# Nature vs. Nurture



## Schwarz (Nov 10, 2008)

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?


----------



## Kishi (Mar 7, 2009)

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.


----------



## Schwarz (Nov 10, 2008)

That's actually a good analogy.


----------



## kiskadee (Jan 9, 2009)

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


----------



## Schwarz (Nov 10, 2008)

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.


----------



## Brainteaser (Jan 20, 2010)

*Attitude by Charles Swindoll*

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. :wink:


----------



## perennialurker (Oct 1, 2009)

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.


----------



## Thrifty Walrus (Jul 8, 2010)

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.


----------



## amnorvend (May 16, 2010)

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.


----------



## nothingnew (Aug 8, 2010)

amnorvend said:


> 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.


----------



## WildWinds (Mar 9, 2010)

amnorvend said:


> 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.


This for sure.

Its very rarely either nature OR nurture. Its both. If you make a decision, then its nature and nurture that lead you to it.


----------



## Vaka (Feb 26, 2010)

Schwarz said:


> 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?


I don't think that 'free choice' is needed as a separate category. Think about what determines who you are and how you see things. That's what would determine what it is that drives you to make this free choice.


----------



## AirMarionette (Mar 13, 2010)

Nature and nurture are concomitant. Neither is more prominent than the other - both are optimal.

Both harvest the sapient human, both give rise to free thinking. A child cannot learn a language without a functional (pre)frontal cortex, but she also cannot learn it if she has no one to learn it from. Ex: 'Feral' child Genie.

(Of course it's not necessarily so cut-and-dry, but that's a basic premise in this case.)


----------



## Wellsy (Oct 24, 2011)

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/spirkin/works/dialectical-materialism/ch05-s02.html


> When discussing biological factors, one should not reduce them to the genetic. More attention should be given to the physiological and ontogenetic aspects of development, and particularly to those that evoke a pathological effect, for it is these that modify the biology of the human being, who is also beginning to perceive even social factors in quite a different way. Dialectics does not simply put the social and the biological factors on an equal footing and attribute the human essence to the formula of biotropic-sociotropic determination favoured by some scientists. It stresses the dominant role of the social factors. Nor does dialectics accept the principles of vulgar sociologism, which ignores the significance of the biological principle in man.
> ...
> The independence of each separate science is an important fact, but it must be relative and should not develop into autonomy. The autonomy of the sciences that study man is a sign that they have lost the integrity of knowledge that is so essential to an understanding of the essence of the case, and to effective treatment or education. When discussing the disunity of man one must first of all realise that he is divided by the scientific scalpel into two: one half is studied by the natural sciences (biology, physiology, biochemistry, biophysics, etc.), while the other is the province of the social sciences, and also of medicine, which occupies an intermediary position and would appear to be all-embracing.
> 
> ...



https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/pdfs/searle.pdf


> But let us make a slight revision to Searle’s assumptions. Let us assume that thinking is not something going on exclusively between the ears, but on the contrary, that other parts of our body and things and people outside of us participate, in however small a way does not matter, in consciousness. Let us assume that the brain is not a closed system. Let us suppose for example that the presence of something in my field of vision (for example my address book), participates in my consciousness (for example, remembering my friend’s phone number). That is, that the change from one state of consciousness to another depends in some measure on something which is not between my ears, and is therefore not subject solely to the biology of the brain.





