The Nature/Nurture Debate

[random guy]

Admittedly, taking a few psychology classes will better prepare people for this debate, but everyone is entitled an opinion on this issue.

The question is, what do you think more affects people's development, their genetics (nature), or the environment they're raised in (nurture)? Before you decide, here's some evidence for both:

 

Strong evidence in favour of nature: In twin studies of IQ, the IQs of identical twins (twins who share 100% of the same genes) raised apart from each other was more highly correlated (.86) than even fraternal twins (sharing 50% of the same genes) reared together in the same family (.60). Siblings raised together was correlated at only.40. For laymen, that means that identical twins who had never necessarily even met before had more similar IQ scores than fraternal twins raised in the same family, and far more similar scores than siblings raised in the same family.

 

In the 60's, a pair of 22-month olf twins went in for medical circumsision - one of the twin's censores was rendered unusable by an accident. The surgeons turned him into a girl and gave her feminine hormones. Yet even though she was raised as a girl, she never felt like a girl and was chronically depressed, and at 20 decided to begin the procedures to turn himself back into a guy.

-It was later discovered that there's a tiny area of the brain that is different in males and females. In males this area is bigger than females. Interestingly, in transexuals, that area is closer to the size in the female brain.

 

Strong evidence in favour of nurture: A number of adoption studies have shown that children born into cognitively underachieving families but adopted by cognitively overachieving families have had their projected IQs raised by up to 15 points.

 

Children who have been sufficiently abused or understimulated in the early years of life lack the capacity to become intelligent. In fact, if infants are not sufficiently stimulated in their first year or so or life, their brains will not form to the extent of a normal brain. In extreme examples, such as the "wild child" - a boy raised by wolves in his infancy - these children will not be able to learn how to talk.

 

My view: Although genetics does have a significant impact on a person's upbringing, I think the final word rests with the environment, because although your genes will not change once you are born, even Einstein, had he been raised in an abusive and understimulated environment, would have been unable to achieve the things he did.

[Agozer]

My standpoint is, and has been for a long time, that both genetics and environment shape ourselves and ultimately define who we are and how we react to different stimulants.

 

There is just no way that this issue is strictly black and white.

[Daeval]

My standpoint is, and has been for a long time, that both genetics and environment shape ourselves and ultimately define who we are and how we react to different stimulants.

 

There is just no way that this issue is strictly black and white.

Exactly my thoughts.

 

I've always felt that genetics probably has more to do with our "base" abilities: What we're prone to, especially in terms of "objective" things (relatively objective for this subject, anyway) like athletic strength or IQ.

 

Environment then expands on that base: Someone "raised by wolves" may be strong and quick-witted, even if he was born of sloth-y intellectual types. Likewise, a natural athlete with great genes for strength or endurance may neglect those skills if raised in an environment that better rewards intellectual thought. Regardless of genetic makeup, people tend to develop the things that they will help them "survive."

 

Genetics are like the stats you roll when you create a D&D character, while your class and skills would represent the effects of your environment.

 

 

When it comes to personality, I'm still up in the air. I think only very base principles are genetic. The kind of things involved in the aforementioned involuntary sex change. When it comes to trivial things, like a strong temper or a cheery disposition, I'm more tempted to say it's environment related. Who knows though, there have been studies to show all kinds of things like this in either direction.

[Skythe]

Nurture for physical. Nature for mental.

[L.S.D]

Nurture for physical. Nature for mental.

Ummm....not neccessary.

I remember there is one movie showing that DNA will not define everything in life.

It is the will, the environment that shape the people.

Can't remember the name of the movie. Galcutta, Calcutta or something

[random guy]

Nurture for physical. Nature for mental.

Ummm....not neccessary.

I remember there is one movie showing that DNA will not define everything in life.

It is the will, the environment that shape the people.

Can't remember the name of the movie. Galcutta, Calcutta or something

Edit: never mind, Gryph got it.

Edited September 21, 2004 by random guy

[Gryph]

Nurture for physical. Nature for mental.

