First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
There's No Nature VS Nurture
Posted 11/24/09
Conflict of interest, that's what we'll get when individuals disagreeing one another. However, I think the conflicting situation itself is more often an oxymoron instead of a paradox. Because how can individual existences be disapproving one another? When they all wanted the same thing for themselves in the end. In fact, wouldn't that ultimately means that they all came from the same source? And they each took a different path in order for themselves to get there on their own.

For example, it's a popular belief that the human nature and human nurture are at odds with one another. When human nature based on impulses and instincts, is constantly being undermined by logic and disciplines institutionalized by human nurture. And the reverse of this situation is also thought to be true, when human nurture is constantly being undermined by human nature. This introspective view of ourselves creates an endless conflict within our individual inner selves, and it's often believed that one must choose to side with either one of our human nature or human nurture. Unless we're willing to risk constantly self-contradicting ourselves, and thus will result in us not getting anything done. As a matter of fact, the individual personal conflict of nature versus nurture can exist outside of our inner selves. When it simply transforms into real world conflicts, simply by becoming our different individual personalities.

However, I think that self-conflicting situation is wrong. Because ultimately there is no nature versus nurture, when there's only the very nurturing nature of humanity being humane. I say this is in fact self-evident when all the aspects of human nature are natural designs to nurture humanitarianism. While all human individual phenotypes can be seen as the evolutionary process of strengthening humanity with different individual personalities. Each comes with its own unique combination of character strengths and virtues, which is different from one individual to another. This is true for we all live in our own separate and different lives, thus we each form and mature into our own individual personality, by each of us basing our own original thoughts and feelings reflected upon our own unique experience of growing up with other individuals.

Therefore, I think any attempt that we make at completely eliminating individual differences for the sake of unity, is thereby utterly deconstructive on humanitarianism and humanity as a whole. There should be no such thing as collective versus individual, or minority versus majority. When there's only individuals living in interdependency.
Posted 11/24/09
i guess all i can say is that not everyone acts on the impulses or feelings to do something, it goes back to a matter of will power to control those impulses and feelings but sadly most people don't have a good impulse control in this day and time.
Posted 11/24/09

CecilTheDarkKnight_234 wrote:

i guess all i can say is that not everyone acts on the impulses or feelings to do something, it goes back to a matter of will power to control those impulses and feelings but sadly most people don't have a good impulse control in this day and time.

That's once again nature versus nurture, by pining impulse against impulse control. However, that's nothing a little deep thinking can't solve.

The true mastery of control is direction and flow, therefore while your impulsiveness is but a flow, your deep thinking should provide you the direction. Thus yourself as a whole can form a common interest, by you knowingly accept what you want the most for yourself. That only leaves us but one thing; where does the direction which our deep thinking leads beyond individual strength or collective weakness. Thus one individual's original thoughts and feelings will create a respond from other individuals accordingly.

"For there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." -Ophelia Benson-

"Be the change you want to see in the world." -Mahatma Gandhi-

"Don't think. FEEL. It is like a finger pointing away to the moon. Do not concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory." -Bruce Lee-

"Age and knowledge alone cannot make a person to mature and develop a personality. When true wisdom based on original thoughts and feelings, is gained from real personal experiences." -yours truly-
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
116
Offline
Posted 11/24/09


Because ultimately there is no nature versus nurture, when there's only the very nurturing nature of humanity being humane.

Oh, I see......
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 11/24/09
So how do you explain feral humans? If our behaviors that we consider to be a result of nurturing, like social skills, are naturally a part of us, then why are people who live completely isolated from humans unable to effectively interact with humans until they are taught, or nurtured, to do so?
Posted 11/24/09
Some people nurture by nature and others nurture their nature, I think. Our nature and what we chose to nurture do conflict at times, but not always. I see kind people who are prone to help others out and want so little for themselves and others that seemingly consume without thought for the well-being of the people they effect. There are also plenty of people that go about doing things at their whim based on a gut feeling dictating whether they should nurture or follow their basic nature often resulting in near equal proportions of both nature and nurturing. The possibilities are seemingly infinite. We sometimes see a person who goes throughout their entire life on impulse, but for one shining moment, they do something really thoughtful close to their end. The structure of the human mind can be highly complicated and we often struggle to make decisions at all, especially beneficiary ones. If the beast inside rules out in society, you will most likely fall victim to your own actions. If you are very nurturing in the wild, you will most likely become a food source for something else.

