BigJonsson
Member
Where do you sit on this debate? And why?
I say nature all the way, it forces you to develop your own skills
I say nature all the way, it forces you to develop your own skills
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nature vs Nurture
- Thread starter BigJonsson
- Start date
- Status
Richard Cranium
Member
Nature provides the absolute limit. Nurture determines how much of your potential you achieve.
I'm a believer in nurture, when it comes to intellectual pursuits and, to a great extent, physical pursuits as ell. People can learn a lot more than they realize - but it just takes a little more instruction sometimes. Potential is only ever limited by quality of teaching, and I don't believe I've ever seen anyone do something that was completely out of reach of anyone dedicated enough.
xsarien said:
He speaks truth.
To be more correct, though, it really depends on what aspec of being one is discussing. If you're talking about sex determination, I'm confident that nature plays a much bigger role than nurture. You can think about being a woman as much as you want, but that Y chromosome will always say otherwise.
Having said that research has been done to make a genotypically female mouse embryo develop as a male. Afterall, we're all 'females' to begin with and with the appropriate interference from your 'Y' chromosome during development leads you down the penal-path.
Christopher
Member
We had this same topic for expository writing class...anyway I went on the side of Nuture because in theory it is a product of Nature.
Bobety said:
Intelligence is not an innate skill. It is based to a huge extent on how the person is taught to function from an early age, and critical thinking-type classes in college are intended to encourage a new level of intelligence beyond what someone may have already mastered...
To deny the effects of nature is ignorant, but nurture obviously also plays a part. One of my university profs was denied a job because of his views on nature/nurture. He supported nature and it just didn't click with the Standard Social Science Model the school was promoting, which heavily emphasizes nature.
Nature gives us the potential, nurture has the power to realize that same potential.
Nature gives us the potential, nurture has the power to realize that same potential.
Alyssa Hu$tle
Member
I'm with Alucard and Richard Cranium... Nature provides the absolute limit. Nurture determines how much of your potential you achieve.
Alright...go get a kid with downs syndrome and try to nurture it to someone with a high intelligence. Sorry, but nature determines you're bounds. The best nurture possible allows you to get as close to those bounds as possible.
Sure, you could take a kid with great potential and make it stare at a wall all day and take a sub-par kid and nuture it well beyond the other. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that certain people just have better potential. It's all in the genetics, which are the building-blocks to teh brain.
I say both too. I grew up as a black male who lives in a lower-middle class neighborhood flanked by two liquor stores, which (until recently) was the point of a lot of criminal and gang activity, and almost every other guy I knew in the neighborhood ended up becoming a junkie, drunk, or pothead, or have mired themselves in some sort of criminal activity. I also have a mentally abusive father with a superiority complex and a mother who is a doormat.
But I find myself in 2005 two semesters away from getting a Bachelor's in English, I don't act out against society by beating up random people on the street or trying to intimidate others by how I act or dress, and the worst crime I have committed is burning Dreamcast games and stealing a Hot Wheels when I was 8. By all logic, I should be a complete fucking failure in life, a product of a bad environment and poor development, but instead I learned from said bad environment and took as many good aspects out of my development as I could, and I made myself a pretty well-rounded person as a result. So I'd pretty much have to go by what Alucard said with the "nature is potential" thing
But I find myself in 2005 two semesters away from getting a Bachelor's in English, I don't act out against society by beating up random people on the street or trying to intimidate others by how I act or dress, and the worst crime I have committed is burning Dreamcast games and stealing a Hot Wheels when I was 8. By all logic, I should be a complete fucking failure in life, a product of a bad environment and poor development, but instead I learned from said bad environment and took as many good aspects out of my development as I could, and I made myself a pretty well-rounded person as a result. So I'd pretty much have to go by what Alucard said with the "nature is potential" thing
teh_pwn said:
I agree with what you're saying, I just believe that the difference in potential between 'dumb kid' and 'smart kid' is attributable to a form of 'nurture' that is not well understood by many parents or average Joes in general: early child development. Down's Syndrome, well, that's a major obstacle, but there are still ways to overcome it to an extent.
sonarrat said:
Well sure, nurture plays a part in how intelligent a person can eventually become to an extent, because like any other skill, the more you use it the more you develop it. But nature still determines the absolute limit to one's intelligence, and some people have higher limits than others.
The Shadow
Member
There is no debate. It's a combination of both.
Just like people have a genetic predisposition to heart disease or cancer, so are they to certain personalities and attitudes. This doesn't mean that environment doesn't have an effect, it does. Ultimately it's probably something like 50-50 though it's not the same for everyone. Some people are more slaves to their genes (Nature) and some deny what their genes are and become what they've been influenced to be (Nurture).
Most people still believe it's Nurture all the way but that's naive. It stems from John B. Watson who famously said and I'm paraphrasing, that if you gave him a dozen healthy infants, that he could shape each one into whatever he wished such as a doctor, lawyer or a vagrant.
I've spoken to very intelligent people who refuse to even acknowledge that genes may play a role. It's not pleasant thought, that aspects of who we are is chosen at conception, that we have no control, but it doesn't mean it's not the truth.
Look at twins for instance. Genetically identical and raised in a similar environment, they seem alike on the surface in attitude but if you get to know them, you can pick out the subtle differences. They're very much alike but there are differences, despite the identical genotype. Their experiences are slightly different. You see this with seperated twins too. They still have remarkable similarities despite being seperated from birth, though they're different in some ways as well.
Just like people have a genetic predisposition to heart disease or cancer, so are they to certain personalities and attitudes. This doesn't mean that environment doesn't have an effect, it does. Ultimately it's probably something like 50-50 though it's not the same for everyone. Some people are more slaves to their genes (Nature) and some deny what their genes are and become what they've been influenced to be (Nurture).
Most people still believe it's Nurture all the way but that's naive. It stems from John B. Watson who famously said and I'm paraphrasing, that if you gave him a dozen healthy infants, that he could shape each one into whatever he wished such as a doctor, lawyer or a vagrant.
I've spoken to very intelligent people who refuse to even acknowledge that genes may play a role. It's not pleasant thought, that aspects of who we are is chosen at conception, that we have no control, but it doesn't mean it's not the truth.
Look at twins for instance. Genetically identical and raised in a similar environment, they seem alike on the surface in attitude but if you get to know them, you can pick out the subtle differences. They're very much alike but there are differences, despite the identical genotype. Their experiences are slightly different. You see this with seperated twins too. They still have remarkable similarities despite being seperated from birth, though they're different in some ways as well.
sonarrat said:
In that post I wasn't reffering to how much a person can know, but one's skill/ability to apply learned information (eg. problem solving). And yes, i believe that different people have different limits to how much they can develop that skill. (And for the record i also believe people have limits to their knowlege storing capacities).
nature determines what you are capable of. Nuture defines how much of that potential you fulfil.
Peer pressure and friendships at school are a massive influence on a child's development. So much so that parents influence diminishes a lot from the age of around 8. So up to 8, give them the best start in life you can, and instill all the values you would like them to uphold.
Thats all nurture, even when its outside social stimulus.
Peer pressure and friendships at school are a massive influence on a child's development. So much so that parents influence diminishes a lot from the age of around 8. So up to 8, give them the best start in life you can, and instill all the values you would like them to uphold.
Thats all nurture, even when its outside social stimulus.
- Status