03 May 08
Originally posted by coquetteThat's a very odd use of a thread title...
nature is much more amazing and powerful than anyone can imagine, except for biologists.
true or false? any doubters?
do i have it all wrong?
"nature versus nurture"
On nature vesus nurture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
As you can see it does not concern the "power" and "amazingness" of nature.
03 May 08
Originally posted by coquetteFalse. One of the things that inspires religion is awe at the incredible complexity of the universe, including that of life itself. Likewise with science fiction writers and children.
nature is much more amazing and powerful than anyone can imagine, except for biologists.
true or false? any doubters?
do i have it all wrong?
03 May 08
this argument is, or at least should be about whether genetics or upbringing has more influence on a human being. Personally I'm for Nurture, nature is may define physical and mental capabilities which will in turn affect the person in question. But your upbringing, background, etc definitely has more influence on your life. I can be nearly certain if I didn't have the parents and family I do I would be a completely different person.
there's a good book on this one (a few actually) called "the blank slate" by Stephen Pinker.
04 May 08
Originally posted by FMFof nature or nurture . . . isn't nature (DNA, genetics) a much stronger influence than appreciated generally by those who think that nurture (upbringing, psychosocial environment) have to do with our life choices, character, really, who we end up being.
On one side or the other of what?
04 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by coquetteWhat does "much stronger" mean? And "much stronger" than what? Nobody believes it's a case of one or the other, surely? (no parent would, that's for sure!) And, according to you, to what degree do those who 'favour' nurture fail to "appreciate" the influence nurture? The question, as you have posed it, is still a bit like asking 'how long is a piece of string'? or... more to the point 'how long should this piece of string be?'
of nature or nurture . . . isn't nature (DNA, genetics) a much stronger influence than appreciated generally by those who think that nurture (upbringing, psychosocial environment) have to do with our life choices, character, really, who we end up being.
You ask: "Isn't nature a much stronger influence than generally appreciated by those who think that nurture molds who we end up being?" [Have I paraphrased this ok?]
What's the debate then? Surely those that think nurture is dominant will disagree, and those that think nature is dominant will agree with you?
But, ok. I will answer your question then, as best I can. I think that both nurture and nature play their part and no I don't think I under-appreciate the influence of either one. I think I get the balance more or less right.
04 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by MexicoPinker examined three theories which can be aligned approximately
this argument is, or at least should be about whether genetics or upbringing has more influence on a human being. Personally I'm for Nurture, nature is may define physical and mental capabilities which will in turn affect the person in question. But your upbringing, background, etc definitely has more influence on your life. I can be nearly certain if I didn' ...[text shortened]... here's a good book on this one (a few actually) called "the blank slate" by Stephen Pinker.
with nature and nurture :
The blank slate (nurture)
The noble savage (nature)
The ghost in the machine (nature and nurture)
To my recollection he debased all three as being overly simplistic.
edit : Shouldn't this be in science?
04 May 08
Originally posted by Thequ1ckmaybe so. it's debatable, which begs the question: should the question of whether this belongs in science or here be posted as a new thread in science or in debates?
Pinker examined three theories which can be aligned approximately
with nature and nurture :
The blank slate (nurture)
The noble savage (nature)
The ghost in the machine (nature and nurture)
To my recollection he debased all three as being overly simplistic.
edit : Shouldn't this be in science?
04 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by coquetteNature versus nurture is a valid scientific/religious debate. I think
maybe so. it's debatable, which begs the question: should the question of whether this belongs in science or here be posted as a new thread in science or in debates?
it all depends on the way in which the debate begins and in what
direction it is taken.
04 May 08
Originally posted by Thequ1cki don't view it as a religous debate at all. nor do i have any faith in where i lean on this issue. i just happen to be leaning on some interesting biological observations.
Nature versus nurture is a valid scientific/religious debate. I think
it all depends on the way in which the debate begins and in what
direction it is taken.
04 May 08
2 edits
Originally posted by coquetteCan you clarify your position? Are debating nature v's nurture?
i don't view it as a religous debate at all. nor do i have any faith in where i lean on this issue. i just happen to be leaning on some interesting biological observations.
Or are you debating whether persons within a particular scientific
discipline are the only people with appreciation?
The former is an interesting, multidisciplinary debate, that has its
roots in science, religion and philosophy. The latter is somebody
mumbling through a set of y-fronts.
edit - Speak softly and gently. As later you may find yourself
eating your words.
04 May 08
1 edit
Originally posted by Thequ1ckYea he tore the whole concept to shreds as far as I can remember, very good books though, enjoyed them even though some of the psychology was a tad above my head, I studied rocks, they dont think. I did read them a long time ago though so I'm unsure exactly on the conclusions. Personally I'm an advocate of the combined approach on this one, certainly genetics play a part in who we are to day. But upbringing is equally if not more important.
Pinker examined three theories which can be aligned approximately
with nature and nurture :
The blank slate (nurture)
The noble savage (nature)
The ghost in the machine (nature and nurture)
To my recollection he debased all three as being overly simplistic.
edit : Shouldn't this be in science?