Under certain conditions, and if reacted to correctly, we are either a beast or a conscientious being based on necessity. Basic nature is good for some things, reasoning is good for others. Therefore, I view mankind as being a conscientious beast of differing ratios from person to person.
Posted 11/24/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:

So how do you explain feral humans? If our behaviors that we consider to be a result of nurturing, like social skills, are naturally a part of us, then why are people who live completely isolated from humans unable to effectively interact with humans until they are taught, or nurtured, to do so?

Good question. In the case of a feral child, I think it's the lack of outside stimulants such as other individual human phenotypes. That's causing the child unable to develop any humanity.

There's no doubt that a child can learn, when the human brain while still developing a personality at an young age, can still learn to read and write. While although vocal communication is relatively more natural and easy than written communication even for us humans, you can't deny the fact that children with learning disabilities have a limited vocabulary when it comes to expressing their own feelings(citation). Ultimately, this shows us that even with handicaps such as inexperience and learning disabilities, humans are naturally designed to be nurtured. Just the same as most mammals with a limbic system in their brain structure. When the limbic system is responsible for animals to develop their nurturing instinct based on emotions(citation).

When people thought about human nurturing, they often thought about social and cultural phenotypes such as a society and an institution. Where skills and knowledge are exchanged and taught. However, I want to address that the foundation of human nurturing is not a collective effort. But rather it is an emotional as well as individual experience. That human emotion is the key when it comes to the human nurturing process of humanity.
Posted 11/25/09

NovembersDoom wrote:

Some people nurture by nature and others nurture their nature, I think. Our nature and what we chose to nurture do conflict at times, but not always. I see kind people who are prone to help others out and want so little for themselves and others that seemingly consume without thought for the well-being of the people they effect. There are also plenty of people that go about doing things at their whim based on a gut feeling dictating whether they should nurture or follow their basic nature often resulting in near equal proportions of both nature and nurturing. The possibilities are seemingly infinite. We sometimes see a person who goes throughout their entire life on impulse, but for one shining moment, they do something really thoughtful close to their end. The structure of the human mind can be highly complicated and we often struggle to make decisions at all, especially beneficiary ones. If the beast inside rules out in society, you will most likely fall victim to your own actions. If you are very nurturing in the wild, you will most likely become a food source for something else.

Under certain conditions, and if reacted to correctly, we are either a beast or a conscientious being based on necessity. Basic nature is good for some things, reasoning is good for others. Therefore, I view mankind as being a conscientious beast of differing ratios from person to person.

Which I think that regardless of how we ended up doing what we did according to our individual thinking based on our nature or nurture, the end result of our actions would manifest themselves beyond either individual strength or collective weakness. And the manifestation of our actions will end up forming our own unique human phenotypes, aka our own individual personalities based on human strengths and weaknesses.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 11/25/09

DomFortress wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:

So how do you explain feral humans? If our behaviors that we consider to be a result of nurturing, like social skills, are naturally a part of us, then why are people who live completely isolated from humans unable to effectively interact with humans until they are taught, or nurtured, to do so?

Good question. In the case of a feral child, I think it's the lack of outside stimulants such as other individual human phenotypes. That's causing the child unable to develop any humanity.

There's no doubt that a child can learn, when the human brain while still developing a personality at an young age, can still learn to read and write. While although vocal communication is relatively more natural and easy than written communication even for us humans, you can't deny the fact that children with learning disabilities have a limited vocabulary when it comes to expressing their own feelings(citation). Ultimately, this shows us that even with handicaps such as inexperience and learning disabilities, humans are naturally designed to be nurtured. Just the same as most mammals with a limbic system in their brain structure. When the limbic system is responsible for animals to develop their nurturing instinct based on emotions(citation).

