Nature Vs. Nurture -DWYP Safe-

[The Mad Hatter]

It has been reported that the use of the terms "nature" and "nurture" as a convenient catch-phrase for the roles of heredity and environment in human development can be traced back to 13th century France. Some scientists think that people behave as they do according to genetic predispositions or even "animal instincts." This is known as the "nature" theory of human behavior. Other scientists believe that people think and behave in certain ways because they are taught to do so. This is known as the "nurture" theory of human behavior.

The Nature Theory - Heredity
Scientists have known for years that traits such as eye color and hair color are determined by specific genes encoded in each human cell. The Nature Theory takes things a step further to say that more abstract traits such as intelligence, personality, aggression, and sexual orientation are also encoded in an individual's DNA.

The Nurture Theory - Environment
While not discounting that genetic tendencies may exist, supporters of the nurture theory believe they ultimately don't matter - that our behavioral aspects originate only from the environmental factors of our upbringing. Studies on infant and child temperament have revealed the most crucial evidence for nurture theories.

An overwhelming amount of people are quick to say it is a mix of nature and nurture. While certain issues maybe predominantly one or the other, some may lean more towards one side.

I have a feeling homosexuality will become the main focus of this thread, and thats fine. If you plan on voicing your opinion make sure you state your stance on nature vs nurture.


Nature/Nurture theory taken from about.com

 

[Crimson King]

Thumbs up from the King!

 

[Sargent_Peach]

Thanks MH for making a thread where Delorted and I can have our little debate.

This is my earlier argument in the Gay Marriage thread.

Alright Delorted, I agree with the love thing. If Joe and Jill are sisters and they "love" each other, then it is not a choice. But, that does not mean that incestuous marriages should be legal. They still cause a harm to society. If Joe and Jill really love each other, they will stay together even though it goes agianst society and science. They will be looked down upon by pretty much everyone in society. Their baby (if they have one) has an increased chance in rare/dangerous diseases that could harm his/her life. They just won't have the right to get married. It doesn't matter if they want alternatives, because if they really care about their relationship, they won't have a baby. They have a serious chance of having a baby that is deformed and/or with dangerous genetic disorders.

With gay being nature vs. nurture. If being gay is a product of your environment, then how come my sister, who was raised in the same house, with the same parents, with some of the same friends, in the same schools; essentially the same "environment" turned out gay, while I on the otherhand turned out completely straight. This can be the same thing as with twins, when one of the two are gay, and the other straight. There must be something in the brain that makes them the way they are. It is definetly not by choice, you can ask any homosexual person if they chose to be gay and all of them (if they really are gay, not bi) will tell you they didn't choose to be. Is is possible that every person that is gay conspired together to come up with that lie. I don't think so. How come many homosexual men talk with a femimine tone, this doesn't come from being raised by women. I have many friends that were raised by their mom and sisters and none of them talk that way. Its not a choice they make, and it is not due to their environment. Many gay people know they are gay before or at puberty. They understand from a very early age that when Jonny shows Jimmy his dad's porno collection, it doesnt do what it is supposed to for JImmy. Is it possible that the environment has already changed Jimmy's sexual orientation at such a young age, I think not.

I really don't understand the interracial point either, but it is in no way biological. That is nurture. If you are raised by black people, in a black communinty (and you are white), you are much more likely to be attracted to black women. I'm not saying that you are definetly going to be attracted to black women, or that you aren't going to be attracted to white women, what I'm saying is that you are more likely going to be attracted to what your friends and relatvies(cousins) are attracted to.

 

[Tera253]

So, which side are you taking?

that sounds well thought-out, but it's hard to discern which side you're on.
~Tera253~

 

[Digital Watches]

I still don't see how this whole song and dance is relevant to whether gay marriage should be legal, but I'll bite.

Firstly, are you familiar with chaos theory, which in short is the proposition that in a complex nonlinear system, minute, seemingly random or inconsequential changes or anomalies can have far-reaching and unpredictable effects within the same system? This could easily explain your sister, whose life experience cannot possibly have been exactly the same as yours. Any minute difference, or especially numerous small differences, could be at the root.

The twin argument is one I've heard numerous times, although not usually on the "nature" side. Fraternal twins are no genetically more or less varied from normal siblings. With identical twins, given their absolutely identical genetic makeup, it is entirely impossible that a genetic factor alone caused them to tend towards homosexuality. If one identical twin becomes homosexual and the other heterosexual, the chance that only genetic factors are involved diminishes to zero.

