Nature vs Nurture Options

[xangelkissesx]

Nature: "Whole system of the existence, forces and events of the physical world that are not controlled by human beings. Fundamental or essential qualities of a person or thing."
Nurture: "Act or process of promoting the development of a child or young plant."
I got the above definitions from my dictionary.

Nature states that we act the way we do because of biological causes. Nurture states that we act the way we do because of the way we have been raised in society.

I don't really know who to side with because I think they both take a part in how we are today. Although I mostly agree with nurture. So which one do you side with or agree with the most?

[*RiC3xBoy*]

Well, what you just described is basically saying that nurture does not exists at all. I am not denying nurture. I am just saying it isnt as influencial as Nature.

[Spirited Away]

Well, what you just described is basically saying that nurture does not exists at all. I am not denying nurture. I am just saying it isnt as influencial as Nature.

I stated that the question I brought up is what a behavioral psychologist would say, and indeed, behavioral psychologists believe that nurture has more emphasis than nature. That is why it was wrong of you to just say "psychologists" in general and not what kind of psychologist believe that way.

No. Saying that the question implies that nurture does not exist is faulty. The question does not try to prove the non-existence of nature, it tries to prove that if someone says nature is most influencial, than that person must explain why it is that the poor is where they are, if not because of nurture. In other words, is a person incapable of rising in society because of their genes or because of the environment in which they live in? Genes can not explain much this case, unless one is setting out to say that all those in poverty have 'stupid genes'—another controversy, whereas environment explains things more rationally and eloquently.

[*RiC3xBoy*]

I stated that the question I brought up is what a behavioral psychologist would say, and indeed, behavioral psychologists believe that nurture has more emphasis than nature. That is why it was wrong of you to just say "psychologists" in general and not what kind of psychologist believe that way.

No. Saying that the question implies that nurture does not exist is faulty. The question does not try to prove the non-existence of nature, it tries to prove that if someone says nature is most influencial, than that person must explain why it is that the poor is where they are, if not because of nurture. In other words, is a person incapable of rising in society because of their genes or because of the environment in which they live in? Genes can not explain much this case, unless one is setting out to say that all those in poverty have 'stupid genes'—another controversy, whereas environment explains things more rationally and eloquently.

Well yea, of course a Behavioral Pyschologist would beleve in Nurture because that is after all their study. On the other hand, if you asked a Psychobiological Psychologist, it would be a whole different story. I do apologize for saying that Psychologist in general believe in nature because I was not entirely sure which Psychologist actually believed in Nature.

I can also say that a Prodigy will be a prodigy no matter what the environment he lives in. Also, an autistic child will be austistic no matter how rich or intelligent the parents.