When people thought about human nurturing, they often thought about social and cultural phenotypes such as a society and an institution. Where skills and knowledge are exchanged and taught. However, I want to address that the foundation of human nurturing is not a collective effort. But rather it is an emotional as well as individual experience. That human emotion is the key when it comes to the human nurturing process of humanity.


That didn't really answer the question, but maybe I never understood the point you were trying to make. I thought your basic idea was that "there is no nature vs nurture because all of our behaviors that we believe to be a result of nurturing are inherent instincts and therefore natural." If that is your stance, then by that reasoning a 30 year-old person who has been completely isolated from humanity all of their life should be able to function in society just as well as a 30 year-old who has lived among humans all of their lives, since things like getting a job, knowing how to approach people, wearing clothes in public, etc are all natural instincts, which is obviously not true.

But if that's not your point, then everything I've said so far doesn't matter.
Posted 11/25/09

DomFortress wrote:


NovembersDoom wrote:

Some people nurture by nature and others nurture their nature, I think. Our nature and what we chose to nurture do conflict at times, but not always. I see kind people who are prone to help others out and want so little for themselves and others that seemingly consume without thought for the well-being of the people they effect. There are also plenty of people that go about doing things at their whim based on a gut feeling dictating whether they should nurture or follow their basic nature often resulting in near equal proportions of both nature and nurturing. The possibilities are seemingly infinite. We sometimes see a person who goes throughout their entire life on impulse, but for one shining moment, they do something really thoughtful close to their end. The structure of the human mind can be highly complicated and we often struggle to make decisions at all, especially beneficiary ones. If the beast inside rules out in society, you will most likely fall victim to your own actions. If you are very nurturing in the wild, you will most likely become a food source for something else.

Under certain conditions, and if reacted to correctly, we are either a beast or a conscientious being based on necessity. Basic nature is good for some things, reasoning is good for others. Therefore, I view mankind as being a conscientious beast of differing ratios from person to person.

Which I think that regardless of how we ended up doing what we did according to our individual thinking based on our nature or nurture, the end result of our actions would manifest themselves beyond either individual strength or collective weakness. And the manifestation of our actions will end up forming our own unique human phenotypes, aka our own individual personalities based on human strengths and weaknesses.


We all walk a fine line between progression and regression of our personal qualities. So easily can we slip when the right answer to a matter requiring a particular resolution eludes us. The beast does by force or cunning achieve its end and the thinking man does by ingenious method the same. A weakness to me is like a foundation to build upon when you recognize that it is and a strength is a structure which can always be improved. Man dominated the world having mostly overcome the beast within, saving primal energy for drastic situations where rational thinking has little business.

Nature and nurture are two elements like others it seems we possess. Say if a person manifests destrudo, what does he become but a being of utter chaos and hopelessness? Or on the other hand, a person who manifests libido and knows at that time only a creative impulse, what is he aside from being engrossed in the ecstasy found in that lapse of lost consciousness? They are both certainly much akin to nature, nurture most definitely. We nurture what we set in motion based on our individual nature. To allow things to move so far in one direction to a pinnacle of positive or negative reflects on who we are. If one desires to nurture destruction even if he/she knows that it is leading to nothing beneficiary, he/she will continue to do so. The desire to create is powerful, though occasionally, you might find yourself creating what destroys, putting a damper on your effort's good repute. Nurturing is a double-edged sword since not all utilize it correctly. Nature is instinct automatically causing us to handle matters based on what has been passed down.