But really, that only proves that a genetic factor need not be the only explanation. It is well-established that genetics dictates certain basic elements of one's personality, which can easily be seen to have an effect on the ways in which a person reacts to any given situation. In other words, two genetically diverse people could be raised exactly the same, and have the exact same experiences, and one would react to some of them - or all of them - differently. Not to mention the previously explained impossibility of two people having the exact same experiences, down to the minute details.

But since quite a bit of the environmental factors involved with personality and development have their largest effects at the incredibly early stages of a person's life, infancy to early childhood, it's understandable that one's sexual orientation will not be percieved as a choice to them.

In conclusion: The tiniest difference can change everything, as explained by chaos theory (Read up on it. While some choose not to trust wikipedia, its listed sources have some good information as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory). There is no reason this cannot apply to human development. Genetics influence personality, and therefore the way one responds to any given experience or stimulus. Both factors are inextricably connected in the psychological development of any human being, and this logically includes sexual orientation. In the meantime, this is entirely irrelevant to the legalization of gay marriage, as regardless of the factors which cause the person to be homosexual in the first place, to deny them the right to marry is unnecessary and illogical, and therefore has no place in law, as has already been debated and restated ad nauseum and probably will continue to be as long as those fixed immovably in the belief that their moral convictions are more important than pragmatism and equity in law continue to press the point.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

The twin argument is one I've heard numerous times, although not usually on the "nature" side. Fraternal twins are no genetically more or less varied from normal siblings. With identical twins, given their absolutely identical genetic makeup, it is entirely impossible that a genetic factor alone caused them to tend towards homosexuality. If one identical twin becomes homosexual and the other heterosexual, the chance that only genetic factors are involved diminishes to zero.

Although identical twins have the same genotype, they have different phenotypes, meaning that the same DNA is expressed in different ways. The Chaos Theory may be to blame but there still is a chance for nature to be the cause.

In other words, two genetically diverse people could be raised exactly the same, and have the exact same experiences, and one would react to some of them - or all of them - differently.

This would be b/c of the individuals personality. Many traits can be inherited from the parents. Take temper for example. I was unfortunate enough to receive my fathers temper, which is very short. I have never known my father who passed on when I was two. There are certain genetic issues could effect the way an individual reacts.

But since quite a bit of the environmental factors involved with personality and development have their largest effects at the incredibly early stages of a person's life, infancy to early childhood, it's understandable that one's sexual orientation will not be percieved as a choice to them.

I do agree that environment can be the factor in many cases, but I personally think there is a strong argument for nature.

 

[Digital Watches]

This would be b/c of the individuals personality. Many traits can be inherited from the parents. Take temper for example. I was unfortunate enough to receive my fathers temper, which is very short. I have never known my father who passed on when I was two. There are certain genetic issues could effect the way an individual reacts. I do agree that environment can be the factor in many cases, but I personally think there is a strong argument for nature.

Um. Actually, that's exactly what I was saying. I'm confused as to why you're arguing the same point I was making. Obviously both genetics and experiences in development are large factors in the outcome.

 

[Sargent_Peach]

I agree with some of what you are saying. I will read up on the theory, but I am for gay marriage. I'm in no way agianst it, and I'm arguing that being gay can't soley be from the environment. Maybe both, but not only from your experiences.

Let me do some more research, and I will be glad to debate you, however we are on the same side when it comes to homosexual marriage.

 

[Deleted member]

With gay being nature vs. nurture. If being gay is a product of your environment, then how come my sister, who was raised in the same house, with the same parents, with some of the same friends, in the same schools; essentially the same "environment" turned out gay, while I on the otherhand turned out completely straight. This can be the same thing as with twins, when one of the two are gay, and the other straight. There must be something in the brain that makes them the way they are. It is definetly not by choice, you can ask any homosexual person if they chose to be gay and all of them (if they really are gay, not bi) will tell you they didn't choose to be. Is is possible that every person that is gay conspired together to come up with that lie. I don't think so. How come many homosexual men talk with a femimine tone, this doesn't come from being raised by women. I have many friends that were raised by their mom and sisters and none of them talk that way. Its not a choice they make, and it is not due to their environment. Many gay people know they are gay before or at puberty. They understand from a very early age that when Jonny shows Jimmy his dad's porno collection, it doesnt do what it is supposed to for JImmy. Is it possible that the environment has already changed Jimmy's sexual orientation at such a young age, I think not.

