|
Post by thejourney on May 10, 2010 15:09:22 GMT -5
i can only talk in my own expierence i am a triplet we all grew up the same way with the exact same enviorment but we all couldnt be more different im a book reader and liberal serious and a little scene, the second is super smart prepy, and my youngest is a skater who doesnt care about anything I think that's funny that you specified she was the youngest. Your triplets, you're only 15 min. apart, do you really care what order you were born in? On a side note, did your parents ever dress you all alike when you were little and if so how the heck did they tell you apart? actualy we are all male but anyway we were all dressed alike but with different color shirts and i dont know how they told us apart when we were babys but after we reached 2 we started to look drasticly different
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
Post by FranticProdigy on May 10, 2010 15:20:04 GMT -5
Look at twins, brought up in the same nurture, outcome with different levels of intelligence.
|
|
|
Post by low on May 11, 2010 13:38:47 GMT -5
Technically, Hitler was actually the very thing he hated. He was born and raised into a Jewish family and then grew up to hate his own people. Part unsubstantiated, part untrue. Hitler definitely did not grow up in a Jewish family. It is, however, suspected by some historians that his biological father was not the man he was told was his father, which would make Hitler 1/4th Jewish by ancestry, though certainly not culturally Jewish. As one of the most infamous figures in all history, Hitler is highly subject to urban legend.
|
|
FranticProdigy
Planet
[AWD:1c]
Im classy because I use words like touch
Posts: 312
|
Post by FranticProdigy on May 12, 2010 19:11:55 GMT -5
Technically, Hitler was actually the very thing he hated. He was born and raised into a Jewish family and then grew up to hate his own people. Part unsubstantiated, part untrue. Hitler definitely did not grow up in a Jewish family. It is, however, suspected by some historians that his biological father was not the man he was told was his father, which would make Hitler 1/4th Jewish by ancestry, though certainly not culturally Jewish. As one of the most infamous figures in all history, Hitler is highly subject to urban legend. Hitler was roman catholic and scapegoated the Jews for the reason Germany was so much in debt after world war one. Germany had to pay back other countries after signing The Treaty of Versailles including Italy, Britain, the US, Japan, and France. As a result, Germany's economy went into hyperinflation. Hitler blamed this on the Jews.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on May 12, 2010 19:18:39 GMT -5
Yeah, the nature vs. nurture argument is essentially over as far as science is concerned, but there is still some room for opinion.
I am inclined to lean ever so slightly more towards nature than nurture. I had a very in-depth discussion with a friend about this a while back, in which I described a set of tiles of varying potency that determine the make-up of each person's personality. This is what is ingrained into us from birth.
Our upbringing is what arranges these tiles into the personality that we see today. The caretakers could take tiny, irrelevant tiles and bring them to the forefront of your personality, and just the same, they could take prominent natural affinities of yours, and stifle them out of existence. The point of my argument is, nurture can determine just about every aspect of a person, but if and only if that aspect exists in some small way shape or form in the person already.
That's my view, anyways.
|
|
|
Post by brumagem on May 13, 2010 23:05:26 GMT -5
So what's the debate? Both are true to a point. Like you yourself just said some parts of our personality are inherent from birth others are learned as we grow up. Though I don't really agree with the intelligence vs. morals thing you got going there. Intelligence for one, how we learn in inherent. Some people can't learn from reading a manual and would much prefer hands on experience. Some people are creative thinkers and learn better that way. But however we learn, what we learn is going to change depending on environment. For morals it's the same, our morals are going to develop and change as we get older. Some morals are taught and others we figure out on our own. It's part of learning right from wrong but some times even if it's not taught, you can still feel when something is wrong. Intelligence is like body build. At birth we are predisposed to different ways of growing (learning and thinking), but if we grow without good nutrition (diverse mental stimulation) we won't be able to grow to our full potential. When you are a baby, you act on what is called id. Id is your very base instincts and needs, like crying to get your daily milk and the sucking motion every baby uses to feed. As the baby grows into a child it grows and relies less on id, and more on other things like morals which it is not born with (as learned from twin studies). Whether you knew it or not, you learned all your morals from your environment. From empathy to apathy, charity to greed, you observed how other people acted and how others reacted to learn what society thought of as acceptable and preferable.