I can see nature as a pedestal that holds nurture. Our nature decides what we nurture, creating or destroying, perhaps both. Nurture from one person effects the nature of another reflecting that influential nurturing from so many generations before. If parents are cruel or kind to their children, their nature will show through their nurture. A wound is healed by a special touch and a weapon creates new wounds. Which of these two will be chosen by a person's nature? Either. By their nurture? Nature decides that in many cases. Creation and destruction are done by both nature and nurture. One comes before the other and both happen on a parallel.
Posted 11/26/09 , edited 11/26/09

Cuddlebuns wrote:



That didn't really answer the question, but maybe I never understood the point you were trying to make. I thought your basic idea was that "there is no nature vs nurture because all of our behaviors that we believe to be a result of nurturing are inherent instincts and therefore natural." If that is your stance, then by that reasoning a 30 year-old person who has been completely isolated from humanity all of their life should be able to function in society just as well as a 30 year-old who has lived among humans all of their lives, since things like getting a job, knowing how to approach people, wearing clothes in public, etc are all natural instincts, which is obviously not true.

But if that's not your point, then everything I've said so far doesn't matter.

I don't think being civilized constitute as natural human behaviors. When they are the results of our civilization, or as I would call it "domestication" of mankind. We're not born into this world with material wealth or power to rule, that's why we see there are those in higher position of us who took those for granted. Which is also why we've got postmodernists with their disapproval on civility, when human knowledge based on written languages gave birth to civilization.

What I do think is that the act to nurture itself is a part of our human nature, when our brains were naturally designed to carry out emotions; a key part of our nurturing. Just like reading and writing are skills that need to be taught and nourished. But here's the catch, those who have fun reading and writing will eventually teach themselves the skills, while they will practice to master the skills for the sense of accomplishment that they'll feel later on. Now just replace those basic skills with school subjects and activities, and our children should be able to educate themselves with us just showing them how fun these things are.

This only leave us the negative emotions when we encounter setbacks, and how we can learn from those situations. So that we can turn those experiences into valuable lessons that will make us strong(citation).


NovembersDoom wrote:



We all walk a fine line between progression and regression of our personal qualities. So easily can we slip when the right answer to a matter requiring a particular resolution eludes us. The beast does by force or cunning achieve its end and the thinking man does by ingenious method the same. A weakness to me is like a foundation to build upon when you recognize that it is and a strength is a structure which can always be improved. Man dominated the world having mostly overcome the beast within, saving primal energy for drastic situations where rational thinking has little business.

Nature and nurture are two elements like others it seems we possess. Say if a person manifests destrudo, what does he become but a being of utter chaos and hopelessness? Or on the other hand, a person who manifests libido and knows at that time only a creative impulse, what is he aside from being engrossed in the ecstasy found in that lapse of lost consciousness? They are both certainly much akin to nature, nurture most definitely. We nurture what we set in motion based on our individual nature. To allow things to move so far in one direction to a pinnacle of positive or negative reflects on who we are. If one desires to nurture destruction even if he/she knows that it is leading to nothing beneficiary, he/she will continue to do so. The desire to create is powerful, though occasionally, you might find yourself creating what destroys, putting a damper on your effort's good repute. Nurturing is a double-edged sword since not all utilize it correctly. Nature is instinct automatically causing us to handle matters based on what has been passed down.

I can see nature as a pedestal that holds nurture. Our nature decides what we nurture, creating or destroying, perhaps both. Nurture from one person effects the nature of another reflecting that influential nurturing from so many generations before. If parents are cruel or kind to their children, their nature will show through their nurture. A wound is healed by a special touch and a weapon creates new wounds. Which of these two will be chosen by a person's nature? Either. By their nurture? Nature decides that in many cases. Creation and destruction are done by both nature and nurture. One comes before the other and both happen on a parallel.

Mistakes and setbacks are rooms for improvements, I like that.

Hence I think we now come to an end time that we must choose just what pro-life choices which we must keep from being ruined by our old habits. So that we can advance into the next stage of evolutionary civilization as according to Literary Darwinism. Before we kill our future by us continuously wounding it, without any real effort from us at healing itself.
Posted 11/26/09 , edited 11/26/09

DomFortress wrote:


Cuddlebuns wrote:



That didn't really answer the question, but maybe I never understood the point you were trying to make. I thought your basic idea was that "there is no nature vs nurture because all of our behaviors that we believe to be a result of nurturing are inherent instincts and therefore natural." If that is your stance, then by that reasoning a 30 year-old person who has been completely isolated from humanity all of their life should be able to function in society just as well as a 30 year-old who has lived among humans all of their lives, since things like getting a job, knowing how to approach people, wearing clothes in public, etc are all natural instincts, which is obviously not true.

