Nature vs Nurture - the age-old debate

Hi guys, love the new forum! This is my first post and i think you've found a niche with this one, unlike footie which is done to death and hard to break into.

I probably won't get to spend much time on here, but whenever I have something to say or share that I feel would be wasted/ignored; even insulted on other forums, I shall share it with you fine folk instead

I posted this to my FB wall lately but regretfully I have 206 unintellectual friends on FB and none of my serious posts get 'liked' or commented on.

So here goes (cut & paste job...)

__________________________________________________ ____________

Are bad people born bad?

Or are we a product of our environment? Is there even such a thing as "human nature"?






The following was taken from a document written by Jacques Fresco, founder of The Venus Project (i have the full PDF if anyone is interested).

Trust me this case study is the most interesting take on this issue you're ever likely to read...



... one of the most famous studies on Reared-Apart Twins was one that is often called the “Minnesota Study”. Three hundred and forty eight pairs of twins were studied at the University of Minnesota, with the most noted case from this study, often cited to defend the genetic basis of behavior, known as the “Jim Twins” case.

Jim Lewis and Jim Springer were separated four weeks after
birth in 1940, they grew up 45 miles apart in Ohio, and were reunited in 1979. The study of these two reunited, identical twins produced the following concordances:

-Both twins are married to women named Betty and divorced from women named Linda.
-One has named his first son James Alan while the other named his first son James Allan.
-Both twins have an adopted brother whose name is Larry.
-Both named their pet dog "Toy."
-Both had some law-enforcement training and had been part time Deputy Sheriffs in Ohio.
-Each did poorly in spelling and well in math.
-Each did carpentry, mechanical drawing, and block lettering.

First of all, let it be firmly established that both “Jims” grew up only 45 miles from each other in Ohio. Considering the close proximity of the twins and the general cultural disposition of the region, it is safe to assume that the two men each were subjected to very similar values and traditions. Culturally, Ohio as a whole has little diversity when compared to other states. 86% of the state is white while 82% are Christian. This is important because the less diversity a region has, the more uniform the environmental influences.

Another important element that this author cannot express due to the lack of available information is the cultural dispositions and values of the parents involved.
If the parents of both “Jims” were also native to the Ohio region they were brought into, it further compounds the propensity of cultural similarity and hence behavioral similarity.
As far as each being married to women named Betty and divorced from women named Linda, of the top one thousand most common female names in America, Linda is #3 and Betty is #14.
This is statistically staggering in view of the number of names in existence, showing a high probability of coincidence.

As far as the names ‘James Alan’ and ‘James Allan’, the most common male name in America… is James! As far as Allan/Alan, more research would need to be done on the cultural reasoning behind those middle names in the region of Ohio that they both lived.

In regard to “Both twins have an adopted brother whose name is Larry”, this is a rather odd thing for the Minnesota researchers to report, for the tradition of naming children typically comes from the parents, not children. What this actually reveals has nothing to do with the ‘Jim Twins’, but rather shows a powerful cultural similarity of the parents. If each set of parents both had a propensity to name a son Larry, then it suggests that the parents were possibly very culturally similar, hence revealing that the environmental influences on both ‘Jims’ were also very similar.

Then there are the dogs named “Toy”. Well, while ‘Toy’ is not a common dog name, we need to know where the name came from initially. Someone had to suggest the name to the ‘Jims’ in order for them to be aware of the name to begin with. The reasoning for this name could be multifaceted and logically derived from the environment. For example, nearly all domesticated dogs traditionally have toys that their owners provide. The advent of the name ‘Toy’ could have come from an association made by a young Jim hearing his parent reference the toy when playing with the dog. For example, there have been historical instances where a mother would say to a young child who is just learning to speak something common like, “Daddy’s home”, when announcing the arrival of the father to the child. The child would eventually hear these words and associate them with the father walking into the house. In this common scenario, some children have confused the father figure with the word “home” rather than “daddy”. They would thus later ask “when is home coming home?”.
In other words, the word toy could be a reference name that has been contextually redefined. In the case of the Jim twins, we don’t have enough information to know if the name “Toy” is genetic or environmental, but reasoning would naturally lean towards environmental.

Now, it isn’t the point of this document to develop a full argumentative treatise on the lack of validity of the Twin Studies. The point here is to express that cultural factors oriented within the society are just as powerful as familial factors. The ‘Jim Twins’ grew up in the same areas and had similar values and environmental influences. This point must be factored in and an in-depth analysis needs to be done regarding the cultural causes involved in such a study. Overall, the Twins Studies, while highly praised, show extreme weakness in understanding the true causality of a particular concordance.

