Nature or Nurture in you opinion?

[Orange Joe]

What? Nature doesn't set a person's potential. That sounds kind of like genetic determinism which is mostly wrong. The only thing that sets a person's potential is whether the laws of physics say it's impossible for a person to do something in their current situation.

So you think being born into a family with severe heart disease won't affect a persons ability at all?

[wunksta]

What? Nature doesn't set a person's potential. That sounds kind of like genetic determinism which is mostly wrong. The only thing that sets a person's potential is whether the laws of physics say it's impossible for a person to do something in their current situation.

This is honestly absurd. There are many problems people can be born with that severely limit their ability to function. Some people don't survive past childhood due to those problems.

[jonnysensible]

where is little Albert when you need him

[Forogil]

That's . . . my point. Your nature says to eat; you're hungry, the food's right there. Your capacity to observe ritual niceties is nurture, and overrules nature.

No, it's a combination of nature and nurture.

Kids with ADHD (which in itself is a also a combination of nature and nurture) have a harder time doing that.

[Endus]

No, it's a combination of nature and nurture.

Kids with ADHD (which in itself is a also a combination of nature and nurture) have a harder time doing that.

Dude, I have ADHD. None of that is "nurture".

Knowing how to handle ADHD, that is. Behavioural therapy and adaptation techniques and all that. Living with ADHD is 98% nurture, even if the condition itself is 100% nature. Which is my point.

It's not that there is no influence of nature. It's that the baselines nature sets are over-emphasized in comparison to the effects of nurture.

The entire concept of language and its use, for instance. All nurture. The capacity for language development is nature, but everything you learn about any given language is nurture.

[Forogil]

Dude, I have ADHD. None of that is "nurture".

Strange, since that means that ADHD is entirely nature and not nurture; in contrast to what many others claim.

You are falling for the basic error of trying to put things into neat categories, as biological systems are rarely that clear. It's not that one part is "nature" and another part on top of that is "nurture"; but a complicated interplay between them.

The entire concept of language and its use, for instance. All nurture. The capacity for language development is nature, but everything you learn about any given language is nurture.

That's an odd distinction - and you are also missing that human languages are developed based on human nature; and it also misses the fact that humans (and other mammals) by nature care for their children - including teaching them languages, and nurturing other skills.

And the capacity isn't static - nature have made it so that certain parts of language development preferably happen during certain time-periods.

[Endus]

Strange, since that means that ADHD is entirely nature and not nurture; in contrast to what many others claim.

I'm not interested in a completely unsourced "many others" argument.

While there's still research being done, pretty much all the identified causes of ADHD are developmental or genetic, not encultured; https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/facts.html#Causes

That's an odd distinction - and you are also missing that human languages are developed based on human nature; and it also misses the fact that humans (and other mammals) by nature care for their children - including teaching them languages, and nurturing other skills.

I think you're confused as to what "nature" and "nurture" even means, in this discussion.

That care you're suggesting humans have, with their children, teaching them languages and skills? That's nurture. That's where you step away from "nature" entirely into the realm of "nurture".

Capacity for language is nature. Actual proficiency in a particular language is nurture.

[Forogil]

I'm not interested in a completely unsourced "many others" argument.

While there's still research being done, pretty much all the identified causes of ADHD are developmental or genetic, not encultured; https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/facts.html#Causes

How about reading the links you give?

In addition to genetics, scientists are studying other possible causes and risk factors including:

• Brain injury
• Exposure to environmental (e.g., lead) during pregnancy or at a young age
• Alcohol and tobacco use during pregnancy
• Premature delivery
• Low birth weight

Many of these are part of nurture (or lack thereof). And alcohol use during pregnancy is clearly an "encultured" thing.

That care you're suggesting humans have, with their children, teaching them languages and skills? That's nurture.

You are missing the obvious: providing nurture is part of human nature.

There are other animals that don't care for their off-spring in the same way, or where only the mother provides that nurture. There are also likely additional variations in nurture among humans. Thus there is no clear distinction between nurture and nature.

[Endus]

How about reading the links you give?

In addition to genetics, scientists are studying other possible causes and risk factors including:

• Brain injury
• Exposure to environmental (e.g., lead) during pregnancy or at a young age
• Alcohol and tobacco use during pregnancy
• Premature delivery
• Low birth weight

Many of these are part of nurture (or lack thereof). And alcohol use during pregnancy is clearly an "encultured" thing.

How on Earth could you reach that conclusion?

Seriously, I'm baffled.

"Nature" is more than just genetics; epigenetics and developmental complications all qualify. And all of those are included among that list.

You are missing the obvious: providing nurture is part of human nature

.

You'll excuse me if "nurture is also nature so all nurture is nature" is a useless argument, as it's an obvious case of circular reasoning.

[Forogil]

"Nature" is more than just genetics; epigenetics and developmental complications all qualify. And all of those are included among that list.

Are you serious? You really think that drinking during pregnancy or getting hit on the head as a child causing brain injury is just "nature"?

You'll excuse me if "nurture is also nature so all nurture is nature" is a useless argument, as it's an obvious case of circular reasoning.

