nature vs. nurture

[team rocket]

i've done numerous reports on this for my biology classes in high school (so this was awhile ago). this used to be a hot topic but i'm not sure if it is anymore. it fascinates me, personally.

do you believe that people's personality traits/talents are nature, or simply the way they were raised?

i believe that both are a huge factor. i've read reports on how two twins that were separated at birth were adopted by different parents. one grew up completely swayed from alcohol, but the other was raised by parents who drank, so he grew up an alcoholic. although the twins shared some of the same genes, they grew up completely different.

what are your guys' intake on this subject? i'm super curious~

[Raj]

I believe its nurture with the upper hand. If I grew up with a family in the projects or in a crime ridden area, and my parents were involved in that, I would be too because thats what ive been seeing and what ive been (whether inadvertently or not) been taught to do. Now, my life now is in a home in the peaceful suburbs of chi town and my family is clean and legal and no wrongdoings. The same goes for me - I havent gotten in trouble for almost anything because I was raised to avoid that kind of stuff. But that doesnt mean its 100% nurture in my opinion. I still would have the same mentality no matter where I lived. I consider myself a little arrogant but determined to prove people wrong. If I was in the projects, that mentality would be there. And in real life I have that mentality as well. This I believe is a product of nature. Overall though I think that nurture is a bigger factor but situation plays into it a little as well as nature. This debate is not something that will ever have a winner because of all the different circumstances possible. Just my opinion, feel free to debate ^_^

[isa1991]

I believe it's both (and most of the scientist agree with me ;) ). Nature sets the boundaries for what's possible. Nurture fills the rest. So in most of the families they work together (like you are born a natural athlete and you grow up in a family that loves to to sports), but sometimes (adoption or something...) the nurture and nature don't go together (the family sits indoor all day, does nothing but watch tv and you'll be influenced by it. It is less likely for you to be into sports).

Most of the things are both, nature gets influenced by nurture.
If you're intrested in some numbers: the chance for a mental illness is twice as big whan your monozygotic twin (same genes) has it (a 50-70% chance for schizofrenia) then when you have a dizygotic twin (are a brother, sister,...) has it. So the influence of genes is imortant but not all decisive.

[Poem]

Nurture. :)

Experiences and memories are who we are. The people we have met are who we are. The things we have seen are who we are.

If I cloned you right now, that you wouldn't be you at all.

[Duck4Cover]

For me, I have this thing called a bad seed theory.
Some people are just born with it.
Yes, how you were raised should play a large role in how you act as an adult.
But at the same time there are numerous times where a person who grew up with loving parents, went to good schools, etc, etc. And just turned out to be terrible people later on in life.
On the other hand, I have known people whos parents beat them, neglected them and all sorts of atrocious things, and they are some of the best people you could meet.
I am not saying this is always the case.
But I just think there are some people that are just born with that in them and nothing will stop that.
Im sure alot of you wont agree, but that is just my 2 cents on it.

[midway]

I believe that both work here. While nature does have some input (genetic dispositions, etc) nurture I believe has more of an impact. Where we grow up, the education we receive, our "raising", it all has an impact.

[Spurs]

I agree with Duck4Cover on this, because I know people from really sucky backgrounds (drugs, alcohol, abuse etc) who are some of the nicest people you could ever meet and some who were raised with money, loving parents/family, good education and stuff who are heavy alcohol/drug abusers. I think the way people are raised plays a massive role in the development of the majority of people, but there are the minority who I think are almost destined to turn out the opposite to how they were raised.

My own attitude has changed depending on the differing circumstances I've experienced, so for me, nurture is the dominant factor but there are people who I believe it is in their nature to adopt certain personality traits.

[Amxs]

I've heard some pretty creepy things about twins separated at birth so.. I'm torn!

[Elmo]

I believe it's a little bit of both. My mothers friends who she grew up with are now all what I would class as low lifes, fortunately she moved into a nicer area before any of us were born. I believe a lot of my traits come from the friends I kept, the school I went to etc. I come from a family of smokers and non drinkers, however, I have never smoked and I used to party quite wildly from 17-20.
I think if you grow up in a poor area where crime is rife, it's pretty hard to not end up that way UNLESS you get out, but that's just my opinion.

[sweetloli]

Both, definitely.. I share many physical and mental traits with my father who was completely absent in my life until I was much older to make these comparisons...

[Allegra]

I wrote heaps on this when I studied psychology in HS. I always believed it was both, they were intertwined. But if I had to choose one to be the majority of what makes a human being, it would be nurture. Genetics can only take you so far, nurture takes genetics and shapes it whether that be good or bad.

[Skol]

I don't understand the debate here, nature vs nurture for what exactly? Just in general? I believe that we can't make sweeping statements like that because there are degrees for everything. Is this about personality or a specific trait, ability, behavior or aspect? For more defined topics, such as the ever-constant debate over homosexuality, tendency towards violence, addiction, etc., it makes more sense to ask the question and then go from there. I would say it has to be understood that near everything is a combination of biological background and environmental influences. I feel that it's ignorant to not look at all the variables in any given situation, so "believing" in one side or another doesn't mean much to me. I see it as more of a question as "Which do you think has more/guiding influence on this aspect of personality/behavior?" An argument can be made for any degree in any case because we as humans are so amazingly different in experience and makeup from one to the next, and because it's certainly not an exact science. Of course, all IMHO.

