Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence

Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Ialdabaoth -> Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/27/2009 6:38:11 PM)
You know, whenever people start in on the nature vs. nurture debate, I always notice that most people talk as if there's a third option, but no one ever directly refers to that option. I'm going to go ahead and name that option "Essence". The idea of the "nature" argument is that our genes and biology strongly influence our behavior, and (according to the Essentialists) are therefore merely a weak excuse for anything we might do, because it's "not our fault - it's our genes". The idea of the "nurture" argument is that our environment and our upbringing strongly influence our behavior, and (according to the Essentialists) are therefore merely a weak excuse for anything we might do, because it's "not our fault - it's how we were raised". The idea of "essence", then, is that some people are just naturally Good, Worthwhile People, and that other people are just naturally No-Good Shits, and that there are no excuses - your circumstances in life, including your genes and your biology, and including your upbringing and environment, all merely reflect your inner Nature, which is either full of Awesome or Suck. And if you're full of Suck, that's your own damn fault, and stop pretending that you can fix it through therapy or pills or anything like that, and especially stop pretending that we should be sympathetic to you just because your stepdad raped you six times a day or you were born with a faulty gene that makes you unable to regulate your mood swings.

Aileen1968 -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/27/2009 6:45:37 PM)
I'd vote for the third choice. I'm one of four girls. We were all raised in a loving home, we have similar genetics since we are siblings. We are so vastly different in our personalities that it just seems logical that it's our unique essence.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/27/2009 6:48:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aileen1968 I'd vote for the third choice. I'm one of four girls. We were all raised in a loving home, we have similar genetics since we are siblings. We are so vastly different in our personalities that it just seems logical that it's our unique essence. Well, the "nature" argument would note that, while you have similar genetics, you still each have different specific genes, and were each exposed to different chemicals and nutrients while growing, which all result in a different biological substrate. The "nurture" argument would note that parents are a very small component of environment, and that you all clearly had different life experiences, different peer groups, and experienced various world and local events at different moments in your development.

Esinn -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/27/2009 7:05:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth The idea of the "nature" argument is that our genes and biology strongly influence our behavior, and (according to the Essentialists) are therefore merely a weak excuse for anything we might do, because it's "not our fault - it's our genes". That is absolutely incorrect. Of course in most cases such rebellion takes strength. Although there are thousands of examples of natural urges which have been hardwired. Sometime ignoring or overcoming this programming is good other times bad or simply no impact. One of the best examples I can think of is using a condom. I can not think of any action which is more anti-evolution than that - this is simply against the purpose of sex. Addiction is another thing that happens which is rebellious to gene survival / personal survival. The first time you pick up that crack pipe is an act of rebellion. The 100th time you pick it up you might be dead. I do not think this is what nature wants(dead people) or possibly this is its way of sorting out the crack heads. We have evolved to avoid pain and seek pleasure. Sometimes the hardwired instinct of survival is rerouted for the brief pleasures of escape - usually the results in the end are poor. Anyhow it is: 'rebellion naturally'. I would assume rebellious idea could be learned by nurture. Evolution does not have to move in a way which can be identified as 'progressive' - bigger, faster stronger. I think that flawed assumption that might influence the decision of some folks to this response. If for some reason it is of advantage for humans to have poor eye sight, smaller penises, no thumbs it will happen if this is what is necessary.

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/27/2009 7:15:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Esinn That is absolutely incorrect. Of course in most cases such rebellion takes strength. Although there are thousands of examples of natural urges which have been hardwired. Sometime ignoring or overcoming this programming is good other times bad or simply no impact. One of the best examples I can think of is using a condom. I can not think of any action which is more anti-evolution than that - this is simply against the purpose of sex. Addiction is another thing that happens which is rebellious to gene survival / personal survival. The first time you pick up that crack pipe is an act of rebellion. The 100th time you pick it up you might be dead. I do not think this is what nature wants(dead people) or possibly this is its way of sorting out the crack heads. We have evolved to avoid pain and seek pleasure. Sometimes the hardwired instinct of survival is rerouted for the brief pleasures of escape - usually the results in the end are poor. Erm... that's not exactly how nature works. Nature doesn't "want" you to survive or breed. Nature doesn't "want" anything. Certain sub-processes within nature tend to lead to other sub-processes, one of which is the pleasure-seeking instinct in human beings. This can lead to things like smoking crack or non-reproductive sex, but those acts aren't "against nature" at all - they're a direct by-product of nature, just like everything else is.

impishlilhellcat -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/27/2009 7:21:08 PM)
This is an argument I've seen come up again and again in all of my genetics classes in college. While I really don't hold an opinion on the subject because Im still processing all the information I've come across I do find this a very interesting debate. Just out of curiosity how do you view stories like As nature made him: the boy who raised as a girl? Nature/Nurture or as you say Essence?