That wasn't the argument - the argument is that nurturing is due to human nature and thus the two are intertwined; and you need both (and luck).

Thus instead of the pointless argument of whether something is inherently nature or nurture (it's both); is best replaced by looking at variations in nurture and nature, and see how much they explain in variations outcome - with some complicated handling of parents' nurturing.

[Endus]

Are you serious? You really think that drinking during pregnancy or getting hit on the head as a child causing brain injury is just "nature"?

How the hell isn't it? We're talking about physical changes to your biology that affect who you are as a person. That's the definition of "nature", in this context.

The divide has always been about whether you are who you are because of your biology, or because of your enculturation. Changes to biology are the former, "nature", not the latter.

[Forogil]

How the hell isn't it?

Swearing only weakens your non-existent argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

These two conflicting approaches to human development were at the core of an ideological dispute over research agendas throughout the second half of the 20th century. As both "nature" and "nurture" factors were found to contribute substantially, often in an inextricable manner, such views were seen as naive or outdated by most scholars of human development by the 2000s.

The strong dichotomy of nature versus nurture has thus been claimed to have limited relevance in some fields of research.

Heritability measures always refer to the degree of variation between individuals in a population. That is, as these statistics cannot be applied at the level of the individual, it would be incorrect to say that while the heritability index of personality is about 0.6, 60% of one's personality is obtained from one's parents and 40% from the environment. To help to understand this, imagine that all humans were genetic clones. The heritability index for all traits would be zero (all variability between clonal individuals must be due to environmental factors). And, contrary to erroneous interpretations of the heritability index, as societies become more egalitarian (everyone has more similar experiences) the heritability index goes up (as environments become more similar, variability between individuals is due more to genetic factors).

[Endus]

Swearing only weakens your non-existent argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

1> That's tone policing, which isn't an argument.

2> Nothing in that Wiki supports your position, or contravenes mine. I never claimed nature v. nurture was a fully functional paradigm, I just ran with the topic. As did you.

[Forogil]

1> That's tone policing, which isn't an argument.

No, it's saying that you don't have any argument and instead use swear words.

Part of development is to learn to see that.

2> Nothing in that Wiki supports your position, or contravenes mine. I never claimed nature v. nurture was a fully functional paradigm, I just ran with the topic. As did you.

Nothing of what you wrote is true.
A lot in Wikipedia supports my position, and contravenes your.

If you didn't claim that nature v. nurture is a functional paradigm it's weird that you used extreme individuals to claim it's 98% nature; whereas I and wikipedia said it was more complicated and found the relevant part being how much of the natural variation is explained by the factors in the normal population.

[Endus]

No, it's saying that you don't have any argument and instead use swear words.

Part of development is to learn to see that.

That's literally tone policing. The use of curse words has no relevance to the strength of an argument whatsoever.

"All dogs are mammals. Fido is a dog. Therefore Fido is a mammal" is a perfectly functional logical argument.
"All dogs are fucking mammals. Shitfucker is a dog. Therefore, the son of a bitch Shitfucker is a fucking mammal, fucking obviously" is the same argument, and just as functional and valid. The curse words peppered throughout change no meaning of any sentence or clause. They're just . . . seasoning.

[Forogil]

That's literally tone policing. The use of curse words has no relevance to the strength of an argument whatsoever.

No relevance at all; let's check what others say whether curse words has any relevance for the strength of the argument:
https://www.fluther.com/34891/does-s...entdiscussion/

it always takes away from an argument. using words like that in an argument distracts you from the logic you should be using to prove your point. Strong and offensive language does nothing.

Just because you think that drinking during pregnancy, or getting hit in the head as a child is "nature" not "nurture".

Or in summary: humans need both nature and nurture; and they interplay in complicated ways.

[Endus]

No relevance at all; let's check what others say whether curse words has any relevance for the strength of the argument:
https://www.fluther.com/34891/does-s...entdiscussion/

I couldn't care less what some random puritanical types on a forum say. They have no authoritative say over use of English or how logic functions. It's just pearl-clutching tone policing.

[crewskater]

I'd say both but more on the nature side. Genetics plays a key part in who you are.

[PC2]

I'd say both but more on the nature side. Genetics plays a key part in who you are.

Not really though because genes only determine the least meaningful things about a person. A person's ideas and actions are the most important variables and they are not fixed to a person's genes. Genes act as an initial guide but humans are the only species capable of resisting and improving on their genetic programming.

[Nastard]

From our own narrow perspectives as a human race that can't conceive of things beyond our imaginations, nurture probably plays a larger role. But from the perspective of an alien race observing us that IS privy to such things? We'll always have human limitations and predictabilities, in which case nature would appear to play a much larger role. Someone mentioned saying grace before dinner vs. just eating because you're hungry. But what about blorghisturation? They do it before consuming on planet Zognar, but we don't do it here. In fact, due to our lack of the sense of Smission we couldn't even conceive of such a thing!

What I'm getting at is that on a grander scale, our behavioral differences are probably much less extreme than we think they are. It'd be like watching an ant colony and seeing one ant acting slightly weirder than the others, but at the end of the day they're all constrained to being ants and will behave within those same limitations. We're only human after all.