|
|
|
Post by swan on May 14, 2010 0:03:40 GMT -5
Intelligence is like body build. At birth we are predisposed to different ways of growing (learning and thinking), but if we grow without good nutrition (diverse mental stimulation) we won't be able to grow to our full potential. Yes! Genetics are responsible for a person's potential range of intelligence, but the environment is responsible for how a person develops along their range. So if you grow up in a wealthy country you are more likely to develop to your potential, then if you grew up in a poor country.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on May 14, 2010 15:48:34 GMT -5
So what's the debate? Both are true to a point. Like you yourself just said some parts of our personality are inherent from birth others are learned as we grow up. Though I don't really agree with the intelligence vs. morals thing you got going there. Intelligence for one, how we learn in inherent. Some people can't learn from reading a manual and would much prefer hands on experience. Some people are creative thinkers and learn better that way. But however we learn, what we learn is going to change depending on environment. For morals it's the same, our morals are going to develop and change as we get older. Some morals are taught and others we figure out on our own. It's part of learning right from wrong but some times even if it's not taught, you can still feel when something is wrong. Intelligence is like body build. At birth we are predisposed to different ways of growing (learning and thinking), but if we grow without good nutrition (diverse mental stimulation) we won't be able to grow to our full potential. When you are a baby, you act on what is called id. Id is your very base instincts and needs, like crying to get your daily milk and the sucking motion every baby uses to feed. As the baby grows into a child it grows and relies less on id, and more on other things like morals which it is not born with (as learned from twin studies). Whether you knew it or not, you learned all your morals from your environment. From empathy to apathy, charity to greed, you observed how other people acted and how others reacted to learn what society thought of as acceptable and preferable. Supposidly every healthy person has the same potential. I made sure to specify healthy because people born with physical or mental dissabilities won't have the same potential as healthy people but no one ever really reaches their full potential anyway. This is where the whole environment thing fails. Because people raised in the same environment should all turn out the same way but they don't. There's more than just basic needs and potential that we're born with. Personalities are very different in people right from birth. Anyone who's ever been around babies knows that. Between my two nephews for example I could tell right after birth that the older one would be more shy than the younger because the older one would cry whenever anyone new would hold him while the younger one never did. That still continues now that they're both up and walking. The older one will hide behind behind people he knows whenever someone new walks in while the younger one will walk right up to people he's never seen before. Obviously if I can tell there's a difference in personality not even 10 min. after the kids have been born then personality is not entirely dependent on environment. There are some things that will be dependent on the environment but how they're personalities are to start with will change how they react to the environment as they're learning.
|
|
|
Post by brumagem on May 14, 2010 23:25:19 GMT -5
rialvestroI really can't tell whether we are agreeing or not . You sound like you're trying to argue a point, but I don't see how those points conflict with my own...
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on May 15, 2010 2:38:27 GMT -5
rialvestroI really can't tell whether we are agreeing or not . You sound like you're trying to argue a point, but I don't see how those points conflict with my own... Well one of us is not understanding the other one and I can't tell who.
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on May 15, 2010 10:33:01 GMT -5
rialvestroI really can't tell whether we are agreeing or not . You sound like you're trying to argue a point, but I don't see how those points conflict with my own... Well one of us is not understanding the other one and I can't tell who. Mal, I think your contradicted yourself a couple of times in your post, and that is what is creating the difficulty in seeing where you stand. Your opening lines contradict nearly the rest of your post.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on May 16, 2010 5:24:12 GMT -5
I just want to share something I just learned..
