If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
I've heard this debate 101 times but never before got involved, is it basically genes (nature) vs. environment (nature)? If so, then I think 50/50 is a massive exaggeration in favour of nature... it seems to be that, with respect to basically every behaviour, environment is far more important than our genes or what is hard-wired into us.
I myself am a believer that nurture has the larger role in creating who we are, as people. The enviroment around us influences everything: The way we think, the way we express, the way we feel. While nature determines only our race: Human.
But humans, as we know, are mirrors of what sorrounds them. Take wild children, are they people? No, but they're humans. They weren't nurtured to become people, and so they became "incomplete".
So, I conclude that nurture is the larger factor here.
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
I get it custom, you a customer
You ain't ‘customed to going through Customs, you ain’t been nowhere, huh?
Sophisticated ignorance, write my curses in cursive
I get it custom, you a customer
You ain't ‘customed to going through Customs, you ain’t been nowhere, huh?
What is a person? The English term, "person," is ambiguous. We often use it as a synonym for "human being."
Quote:
Many properties have been suggested as being necessary for being a person: Intelligence, the capacity to speak a language, creativity, the ability to make moral judgments, consciousness, free will, a soul, self-awareness . . and the list could go on almost indefinitely.
Wild children are commonly not considered people by this definition.
Mistakes are made, and regrets are our luggage; we will drag them with us to slow us down.
The victories are flashes of light, sudden and unlasting, which allow us to glimpse the road ahead before darkness descends.
Love is bitter, yet it is the bread that keeps us. Over and over it fills us up, only to starve us.
The people whom we love shape our destinies and our strengths,yet leave us cold and alone in the darkness.
Oh great, this again. It is impossible to accurately test which is more important, due to this I refrain judgement on which is more important. With any experiments, such as those of twins, there are too many extraneous variables to consider any result to be a reliable one.
@Poontang great point and I couldn't agree more. I will just add that there is another "study" that I go by and it's the "eye test". Watch sports and siblings, especially twins, and you can just see that it's not JUST nature or JUST nurture. I mean some runners can win races with very little training bc the are naturally incluned to be athletic and be a runner. And siblings/twins can turn out very differently. Like you said wayyyy to many variables to measure though to be reliably accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carbohydrate
Well... Think of all the "wild child" incidents in which they were locked in rooms etc, kept away from society.
They always turn out animal-like and non-human like. So, I'm sure it's not 50/50.
@Carbohydrate. You're right, it's likely not 50/50 precisely since the odds on that would be less than winning the lottery. Also i gather that you don't think it's even close to 50/50. Well idk. I bet you are right that it leans more to nurture. But your example was very extreme talking about wild children raised by non humans. Ususally when people talk about nature vs. nurture it's about sexuality choices, personality, intelligence, athletic ability, occupational choices, etc. In those less extreme settings I think it also comes down to the will of the individual as much as nature and nurturing. Most humans are weak willed bc we are so self conscious and care what others think bc we are mostly followers. Obv a baby raised by monkees would turn out to be wild. He would have NO other examples to live. A baby has ZERO self will. He is just a sponge. But that child will likely be less strong than the monkees and more intelligent than them bc of his nature.
Today's Toppers
5Likes
Re: Nature vs. Nurture