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/27/2009 7:22:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: impishlilhellcat This is an argument I've seen come up again and again in all of my genetics classes in college. While I really don't hold an opinion on the subject because Im still processing all the information I've come across I do find this a very interesting debate. Just out of curiosity how do you view stories like As nature made him: the boy who raised as a girl? Nature/Nurture or as you say Essence? I believe it's an interplay of Nature and Nurture, and that we don't yet fully understand either. I think that Essence is bunk, and generally an excuse to treat people crudely, because compassion and understanding cost more energy than we think we can afford them.

impishlilhellcat -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/27/2009 7:25:52 PM)
I think I see what you are saying about essence now. I can agree that we don't fully understand either.

marie2 -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/27/2009 7:29:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth You know, whenever people start in on the nature vs. nurture debate, I always notice that most people talk as if there's a third option, but no one ever directly refers to that option. I'm going to go ahead and name that option "Essence". The idea of the "nature" argument is that our genes and biology strongly influence our behavior, and (according to the Essentialists) are therefore merely a weak excuse for anything we might do, because it's "not our fault - it's our genes". The idea of the "nurture" argument is that our environment and our upbringing strongly influence our behavior, and (according to the Essentialists) are therefore merely a weak excuse for anything we might do, because it's "not our fault - it's how we were raised". The idea of "essence", then, is that some people are just naturally Good, Worthwhile People, and that other people are just naturally No-Good Shits, and that there are no excuses - your circumstances in life, including your genes and your biology, and including your upbringing and environment, all merely reflect your inner Nature, which is either full of Awesome or Suck. And if you're full of Suck, that's your own damn fault, and stop pretending that you can fix it through therapy or pills or anything like that, and especially stop pretending that we should be sympathetic to you just because your stepdad raped you six times a day or you were born with a faulty gene that makes you unable to regulate your mood swings. I don't view shortcomings as "fault" or "excuse" type of things, but I do think that they way we are raised or the way we grow up, and the experiences we've had can account for a lot of the good and the bad that we have become. How could it not? But yeah, there comes a time to move past it. I think sometimes though, that some people hold onto bad experiences because it gives them some kind of security. It's almost as if people are afraid to let it go, even if it was something horrible, they still need to feel it, re-think it, re-visit it because it's what they know, and I guess there is some sense of "safety" in the familiar.

daintydimples -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/27/2009 7:33:27 PM)
I believe in all three really. As a mother I'm very aware children are born with an essential nature. This is obvious early on. I'm also aware that nurturing (or lack of it) can alter that essential nature in all kinds of ways. I do believe there are people who are essentially good, just as I believe there are those who are essentially bad. Is this then their essence? To me, it starts to come down to a spiritual component. There are those who would argue that who you are spiritually is what you really are, the rest is all bullshit. If you want to call that "essence" that works for me.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/27/2009 8:04:11 PM)
I would have to say it is a mix of nature and nurture. Both certainly have impacts on a personality. But I don't understand the distinction between essence and nature. Unless you mean it in the sense of a soul. With out a soul all people are is genes and biology, right? Its not a weak excuse for what we do, its the absolute determinative (unless you cut corners and assert some degree of randomness via quanta or something). A self editing, in response to stimuli, program functioning according to laws. (way too complex for us to try to crack at this time.) Or we are energy/spiritual beings at the core, with biological "shells".

TheHeretic -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/28/2009 9:00:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth The idea of "essence", then, is that some people are just naturally Good, Worthwhile People, and that other people are just naturally No-Good Shits, Please note the highlighted words in the snip. What is the difference between your suggested third choice, and nature?? I don't see it. Are you operating from some special, unshared definition of "nature" that is not still the root of "naturally?" I would hold that the third element of this paradigm is "choice." This is the internal bit that is created when nature (the hard-wired bit) and nurture (everything that gets added after that) produce conflict between themselves. Now I have no interest at all in joining a conversation about God with people who not only have perfect faith that he doesn't exist, but seem very angry and confrontational about what they don't believe in, but I think this bit is relevant to the conversation at hand. One very good way to nurture in a source of such conflict is with the early installation of a mythology about the universe and our role in it, and how we are expected to conduct ourselves. Such organized belief systems all ultimately rest on faith, and can all be classified as "religion" whether the adherents like the label or not.

