by "66671 - 200 [METRIC] my dash" (66671)
Published 08/19/2017 at 14:02
by "66671 - 200 [METRIC] my dash" (66671)
Published 08/19/2017 at 14:02
No Tags
STARS: 0
Just kind of looking for a little discussion/perspective on how and why humans act. It’s difficult to get what I’m trying to say into words but bear with me if you will...
Nature: Human behaviour is “pre-wired” based on biological factors like genetics, etc.
Nurture: Behaviours are based solely on external factors, like experiences and social factors.
Now I think this might be a semantic issue, because I think the mix of the two can vary results in all different kinds of people, but I feel the word nature here doesn’t really fit.
The human brain has been developed over a very long period time alongside everything else that exists around it. What I mean is that the human mind in and of itself is a product of nature just as much as every other tangible thing that exists. So couldn’t it be argued that the product of any one human brain is just as natural as a leaf that grows on a tree, or a dam built by a beaver? If so, couldn’t the relationship between the traditional nature vs nurture debate just be encased within nature itself?
I mean there’s no doubt that experience can teach you something and influence the way that you act. But at the same time, there are genetic similarities throughout generations both physically and mentally (similarities in physical brain structure, perhaps, consider genetic links in mental illnesses, or cancer, etc.) So while there are both external and genetic influences to the brain, the product of any said brain can just be attributed to the structure of society (the product of many brains/bodies together, which, again, are developed biologically, through the foundations of how our physical reality is built, aka nature)?
I can put it another way: couldn’t nurture just be considered a part of nature, as a logical and rational product of a human brain?
I might just delete this is if it proves to be too vague or difficult to put into words. I also very well might just have a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature vs nurture argument (in which hopefully someone can explain it to a moron like me).
"CB" (jrcb)
08/19/2017 at 14:16, STARS: 0
I get what you mean, and no, nature just means biological dispositions. For example, if you follow the work of Lombroso and the field of phrenology, you would believe that crime is predisposed by one’s biology, and that you can tell the types of criminality of a person thrpugh physical traits or by reading the bumps on their skulls. The idea of nature is that nothing one can do can really defeat that aspect of personality, as a person is born with it.
Nurture follows the idea that people are born as blank slates, and can be shaped through experiences. So, if a person is misbehaving, it’s because they were taught wrong, but that also means that we can change their behaviour. So it wouldn’t really fall into “nature” as there are influences coming from outside, versus the more internal influences of “nature”.
"66671 - 200 [METRIC] my dash" (66671)
08/19/2017 at 14:49, STARS: 0
Ok, but you mentioned that influences coming from the outside are nurture, but I would argue that those external influences themselves are a product of nature, and therefore represent nature itself. If I do something that influences 1 person and 1 person only, there is a physical process in my brain that is happening that results in that someone to perceive it, and begin their own physical process of assessing what I’ve done and how it affects them (even though the affects/influences might be subconscious).
If I were to do the same thing with someone else, it might affect them differently based on their own physical construction of their brain, which we can not really determine.*
I am thinking that even if brains were a complete blank slate, this learning process through it’s surroundings are considered are a natural process, because the actions that affect one’s brain is just the product of someone elses brain. (Like I said though, I don’t think it’s possible for the mind to be a complete blank slate, due to physical genetic similarities between parents and their children, whether it’s the physical look of their face or the physical construction of their brain, but at the same time, for example, war can give someone PTSD, but the extent of which is determined by the physical construction of their brain, which is, at least partially, influenced by their parent’s genes.)
*I think part of the problem might be that the brain is far too complex to judge any sort of physical aspect of it, as in every individual brain is physically different from one another in the construction of the neurons, synapses, etc. But this variation is of course only natural in the construction of a human being.
I’m not really trying to prove anything here, it’s just that I don’t understand why there is a separation between the two in the first place, because everything that is, is nature, and if it doesn’t exist, well, than it doesn’t exist.
"CB" (jrcb)
08/19/2017 at 14:52, STARS: 0
I think you’re confusing the definitions of nature. You consider nature in a more literal sense of the term, being the environment. However, nature in the sense of nature versus nurture means what exists within a person when they are born and their predispositions. Same word, different meanings.
Does that make sense?
"66671 - 200 [METRIC] my dash" (66671)
08/19/2017 at 15:06, STARS: 1
Yeah, that makes sense to me, they are like homonyms, then.
I’m not really sure how anyone can possibly try to argue the significance of either one on an individual when each brain is varied in both it’s physical construction and experiences, but I guess that’s a different argument. Thanks for the replies.
"TheRealBicycleBuck" (therealbicyclebuck)
08/19/2017 at 15:30, STARS: 0
There are a few case studies where identical twins were separated at birth (by circumstances, not experimental design). The “nature” part of the question should be the same - they are genetically identical. This means that any difference between them will be purely due to “nurture.” I suggest you look into this research. I believe that there are a couple of documentaries that discuss it as well.
"66671 - 200 [METRIC] my dash" (66671)
08/19/2017 at 16:06, STARS: 0
(You should read, at least the last part, of my discussion with CB).
I actually have, once or twice in some case studies throughout high school not too long ago. My confusion came from the use of the words nature to describe two different things (nature as a word for existence itself, VS. what “knowledge” people are born with contrasted to what they learn though experience). In this case, I think, nature vs nurture fits within what I was considering to be the only definition of nature.
I don’t think it would make sense to argue that either nature or nurture are not valid influences on how the brain functions, and it wasn’t my intention to imply that.
"TheRealBicycleBuck" (therealbicyclebuck)
08/19/2017 at 16:23, STARS: 0
The more we learn, the more complicated it becomes. Recent work found that some knowledge can be passed down without language, but they aren’t sure exactly how it’s being done. They think it might be due to genes being turned on by stresses in the environment and these stay activated in the offspring. That would be a case where nurture (the environment) activates nature which passes the behavior down to the offspring.
I can see in my own kids behaviors which are very similar to those exhibited by relatives they’ve met only once or twice. It’s weird to see that.
"66671 - 200 [METRIC] my dash" (66671)
08/19/2017 at 17:07, STARS: 1
It’s like the saying, “The more we know, the more we know how little we know” and the brain (not only in humans) is capable of some pretty amazing things.
And I completely agree, some of my family members have noted the same thing about me lol.