Nature Vs. Nurture

[Who]

We had been discussing this all year in school (in my english class), and I thought it an interesting topic to bring up.

Do you think people are shaped by genetics? Or by the experiences they have?


I persoanally believe that people are shaped by the experiences they have. Such as the often used example of twins who are raised in different enviroments, and both turn out very very differently.I think its the experiences we have that can shape how we act the most.


(Not exactly wording this the way I want to, but I think you get my point)

[Guildenstern]

Ironically I get into this discussion all the time at my job. Only it's about pitbulls and not people.

Generally speaking genetics isn't going to determine your personality -except- if you're inbred to a certain extent. Inbreeding produces a lot of psychological problems and diseases, so in that sense 'nature' would factor into it in some way. This is where a lot of the behavioural problems in pitbulls and other popular breeds of dog come from-- extreme inbreeding with no variation in the gene pool brings out the mental problems to an extreme.

For the most part people's personalities are determined by the enviroment in which they are raised and the experiences they have when they are young. A person might be treated and raised to behave very well as a child only to develop problems dealing with people later in life because they weren't well socialized to different types of people as a child.

It's pretty much a combo of the two extremes. In most cases I'd say it's more 'nuture' than 'nature' but in some cases 'nature' might have a significant share of the blame.

Edit: And while I'm here, I'd like to remind anyone reading this thread that pitbulls, Dobermans, Mastiffs, AmStaffs and Bull Terriers are not aggresive dogs -by nature-. Inbreeding and poor treatment is what creates violent dogs, not the specific breed of the dog itself. If I see one more article on the news crying about the mean old pitbull I'm going to have to tell them they'll get over it.

[♠ Saint ♠]

*ahem* And rottweilers. I was raised around them all my life and the only time I ever saw them aggressive was when they were ready to tear someone up in defense of me or the house.

It's an equal balance of nature vs. nurture. Guildenstern pretty much summed it up for me. Granted, every so often, I believe people are capable of rising above what they have been allotted in life and are able to self-develop (as I had to). If you really want to, you can change yourself if you have the foresight and wisdom to change for the better (or for the worse depending on the case.)

[Rain]

Genetics will help determine what experiences you go through, but I believe that your personality is based completely upon your past experiences.

[Shinrin]

Guess i'd say 30-40% Genetic and 60-70% exp

[Frosted Heart]

This is a complicated topic, but I think it is a mix of both.

In university I've heard a lot about adopted twin studies, where the twins are split apart when they were adopted. They could end up in totally different countries and raised in totally different cultures, but some habits/personality traits ended up the same when they were found as adults. Those studies lead researchers to think that some personality traits are based somewhat on genetics.

Also some physical traits determined by genetics, say height for example, might dictate what kind of experiences you have. Say you were born short (something determined by both your genes and your environment - how much food is available to you). Even if the same events happened to you as they did in your life now, you'd probably view them in a different light, thus perhaps changing who you are today.

[speedphantom]

Hmm we discussed this in sociology. Sociology says genetics has hardly anything to do with it. Personality is developed in the person from a young age so it depends how they're brought up. If they're abused all the time of course they'll be different from someone who had loving parents.

If you had twins and treated one like junk and the other like a god you'd find some personality difference I think. If you had twins, one living with the mother, one living with the father, they'd turn out different. It has very little to do with the genetics. The twin cases, there might be some truth in that, but I says that the supposed similiarities could just be coincidence or that the upbringing was similar enough so that they were roughly the same.

Nuture hands down.

[ezxx]

it's more nature than it is nurture. The place one grows up in makes much more of a difference.

[Agmaster]

Nature lays the groundwork. I use myself as an example. I am smart, pretty damned smart at that, I am able to do just about anything that I put my mind to that is mental based with enough prep. But I am lazy. So I am great at very little. Just better than you at most things.

Nature gives the basics of how you end up, nurture fills in teh details.

[Unicorn]

Guess i'd say 30-40% Genetic and 60-70% exp

I agree with that. Even the most sweet-tempered person could grow feral in a violent environment, and possibly vice versa.

The closest analogy I can think of is: bakery items (breads, buns, pastries)

The basics like flour and water (Health and looks) start you off. The various ingredients and additives (environment) shapes and bakes you into the final product.

*gets the feeling that I'm just a common croissant - flaky, airy and full of fat* :D

[stifflersthedog]

I also believe its a bit of both.

Your genetic (Nature) in my mind makes up what you can potentially achieve, your height, body build etc.

Everything else is due to soceity (Nurture), makes sense how you act in society is how you were brought up in society.

although i mean some people will say "I'm just naturally inquisitive", but i suppose you were just brought up to ask questions, if your folks shut you down each time you spoke, you wouldn't be poking your head into things....

This reminds me of Mowgly (spell?) brought up with wolves so he acts like a wolf, but he's still got hands instead of paws.

[Primera Espada]

Nature can sometimes be the biggest factor, like when someone has a genetic defect that affects their whole life, or worse yet, a mental one.

However, genetics relating to behavioral patterns usually count for a predisposition. Any predisposed behavior, after given an experience that forces the brain to LEARN, can be then shut off by the brain.

Nature often sets our limits, but does not guide us at all.

Mentally, I can only get *SO* smart. I can only deduce to a certain level of skill and accuracy. That can change only very little even with immense work (hence why IQ scores don't often change over years).

However, the choice to be a rocket scientist or to be a day laborer is completely my own. I may enjoy simple physical labor due to my upbringing, or due to a bunch of factors, despite my genetic predisposition for intellectual challenges.

So in that regard, I would say nature is 15%

and I really dislike comparing animal behavioral patterns with humans (dislike as in, I do not feel it is appropriate for these discussions, not dislike as in I'm mad someone does it). They have no where near the cognitive ability we do, and so it's unfair to compare when they have an inability to mentally override some of their impulses, whereas humans usually have to decide to act on their impulses, rather than decide NOT to.

I mean, it's like comparing a bush to a tree. The tree just works entirely different cause it's a bigger, different type of plant. Sure there are some similarities, but the differences are glaring.