Nature vs Nurture

I'm more of a nurture man myself.

Nature, well yes! You inherit traits and mental disorders and what have you. But, I believe everything else is based off the environment in which you are raised. That is what decides your fate!

 

I think nature and nurture both play a part. I have two younger sisters who grew up with me. We were both raised the exact same way by the exact same parents. And all three of us are very much different people. And it's interesting, because myself and one of my sisters are adopted, and my parents knew both of our biological parents, and they can see the resemblance in some of our behaviors and interests, even though I've never met either of my biological parents and my sister has only gotten to know hers in the last few years.

I think genetics lays a foundation for how a person will turn out, and then the environment and personal experience can either build on that (with good experiences) or deteriorate it (in cases of severe child abuse and neglect, not allowing a child to get an education, etc).

 

If stubbornness is inheritable.

What if it so happens that the stubbornness is the nurture and not the nature?

 

Consider that a poor choice of words. But I don't think I'm necessarily wrong. I think each person has a spectrum or a range of how they could turn out. Getting a good education, learning from your mistakes, being loved and cared for and feeling safe, push you to the more positive side of the spectrum, and make you a better person. A person who drowns out all of their potential with drugs and alcohol, for instance, will not live up to the potential that their genetics gave them.

 

What makes you think it is?

'Being stubborn' is being persistent. It doesn't develop over night or just because your parents are stubborn. I believe it is developed over time, an Ego. Whether your parents being stubborn would have nothing to do with you. You might 'catch their stubbornness' by being around them or simply wind up being stubborn coincidentally. Frankly, I think that people innately or just plain out 'cognitively' try to compare parent to offspring or off spring to one another. Looking for something you can't find, you are bound to find something there even if it's not 'actually' there.

 

I don't know. I think every person has a limit on their potential, and the limit is the same, regardless of their environment and personal experiences. Like, I don't think it is really possible to make yourself smarter. I think you can definitely learn as much as you want and retain that information, but I don't think you can take any child and turn them into Einstein. That sort of genius is something that you're just born with.

You can take any old child and in a house raised by college professors, that child might be more interested in and have more opportunity for learning than if that same child were the oldest child in a low income household who has to help support his family in order for everyone to eat. I think the child's upper and lower limits on intelligence would be the same in either situation, but the child raised by the college professors would have had a better opportunity to develop it and would seem smarter, though the potential is still there for the child in the other situation. Does that make sense? I don't think that makes sense. Except in my head.

This argument is a hard one for me, because I don't like the idea of nature playing too much of a role. I like to think that our decisions and experiences shape us more than something we have no power to control. But I don't think you can deny that genetics is important.

RE: stubborness, I think having that persistent personality could have something to do with genetics, but I could easily see experiences changing that. Like, someone who is very stubborn and strong willed could have a child who likes to push limits and is stubborn in their own way, but I could also see a stubborn person being so overpowering that their child is very meek.

 

That's no fun. As humans, we like to think that we don't have any limitations. That we can set out to be anything that we desire. But yes, I believe any child could be the next Einstein. What's unique about Einstein is that; he didn't take the status quo as is. In fact, he questioned it and thought freely. That's our problem today. We aren't free thinkers. We stay is this comfortable bubble and don't question the laws and rules set before us. The Greeks were ahead of their time along with other ancient civilizations. Some knew that the world was spherical others came close to the actual circumference of the planet. These were free learners and thinkers. Now today, we can't think freely. We need a subject to write on or we lack creativity.

I don't follow properly. I see that any child has the potential of excelling in academic but what about intelligence beyond that. 'Street Smarts' and 'Creativity'. That's what some Intelligence Quotients lack is Creativity. I don't think that either child in both income households have limits at all. The child trained by professional most likely lacks experience or creativity which he makes up with academics while the low income child (vice versa). Either one could be just as smart as the other in their respective specialties. Not because they are genetically different but if the case had been reverse or possibly if they traded places and continue their lives as the other would have. Potentially, they could be equals.