Ummm....not neccessary.

I remember there is one movie showing that DNA will not define everything in life.

It is the will, the environment that shape the people.

Can't remember the name of the movie. Galcutta, Calcutta or something

The name of the movie is Gattaca.

 

But Daevel took the words out of my mouth, genetics defines the base character while the environmental stimuli around us mold us into the individuals we become. Even so, genetics does have a significant impact on our minds and bodies since scientists are finding genes that control and react to certain stimuli like anger, sadness, happiness, etc.

[shin_nihon_kikaku]

The best experiment you could do to prove which is more important is to swap children of 2 different families.

 

Child A would be a child concieved by scum bag parents (tramps who get pregnant when they are 15, don't want to have the child, and are basically horrible people). This child obviously has crap genes and would probably grow up to be just as scummy as their parents.

 

Child B would be concieved by 2 good, clever people who you would expect to be great parents. This child should have great genes and a great upbringing.

 

However if you swiched the children (no one would agree to it, I know) so the good parents get the kid with crappy scum genes and the horrible skank parents get the good child you could see which child turned out to be nice/clever/successful etc.

 

I personally think a child with crap genes could be still taught to be polite and successful if the parents did a good job and the child was raised in a loving home. whereas the child with good genes but brought up by unworthy parents would be

disadvantaged and sullied for life by a terrible upbringing. I feel they would find

it incredibly hard/ nigh-on impossible to make something of themselves afterwards

even if they had an incling of motivation to do so. Which I seriously doubt they would. They wouldn't know good from bad, right from wrong, so would be happy living their life as worthlessly and pointlessly as their parents did.

 

imo the genes are nowhere near as important as the upbringing. But obviously, I don't know for sure.

 

Does anyone else agree this experiment would be the only true way (and even then, not set in stone) to see which is important? The judge of the parents would have to be good in order for the experiment to work as fairly as possible.

It would be impossible to do this though as good parents would never give up their child.

 

Hope you all understand what I'm getting at.

Edited September 21, 2004 by shin_nihon_kikaku

[shin_nihon_kikaku]

Nurture for physical. Nature for mental.

Don't you mean the other way around?

[Daeval]

Child A would be a child concieved by scum bag parents (tramps who get pregnant when they are 15, don't want to have the child, and are basically horrible people). This child obviously has crap genes and would probably grow up to be just as scummy as their parents.

 

Child B would be concieved by 2 good, clever people who you would expect to be great parents. This child should have great genes and a great upbringing.

At first this made sense as a decent experiment, and then I realized it's kind of a chicken and the egg issue... What if Child A's scumbag parents were only scumbags as a result of their environment? Likewise about Child B's great parents. Without making any unscientific assumptions, how would you tell when you got a set of genes that were prone to "good" vs. "bad" things?

 

I guess you'd have to find people with traceable genetic tendencies, like a family history of depression or something. And even then it seems like it would be tough to tell what's what if each successive generation was raised by the previous. Weirdness..

[shin_nihon_kikaku]

At first this made sense as a decent experiment, and then I realized it's kind of a chicken and the egg issue...  What if Child A's scumbag parents were only scumbags as a result of their environment?  Likewise about Child B's great parents.  Without making any unscientific assumptions, how would you tell when you got a set of genes that were prone to "good" vs. "bad" things?

 

I guess you'd have to find people with traceable genetic tendencies, like a family history of depression or something.  And even then it seems like it would be tough to tell what's what if each successive generation was raised by the previous.  Weirdness..

I doesn't make an iota of difference if the scum parents' grandparents weren't scum. You only need a pair of crap parents. It doesn't matter how they got crap. It is painfully obvious which people are just unbelievably horrible and skanks. You see loads of scum every day who should under no circumstances have children.

 

I agree, it is quite hard to see which parents should be in the experiment, but I think finding the scum couple would be pretty easy. You'd just have to find any detestable couple and use them.

Edited September 21, 2004 by shin_nihon_kikaku