To be completely honest, I have no proof behind my opinions, because they're solely opinion. I feel like the nature vs nurture argument will not be solved or even changed until some new groundbreaking discovery is made, because right now I have heard evidence for both sides that seem reasonable. I have seen evidence of nature and nurture, and I find that the idea that both are (fairly) equally relevant is kind of... reasonable.
So yeah, Tiara, I don't have much deeper meaning besides anecdotes.

And Crimson, I did misunderstand you in your post, but don't blame yourself for poor communication. I find your ideas are quite clear generally, just remember that I rarely go beyond skimming other people's posts, so I sometimes end up with serious misinterpretations. Luckily enough people never reply that most people don't notice.

Originally Posted by The Enchanted Tiara

In my opinion, all that was talking about was the way we communicate and people within a culture relate to one another.

It was looking at the way we interact with each other and the world around us. Our behaviours and actions are determined by the culturally constructed reality which we happen to exist within. Far from existing in objective realities, we all live in realities which socially construct the meanings of the world around us. Everything from what the physical environment means, to what action means and even the very pattern of how we think is determined in large by our culture.

Originally Posted by The Enchanted Tiara

It talks nothing about parenting or why certain people turn out differently than others in the world.

The purpose of the quote was to reflect that our very realities we exist within are cultural constructions. As any action we take is going to be in response to the reality we exist within, I would therefore assert that it is our culture which determines our actions.

Originally Posted by The Enchanted Tiara

The nature versus nurture argument is not about anthropology or social structures as a whole. It's related to psychology, which focuses on the individual, not society as a whole.

Individuals do not exist within vacuums removed from culture. Indeed it is culture which creates their very realities and all the meanings which it is comprised of. As such, if we are to simply conduct a mono cultural study, are we really certain that we are uncovering secrets of human nature? Or are we simply finding details which are particular to that culture. Furthermore your understanding of Anthropology seems to be, well if nothing else outdated. From your description it would seem you are describing Structural Functionalism, which is an anthropological approach which has been left wanting for quite some time. Indeed even during the time of Structural Functionalism, we had other approaches to anthropology specifically speaking to the question of nature versus nurture. Culture and Personality for instance was quite big around that time. More recently we have had psychological anthropology, post modern anthropology and feminist anthropology for instance which have each been addressing this issue.

Yeah... what he said. =D

I read this a while back, and thought it was pertinent to the subject you broached in the title...

Originally Posted by Crimson Fang

It was looking at the way we interact with each other and the world around us. Our behaviours and actions are determined by the culturally constructed reality which we happen to exist within. Far from existing in objective realities, we all live in realities which socially construct the meanings of the world around us. Everything from what the physical environment means, to what action means and even the very pattern of how we think is determined in large by our culture.


The purpose of the quote was to reflect that our very realities we exist within are cultural constructions. As any action we take is going to be in response to the reality we exist within, I would therefore assert that it is our culture which determines our actions.


Individuals do not exist within vacuums removed from culture. Indeed it is culture which creates their very realities and all the meanings which it is comprised of. As such, if we are to simply conduct a mono cultural study, are we really certain that we are uncovering secrets of human nature? Or are we simply finding details which are particular to that culture. Furthermore your understanding of Anthropology seems to be, well if nothing else outdated. From your description it would seem you are describing Structural Functionalism, which is an anthropological approach which has been left wanting for quite some time. Indeed even during the time of Structural Functionalism, we had other approaches to anthropology specifically speaking to the question of nature versus nurture. Culture and Personality for instance was quite big around that time. More recently we have had psychological anthropology, post modern anthropology and feminist anthropology for instance which have each been addressing this issue.

So, what are you trying to argue then?

Because me and Hermes are of the opinion that we are influenced by both nature and nurture, so we wouldn't disagree with anything you just said, we just don't think that's the only thing that influences what makes us, us, and if you're trying to say this is the only thing that makes us, us, then you haven't provided an argument that states that nature and biology have nothing to do with how your personality is formed.

I believe that parents do play an important role...
but a child reaches a certain age when they need to "fly away from the nest" and choose for themselves what is right and wrong, even if their parents agree or do not.