But if that's not your point, then everything I've said so far doesn't matter.

I don't think being civilized constitute as natural human behaviors. When they are the results of our civilization, or as I would call it "domestication" of mankind. We're not born into this world with material wealth or power to rule, that's why we see there are those in higher position of us who took those for granted. Which is also why we've got postmodernists with their disapproval on civility, when human knowledge based on written languages gave birth to civilization.

What I do think is that the act to nurture itself is a part of our human nature, when our brains were naturally designed to carry out emotions; a key part of our nurturing. Just like reading and writing are skills that need to be taught and nourished. But here's the catch, those who have fun reading and writing will eventually teach themselves the skills, while they will practice to master the skills for the sense of accomplishment that they'll feel later on. Now just replace those basic skills with school subjects and activities, and our children should be able to educate themselves with us just showing them how fun these things are.

This only leave us the negative emotions when we encounter setbacks, and how we can learn from those situations. So that we can turn those experiences into valuable lessons that will make us strong(citation).


NovembersDoom wrote:



We all walk a fine line between progression and regression of our personal qualities. So easily can we slip when the right answer to a matter requiring a particular resolution eludes us. The beast does by force or cunning achieve its end and the thinking man does by ingenious method the same. A weakness to me is like a foundation to build upon when you recognize that it is and a strength is a structure which can always be improved. Man dominated the world having mostly overcome the beast within, saving primal energy for drastic situations where rational thinking has little business.

Nature and nurture are two elements like others it seems we possess. Say if a person manifests destrudo, what does he become but a being of utter chaos and hopelessness? Or on the other hand, a person who manifests libido and knows at that time only a creative impulse, what is he aside from being engrossed in the ecstasy found in that lapse of lost consciousness? They are both certainly much akin to nature, nurture most definitely. We nurture what we set in motion based on our individual nature. To allow things to move so far in one direction to a pinnacle of positive or negative reflects on who we are. If one desires to nurture destruction even if he/she knows that it is leading to nothing beneficiary, he/she will continue to do so. The desire to create is powerful, though occasionally, you might find yourself creating what destroys, putting a damper on your effort's good repute. Nurturing is a double-edged sword since not all utilize it correctly. Nature is instinct automatically causing us to handle matters based on what has been passed down.

I can see nature as a pedestal that holds nurture. Our nature decides what we nurture, creating or destroying, perhaps both. Nurture from one person effects the nature of another reflecting that influential nurturing from so many generations before. If parents are cruel or kind to their children, their nature will show through their nurture. A wound is healed by a special touch and a weapon creates new wounds. Which of these two will be chosen by a person's nature? Either. By their nurture? Nature decides that in many cases. Creation and destruction are done by both nature and nurture. One comes before the other and both happen on a parallel.

Mistakes and setbacks are rooms for improvements, I like that.

Hence I think we now come to an end time that we must choose just what pro-life choices which me must keep from being ruined by our old habits. So that we can advance into the next stage of evolutionary civilization as according to Literary Darwinism. Before we kill our future by us continuously wounding it, without any real effort from us at healing itself.


"If nothing in the world can change our children will inherit nothing." lyrics of the song Born (the Retribution of Spiritual Sickness) from the album This Godless Endeavor by Nevermore.

http://www.myspace.com/nevermorefans: music with meaning.

I think Social Darwinism is the most important form of evolution we can be concerned with. Humanity will become an endangered species unless it can change the worst of our problems which are contributed to how we treat each other, leading to how we treat our world. I view change as a good thing when it is strictly for the better. Some people are against change, however. This being apparent because they have already achieved a state they feel has little to no need of improvement. No matter how far one climbs, infinity exists beyond that to climb towards. The sky is the limit.