Child/Developmental psychology is fascinating if you're interested in these kinds of questions, I highly suggest pursuing a class at your college or university if you can! Psych in general is so valuable to study because it is applicable to almost every situation. My own focus is in personality along with social psychology, I study towards a masters in both Organizational Behavior and Industrial Organization, basically the business/corporate applications, and after that a PsyD. If I had more time or the option to take even more classes, I'd definitely take some philosophy, child psych and dev psych classes purely out of interest, but it's just not realistic financially or time-wise. Oh well, there's always the chance later in life. Good topic!

[TtotheJ]

Completely agree with Skol up there. As far a behavioral aspects are concerned most behavior is learned behavior from our environment aka nurture. I don't think one can really change it's behavior unless they become self-aware and that is something I've been wondering; If nature has a more dominant role in people developing self-awareness. Like if someone had a bad habit of biting their nails and there parent(s) did as well, for them to change that behavior they would need the awareness of their doing-so and the consequences (good or bad) that come from the behavior. Of course this is something easier to be more aware and sometimes personality defaults or flawed behavior is something that is often not so easy to be aware of, for some.

[Blazingchampion]

Depends on who you ask. Psychologist believe its both nurture (leaning more on nurture) and nature, while Scientist believe its dominantly nature.

From what I know, most scientist believe you are the way you are, and there is no changing it. A few things may affect your personality, ect. But you will always be about the same.


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

[futoss]

I think it is a combination of both. Alot of times you will see people that inherit personality traits from their parents. Personally, I got my dad's quick temper and my mom's jealousy and spitefulness. I am the type of person who will ruin your fucking life if you fuck with me or someone I love. I showed these traits as a toddler even, with my sister. My mom is the same way. However, I also agree some of it is nurture, since we see the actions and we may repeat them.

[Hawknyr]

It's definitely a combination of both in my opinion.

Nature is the starting point helping determine certain features, but your surroundings have a heavy influence on your psyche and health. Nuture is heavily downplayed by scientists, but for myself i believe its the heavier of the 2.

Example, Genetics is said to differ height by a total of 2 centmeters on average between nations. Nourishment is supposedly makes up the rest of the difference , and the better you eat the taller you will be. That's why there aren't as many tall Japanese vs Swedes, its the diet. Japanese live off rice fish which lacks certain vitamins etc, when Swedes have a far more robust diet that gives them everything they need.

Or with psychology, one who gets discouraged often or by others, will not attempt things. Experiment done with monkeys and bananas on a pole. Bananas were placed at the top of the pole, but the pole was coated with slick oil. Now when a monkey tried to climb the pole, they slipped and hurt themselves. The entire group of monkeys tried to get the bananas but all failed. Now the caretakers removed the oil, and introduced a new monkey into the environment. The monkey tried to climb the pole, but the old group of monkeys dragged the monkey down so it wouldn't hurt itself. And then every new monkey introduced would experience the same thing. Eventually the old monkeys were cycled out, and only monkeys who never attempted the pole were left, but they still dragged down new monkeys from trying for the bananas even though it was possible to get them.

^ prime example of nuture, thats environment, has nothing to do with genetics.

anyways debate away :)

[nitro]

nature is your base, but everything can change with the right kind of nurturing.

[Sprite]

I think both have to be taken into consideration. I think that nurture is what makes us behave the way e do because we've learnt what is acceptable from the people who brought us up, but I also have met some absolute terrors of children who have the most loving and sensible parents who just cannot seem to control their kid. I guess those kinds of children act that way due to nature?

[Vegeance]

It is impossible to define nature and nurture. Why? Because everything is an open-ended system.

Those homologous chromosomes and sister chromatids that did recombination were affected by randomness, with electrostatic charges being generated and displaced from moment to moment as bonds broke and form for the tertiary/Quaternary structure. Those little "modifier" molecules that alter the child's development were in random distribution, in a random order, for a given space. Epigenetics continues to activate and de-activate genes, affecting the expresstivity of the genes. Exons and introns get spliced in and out. Surely you start with what you got, and you can do whatever you got with what you start.

In reality, there's no strict defined border between nature or nurture, since its actually just all environment in the first place when you think about it. If you want to arbitrarily define nature as your genotypic makeup by probablistic models (like Punnett squares), then fine, but you're really leaving out the bigger picture when it comes to all the variables that led to the alteration of your alleles, mutations in amino acid sequence, X-inactivation mechanism, etc.

If you could physically modify the network of your axon terminals, synapses and its receptors, you could become anything--changing your personality at an instant, your mood, etc. Considering that you really just make it simpler, or in relative terms the "free energy" analogy, that is, LTP(long-term potentiation) effect that makes you predispositioned to simulate the motor actions being done, by simply repeating the process over and over until it becomes autonomized.

[Banannie]

I believe that it is a bit of both. I was a very rude, unkind and nasty little child (the sort you wanna dropkick) and this was my default way of being, had I not been raised properly, I think I would have become a very selfish and uncaring individual. I had no understanding and didn't care to understand the feelings of other people around me.

When I moved out of a stressful environment in my early teens to a very lovely little town, my personality started to change drastically. It started not only with my mother doing better, and therefore having a better relationship with her, but also having friends who were very empathetic and accepting of me despite the fact that I was a total brat and kind of a bully. Once I began to have better relationships with people, I wanted to please them, and in order to do so I had to understand how they were feeling and what made them happy. Friends and kindness made me happy. I liked that. If I make other people happy, then they will continue to be kind to me. That was how the mentality started at first.

There is nature and nurture that influences people, but I also think that we can influence ourselves in any direction we chose to because we are a species that is self aware. Although nurturing and my environment helped me change into a better person, having the ability to look at myself retrospectivly and being aware of myelf enough to learn what needed to be changed was the most beneficial.

I think that the nature vs. nurture arguement can be used for animals of a lesser intelligence, but humans have the ability to move in any direction they choose to.