|
The Age Old Debate...
Nature vs. Nurture.
What do you think has more affect on how a person turns out? I personally think nature has a more dominant affect, but that it can be overturned by nurture. Does that mean I believe people are born evil? No, but I do believe a child can be born with a predisposition to violent or cruel behavior, and, if not cared for properly, can grow up to be a violent and cruel person. This whole thing about "it's all the parents'/media's/society's fault" is a load of crap to me. I've seen people with terrible parents turn out as wonderful people, and people with amazing parents turn out terrible. But I also believe if people try hard enough, they can turn a violent/disobedient/all-in-all messed up child into a productive member of society if they find and use the means necessary (i.e., counceling, medication, etc). So, what are your views on the subject? |
I would agree for the most part, unless the child is a psychopath. From what I've read and heard, there is no cure for that condition.
|
Ah, yes, psychopathic (now more commonly accepted as sociopathic) behavior is, as of yet, incurable =( Which is horrible, because it's probably one of, if not the, worst mental disorders.
|
You vaguely contradicted yourself in your first post, though. You said that nature has the "more dominant affect [sic]" but then go on to say that it can be overcome by nurture. That would make nurture the dominant force and not nature.
As far as personal opinions go, I believe that there aren't nearly as many "just bad" children as parents would have you believe. The responsibility for parenting (sociologically) has fallen from the parents shoulders and passed on to television, grandparents, video games, and schools. If parents were still willing to take the time to spend with their children, the way the parents of my generation (generally) did, you'd see fewer "bad" kids. |
Well, not necessarily. Because while I do believe nuture can beat out nature, if not addressed directly, nature will win.
Like if you have twins, and at birth they both hate brocolli, but one is forced to eat a lot of brocolli growing up, eventually he would grow to, if not like it, at least tolerate it, while the other would continue to hate it. |
I don't believe in good or evil - but I am not supporting to be violent - don't get me wrong on this part.
|
As a twin myself I have to say that I find Nature and Nurture to both play a role in the disposition of people. My sister and I are identical twins. We've grown up in the same environment since birth with our parents caring for us (as far as I know) equally.
We are both relatively shy around new people and like to spend a good deal of time by ourselves. We get upset easily and don't like the same kinds of people. We do, however, have differences. Though I'm shy, I am much more outgoing than my sister, I'm much more talkative when we're with our friends while she is more of an observer. She is a very impatient person. She's very quick to decide who she does and doesn't like and makes comments on it from the beginning. I'm much more willing to give people a chance. It's in my opinion that we were born with the personality quirks that we have that are different from each other and the similar way that we were raised gave us the personality traits that are similar. Of course, most of these studies are done on separated twins and compare the similarities that they have when they were raised in different environments so I feel like my case is backwards. |
I think the problem with any debate about nature vs nurture is that the two don't exist separately or in a vacuum. People always act as if they're mutually exclusive, when really they are inseparable. Everyone is a combination of a set of traits they're born with and a set that are imposed via upbringing, peers and society at large. The twin studies focus on the things that are similar between two twins who were raised by different people, but they never touch on the things that are unique between them because of the way they're raised.
|
I agree with Kinmotsu. I also would like to add that I dislike this debate because emphasizing nature and nurture ignores the most important thing-- the will of the person. When people are infants or toddlers, they are at the mercy of nature/nurture, but "how a person turns out" is ultimately the decision of the person.
If forced to choose a side, I would argue that nature is more powerful in general, because it affects how others treat a person (that is, nurture). Parents are sometimes cruel to children with developmental disabilities, for instance, out of frustration or disappointment. Strangers will judge you based on your height and skin color and so forth. I see nature as fixed, though. It depends on your definition of nature. |
Personally i think its a bit like a coloring book.
Nature is the outlines of the picture. It contains all the potential for what could be. And the person who colors in the picture is nurture. They control how the picture actually turns out, adding bits, taking bits away as they please. Then finally, a picture (or personality) is created. Although having said that... a picture is much more permanent than a personality. The things around a person that has the ability to change them are constantly changing, and so, so is their personality. |
Growing up as an adopted twin then having a little brother from my adoptive parents 13 years later, I could go either way. They're both important factors in growing up. I could say that it's nature that gives the biggest impact because our little brother is so different than us, but there are also a ton more factors to look at: Like gender and the fact that he might have a disability since my mom had him at 45. It could be nature that is because we're so different, or just the difference between boys and girls. Both are important in the growing up process that changes people.
|
NURTURE. mostly. you no nothing when you are born, you grow to learn everything that you think. your personality may be your genes, but experiences also shape you.
This kind of research has been done with identical twins that were seperated at birth. Some things they were the same, but depending on area they lives/parents/experiences they turned out totally different. |
Nurture. Nature, of course, plays a role, but it's up to the parent to teach the child how to act.
Babies are defenseless and learn just about everything they need to know. Our babies can be raised by packs of dogs, and can be mentally neglected with drastic effects. D: They pick up everything around them, including any bad behavior. So, if there's a lot of negative behavior then they'll see and imitate. Well spoken children are talked to a lot as babies. According to a study, even playing with the child a lot as a child and infant can increase it's intelligence. If you just leave it to rot in front of a TV it'll be less intelligent. |
I think it's mostly nurture because I see a lot of people who are just like their parents. Of course it's partly nature but a lot of that comes from the parents anyways, so...
|
I think nuture because it can take a lot of time and effort on the parents on how the child grows up to be. When someone may grow up in a bad home it could be that other are influencing the child to become free of the stresses at home. So they are baically finding a sanctuary and finding peace there and that is how they are able to cope with the day.
|
nurture and nature are both responsible for personality. read the book called nature via nurture by matt ridley.
|
I believe Biology plays a huge role in a persons life, although some biology can be overridden it's very difficult. Take for example a mental patient. They cannot override their biology. They cannot just say to themselves I won't be crazy anymore and poof their sane. I agree small characteristics can be shaped by nurture but in the end we are slaves to our biology.
|
Quote:
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:46 AM. |