough time in parts of Asia to realize that. Rather, many of the Asian households built in the US in the latter half of the 20th century were comprised of ambitious and idealistic risk takers - think of the pride, courage and tenacity it takes to uproot everything about your world, in your 20s, and travel to a completely unfamiliar land in pursuit of a dream—and in particular the pride such that you will not return home having failed, no matter what. People who do that, regardless of their nature, will do well because society tends to reward the risk takers and the tenacious the most. Those who grew up in such households, as I did, double-benefited from both the good example as well as, in many cases, the increasing affluence and mobility that came with it.

Of course it doesn’t hurt that many Asian immigrants came from “compete to survive” societies to an “everyone should enjoy a minimum standard” one with their competitive drive intact. That gives them an inherent leg up, apple for apple. For example, my siblings and I missed out on every summer vacation through adulthood because of summer school thanks to a strong “survival of the fittest” household mentality that was shared by most other immigrant households I knew growing up e.g. friends. Education came first because the educational systems in many parts of Asia utilize standardized assessments with regional and national level student ranking (think less ”valedictorian or honors student” and more “best student in Texas or top 1% in the US”) which makes the competitive nature of education explicitly overt. I have to admit that I hated it at the time, of course, but in adulthood I’ve come to recognize the value and begun propagating my own version of it to the next generation.

 

[NWRatCon]

...many of the Asian households built in the US in the latter half of the 20th century were comprised of ambitious and idealistic risk takers - think of the pride, courage and tenacity it takes to uproot everything about your world, in your 20s, and travel to a completely unfamiliar land in pursuit of a dream—and in particular the pride such that you will not return home having failed, no matter what. People who do that, regardless of their nature, will do well because society tends to reward the risk takers and the tenacious the most. .....

What you are describing actually applies to most of the immigrants to this land, as well as our pioneer forebears. It's an ethic that can be passed on and will have an impact for generations. Think of the millions of small businesses, and even industries, that were established by immigrants establishing their foothold here - restaurants, dry cleaners, nail salons, barbershops, landscapers, artisans of a great variety - that filled the needs of the greater society and provided resources to their families and neighborhoods. These were people who self selected for ambition.

My forebears were restless people who were constantly on the move to better themselves and establish a good life for their families. Nearly every generation moved to new lands in that search for a better life and my genealogy demonstrates it. In addition to having immigrants in nearly every generation, they were literally moving to the new frontier wherever it was established. At the same time, their purpose was succeed wherever they arrived. To a certain extent, I think that amalgamated nature and nurture, because the clan is made up of strivers.

Now, imagine they are planted where that ambition is stifled generation after generation. Where poverty holds them to a place, and laws or society prevent them from going where they need to go to thrive. That's the counterpoint of our national history: the Exclusion Acts and actions, the redlining, reservations, neighborhood covenants, immigration laws, and downright hostility to success (think the red summer and Tulsa, 1921). Nature can be strangled, too.

 

[NotreDame]

By right values I mean values that inevitably lead to success; nothing to do with right or wrong nor did I even imply it. If Asian does not matter why do you use it as an example? Why not just say Australians?

Well, have fun debating that with yourself because I didn’t, have not, and will not take the view there are values that “inevitably lead to success.”

And the answer to your questions is in my posts. I even included link that illuminates why.

 

[devildavid]

Well, have fun debating that with yourself because I didn’t, have not, and will not take the view there are values that “inevitably lead to success.”

And the answer to your questions is in my posts. I even included link that illuminates why.

So then why did you bring up values that lead to success?

 

[BabyAugustine]

Some want to say it's genetics. Others insist it's environment. Either way, one thing seems self-evident. We are either born to succeed or enter the world staring at likely failure.

Few would argue against the notion that being born into a stable environment yields better results than starting out in chaos. But, there is also a flipside. Few would argue that a person with exceptional intelligence cannot crawl out of chaos. And, someone with severe mental challenges is unlikely to do well regardless of the stability of his/her environment.

Everything hinges on the circumstance of our birth. Everything.

Thoughts?

PURE BULLSHIT

The Mirage of a Space between Nature and Nurture​

by Evelyn Fox Keller

" Her book is so clearly written that laypeople, too, could use her arguments as powerful tools to assess and reject ubiquitous assertions about the power of genetic determinism.”"