Log In · Register

 

Debate Rules

Here are the general forum rules that you must follow before you start any debate topics. Please make sure you've read and followed all directions.

Debate.

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
 Reply to this topicStart new topic
Nature vs Nurture
xangelkissesx
post Oct 27 2005, 09:41 AM
Post #1


Flirtation=Attention with Intention
****

Group: Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Oct 2005
Member No: 276,209
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?
 
moorepocket
post Oct 27 2005, 11:22 AM
Post #2


Death is a promise given to us at birth
*******

Group: Official Designer
Posts: 4,757
Joined: Mar 2004
Member No: 7,459
this is stalemate debate. Look at it this way: a demon baby is born. Its parents are extremely evil, and yet are dead. A good witch found the baby and raise it in a good world. Teaching it the different b/w right and wrong. Will the baby grow up and kill the good witch or protect the good witch if something goes wrong?
 
xangelkissesx
post Oct 27 2005, 11:36 AM
Post #3


Flirtation=Attention with Intention
****

Group: Member
Posts: 206
Joined: Oct 2005
Member No: 276,209
I agree that this thing has been going on for centuries. I like the example you gave. I think that experience has more power than heritage though. Hopefully the baby will protect the good witch ermm.gif
 
*disco infiltrator*
post Oct 27 2005, 12:06 PM
Post #4





Guest
We already have a topic on the origin of gayness..
 
mai_z
post Oct 27 2005, 10:12 PM
Post #5


unify and defeat... divide and crumble
******

Group: Member
Posts: 2,759
Joined: Mar 2004
Member No: 6,379
Well this depends on what aspects are we debating nurture or nature on? I think that different parts of you are determined by different factors.
 
*RiC3xBoy*
post Oct 27 2005, 11:44 PM
Post #6





Guest
Just think of it this way, Nature is more of what you are given by genetics and Nurture is what your parents do TO and FOR you.
 
*wind&fire*
post Nov 1 2005, 11:31 PM
Post #7





Guest
not always parent but societal pressures and expectations...
 
think!IMAGINARIL...
post Nov 2 2005, 07:48 PM
Post #8


.
*******

Group: Member
Posts: 3,264
Joined: Jan 2004
Member No: 761
omgsh this is so simple...
nature is genes
nurture is environment..
i'd take nature because genes decide everything. almost.
 
aera
post Nov 2 2005, 09:58 PM
Post #9


*scribble scribble*
******

Group: Member
Posts: 1,314
Joined: Mar 2005
Member No: 119,610
i'd say nurture because people can change. nature decides you on the outside and nurture decides your personality and athleticsism.
 
*wind&fire*
post Nov 3 2005, 03:44 AM
Post #10





Guest
QUOTE(elainedcuzunome @ Nov 3 2005, 10:48 AM)
omgsh this is so simple...
nature is genes
nurture is environment..
i'd take nature because genes decide everything. almost.

it doesnt decide personality though does it? i could take indentical twins and raise one to hate a certain minority and raise the other in THAT minority... theyre not the same person... its nuture that decides who you are...
 
*RiC3xBoy*
post Nov 4 2005, 08:42 PM
Post #11





Guest
Actually, Psychologists believe that Nature is a bigger influence than Nurture.
 
Spirited Away
post Nov 4 2005, 09:43 PM
Post #12


Quand j'étais jeune...
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 6,826
Joined: Jan 2004
Member No: 1,272
QUOTE(RiC3xBoy @ Nov 4 2005, 8:42 PM)
Actually, Psychologists believe that Nature is a bigger influence than Nurture.
*

Erm, what kind psychologist?
 
*RiC3xBoy*
post Nov 5 2005, 01:00 AM
Post #13





Guest
QUOTE(Spirited Away @ Nov 4 2005, 7:43 PM)
Erm, what kind psychologist?
*

Not sure, but ill be sure to give you an answer on Monday.
 
zepfel
post Nov 5 2005, 10:43 AM
Post #14


Senior Member
***

Group: Member
Posts: 88
Joined: Jul 2005
Member No: 182,272
QUOTE(RiC3xBoy @ Nov 5 2005, 2:42 AM)
Actually, Psychologists believe that Nature is a bigger influence than Nurture.
*



obviously, psychologists differ on the issue. otherwise there wouldn't be a debate.


personally, i think that nurture has a bigger impact. look at pets - in an environment where they are bred to hunt they will be fierce and irritable, whereas where they are trained to be house pets, they will be far more docile.

and ive always held the opinion that everbody has a fairly similar human nature.
 
