Talk:Nature versus nurture
From Academic Kids
"Much of current thinking tends to discount the notion of genetics as valid in determining subjectively qualified traits, such as intelligence or personality. "
- What? This isn't true at all. The trend of the research over the last decade (especially with clones) is pointing in the opposite direction. I have to go to bed right now but I'm definitely going to neutralize this article. --mav
I've been reading about this lately. Popular thinking is very much soaking up all the "gay gene!", "cancer gene!", "alcoholic gene!" headlines, but while genes can give a predisposition to things such as heart disease, they're not a map of the future. There's been recent research into the intelligence of young children that found that children of middle-class families were smarter than their working class counterparts at a very young age (something like 2 years IIRC). This was not attributed to genes, but rather the environment they grow up in. -- Tarquin 13:41 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)
- I'm not suggesting genes are always deterministic (severe genetic illnesses and some other cases are, however). Nothing happens in a vacuum and that includes the biochemical environment of the body - especially during childhood development.
- Genes are analogous to blueprints for buildings in lightly regulated countries: Just because the blueprint says an electrical circuit follows a certain path, doesn't mean that the actual electrical circuit will follow that path. There might have been environmental factors that necessitated that the circuit take a different route or for it not to have been built at all due to a lack of available materials (or maybe even made of different kinds of materials not called for in the blueprint).
- You cannot also lump all genes into the same bucket: Some things, like the presence of the genetic flaw that causes Huntington's disease, means a nearly 100% chance of getting that disease (nature wins the debate here). Most things, like height, are more plastic: Everyone has a relatively narrow maximum height range that their genes will naturally allow but due to disease, other illnesses, improper nutrition and not enough or the wrong type of exercise most people do not attain this height range (nature and nurture are both needed).
- So different genes will influence the expression of traits in different ways. Actually it is more correct to say that the biochemical, nurturing and social environments influence the expression of different genes in different ways. These are often expressed as genetic susceptibilities to acquiring different traits (that is, they need an environmental trigger).
- For example, about 10% of all cancers can be blamed on inherited genes but most cancers, even the ones from inherited genes, are triggered by environmental factors; such as diet, exercise, exposure to carcinogens and also chance mistakes in mitosis. Inherited "cancer genes" most often just give a person a greater chance of getting a certain type of cancer. The picture is very complex and isn't at all black and white (like the title of this page and the popular notion about the debate tend to imply). --mav
- You're right, but we must be wary to counter the popular interpretations of the above. Extreme Raelian-style view: if we cloned Hitler's DNA, it would be Hitler himself. Easy political cop-out: criminals / the uneducated / etc are like that because it's the way they were born, rather than because of problems in society. -- Tarquin 11:14 Jan 8, 2003 (UTC)
- Is this really the Raelian perspective? While many seem to take this to be the Raelian perspective, I was under the impression that their cloning project involved not only biological cloning but also a "mind tranfer" (a.k.a. "full body transplant") procedure. I think the Raelians might claim that if an appropriate "mind recording" of Hitler's couldn't be found (presumibly outside the DNA), they wouldn't be able to reincarnate him. Of course, this alternative may not be altogether plausible, and there may also not be a unified "Raelian perspective" on this. --Ryguasu
I cut the following paragraph, which misleads people about biology:
- A few points are worth clarifying about "nature" and "nurture". First, "nature" does not reduce to anything as simple as "present at birth". Height is thought to depend very extensively on genetics, for example, but one is not born adult-sized; one must slowly grow up.
The problem is clear in the example: height certainly does manifest itself over time as one ages. But insofar as height has a "natural" component, it is' present at birth in the genome. It is just that whatever genes code for height do not manifest themselves immediately. But they are there at birth.
The real problem with using height as an example of something that is "nature" but not immediately manifest at birth is that height is of course determined by "nature" and "nurture," or, if you prefer, genes and environment. this is the whole point of Boas's important studies on height; height is clearly highly heritable, but children of immigrants to the US had much higher average adult heights than their parents, presumably because of better nutrition in the US.
I believe nature is best understood as things that are indeed innate (present at birth) as long as we recognize that things that are present at birth genetically may manifest themselves over time. How else are we to distinguish a physical feature like height (that heritable part of it) from physical features like scars -- which appear later in life and do mark the body noticably, but which are clearly not "natural?" Slrubenstein
- It certainly isnt well written. To write about the differences between genes influence on height versus activity, or other influences, (self-esteem? smoking?)would require at least another sentence. ;>)---Sv
Well, unless you are a Lamarckian, I think you would have to add at least one sentence -- and cut the second sentence. Slrubenstein
Removing another problematic paragraph:
- Nature versus nurture is thus, a very simplified term for explaining such debates that are more accurately stated as this: Of man's 'understanding' of the natural world; to what degree do free will and other traits of artifice conflict with the natural world to bear upon varied aspects of man's development.
I don't see much "accuracy" in this paragraph. Specific trouble spots:
- Why speak of the "natural world"? The question is about "man" himself.
- Why speak of "free will"? Oftentimes nature versus nurture debates are entirely about genes versus, say, parenting, with no room left over for free will. These debates may be misleading, but it is also misleading to imply that "nature versus nurture" needs to have anything to do with free will. This article should discuss free will somehow, but this is not the way.
- What are "traits of artifice"? (I do not understand the reference here at all.)
- Why imply a "conflict"? I'm sure there's someone out there who would describe the same phenomenon as a "harmonious interaction", or some such.
--Ryguasu
You miss the point completely, sometimes, dont you Ryg;) But the statement was brief and any confusion was to be expected. I wrote it after thinking about the nature of the NVN debate as being really just a misnomer - for what, you say?
