Nature vs Nurture

[ChinaShopTaurus]

A big debate in psychology is nature vs nurture. The argument is as to whether a person's gene's (nature) mold them into an individual or whether their environment and how they are raised plays a part. In a nut shell.

John Locke is famous for his tabula Rasa or "blank state" theory which suggests when a baby is born his mind is basically blank and his experiences and outside influences shape him. This is also referred to as empiricism.

Clearly the answer is not definably one or the other but a mix of the two. What's your opinion?

[mcZu]

I agree on it being a mix. A lot of our characteristics are already in our genes, aspects of race that are being passed by from generation to generation. Those are the things we acquire to survive, things that are mainely based on our environment, and due to evolution these things get embedded in our system.

So, in a way, I believe that the Nature aspects are in fact influenced by our environment. The Nurture aspects influence the Nature aspects. And vice versa. The skills we are born with influence the things we pick up from our environment. Cause and effect.

Those are my thoughts on this topic, in a nut shell.

[Dark Blue]

I agree on it being a mix. A lot of our characteristics are already in our genes, aspects of race that are being passed by from generation to generation. Those are the things we acquire to survive, things that are mainely based on our environment, and due to evolution these things get embedded in our system.

So, in a way, I believe that the Nature aspects are in fact influenced by our environment. The Nurture aspects influence the Nature aspects. And vice versa. The skills we are born with influence the things we pick up from our environment. Cause and effect.

Those are my thoughts on this topic, in a nut shell.

u pretty much said what i was gonna say....with a few extra words lol

[flyingmonkey10]

Clearly the answer is not definably one or the other but a mix of the two. What's your opinion?

it's right there............

[EminemBase]

It is a mix but the blank slate theory is nonsense.

You should look to Steven Pinker for his rebuttal on this. As he says, if a baby was a blank slate - it wouldn't do anything.

And, there have been studies such as... well, two identical twins that were separated at birth okay. Now, identical twins means their genes are of course, practically identical. They're almost the same person, genetically speaking...

There was a study where two identical twins got separated, grew up in completely different environments, with different peer groups and influences. And countries mind you (meaning different art, fashion etc.) and when they met in adulthood = they shared a shocking amount of similarities.

They both dressed, acted, spoke and thought very similarly. I believe they even both carried out a personality test and came up almost the same. And, this isn't a witches' tale, this is a real study but, I forget the source. But if you look up Steven Pinker Blank Slate in Google Video - you'll find the whole presentation and he provides source(s) in there for all of this.

As for parental influence...

Look at say foreign families who come over let's say to the UK or US. Let's say, an Indian family who has a child in America. Now, take the fact the parents are born and bred from India and do not speak English very well at all and have thick Indian accents when doing so. We see this all the time...

But what happens? does the child grow up with a thick Indian accent or unable to speak English? no. The child grows up sounding American and speaking fluent English, due to the influence around him.

Parental influence is hugely overstated and many conclusive studies carried out by PInker and others have shown that parents actually have very little (and sometimes hardly ANY) real effect in shaping the intellect and personality of their child.

Outside of trauma or abuse, the chance shape of a person's brain and chance shape arrangement of their genes, and their peer group(s) etc. all determine who they become as a person to a much higher degree. Parental influence is... not very significant at all.

Which is why I don't like Freud's theories very much to be honest. I don't buy a lot of those 'parental misstep' explanations for fully-formed adult behaviour and they're much more assumptive than they are objective.

--

And, as somebody with bipolar (myself), I can tell you that you cannot out think your genes either. Mental disorders show that there are elements of brain structure and therefore thinking patterns and therefore - elements to your personality and outlook that you cannot control. Consciousness tricks humans into thinking they are in complete control...

When in fact, for the most part it just means we can observe ourselves.

But most people don't like that idea because as conscious humans, we like to feel like we're in control of every aspect but the truth is, we actually have a lot less 'free will' than we assume and a lot less control of who we are and become as a person than we assume. So much of it... is innate, and chance. And that doesn't sit well with many.

So to sum up, it's a spurious mix and I suspect no mix is ever the same which is to say... you could probably never put a reliable figure on it for 'all humans' as the extremity in gene variation, upbringing and surrounding influence can all drastically effect it the Nature vs Nurture effect in various ways. But, most evidence points towards your innate genetic structure (brain structure) as being the biggest sole influence on how you think, who you are, what you're attracted to and so on...

The outside can only influence you so much. You can change what you put in, but not how you process it. I think far too many people think they can change 'themselves' with outside influence.