First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Nature vs Nurture
2986 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / Soon to be SCAD
Offline
Posted 5/9/07
What determines our physical and behavorial traits? Is it our chemical makeup or our surroundings?

example: eyecolor=nature
language= nurture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_vs_nurture

In the case of Victor of Aveyron, a child is found in the woods, assumed to be raised by animals, and is completely well, wild. He was taken in by a scientist where he attempted to civilize him. On one occasion, Victor ran into the snow nude, completely unphased by temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wild_Boy_of_Aveyron

Mental retardation is another example. It can be a genetic trait, but through nurture one can become mentaly retarded. Such an example is Sensory Deprivation. There have been many cases reported such as one of a little girl tied to a training potty in a nursery for several years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensory_deprivation

If you want to use the example of homosexuality, please use this room
http://www.crunchyroll.com/showforumtopic?id=3101

So, what do you think plays a larger role, nature or nurture?
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/9/07
I don't think is an either/or situation. I doubt the current knowledge can determine which plays a larger role at the moment.
2986 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / Soon to be SCAD
Offline
Posted 5/9/07
It obviously isn't a yes or no answer. Seeing as it can't bee all nature, how would we have language? Nor can you say one has an overall greater effect due to the variety of differences among people. If you want to choose a specific and elaborate on that, or continue with the one that began in abortion thread, I would love to go into more detail.
46535 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 5/9/07
sorry I have seen so many yes/no threads that.....well you know

From: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/relativism/


......In recent decades the pendulum has swung sharply to the opposite (nature) pole. The pioneering linguist Noam Chomsky emphasized innate linguistic universals, which this led to a picture of deep commonality beneath surface differences in languages. And with the increasing popularity of nativist views in cognitive science, e.g., claims that the mind comes with a number of innate modules, talk of cognitive universals and pre-configured modules is now common. From this perspective, a rich cognitive architecture is “wired in,” so there is less scope for culture or language to influence how we experience or think about the things.

In the last few years, however, even some of cognitive science's founders (e.g., Bruner, 1992) have reacted against what they see as its overemphasis emphasis on information processing and its relative neglect of culture. Culture is now being worked back into the picture, and people are once again asking just how much influence it can have on cognition. Still, although the issues here are difficult and far from settled, a good deal of empirical work does suggest that the human mind comes pre-wired in interesting and important ways (e.g., with predispositions to learn certain kinds of languages, or to recognize human faces). So it may well turn out that at an abstract, but still interesting level, people do in fact think in much the same ways.

6212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / US
Offline
Posted 5/9/07

Eros wrote:

I don't know enough to comment in depth, but here is what the author of an article I read recently had to say:

"The unsurprising result was that genes matter. Since the 1970s, behavioural geneticists have measured many different human characteristics in many ways. They've looked at personality traits such as extroversion, conscientiousness and aggressiveness. They've looked at mental disorders, intelligence and aspects of people's life histories (such as careers). In virtually every case, the results were the same. About half the variation in the measured characteristic—the differences from one person to another—could be attributed to differences in their genes."

"But some children are more aggressive, or more impulsive, or more conscientious than others wherever they go. Researchers have found that when children display the same characteristics in a variety of settings, it is usually because of genetic influences."

read the whole article though: http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=9275


God I love to quote myself. *self hug*
29234 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / In a Quasar...O.o
Offline
Posted 10/18/07
I have been studying this in my psychology class and the nature/nurture issue is a controversial one. I do know that the traits that are bestowed upon us give us certain things like height, weight, physical characteristics...but the nurture part gives us our own self, how we perceive life and stuff...and wow I am reallllly tired so I am not going to write any more...>.<
12271 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / F / Anime world...
Offline
Posted 10/18/07
Nurture......coz you can nurture a person to be whatever you want it to be.
Nature is also important BUT I think nurture wins.
116 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Tiny Moon Clouds
Offline
Posted 10/18/07
Hmmm... pretty interesting.

I think most people would agree that nature gives us the ability to be nurtured. Interestingly enough, it might even be seen as an evolutionary survival trait to make up for the varying environments we could be born in. We adapt. But anyway, it seems to me that as we grow older we start losing our ability to be nurtured--to change--little by little. The mental retardation example, for example, says that the girl experienced sensory deprivation, and it reminds me of something that was mentioned in a National Geographic program. I don't remember the exact words but it was something along the lines of "the less you use it, the more you lose it." They explained it as like this: at birth we have a lot of neurons and nerve cells. However, the energy cost of keeping all of them is way too high, so only the ones that are used are kept. The example given was a case where a baby had cataracts and did not receive treatment until later in life, the, by then, child retained bad eyesight. So, going back to the sensory deprivation example, I think that because she was in a very static environment her ability to be nurtured was--I wouldn't say lost but diminished greatly. Of course, being nurtured and learning are probably different, but I would say that we need the ability to be nurtured to learn.

I also wanted to comment on the language remark.

mauz15 wrote:

The pioneering linguist Noam Chomsky emphasized innate linguistic universals...


Because I don't know how it was tested, I want to say that there is a possibility that it might still be nurture because the womb is an environment as well, and I've read or heard that babies can hear while inside the womb. It is possible that nurture begins before we are born. I wonder, however, what about deaf mute couples?

Anyway, I want to say that nurture plays a bigger role in human behavior. However, it is only true, to me anyway, because that is how we are "designed."
1181 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Los Angeles, Cali...
Offline
Posted 11/15/07
some things you inheret genetically
some things are influenced by environment
11733 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/20/09
~Outdated thread.
Kiki's Customer Support Service
Kiki 
100408 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Nova Scotia
Offline
Posted 8/20/09 , edited 8/20/09
I'm also going to leave this one alone. It has potential. We just need intelligent posts to continue on with the topic. Just because there are few replies, doesn't mean it's outdated.
Thanks for the report though :]
Posted 8/20/09
Better drag a few of the philosophers into this thread over from Extended.
Posted 8/20/09
I'll get this pig moving.

You mean Honey Comb's Bee-Boy?
:o
764 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
47 / M
Offline
Posted 8/21/09
There are studies that support both possibilities. Personally, I believe it is a combination of both. Sometimes a person's changes are genetic, while in other cases they may be due to circumstance -- and either can make such a change, whatever it may be.
4295 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Youtube!
Offline
Posted 8/25/09 , edited 8/25/09
Oh nuts. I have to write and essay on this due Tuesday.

In short I believe it is a mixture of both. :D
Some characteristics are genetic while some are quite obviously environmental. *looks up textbook for examples*

Oh yeah! There's a case study here where 14 juveniles were asked about their early childhood, all of these had psychopathic tendencies as they were unable to show any sympathy for their victims
12 (86%)said they were frequently separated from their mother before age 2
whereas only 2(14%) said they spent the normal amount of time bonding to their parents.

Whereas the 12 of them which were separated from their parents will have not been able to form bonds and learn to empathise as well in early life, the 2 who did had similar lifestyles to the control group.

I guess this shows bad parenting makes it more likely you'll be a juvenile offender and shows that people with similar lifestyles can still turn out differently.
Umm... I think? (Yes, I'm a forum idiot)
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.