However, this doesn’t mean genetics don’t have a strong influence on our lives. It is very important to consider the true genetic traits and the effects they have when intermixed with culture. While most agree that physical attributes such as eye color, height, and some allergies are genetic, many do not consider the ramifications these attributes have in shaping the environment of that person.
For example, suppose you have two identical twins separated at birth and each has the genetic predisposition to grow to over 6 feet, each has a high metabolism that keeps him or her thin, and a neurological wiring that supports acute eye-hand coordination. Let’s say they are both adopted by middle class families in suburban environments and grow up in what would be considered a traditional American childhood culture, including sports activities. Since each brother has outstanding height and increased coordination genetically, they will have an advantage in sports.
Since basketball and football are the two main sports in America, they will likely play one or the
other at some point. Given their slender build and tall height, they might gravitate towards basketball. If they obtain moral support from their friends and family, perhaps they will each grow up
to play professional basketball.

Is this activity of playing basketball genetic? Not in the sense that some behavioral geneticists would suggest. The fact is the propensity for playing basketball is derived from physiological advantages that are genetic, along with environment based cultural traditions. There is no evidence to suggest that genes somehow make the basketball player. This is similar to genetic studies which claim they are looking for the gene which causes smoking or a makes a person become a Republican… it’s rather absurd. The true genetic basis relevant here is physiological , not behavioral.

Neurochemicals are further examples of physiological influences on behavior. Serotonin, for example, has been shown to be related to so-called “antisocial” behavior. Low Serotonin levels can apparently lead to impulsivity and aggression. Be that as it may, Neurochemicals do not instruct a person’s behavior in specific ways. Just like other physiological attributes, they set certain propensities. While there is certainly a genetic basis to these chemicals, which could relate to familial heredity and generate so-called ‘personality disorders’ that result from chemical imbalances, the Neurochemical behavior assumption does not give any specifics as to how those chemical propensities will manifest.

In other words, the behavior that might result from the interaction of these chemicals can only be extremely generalized. One could say that a person with a certain imbalance has a propensity to get "angry” more easily than the standard population. While this is informative, it tells us nothing about how that behavior will manifest. It is the environment that determines the actual behavior or lack
thereof it.

There is no scientific evidence that really supports the notion that any of our behaviors are strictly the result of our genes. Those behaviors that people often attribute to ‘instinct’ or ‘human nature’ can almost always be tracked to environmental influences. The notion of ‘human nature’ is largely mythological. It stems from primitive religious notions that the human being is either ‘good or evil’ inherently. The pursuit of people who seek to find the “gene” or the like which causes a particular behavior is essentially a form of superstition. It is like a person being “possessed by demons” which control their behavior.

The fact is, while Neurochemicals and physiological traits set propensities for a person’s reactions and social gravitation, it is the environment that really creates our values and behavior. There is no fixed, predetermined ‘human nature’. Our values, methods and actions are developed and derived from our experiences.



Edit: Sources removed for easier reading, but all available in aforementioned PDF - just ask!

I kinda believe we are a product of our environment and I really believe our parents shape us. I do not believe we are born bad or good. It is easy to see now that I have my own son that my influence shapes him, something I never relized as a child because I thought I knew more then my parents.

I grew up poor but my father always kept me busy working around the house and with him. It was not until I became an adult that I realized he kept me busy to keep me so busy that I would not have time to run with the wrong crowd. He taught me how to work my butt off to get what I want and I have never let anything stop me.

Couldn't agree more buddy.

When we're born we are a blank slate. I personally believe there is a sociological reason for absolutely EVERYTHING that we do. You could say that whatever happens, was ALWAYS going to happen. Some people call it fate although I don't like using primitive, mythological terms because one day "fate" will be scientific fact.

People often disagree with the concept of "fate" because it implies they have no free will, but the truth is they can, and do in fact, co-exist. We have free will, but there is a reason behind everything humans (and lets not forget all other animals) do, whether it be sociological, hormonal, or genetically physiological.

They co-exist and I will explain: a plant does not have free will - it can only grow in accordance with its biochemical proccesses. But if a wolf feels hungry he will hunt prey (let's say a poor rabbit). That particular rabbit could have been anywhere at that moment but it happened to be in the vicinity of the predatorial wolf.

So the rabbit dies - that is its fate. But its death was only made possible by the free will of the wolf who decided when and where to hunt.

So when people talk about going back in time and killing Hitler as a baby, does that not seem like - besides being a horribly vicious thing to do a defenseless child - overkill (seriously no pun intended )?

Would it not make more sense to remove him from the environment, and therefore circumstances, that led him to enlist in the first place?

I'd love to hear from someone on the other side of this debate, particularly someone with no strong religious beliefs. My apologies for the blatant stereotyping but the idea of evil being innate is, in this author's opinion, one of superstition, and isn't religion essentially an extension of primitive superstitious beliefs (as I read that back it's clear that is a whole other debate - I'll leave it in if we can all promise not to go off-topic here, but I'd welcome a thread dedicated to that discussion [licks lips in anticipation, lol]).

Anyways it's 05:15 here right now so I think I'd better leave it there. Haha I don't half ramble don't I?

Plenty of food for thought for y'all - anyone reading this don't be afraid to comment. I may sound as though I know what I'm talking about but one opinion is of no more value than any other and after all this is a debating forum lol.

[I hope this thread takes off - the next thread I have planned is about creationism, one of my favourite discussion points! Mmm, lol]

'Night all!!