Obviously, you and your sister have not lived the exact same life, so you cannot say that because you lived in the same house and went to the same school you will like the same things. It is our experiences that define our preferences in almost every aspect, why would sexual orientation be any different?

Am I born to hate sushi? Is it natural for me to abhore mushrooms? Do I have a certain abnormality in my body which makes me love bacon? And peanut butter?

Gays seem really arrogant and predisposed / biased towards their case. They tell me that they knew from a very early age that they were gay. So what? I knew from day 1 that I hated olives. You think I choose to be a picky eater? Why would I? I get made fun because of it all the time.

I don't know why homosexual men talk like girls like that, it's actually really really annoying.

Sorry for the wait, was busy

 

[Sargent_Peach]

Um... I understand what you were saying, but I don't agree with your analogy. Taste is something that changes over time as your taste buds mature. You may abhore mushrooms now, but when you turn 25 you may love them. When I was younger, I hated tomatoes, and now I love them. I guess that discussion is really off topic though.

With my sister, I wasn't saying that we had the same experiences, I was saying that we grew up in essentially the same environment. that is all.

 

[Deleted member]

Um... I understand what you were saying, but I don't agree with your analogy. Taste is something that changes over time as your taste buds mature. You may abhore mushrooms now, but when you turn 25 you may love them. When I was younger, I hated tomatoes, and now I love them. I guess that discussion is really off topic though.

It's not off-topic, this debate doesn't necessarily have to go to homosexuality. Just so you know, some people turn 25 and realize that they love the same sex. It's exactly the same thing, preferences.

With my sister, I wasn't saying that we had the same experiences, I was saying that we grew up in essentially the same environment. that is all.

Then you lose. Because I was saying that it was the experiences that define us, not our environment.

edit later

 

[Digital Watches]

Obviously, you and your sister have not lived the exact same life, so you cannot say that because you lived in the same house and went to the same school you will like the same things. It is our experiences that define our preferences in almost every aspect, why would sexual orientation be any different?

Am I born to hate sushi? Is it natural for me to abhore mushrooms? Do I have a certain abnormality in my body which makes me love bacon? And peanut butter?

First off, let me say that I completely disagree with the Sargeant here. I think that your analogy perfectly fits the discussion at hand. That being said, the conclusions you draw are entirely fallacious, which you'd know if you had done your research.

It has been empirically proven and documented that preference for certain foods stems from genetic factors as well as environmental ones.* It's difficult to determine exactly what has caused what, but it is clear that food preferences, like sexual orientation, can be caused by a blend of genetic and environmental factors.

Gays seem really arrogant and predisposed / biased towards their case. They tell me that they knew from a very early age that they were gay. So what? I knew from day 1 that I hated olives. You think I choose to be a picky eater? Why would I? I get made fun because of it all the time.

I don't know why homosexual men talk like girls like that, it's actually really really annoying.

Sorry for the wait, was busy

A genetic predisposition could account for an early knowledge of sexual orientation, as could early developmental differences, and since the way one reacts to any given situation is determined, especially early on, largely by genetics, one could make a strong argument that it's futile to quibble over one or the other, since genetics affect development in the first place. The same is true of your dislike of olives and your status as a picky eater.

The topic of how homosexual men talk is ridiculous to argue, because not only is it not at all a shared trait among all of them, but completely irrelevant, and probably largely caused by portrayal of homosexual men in the media.

* http://www.aip.org/dbis/stories/2005/15002.html (A study linking certain genes to food preferences. Click the red "Read the full story" link for the important details of the study, the rest is just conclusions)

 

[Tera253]

so what do food preferences and gayness have in common?
besides, I know some people that when I first met them, were straight, but now, are gay. either they worked their rears off to hide it (why would they do that? Gays seem proud of doing what they do.) or it was a change in personality-similar to the way whiny toddlers become civilized adults.
~Tera253~

 

[Deleted member]

The food thing is variable. I was trying to state that things we prefer, whether it be men instead of women or chinese instead of thai or 300 instead of Sin City, it's all empirically determined, in my opinion.

