Nature vs. Nurture

The nature vs. nurture debate seems weird to me, in that it is entirely deterministic. That is, the implication is that you are the way you are as a result of either how you were born or what has been done to you.
Without denying the importance of these factors, I think that in addition to nature and nurture, there is also a third element, the element of free choice. To me behavior seems to explainable in terms of these three factors, possibly with individual variation in the breakdown of how much.
Any thoughts?

As far as determinism goes, it is nothing more than a form of escapism used to pass fault to someone/thing other than the person who made the choice.

We are who we are, I think party because of genetics, and partly because of environment. Who we choose to become, and the choices we make in our daily lives are entirely of our own volition.

It may seem like an odd analogy, but think of working with a lump of clay. When you get it, it is already of a certain color, texture, shape, etc... and there is nothing that you could do about it. What you choose to make with it after that is entirely up to you.

That's actually a good analogy.

I would guess that free choice is classified a part of the "nurture" thing, though it doesn't really seem right to me either.

It seems like the argument could be made that the choices we make are part of nurture, that in a sense we nurture our future selves by our own actions. But that's getting a little weird and philosophical.

The longer I live, the more I realize the impact of attitude on my life. Attitude to me, is more than the past, than education, than money, than circumstances, than failures, than successes, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, gifted-ness or skill. It will make or break a company... a church... a home.

The remarkable thing is we have a choice everyday regarding the attitude we will embrace for that day. We cannot change our past... we cannot change the fact that people will act in a certain way. We cannot change the inevitable. The only thing we can do is play on the we have, and that is our attitude... I am convinced that life is 10% what happens to me and 90% how I react to it. And so it is with you... We are in charge of our attitudes.




I find many truths within this text.

Let us use Tiger Woods as an example (for the purposes of this analysis I will clarify that we are discussing successful golf player Tiger Woods and not the mysoginistic cheating Tiger Woods). Tiger Woods worked tirelessly to achieve his success; he was not merely born with it. However, anyone who believes that achieving that kind of success is solely a function of mindset or practice is terribly naive. Swinging a golf club for 30 years cannot make anyone a new Tiger Woods, playing in a band and writing songs for decades will not assure your being comparable to The Beatles, and if you have a weakness for math and science, locking yourself up and studying will not help you to join among the likes of Newton or Einstein. Clearly nature is not deterministic, but nature is an essential prerequisite to being enhanced by nurturing.

That is interesting, I never thought of "free choice". But I would like someone else already stated put that into Nurture since your parents decide whether or not you have free choice, then by the time you're 18 your personality is already mostly developed.

I don't see nature and nurture as being mutually exclusive. For instance, there's a gene that makes you predisposed to parkinson's and yet there are plenty of people who have the gene that never get it. So I don't think it's nature vs nurture. I think it's more accurate to say nature + nurture = free choice.

That may sound odd, but here's how I see it: No effect is without cause (save maybe the creation of the universe). So if you make a choice, my first question would be "What caused you to make that choice?". The answer is going to be your biological temperament and your experiences. So, I would make the argument that nature and nurture give you free choice. They aren't alternatives to it.

Originally Posted by amnorvend

I don't see nature and nurture as being mutually exclusive. For instance, there's a gene that makes you predisposed to parkinson's and yet there are plenty of people who have the gene that never get it. So I don't think it's nature vs nurture. I think it's more accurate to say nature + nurture = free choice.

That may sound odd, but here's how I see it: No effect is without cause (save maybe the creation of the universe). So if you make a choice, my first question would be "What caused you to make that choice?". The answer is going to be your biological temperament and your experiences. So, I would make the argument that nature and nurture give you free choice. They aren't alternatives to it.

I agree and this is how I see it. Two siblings may have the same nurture factors, the difference would be in their thoughts. The thoughts would fall under nature I believe. One may know at an early age that she wants to be a nurse, and pursue this goal. The other may spend more time thinking about what to become, but never be satisfied with their choice. This is just an example, there are many situations just like this one.

If both a kid's parents smoked crack, yet she goes to college and changes her nurturing factors, was she nurtured into her decision? Or did nature (her own intelligent thoughts) give her the option to choose a different lifestyle than her parents? It would take intelligence to be objective about your life, and witnessing the environment shaped your perspective. I think it would be both.

I really like the idea of a third factor, but I don't know if free choice is the right descriptor. A person does not choose to be born with an IQ below 70, yet intelligence would be needed to make the best choice or see the options. Intelligence would be an influence on free will I would think.