sravaka -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/28/2009 9:13:04 PM)
I have to agree here... "essence" seems inevitably biological. The problem is between "observably biological" (blond & blue parents with blond & blue kids) and all the murkier recessive stuff. Is "goodness"/"badness" (assign your own definitions) something that can be hardwired in the brain? Somehow it's easier to think of examples of organic "badness" (psychopathic killers, or something).... and even then, assessments of what is good and what is bad are determined only socially. I imagine there are people who are more prone to being conscious of society's dictates and more invested in following them (dare I call these "submissives"?) vs. those that are the opposite. Who decides if either of these tendencies is good or bad?

Ialdabaoth -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/29/2009 12:57:11 AM)
"choice" is actually an excellent word to use when trying to hone in on what I mean by 'essence', thank you. Here's the thing, though: Are bad people capable of choosing good? And if they did choose good, would that make them good people? What is it that causes a soul (or whatever) to choose good over bad?

NorthernGent -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/29/2009 3:46:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth The idea of the "nurture" argument is that our environment and our upbringing strongly influence our behavior, and (according to the Essentialists) are therefore merely a weak excuse for anything we might do, because it's "not our fault - it's how we were raised". Well I'm very much a 'nurture' advocate but I disagree with your conclusion ("it's not our fault"). We learn through experience i.e. our interaction with the world. There is nothing whatsoever inconsistent with the following notions: 1) Some people are quite clearly born into a more privileged situation: e.g. their parents have greater resources from which to set up their children for a successful life. 2) Regardless of the situation you're born into it's up to you to make the best of your lot. Disadvantage can be overcome - there's no use in crying about it/not accepting it/pouring blame elsewhere/not taking responsiblity for your life. In a nutshell: you can't escape your environment but you can shape how you respond to it. Edited to add: If nature was the driving force then surely there would be ideas to which we all consent from the day we are born. Quite clearly a child can't consent to ideas of which he/she has no experience. We learn through experience/reason not through innate natural ideas.

velvetears -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/29/2009 6:13:33 PM)
Nature is your physical life Nurture is your emotional life Essence is your spiritual life Nature has endowed men at 18 to be very horny. Nurture has either endowed him with character or lack thereof in the ways he will obtain sex. Essence will draw him to seek meaning in the experience.

cpK69 -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/30/2009 7:38:52 AM)
Despite the fact the whole of my experiences are unique to me, I think there is only one thing I can say is completely unique of me, and that is my perspective. I base my choices on my perspective, and while it can be said, much of my perspective comes from my biological make-up, and my emotional triggers, due to how my environment responded to me; I believe it is purpose that singles me out. Purpose being the same as essence. Many set-backs caused by biology and environment can be overcome, worked around, try to avoid purpose, and life becomes hell. I believe life, for man, is a lesson, therefore, there is no such thing as good or bad; as all things can be learned from. Kim

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/30/2009 7:56:20 AM)
FR I am almost totally on the nurture side, I believe there are basic things that we genetically have, and I don't agree with your idea of essence. I think biological ideas allow prejudice and even advocate eugenics something I am totally against. I think we are socialised into who we are, experiences, enviroments these are the things that make the biggest difference. Willis' Learning to Labour shows this really well.

FullCircle -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/30/2009 11:40:04 AM)
Not sure what essence is? Sounds like some new aged stuff like aura. I understand nurture and nature not sure there needs to be a third category that is a combination of the two. Why not call essence personality? i.e. some people have an evil personality and some people have a cute a fluffy personality, with everyone else being somewhere between the two. Obviously we are a products of both our genetics and our environment, anyone that thinks otherwise is a donut. Since even identical twins have distinct differences based on what experiences they have gone through. Proven as fact so I don't see the point of debating it is all nature.

rightwinghippie -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/30/2009 12:37:16 PM)
Another aspect to this is that it is not just our genes, but those of the Bacteria in us that matter. More and more they are realising that we are super colony organisms. And that most of the Cells in our bodies are not human. Our enviroment affects the micro flora in us, which has profound affects on our health and personalities. Consider how introducing rabies into a person changes thier personality. http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/news/2004/10/65252 "Most of the cells in your body are not your own, nor are they even human. They are bacterial. From the invisible strands of fungi waiting to sprout between our toes, to the kilogram of bacterial matter in our guts, we are best viewed as walking "superorganisms," highly complex conglomerations of human cells, bacteria, fungi and viruses. "

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875