 

[Digital Watches]

so what do food preferences and gayness have in common?
besides, I know some people that when I first met them, were straight, but now, are gay. either they worked their rears off to hide it (why would they do that? Gays seem proud of doing what they do.) or it was a change in personality-similar to the way whiny toddlers become civilized adults.
~Tera253~

Right. There's no such thing as closet homosexuals, free will's existance proves that there's no such thing as genetic preferences, and anecdotes beat the scientific method. I forgot.

The food thing is variable. I was trying to state that things we prefer, whether it be men instead of women or chinese instead of thai or 300 instead of Sin City, it's all empirically determined, in my opinion.

Once again, an opinion in the face of scientific evidence is meaningless at best without something to back it up, since studies have already been provided for you that contradict this opinion.

Of course there is a factor of choice, no one's saying there isn't. We could argue free will vs. determinism all day if you'd like, but since you insist on the comparison to food preference, a study showing a genetic factor in said preference is much more reliable than an opinion that it's "all empirically determined."

 

[Deleted member]

Once again, an opinion in the face of scientific evidence is meaningless at best without something to back it up, since studies have already been provided for you that contradict this opinion.

Of course there is a factor of choice, no one's saying there isn't. We could argue free will vs. determinism all day if you'd like, but since you insist on the comparison to food preference, a study showing a genetic factor in said preference is much more reliable than an opinion that it's "all empirically determined."

Listen man, calm down. I wasn't saying anything new, just clarifying for Tera.

 

[The Mad Hatter]

I want to take this debate in a new direction (if only for a moment).

One weekend not long ago, my girlfriend and I went to my parents home. On the trip we got into a debate which I think is highly related to the nature/nurture issue. I stated its a womans genetic responsibility to care for the offspring. She believes men and women should share all duties equally. I am not trying to skip out on changing a diaper or feeding the child a meal, I'm simply saying a woman was "built" to take care of the child. Of course she pulled the equal rights argument, but Ill get to that in a few lines.

Nature gave the female all parts required for childcare. Even her emotions are wired to have a strong connection to the child and want to ensure the best for her offspring. If we go back a few thousand years we see the original role of society. The male is the hunter gather. He is in control of providing the shelter for the family because nature has provided male with 35% more muscle mass. Females mammary glands provide nourishment and at one time was the only form of nursing.

Only recently has society changed the way we function in our family and social lives. No longer is the primary focus producing offspring and ensuring the safety and welfare of the child, but rather the pursuit of money. The female (some) is more interested in their pride.

Now I probably seem like a Heman Woman Hater but its not like that. Please help me see my flaws or strengthen my argument.

 

[DoH]

I'm glad all you straight people have come together to decide for gay people what makes us gay. It's almost as reassuring as Ann Coulter telling me what is offensive to my people.

 

[Deleted member]

I'm glad all you straight people have come together to decide for gay people what makes us gay. It's almost as reassuring as Ann Coulter telling me what is offensive to my people.

Gays seem really arrogant and predisposed / biased towards their case.

I rest my case

 

[Digital Watches]

I'm glad all you straight people have come together to decide for gay people what makes us gay. It's almost as reassuring as Ann Coulter telling me what is offensive to my people.

I'm glad that you've extended your righteous indignation to more tame and intellectual debates. It's good to see that people are willing to make the effort and grasp at straws in order to be offended.

Hatter, from a biological perspective, I agree with you. Instinctually and in many cases anatomically, in humans, females are quite a bit more suited to take care of a child.

Then again, our society values equal rights, and therefore more of today's women's focus is being put on careers and roles formerly associated with men rather than childrearing, which I'm also for.

The combination of the two creates some nice double-standards, such as some heavily biased child custody and child support laws, simultaneous with a cultural taboo frowning upon men who think of women as more suitable for childcare.

Either way, as far as arguing with your girlfriend, I would recommend bringing up more of the proven instinctual and psychological elements than anatomical ones, as technology and/or society has ruled out the necessity of most of those. I'll try to find you some sources you can use.

 

[DoH]

Come on delorted, I'm being arrogant? You argue that it's our life experiences ONLY that define who we are and our preferences...yet can you pinpoint that experience that made you straight? Or the one that made me gay? You posit YOUR theory as being able to tell me why I am ME...how incredibly condescending is that?