According to Steven Pinker's book "How the mind works" Someone took a group of chimps who had never seen a snake and weren't afraid of them (They checked) and they showed them a film of some other chimps reacting in terror to snakes, and the chimps did the same the next time they saw a snake.
However they did the same thing and showed them a film of chimps reacting to terror of flowers and another of bunny rabbits, and it had absolutely no affect. The chimps could not learn to be afraid of rabbits and flowers but they could learn very easily to be afraid of snakes.
The idea is that we are pre-conditioned to be afraid of snakes, and it doesn't take much to awaken this fear.. but it's near impossible to get someone to have a phobia of rabbits.
Apparently all of the obscure phobias we all learn the names of for quizzes are rare if not non-existent. It's like a meme that psychologists have fun with; making up a phobia of an obscure object and naming it even though it's never existed. All of the things that we can develop phobias of are things that it was logical for our ancestors to be afraid of. Like open spaces, being trapped, etc. There is no reason in modern life to be afraid of open spaces, and it doesn't take much to awaken this fear in someone, though it takes a lot (if it's not impossible) to awaken fear of having peanut butter stuck to the roof of your mouth (Arachibutyrophobia) He says that Television tells us that people can develop irrational fears of anything, and it's just a completely erroneous cliche.
I know someone who is afraid of cats and another person afraid of chickens.. But I imagine the first one associates cats with rats and the second one isn't actually afraid of chickens at all but of something she associates with chickens, because when she is calm and happy in her life the fear of chickens goes away.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on May 16, 2010 12:01:59 GMT -5
Well one of us is not understanding the other one and I can't tell who. Mal, I think your contradicted yourself a couple of times in your post, and that is what is creating the difficulty in seeing where you stand. Your opening lines contradict nearly the rest of your post. Who's Mal?
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on May 16, 2010 12:58:57 GMT -5
"rial" was "mal" on my tiny phone screen. My apologies.
|
|
|
Post by brumagem on May 16, 2010 16:24:45 GMT -5
Nurture, I've thought of something that I call the Clone Theory. If Hitler was cloned, and one clone lived like he did in History, and the second one was brought up in a Amish family, both Hitlers would be very different. They're the same person, but they were raised differently, preventing one to have a total hate for a certain religion... They already have stuff like that; they're called twin studies. Since identical twins have the exact same DNA, researchers can conduct studies to find exactly where the difference between nature and nurture lies.
|
|
|
Post by brumagem on May 16, 2010 16:27:35 GMT -5
Well one of us is not understanding the other one and I can't tell who. We FAIL
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on May 16, 2010 20:30:30 GMT -5
"rial" was "mal" on my tiny phone screen. My apologies. In that case maybe I wasn't being clear but there's no contradiction in my post. Maybe if you told me exactly why you thought that I can rephrase so you can understand it better
|
|
|
Post by KipEnyan on May 19, 2010 18:24:04 GMT -5
Was the latter quote meant to provide reasons why the first is BS? If so, no contradiction.
|
|
|
Post by rialvestro on May 19, 2010 20:04:51 GMT -5
Was the latter quote meant to provide reasons why the first is BS? If so, no contradiction. No, way off point there. Environment states that everything we learn makes us who we are. This would mean that people growing up in the same environment should turn out the same because they have the same potential and are taught the same way but this is not the case. People aren't born the way they turn out either. There are aspects of the environment that can and will change a person but there is no single cause for what makes us who we are. The point was that both nature and nurture play an equal part in molding our personalities. There is no one or the other.
|
|
RabbitWho
Star
Rebecca - How 'bout we all put or real names somewhere in our signatures or titles? [SKB:]
Posts: 808
|
Post by RabbitWho on May 20, 2010 16:36:41 GMT -5
I can prove that it's 100% nurture. My "cat" was raised by people from the time he was a young baby, we never told him his mother was a cat and we never treated him any different to any other baby, and now he's British Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.
|
|