The human way of nature and nurture is amazingly fragile. I wonder how it goes with other creatures, if it does in any way like ours that a comparison can be made. I think of dolphins and what they do, how they might think and what it means to be a dolphin. It could be that we are entirely unable to see the depth of their existence. For one, we can not always observe them during all the moments in their lives nor read if they are consciously making decisions much like ourselves. They do speak a language like all living beings. Possibly and most likely (if we continue to work towards it) we will be able to commune with all our earthly brethren in a meaningful way. I wonder what an old orangutan would have to say about about our ways. Surely such intelligent creatures like orangutans would be sensible more so than the vast majority of unenlightened masses belonging to humanity. Their relative simplicity keeps them from becoming more complicated than they can handle, making them an ideal model for socialization. I think all of our ape and monkey relatives can teach us so many things about nature and nurture in their own way beyond what they have already.

Our duty is to learn from the ecosystem what we lost so long ago from the evolution we underwent over the course of millions of years. A huge problem is helping those of us unwilling to open up to this idea. The creatures we are and the creatures so distant from us are separated by a tremendous schism. We need to build a bridge over that gap.

838 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / Canada
Offline
Posted 11/26/09
My years of experience (as well as university textbooks ;)) have taught me that nature and nurture are ALWAYS intertwined. They're not at odds or conflicting, they working TOGETHER. They are never separate.
2633 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / New York City, NY
Offline
Posted 11/26/09
All these useless words. Bah. People, "literary talk" is most often a bad thing.

Nature vs. nurture is just a gross generalization of the factors that influence human physiology and behavior. It's the association of the two with value judgments that create this dichotomy in the first place. One is no more "good" than the other.

November, cut the mystical nature crap. Considering how primates actually operate in nature, I sure as hell wouldn't want to take advice from them about socialization. You shouldn't talk about the "unenlightened masses" when 90% of your talk is pure fluff.

Dom, I like how you attempt to synthesize the two but your thesis is so vague that I can't really understand it at all. Haven't we learned to stop apply purely human concepts to the world as if they are objective truths? How do all the aspects of human nature "nurture" humanitarianism? It sounds like you have a mistaken view of evolution as "progressive". I mean, I don't even believe humanitarianism is a good thing half of the time.
Posted 11/27/09 , edited 11/27/09

leviathan343 wrote:

All these useless words. Bah. People, "literary talk" is most often a bad thing.

Nature vs. nurture is just a gross generalization of the factors that influence human physiology and behavior. It's the association of the two with value judgments that create this dichotomy in the first place. One is no more "good" than the other.

November, cut the mystical nature crap. Considering how primates actually operate in nature, I sure as hell wouldn't want to take advice from them about socialization. You shouldn't talk about the "unenlightened masses" when 90% of your talk is pure fluff.

Dom, I like how you attempt to synthesize the two but your thesis is so vague that I can't really understand it at all. Haven't we learned to stop apply purely human concepts to the world as if they are objective truths? How do all the aspects of human nature "nurture" humanitarianism? It sounds like you have a mistaken view of evolution as "progressive". I mean, I don't even believe humanitarianism is a good thing half of the time.

Who is a postmodernist, but someone who took modern civilization for granted.

Here's my question about those pro-choice supporters: will they support those who made their choice to pro-life because of what they believed to be their life purpose? And if so, why?

That's the question I came down to when I looked at nature vs nurture, of pro-life vs pro-choice. You can choose to say that I subjected my view as the objective truth, for I am indeed human. While I can only be humane when it comes to me making my choices, as long as I am still human. However, through my individual efforts and experiences, I have came to think that the human nature is nurture through emotions, just like all other animals with a naturally developed limbic system. Which enables them to nurture their own species. And I have no doubt that the possibility of this natural design in us humans, enabled us to civilize humanitarianism based on our shared positive and negative emotions, of triumphs and setbacks. That there is opportunity for goodness through selflessness in each and everyone of us, as long as we're still individuals choose to living in interdependency. That is true even for utilitarians like these gamers. Although a video game can never be an adequate substitute for real people. But hey, what does a gamer know.

And just like what NovembersDoom had said earlier, I personally have no problem with individuals making changes for the better.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.