RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence

RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (Full Version)

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

Message

cpK69 -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/30/2009 3:51:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle Obviously we are a products of both our genetics and our environment, anyone that thinks otherwise is a donut. What of those who ‘rise above’? If it is claimed that we are products of our genetics and environment, how is it reasonable to expect people to be responsible for their choices? quote: Since even identical twins have distinct differences based on what experiences they have gone through. Is it unreasonable to think that even if a set of identical twins were to share the same exact experiences, there would still be differences between them? Kim

LillyoftheVally -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/30/2009 4:07:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle Obviously we are a products of both our genetics and our environment, anyone that thinks otherwise is a donut. What of those who ‘rise above’? If it is claimed that we are products of our genetics and environment, how is it reasonable to expect people to be responsible for their choices? Rising above it is part of the process, look up labeling theory. If it is not these things then what the heck is it? If just personality then it is inevitable anyways isn't it? With recognising the socialisation issue we are able to find ways around it, if it had no bearing then what is the point of education? quote: Since even identical twins have distinct differences based on what experiences they have gone through. Is it unreasonable to think that even if a set of identical twins were to share the same exact experiences, there would still be differences between them? Kim Thing is, and here is the kicker we can never test the theory. They have done close with some psychological tests (I find Child of Our TIme's gender episode pure genius in this regard) but often to get a decent test is to be unethical. To really know we would have to separate twins or clones and then raise them in different environments as well as having a control test and the problem with this is of course that you have tampered with a human beings life. In the labeling theory there was a test, a group of children sat 'aptitude' tests. The researchers told teachers that some were exceptionally bright and some very bellow average regardless of the marks they actually got.Then a year later they did the test for real and found the children they said were bright had well overtaken those that they said weren't. Why? Because teachers treated the children differently based on expectations.

FullCircle -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/31/2009 5:39:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cpK69 What of those who ‘rise above’? If it is claimed that we are products of our genetics and environment, how is it reasonable to expect people to be responsible for their choices? Your environment may make you a psychopath or a paedophile but we don't punish people for what they are only for what they do. Yes some people will have certain experiences that will make them more likely to commit crime but in sentencing this can't be taken into account as it would make the sentencing process far too complex and unjust to some. Make no mistake the justice system isn't perfect and you'll find people from certain ethnic or socioeconomic groups more highly represented in the prison population. We can't though say that they should be subject to different rules, we have to instead try and change the environment that lead to that criminal behaviour. I firmly believe that meeting just one person (that person being a good influence) can change the whole course of your life. quote: Is it unreasonable to think that even if a set of identical twins were to share the same exact experiences, there would still be differences between them? Impossible for two individuals to share exactly the same experiences. Parents often try to dress them in the same clothes and treat them the same way but they still end up with distinctly different tastes and personalities. What are your fears, why is this your favourite colour. These are all things based on unique negative or positive experiences; experiences that may have lasted less than a minute but made an impression on you to last a lifetime. We know identical twins are different from observation so logically it is either nurture or nature, it can't be nature because there are no real differences genetically so it is nurture in this limited example. Comparing these twins to that of another individual we have no points of reference only that some of it is not down to genetics (since we have already proven identical twins are not so identical in practice). I think there are studies being done that have identified these high IQ genes for example but it is impossible to tell if these high IQ genes directly or indirectly lead to high IQ; perhaps it is just as simple as imposing a certain behaviour trait on an individual which leads to high IQ such as inquisitiveness? Perhaps you could make this high IQ gene redundant through better parenting i.e. through a higher level of interaction and direction to learning than that of the child with the high IQ gene combination? I doubt it is all one thing or the other, like two people can do the same task, one person finds it easy whilst the other finds it hard but works harder and so gets the same result.

awmslave -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/31/2009 11:55:47 AM)
We do know it is a combination of both. So, the question is what is the ratio? It depends what we are talking about. For example the average height of humans have increased substantially last 100 years (nurture) but there are clear individual differences (genes). As human character traits are concerned, I believe, the basic type is genetically determined, the actual environment (training!) can have large modifying effect. At the same time how much effect nurturing has depends what concrete trait we are looking at.

cpK69 -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/31/2009 4:51:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LillyoftheVally Rising above it is part of the process, look up labeling theory. If it is not these things then what the heck is it? If just personality then it is inevitable anyways isn't it? With recognising the socialisation issue we are able to find ways around it, if it had no bearing then what is the point of education? Interesting read. Thank you, Lilly. The description reminds me of what I read about how ego is formed in each of us; by society, which was claimed, starts with that which is perceived as ‘mother’. My question was to inquire about those who do overcome, as the idea of being ‘products of’, implies to me, the opportunity of such does not exist. While I wouldn’t claim that all can do so, it seems obvious that some do, and many more could; the question being, “what is the difference between the three?”; my theory is, purpose; perhaps the same thing refered to as ‘self’. As to the situation of labeling; probably the biggest problem with it, is its ‘one size fits all’ nature; perhaps both the soft and hard lableing theories are correct, depending on whom is being assesed. However, even bigger, is the nature of the majority to believe the opinion of ‘authority’. Especially, when said authority is society, since the concept of society seems to be ‘the face the majority wares for the world’, in other words, a big ball of opinion meant for 'everyone else'. The reason I say that, is because while people lecture others on what is right and wrong, they often do the same type of wrongness, either behind closed doors, or in a different area of life, all the while claiming theirs is somehow different, when it isn't. quote: Thing is, and here is the kicker we can never test the theory. They have done close with some psychological tests (I find Child of Our TIme's gender episode pure genius in this regard) but often to get a decent test is to be unethical. I wasn’t suggesting that we do, but then, the simple fact that one person cannot be another, was enough to convince me. [:)] Kim

cpK69 -> RE: Nature vs. Nurture vs. Essence (8/31/2009 9:07:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FullCircle Your environment may make you a psychopath or a paedophile but we don't punish people for what they are only for what they do. Isn’t it more likely that it is the perception of the perceived experiences, and an inability to cope with that perception, which causes deviation in the otherwise ‘normal’? The second part of that sentence is so not true; the clue word being “punish”; a proclamation of ‘bad’, regardless of where the focus is claimed to be. quote: Yes some people will have certain experiences that will make them more likely to commit crime but in sentencing this can't be taken into account as it would make the sentencing process far too complex and unjust to some. You have no idea how bewildering it is to me that we continue to refer to a system that is obviously not just, as “the justice system”. quote: I firmly believe that meeting just one person (that person being a good influence) can change the whole course of your life. I agree it is possible; I just prefer better odds. quote: I doubt it is all one thing or the other, like two people can do the same task, one person finds it easy whilst the other finds it hard but works harder and so gets the same result. Doesn't the existance of a third, who can do the same task, but has no interest toward it, indicate that there is more to it than the two already mentioned conditions? I get the feeling, as a deviant, I am being discounted in some way. Kim

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125