*mipadi*
post Nov 5 2005, 12:06 PM
Post #15





Guest
QUOTE(RiC3xBoy @ Nov 4 2005, 8:42 PM)
Actually, Psychologists believe that Nature is a bigger influence than Nurture.
*

Could you clarify? My studies in psychology pointed towards a pretty even debate.
 
*RiC3xBoy*
post Nov 5 2005, 03:08 PM
Post #16





Guest
QUOTE(mipadi @ Nov 5 2005, 10:06 AM)
Could you clarify? My studies in psychology pointed towards a pretty even debate.
*

Well here is one example I found online
QUOTE
A large number of the study of twins reared apart was undertaken by Thomas Bouchard of the University of Minnesota starting in 1979. He “collected” pairs of separated twins from all over the world and reunited them while testing their personalities and IQs. Other studies at the same time concentrated on comparing the IQs of adopted people with those of their adopted parents and their biological parents or their siblings. Put all these studies together, which include the IQ tests of tens of thousands of individuals, and the table looks like this:

Same person tested twice 87%
Identical twins reared together 86%
Identical twins reared apart 76%
Fraternal twins reared together 55%
Biological siblings reared together 47% (studies show that reared apart about 24%)
Parents and children living together 40%
Parents and children living apart 31%
Adopted children living together 0%
Unrelated people living apart 0%

Now, Im not ingorning Nurture at all. Michael, I agree to an extent that both Nature and Nurture are pretty much at an even level, but to me, it seems that life favors Nature just a little bit more.
 
Spirited Away
post Nov 5 2005, 03:57 PM
Post #17


Quand j'étais jeune...
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 6,826
Joined: Jan 2004
Member No: 1,272
If genetics is what determines who we are, does that mean those who are among the lower class, or in poverty are in such a position because of their genes? This is simply what a behavioral psychologist would ask. Thus, it's not appropriate to say 'psychologists believe that nature is the bigger influence', but rather, state what kind of psychologist would believe so.
 
*RiC3xBoy*
post Nov 5 2005, 04:19 PM
Post #18





Guest
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
post Nov 6 2005, 11:13 AM
Post #19


Quand j'étais jeune...
*******

Group: Staff Alumni
Posts: 6,826
Joined: Jan 2004
Member No: 1,272
QUOTE(RiC3xBoy @ Nov 5 2005, 4:19 PM)
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*
post Nov 6 2005, 01:35 PM
Post #20





Guest
QUOTE(Spirited Away @ Nov 6 2005, 9:13 AM)
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.
 
*disco infiltrator*
post Nov 6 2005, 07:06 PM
Post #21





Guest
No, untrue. A musical prodigy child will not become a musical prodigy without the right environment. If you do not give the kid instruments, he will not know how to play them. He has the potential to be a musical prodigy, but without the right nurture, he cannot fulfill his potential.

I was predicted to be short, around 5 foot, according to my genes. However, with my environment and nuture, I grew to be 5' 5". I had the potential to be quite short, but my environment changed that.
 
*mipadi*
post Nov 6 2005, 07:12 PM
Post #22





Guest
QUOTE(disco infiltrator @ Nov 6 2005, 7:06 PM)
I was predicted to be short, around 5 foot, according to my genes. However, with my environment and nuture, I grew to be 5' 5". I had the potential to be quite short, but my environment changed that.
*

How does the environment change one's height?
 
*disco infiltrator*
post Nov 6 2005, 07:16 PM
Post #23





Guest
What you eat, how active you are, what drugs or substances you intake.
 
*RiC3xBoy*
post Nov 6 2005, 07:27 PM
Post #24





Guest
QUOTE(disco infiltrator @ Nov 6 2005, 5:06 PM)
No, untrue. A musical prodigy child will not become a musical prodigy without the right environment. If you do not give the kid instruments, he will not know how to play them. He has the potential to be a musical prodigy, but without the right nurture, he cannot fulfill his potential.

I was predicted to be short, around 5 foot, according to my genes. However, with my environment and nuture, I grew to be 5' 5". I had the potential to be quite short, but my environment changed that.
*

On the contrary, if music prodigies like Mozart had never had an instrument, he would still have perfect pitch, it would just be that nor he or anyone else would know about it.
 
*mipadi*
post Nov 6 2005, 07:30 PM
Post #25





Guest
QUOTE(RiC3xBoy @ Nov 6 2005, 7:27 PM)
On the contrary, if music prodigies like Mozart had never had an instrument, he would still have perfect pitch, it would just be that nor he or anyone else would know about it.
*

Is one genetically disposed to perfect pitch, or just disposed to the potential to develop perfect pitch?
 
« Next Oldest · Debate · Next Newest »
 

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Display Mode: Standard · Switch to: Linear+ · Switch to: Outline

Track this topic · Email this topic · Print this topic