What is the nature vs nurture debate and which one is the right answer?
In: 0
[removed]
Striped down I’d say it’s essentially the idea that you have certain predetermined qualities (Genetics/Nature) and you have environmental factors (External influence/Nurture) which both play against one another to form the individual.
While most literature comes to the anticlimactic result of a 50/50 split between the two, I’ve always felt that was a lackluster answer.
It seems to me that nurture (external influence) is a far greater influence on the individual. I was born with the genetics of my parents, both alcoholics and other genetically relevant personality traits. For a long time this was the pattern I followed, but through conscious shifting of my environment and the content I allowed into my subconscious I have shifted away from the negative patterns built into their genes (of course this has “nurture” qualities as well seeing as the culture and their parents before them supported these actions.) Perhaps Nature could be more a powerful guide in the early years of development( and due to the first 7 years of life having major pattern setting potential this helps boost the support for nature’s continued involvement in our lives.) however, with the unsettling research into gene engineering we see rapidly picking up we could see this aspect of life also shift.
Additional support for nurture being a superior force in shaping our everyday lives: I would point to the effects of exercise, diet and substance use on our hormonal systems as well as their ability to literally re-write our genes.
You might have been given your hand in poker by Nature, but Nurture could be equated to your ability to bluff what you’re holding, analyze yourself against other players, and play the game as if you had a pair of A’s instead of a 2 and a 3.
You know all those stories where twins are separated at birth, and one grows up in a mansion and the other grows up in a hovel? That’s ‘nature vs. nurture.’ ‘Nature would be what we now call ‘genetics.’ We know that there are a lot of things that can be inherited, like alcoholism or height. Nurture would be how someone is raised. The idea is that a person who is raised by illiterates is more likely to be illiterate even if their birth parents were both highly intelligent.
Obviously, in the real world, both play a big role.
[removed]
Striped down I’d say it’s essentially the idea that you have certain predetermined qualities (Genetics/Nature) and you have environmental factors (External influence/Nurture) which both play against one another to form the individual.
While most literature comes to the anticlimactic result of a 50/50 split between the two, I’ve always felt that was a lackluster answer.
It seems to me that nurture (external influence) is a far greater influence on the individual. I was born with the genetics of my parents, both alcoholics and other genetically relevant personality traits. For a long time this was the pattern I followed, but through conscious shifting of my environment and the content I allowed into my subconscious I have shifted away from the negative patterns built into their genes (of course this has “nurture” qualities as well seeing as the culture and their parents before them supported these actions.) Perhaps Nature could be more a powerful guide in the early years of development( and due to the first 7 years of life having major pattern setting potential this helps boost the support for nature’s continued involvement in our lives.) however, with the unsettling research into gene engineering we see rapidly picking up we could see this aspect of life also shift.
Additional support for nurture being a superior force in shaping our everyday lives: I would point to the effects of exercise, diet and substance use on our hormonal systems as well as their ability to literally re-write our genes.
You might have been given your hand in poker by Nature, but Nurture could be equated to your ability to bluff what you’re holding, analyze yourself against other players, and play the game as if you had a pair of A’s instead of a 2 and a 3.
The debate is about if certain behaviors and way of thinking is how we are born to think, or if it all is due to how we have been raised and experienced.
There have been some amazing investigations on two twins who have been separated right after birth and has grown up without ever known each other. There were a lot of things they had in common, but also other things that were totally different.
It is still not known what is what and how but i.e. psychopath has a nature part where the brain is born defect, but became valuable members of society, while a few has become serial killers. The last group did become that way, by combining the brain’s defect and a traumatic upbringing.
I don’t think there is any correct answer, and the debate can be applied to many circumstances.
If you’re a stubborn person, did you learn that behaviour at home from your parents – meaning the behaviour was nurtured in you as you developed. Or, you are stubborn because your parents are stubborn and it is a trait that was passed down via genetics and this was always going to be a trait you had.
It’s a debate because it’s almost impossible to decide which answer is 100% true – in the above example there’s no way to tell.
You know all those stories where twins are separated at birth, and one grows up in a mansion and the other grows up in a hovel? That’s ‘nature vs. nurture.’ ‘Nature would be what we now call ‘genetics.’ We know that there are a lot of things that can be inherited, like alcoholism or height. Nurture would be how someone is raised. The idea is that a person who is raised by illiterates is more likely to be illiterate even if their birth parents were both highly intelligent.
Obviously, in the real world, both play a big role.
The debate is about if certain behaviors and way of thinking is how we are born to think, or if it all is due to how we have been raised and experienced.
There have been some amazing investigations on two twins who have been separated right after birth and has grown up without ever known each other. There were a lot of things they had in common, but also other things that were totally different.
It is still not known what is what and how but i.e. psychopath has a nature part where the brain is born defect, but became valuable members of society, while a few has become serial killers. The last group did become that way, by combining the brain’s defect and a traumatic upbringing.
It varies depending on behavior. Some things are definitely genetic (or epigenetic), some are definitely trained. Most, by far, have a bit of both.
Last I’ve heard a scientist with relevant research comment on it, she claimed that a reliable figure is “about 60% nature, three rest – nurture.” The context was how much of talent is in-born capacity (think, like, 4th generation circus acrobat vs 1st generation circus acrobat) for developing a skill vs how much of it is amount and quality of practice.
Latest Answers