Simple - at whatever stage of science man is at, his understanding of natural phenomenae is not complete and as such, most specific attempts to tie cause and effect are mistated - at two points in the argument:
- The first mistake is to assume a knowledge of a natural phenomenon, well enough to compare it to an effect. this isnt to say the science of finding specific links between these, isnt valid.
- Two: the aspect of or assumption of a disharmony with nature. The old idea of 'man mastering nature' rears its ugly head often enough, and it still finds its way into the premises of many of these discussions. My paragraph was an attempt to generalise the topic, to make it more valid, and further extend to those arguments within this sphere of both valid logic, and their flawed counterparts.
---Sv
I admit that the relationship between "man" and "nature" is an interesting and complex question, though I am less clear on how this readily applies to "nature versus nurture". If "nature versus nurture" frames a conflict, it does so not between "nature" and "man", but between the organism's "nature", on one hand, and the situation in which the organism grows and develops, on the other. Thus I fail to see how any of this is a subtopic of "man mastering nature", or why the latter applies to this particular article.
As for your first point, if you wish me to understand it, you'll need to clarify your vocabulary; I have no idea what you mean by "knowledge of a natural phenomenon, well enough to compare it to an effect." In particular, I don't understand the nature of or motivation for making a distinction between "natural phenomena" and "effects", or what it would mean to "compare" the one to the other. Perhaps I would understand if I'd read some of the authors that have influenced you? --Ryguasu
sigh. ill work on it. dont have time now. manana..-Sv
I've reordered everything and added some section headings, in hopes that this may make it easier to make the article less redundant and more coherent. Comments are of course welcome.
Also removing this for now:
- Over the course of scientific development, the nature versus nurture debate has long been a bellweather indicator of the validity of the scientific method at the time
If this is true, it should be trivial to specify how I would measure the perceived validity of the scientific method given whether people in a given time and place were more in the "nature" camp or the "nurture" camp. It is not obvious to me how this it would done. (It's also not obvious how you easily measure whether people are leaning more towards nature or more towards nurture.)
- and as might be expected, the history of science and sociology have long been intertwined.
This may well be the case, but I think it's the subject for another article. --Ryguasu
Rygu, with all due respect, this article is a mess in progress; any attempt on my part anyone else's to reorder it now would be useless.
Though,in your defense, NVN is really just a euphemistic misnomer for a discussion which carries far too much pretense and assumption in it anyway. Your edits seem to be on the right track toward rendering this article less a reflection of active discussion and more a record of some past confusion. Excellent work.;) -Sv
Sv, I agree that this article is far from ideal. But are you saying an article called "nature versus nurture" cannot possibly be fruitful in any sense? If so, please make a case for its deletion. If not, please either make explicit, constructive comments (say, indicating how I am systematically removing "active discussion" - apparently a good thing - from the article) or stay out of this. Vague expressions of pessimism aren't going to help anyone. --Ryguasu
"excellent work" = pessimistic. hmm. --Sv
issue_ comment_ Shaj Miah discuss_variable_ Nature Vs. Nurture
static_ Personal Insight; FROM Physical, Emotional-Intellectual && Spiritual entitiy. temp_restruct_issue_ "Nature AND Nurture". -non vs.
point_ Nurture couldn't have taken a place without Nature_we would even exist right now to even speak && Nature couldn't have taken a place without Nurtures Consciousness.
Subject_ (Mulfunctions, Inheritance, Infections, Accidents, Inhalation- environment, Pesonal/Social Attitude-psycology, mentality/State of Mind Development)
Desease is an internal malfunction. I couldn't say much about it; possible millions of ways of why, when or how it could have occured. It also depends on genes; injury, food comsumtion && psycological conditions that may interrupt basic gene state development/adaptation interrupt.
Food is power. Bangladesh is a place where food isn't properly distributed; therefore why people die from mal-nutrition. Most people are happy with minimal things && live a good life without any major complaints or fuss. Having an open heart helps. Being cold, harsh, mean, doesnt help personal development -that goes against personal grain. Love helps everything; it may cure major psycological issues.
There's no such thing as gay genes. You may know that you may have gays in the family; but that's just knowing and believing. Gaism is inherited from ancient culture, sexual abuse, verbal abuse and other supressions. Where an indivual may dig in and justify it from history. Who wouldn't want a male figure to be dominent. We're a social icon of getting things straight; where we are phycally, mentally and emotionally strong. Overtime; it becomes a mentality of gays who are unble to intake social motor functions to function with others or find it boring, silly from disgust. You may call it rebel or being normal in culture.
Addiction may be inherited; then again it depends on what you were taught; or personaly believed and proceeded. I'd say don't preassue youself with anything that isn't an issue. Remember, alcohol was illigal. Now it being free; you have to make your own choice. It's up to a person to control themselves. They may experience withdrawl; at that time it may be good to get into sports, track, drawing, writing and other means of self expression.
Childhood Development is the most important part of the root of the mind. You may always change your ways; cut denial; accept and adapt; when you feel comfort; you may proceed. One bear step at a time for grizzleys. User:Unixmiah
Hey, Unixmiah - do you always throw around your school papers like this? You should at least put your name under it, in the form of -- ~~~~ . And frankly, those parts of the essay that are not trivial are very much improvable - your assumptions about gay people for example are hardly based on any facts, are they? Anyway, next time you want to make a contribution, a) do bother not just to copy your school essays, but come to the point relevant to the article, and b) sign your entries. -- AlexR 15:51, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
