<p>I started thinking about scientific experiments where researchers attempt to isolate human characteristics as results of nature, nurture, or (most commonly) both.</p>
<p>Now what had me interested was the whole premise of these sorts of experiments, that all characteristics can be traced back to two variables: nature and nurture.</p>
<p>This made sense to me… almost too much sense.</p>
<p>Aren’t we all the products of genes and environment? Aren’t aspects of our personality, looks, thoughts, actions all determined by those two things?</p>
<p>And if so, if every fiber of our being is ruled by variables that are outside of our control, then where does the concept of self come in? How can you assign personal responsibility to anyone for anything when you know that it was “predestined” to happen because of nature and nature?</p>
<p>The question of responsibility is tied into the more basic question of free will.</p>
<p>It is a difficult one to answer, to be sure. There is still a great deal of philosophical debate over whether free will truly exists, and nature/nurture is more or less a derivative of that debate.</p>
<p>However, that there is philosophical debate over the issue means little in practicality. In order for society to function, we must assume that people have free will, and that nature and nurture do not together exert an entirely deterministic control over people’s actions. If we did not, society could not function.</p>
<p>As an analogy, there are a great number of antirealist philosophers who will argue that there is no objective reality. That they argue that does not mean that they go around doing ridiculous things assuming that those things will only be real to them.</p>
<p>But let’s look at the implications of what you’re saying… the fact that nature/nurture is a derivative of the free will debate means that science has taken the side of determinism???</p>
<p>I think there is a psychological disconnect in the way we think about ourselves… in English class we readily accept the idea of individualism while promoting a romantic? view of humanity, but the next moment we are in biology class and cast aside free will for the more concrete nature/nature.</p>
<p>I know that not much can be done in terms of practicality, but let’s look at it at a philosophical sense.</p>
<p>For example:
There has always been heated debate over the primary purpose of the justice system. Some see it as an instrument for punishment, while others view it was a means for rehabilitation. Now if we extend the concept of nature/nurture to other areas of society, and agree that free will does not exist, don’t we have to concede that the only purpose of the justice system is rehabilitation?</p>
<p>I was a sociology major and as such I was convinced that Nurture was the more dominant force. That was before I gave birth to identical twins: Same biology, same sociology…two entirely different temperaments from birth and even before. I drew the conclusion that “self” is divine. It is nurtured and influenced by nature but my kids were not tabula rasa (How would you make that plural?)</p>
<p>No, the nature/nurture debate doesn’t mean that science has taken the side of determinism. What it means is that for the moment science has taken the side of “not sure”, with the general thought being that while personal actions may not be deterministic, they can be influenced, and so while much of science considers the exact debate irrelevant, the derivatives of the debate become more important.</p>
<p>historymom-
I was a behavioral science major and wrote my senior paper on “Socialization of the Female Role.” This was in 1975, and I concluded that girls acted the way they did based on almost entirely environmental influences. Since then, I have had three children, now 14 and up. It took me less than a year after having my first child, to conclude that environment had much less of an effect than I’d thought.</p>
<p>On the free will vs. determinism debate, my S and I have had many discussions, but very few conclusions. I do believe much of what we are is a product of our biology, but I prefer to think there still is an element of free will. Maybe that’s just wishful thinking. :)</p>
<p>I’ve also thought a lot about the purpose of punishment issue. For example, I think whatever makes a child predator tick, is based primarily on that person’s chemical or biological makeup. That makes me sad, because that means he/she can’t control those impulses. However, I still don’t want them around my kids! So, I’m O.K. locking them up. I guess in that case, prison is not really a deterrent, because if you think the way I do, they won’t ever “recover.” It just keeps us safe from him.</p>
<p>However, it is also true that our experiences can reshape aspects of our biology. Our neural pathways are shaped by our environments and encounters. The brain of a child who has been playing violin since three is perennially altered by the repetition of the practice. So I think this is a very complex tangle to sort out.</p>
<p>Or as Yeats says, “How can we tell the dancer from the dance?” “Among School Children.”</p>
<p>I think nurture plays a huge role for the first five years of life in terms of giving opportunities for the genetic structure to express itself. This includes mental, emotional and physical structures. After that, the impact of the environment diminishes every year. Like a dry sponge dropped into a sink of water for five minutes, the first minute of contact impacts the sponge a lot more than the remaining four minutes combined.</p>
<p>edit: of course, leave it to mythmom to eloquently make a good point by quoting Yeats whereas I must reach for a kitchen sink analogy. (sigh)</p>
<p>Yes, but with BA and MA in English Literature, I really appreciate the eloquence of the poet and admire how readily you called on him. Hazard, indeed. :)</p>
<p>Today’s front page of the Wall St. Journal has an article on the role of long-forgotten brain injury and intractable problems like LD, homelessness, etc.</p>
<p>I didn’t mean to question the roles of either nature or nature individually… I meant to question the roles of nature AND nature looked at as a whole… and what they mean if they truly account for every aspect of a human being</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The scientists themselves may be unsure, but their experiments are set up as if they are sure… either that or these experiments can only be used to imply correlation, since a major unknown is present</p>
<p>“their experiments are set up as if they are sure…”</p>
<p>If they were sure, they wouldn’t run experiments at all. No one runs experiments to determine the power of gravity any more. All science is about uncertainty – it’s about ruling out possibilities one sliver at a time.</p>
<p>I meant that the experiments are set up as if they are sure that nature and nurture are the only two variables that need to be accounted for in studying a characteristic - the unknown/uncertainty is the degree each factor plays</p>