> If then, my own actions manifest human freedom (which is just what is to be proved), then the things I have in my field of vision at any given time, not to mention my economic situation, the friends and family I have, the books and computers I have at my disposal, my state of health, etc., etc., are manifestations of my own free activity. If we allow that these things, manifestations in part of my own free activity, participate in determining my thinking at any given moment, then nothing more is necessary to establish that my consciousness is in part the result of my own freedom, and is not determined by physics alone. The physical environment in which I live, inclusive of the internal constitution of my body, is the manifestation of both lawful physical activity and wilful human activity, including my own previous interactions with other people and things. If my consciousness is constituted, even in part, by states of this extended system, then my consciousness is not subject solely to the laws of physics – wholly but not solely.
> 
> 
> This pushes the logician’s puzzle back one degree. If I ever had free will, then that free will is embedded in the environment in which I now live. There would still have to have been (for the logician) an original act of free will. So our logician still has a problem: in order for me to manifest free will in the use of something outside the brain in the determination of my consciousness, then I must have acted as a free person at some time in the past. This leads to an infinite regression: in order to be free I must already be free. This is the same problem to which Johann Fichte addressed himself in 1799. His solution was this: it is necessary for some other person to recognise me as a free person, to call upon me to exercise my freedom. Free will therefore does not derive from the internal constitution of the human organism, but rather from the demands of other people. Free will is not an innate property of the human body, but a social product ‒ the creation of social formations in which people were required to act as free agents.
> ...


http://www.marxistsfr.org/reference/archive/smith-cyril/works/millenni/smith3.htm



> We can be conscious of our own humanity only because, and to the extent that, we act humanly, and that means creating ourselves. We are not some kind of machine, nor are we passive victims of evolutionary history, governed by ‘instincts’ which can never be understood or controlled, subroutines in a universal computer program. What distinguishes humanity from the rest of nature is the conscious, active relationship we have with everything else, with each other and with ourselves.
> 
> Of course we have a given biological make-up, resulting from the evolutionary history of our species. This conditions but does not fix what we do, either collectively or individually. What makes us human is our conscious, social, purposively directed activity, and this produces the content of our biological form. Our relationships with nature and with each other are defined by our productive activity: we are what we do.


----------



## Saskopia (Aug 9, 2018)

I think most people understand that both play a role, but think one has more of an impact than the other. I personally believe nature plays the largest role.


----------



## IDontThinkSo (Aug 24, 2011)

There is no difference between nature and nurture. They are two pictures of the same dynamics. A dynamic of transformation, and a dynamic of reinforcement. Right up Jung's alley. Hence those whose attitude of consciousness leads their perception are very much likely to believe it's mainly about nature, when extrapunitive, and nurture, when intropunitive.


----------



## Rascal01 (May 22, 2016)

In simplistic terms, it is about the “hand” you have been dealt in life. That hand includes both nature and nurture. Those are the creative forces that influence future lives.

A healthy newborn comes into the world genetically equipped for life. They may be endowed with various gifts, talents and aptitudes. Their level of intelligence, likely influenced by genetics, will often play a large roll in their future. So will personality. Genetics will play a formative and substantial role in this child’s potential and future.

Once born, the developmental environment takes on a major role, and brings great influence upon the child. Will this child be loved, provided adequate nutrition, medical care and the various necessities of life? What will be taught to the child and who will do the teaching? What influences will others bring into this child’s life, and will those influences be supportive and productive?

The genetic input of the infant, and the environment the child was reared in, will combine to influence decisions and choices to be made by this person in the future.

I was fortunate to have been born with a reasonable genetic inheritance, though I apparently have little aptitude for math. A NASA career was unattainable, even if I decided I wanted one. Genetics helped steer my choices in life, as my strengths and aptitudes served as guides in education and career.

Nurture played an even greater role. At age three my father began to administer very earnest physical beatings. They continued until he left home when I was twelve. It seemed as though he was intent on beating me to death. Anger issues played a role in his behavior, as did a terrible temper. That type of abuse in a child’s formative years takes a lingering and influential toll.

Combine this with hunger, poverty and homelessness, and it may become more apparent that nurture, or lack of it, can influence a person’s future choices and decisions. There was a time I was no more than a feral human being, and my decisions were made accordingly.

With time I was able to rise above these circumstances and grew to make better choices. I believe genetics helped in the growth process. Early nurturing by my grandparents also helped a great deal. I never forgot the love they showed me as a young child, as I sat in their laps, a cherished grandson.

Nature, nurture, strength of character and decision making ability... a complex mix of influences impacting both individuals and the human collective.


----------