That's whether you believe all emotions are genetic or some are learned. Being stubborn, I categorize as being learned or developed. If an emotion is not apart of your instincts then I don't consider it genetic. Even saying that, makes me shutter to believe emotions are legitimately genetic. Because really, I don't think emotions are genetic. Really, stubbornness is a developed persistent feeling on something or someone, which shouldn't be considered genetic at all. I think our instincts develop our emotions. Our instincts to eat, to drink, to reproduce. Develops are emotions of anxiety, frustration, depression, and love which those evolved further into other emotions. If you believed in cavemen or what not, I don't believe the common neanderthal suffered from neurosis or euphoria.

 

No it's not fun. I see what you're saying and I don't disagree with all of it. But whether we like to think about it or not, I do think we have limits, though they may not be especially narrow. I don't consider myself a very stupid person, but I know I'm not going to be inventing the next big thing, you know? I think some people are just naturally very intelligent, and of course they may choose not to nurture that and not live up to that potential, but it's still there and higher for some people than it is for others. That's not to say that I wouldn't encourage someone to try and surpass their limitations, because who am I to say what anyone else's limit is? But...

I'm not sure I said what I was meaning to, but I'm not sure we'd see eye to eye anyway, because you don't think people have limits and I do. My point, I suppose, is that every person has his or her own range to his potential which he is born with and will not change no matter what his environment and experiences. But the environment the person is in and his experiences will move him along that scale in varying ways. So there is one child, and his range on, say, book learning type intelligence, is from A (being his upper limit) to E (as the lower). And as a blank slate, he starts off somewhere at C. But if that child is placed in a home where the parents greatly value book learning, the child may move along that scale from C towards the A, but the same child in a situation where he doesn't have the means to study might slide down the scale from the C towards the E. And then there's another spectrum for the child's street smarts, and the book learned child might be closer to his E than his A while the opposite would be true for the child in the other situation. I definitely think different skills would be encouraged based on the environment the child found himself in. But I think that the child has to fall within the parameters genetics sets for each skill.

I don't know. I think both genetics and learned behavior is involved.

 

Not only that, but I think all living things don't have limits. That's why we all adapt to our environment. The things that were not necessarily written in our genetic coding are now capable and feasible through adaptability and evolution. Breaking our so called limits and providing new possibilities.

Indeed, people have infinite needs and these needs can't be satisfied and even if it is satisfied it's for a short time. I don't see how this has to do with stubbornness. But, Leisure time and better conditions are luxuries and are not needed therefore according to me, not apart of instinct, but developed over time because of desires and lust.

Those examples aren't at all about persistence. I don't understand what your getting at but, 'to seek better conditions' and 'to attempt to understand everything' are lust/desires and curiosity respectively. I could seek to learn everything and better conditions. Whether I am persistent in doing these things. You don't know because there's not enough information there. An attempt is just that an attempt not something enduring. Seeking, you could 'fall by the way side' which isn't persisting. Basically, you gave two different emotions that potentially could lead to stubbornness but the information you provided just wasn't there.

Whose point are you supporting here! This just made by case. If you do not know where the limit is, how do you know its even there.

Well as far as we know.

Yet to proven but okay.

I believe the brain is able to contain infinite amount of data. If you don't think about something, it doesn't exist. The knowledge you don't use is stored in your unconsciousness and when you need to draw upon that knowledge it is pulled from the unconsciousness to the consciousness, allowing you to infinitely store as much knowledge as you need whether you can draw upon it, is a different story.

 

Yeah, the discussion is starting to get a wee bit off topic, though I'm glad to see some real debating in this section going on. Another thread might not be a bad idea.

When you get down to it, I don't think any of us are really that different in our thoughts on this. I don't think any of us see the question as a one or the other- we all seem to acknowledge that nature and nurture both play a part, though we vary in degrees.

 

I'm talking about both really. I'm sure; the tiniest unnoticeable changes (evolution in one generation) allows us to break 'limits' even if it's to the nano decimal due to 'nurture'.

My reply is 'can it be a limit when we couldn't ever possibly know that it is'.

This day and age probably not.

A limit could just as well be a paradox. Words themselves are arbitrary only bound by the knowledge of the people who created them. I'm sure that we can't precisely find the limit of anything therefore I don't think they exist. Our environment gives us limitless possibilities and gives us room to expand and grow regardless of what our genes may say.

Yeah!