Originally posted by MexicoYes it was a very good read but I got the impression he was more
Yea 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.
content breaking theories than making them. I got the same 'hazy'
feeling of having read extensively on something and not really known
what it was about.
Originally posted by RetrovirusDepends on the spin. For arguments sake, if left to our own devices, (nature) would we have been able to develop the complex languages and moral systems that enshrine the rights of the weak in society, the way that humanity indeed has?
That's a very odd use of a thread title...
"nature versus nurture"
I don't know of a comparable species in nature, that displays the same sort of commitment to a code of conduct that is constantly at odds with the self interested actions of the individual animal the way that humanity does( Thats if we ignore the spectacular and widespread rise of libertarian philosophy in recent times of course).How did we develop this level of societal empathy if not for the nurturing of a higher, creator power?
I don't think it is natural to include the needs and aspirations of others. I believe these attributes need to be nurtured. Even in the face of gross inhumanity, on the part of humanity to itself, I would still contend that it is the very distinctness of humanities intra species interactions, that highlight an extraordinary threshold of behavioral adjustment that could only have occurred if humanity had in fact been in contact with a superior intelligence that had nurtured it from the outset.
Originally posted by coquetteI think there's a family that's been living in a basement in Austria that will take issue with you.
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.
Originally posted by kmax87Try Christopher Hitchens book "God is not Great." And he'll give you a run down on how those that claim to be in close consultation with this higher being treat their fellow man.
Depends on the spin. For arguments sake, if left to our own devices, (nature) would we have been able to develop the complex languages and moral systems that enshrine the rights of the weak in society, the way that humanity indeed has?
I don't know of a comparable species in nature, that displays the same sort of commitment to a code of conduct that is co ...[text shortened]... had in fact been in contact with a superior intelligence that had nurtured it from the outset.
Then you can take your god bothering to the spiritual board.
Originally posted by WajomaFor someone who hates being controlled, you spend an awful lot of your time telling people where to go don't you!
Try Christopher Hitchens book "God is not Great." And he'll give you a run down on how those that claim to be in close consultation with this higher being treat their fellow man.
Then you can take your god bothering to the spiritual board.
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87UFO's in ancient art
Depends on the spin. For arguments sake, if left to our own devices, (nature) would we have been able to develop the complex languages and moral systems that enshrine the rights of the weak in society, the way that humanity indeed has?
I don't know of a comparable species in nature, that displays the same sort of commitment to a code of conduct that is co had in fact been in contact with a superior intelligence that had nurtured it from the outset.
Buzz aldrin on UFO encounter
Buzz aldrin punches reporter (just can't be posted enough)
Originally posted by coquetteI think it's the opposite, really.
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.
The human species has changed very little biologically over the last 10000 years, yet the change in morals, habits, social behaviour, etc has been immense.
Note that the things you mention ('life choices, character, really, who we end up being'😉 are all relative to other humans. These other humans are very close to each other genetically, yet their behaviours can be vastly different.
Originally posted by kmax87How many times have we been through this?
For someone who hates being controlled, you spend an awful lot of your time telling people where to go don't you!
The I N I T I T A T I O N of force and threats of force.
So please define where I threatened you with force. You'd love to try put us on a level somehow, you the control freak, the advocate of force versus me the lover of freedom.
Not going to happen.
Originally posted by WajomaAt an absolute physical level your very freedom constitutes a vector, ie it has a magnitude and a direction, and therefore qualifies as a force.
How many times have we been through this?
The I N I T I T A T I O N of force and threats of force.
So please define where I threatened you with force. You'd love to try put us on a level somehow, you the control freak, the advocate of force versus me the lover of freedom.
Not going to happen.
In the same way that a boat traveling at ridiculous speeds down a canal generates a bow wave that will upset other objects in its wake, the pure exercise of freedom, because it involves motion and mass, and hence momentum, also constitutes a force.
That you are not directly responsible in restraining or controlling me, makes little difference, when one tables the manner in which you may have had to exact your 'freedom'. When it is done in a cavalier fashion through the exploitation of resources, that due to the marketing of those resources to make your freedom possible, they also limit the extent to which I can exercise mine, then has not your free activity controlled mine?
Why should you feel zero responsibility for the fact that my environment may have become so encroached upon by the agents of the markets for whom your engines of freedom depend, that as a result of your freely paid for consumption ( your choice and fee exercise of your will to be sure) you may have also inadvertently helped foster a paradigm where I, in my world, am absolutely stripped of all my freedoms.
Its not only the person who pulls the trigger who gets done in a court of law these days. The master mind that orchestrates the killing, has also a case to answer for!
Originally posted by kmax87Again with the failed analogies?
At an absolute physical level your very freedom constitutes a vector, ie it has a magnitude and a direction, and therefore qualifies as a force.
In the same way that a boat traveling at ridiculous speeds down a canal generates a bow wave that will upset other objects in its wake, the pure exercise of freedom, because it involves motion and mass, and hence ...[text shortened]... law these days. The master mind that orchestrates the killing, has also a case to answer for!
canal
Can it be applied in anyway to me telling you to take your god botherings to the correct board, No. I can yell, go purple in the face, have steam coming out the ears, use bold letters or all caps and you can just carry on with your ramblings.
Can it be applied to NHS, only if you take no care of your boat and expect me to pay for it's upkeep.
The question would be: Who's canal? The owner of the canal then sets the conditions.
Please, by all means, I invite you again to define how I limit your freedom.
Originally posted by MexicoThis is question begging. Of course if you didn't have the parents you did you'd be a different person. They gave you all your genes! If someone else gave you your genes you'd no doubt be a different person.
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.
Upbringing, background and everything else which is attributed to nurture is largely a product of nature then.
People can transcend their genes of course, I am far from a genetic determinist...
Originally posted by WajomaYour one line "no it isn't" critique of evrything I say constitutes a spectacular waste of my time and as such is one way you limit my freedom. Politeness requires some form of response to any form of reply and as such instead of replying to something well thought out and insightful I am constrained to deal with your reductionism.
Again with the failed analogies?
Please, by all means, I invite you again to define how I limit your freedom.
A fairly effective means of control I would have thought but one that nevertheless still requires engaging.
You can rec me for stuffy. smug. style points if you like. but only if that does not form some kind of reprehensible though subtle coercion.