 

[Deleted member]

Yet again DoH you take things the wrong way because of your sensitivity towards homosexuality

 

[Digital Watches]

Come on delorted, I'm being arrogant? You argue that it's our life experiences ONLY that define who we are and our preferences...yet can you pinpoint that experience that made you straight? Or the one that made me gay? You posit YOUR theory as being able to tell me why I am ME...how incredibly condescending is that?

Right, so being gay clearly has given you a perfect knowledge of concepts that leading researchers in genetics and human development/behavioral analysis have yet to explain. I should have known, because since the day I was born, I knew all of the factors that led me to like women or have blue eyes.

 

[DoH]

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that any of our presuppositions of what makes up another person's sexual orientation is as vacuous as a man's opinion on abortion. This debate is pointless because none of us are geneticists or sociologists; I have no idea what it's like to be straight and you have no idea what is gay. This schism is exemplified by the fact that we're different people and we will never truly know (despite old proverbs) what it is like to walk in another person's shoes.

I ask you, what is the point of knowing whether being gay is a genetic thing or caused by our environment? If it is an environmental thing it's pretty much impossible to pinpoint the key instance of a person's life that 'made them gay' unless they're living in The Truman Show, because any instance is always going to be hindsight unless you monitor them from birth (and even then, you'd have to be lucky to get a kid that would turn out to be gay). I don't understand why you knowing what causes something is going to accomplish. This isn't like rain, where you can grab an umbrella and then be shielded from gay people.

 

[Digital Watches]

Since when is a man's opinion on abortion invalid? Why do you assume that it's impossible to comprehend something without becoming it? Surely we know quite a bit about rats from experiments conducted and study of behavior, despite having never been them.

And why, pray tell, need there be a point for pondering whether environmental or hereditary factors (or both, as I would assert) play into things more prominently? Are you discouraging the pursuit of knowledge, or just speculation on a matter that hasn't been resolved?

 

[DoH]

A man doesn't have a uterus so ultimately he can never truly know what it's like to make that kind of a decision. It's like a man trying to tell a woman that it hurts more to get kicked in the nuts than to go through labor - we'll never truly know.

And you can't seriously argue that we know what it's like to be a rat; also, humans are far more complicated mentally than rodents. Also you can't seriously argue that you can 'know' what is like to be someone other than yourself.

What would you do with the knowledge if you could find an answer? Find a way to fix the 'problem'?

I'm against the pursuit of frivolous knowledge, if that's what you're asking, especially when there are far greater questions to be asked.

 

[Digital Watches]

Right, so you're making the completely ludicrous claim that without becoming something, we cannot know anything (or is it just anything important?) about them. I don't claim to know or care "what it's like" to be a gay man, I claim that it's possible to produce scientific results pertaining to them without being one. To claim that a man should have no opinion or sway over abortion simply because he hasn't got a uterus is equally inane. The issue affects men as well, as regardless of whether he'll ever be able to HAVE an abortion, the results of a child being born or not being born affect any men involved as well. Men are also equally capable of taking an ethical position on this issue.

You then go on to say that you don't want people to seek the answer because you fear the results of that answer. Not everyone here is arguing homosexuality is a "problem." I'm certainly not, and I at least doubt that Mad Hatter is either.

And where do you draw the line of frivolity? Is it anything we don't need to survive? Is the knowledge of manners in which to prepare food beyond making it edible frivolous? Is the knowledge of how to play a video game frivolous? Or is it just anything you don't like people talking about?

I'm for the pursuit of all knowledge, and unless you can give me a very compelling argument as to why this is detrimental, I see no reason not to be.

 

[DoH]

Why is my claim ludicruous? You can't actually tell me that you can fully understand what it's like to be someone without being them. Your position is completely totalizing; I'm not arguing that we can't know anything, I'm arguing that we can't know everything and therefore our analysis is ultimately vacuous. I'm not denying a man's opinion on abortion (he can think whatever he wants) but that ultimately his opinion doesn't mean anything because it's not his decision.

I'm asking you what that point of knowing whether it's nature or nurture is and you have yet to provide a valid reason why we should investigate. The only plausible reason to investigate it would be an attempt to stop it. If you're not arguing that homosexuality is a problem, then what is your reason for investigating it's causes?

It's frivolous because you can't do anything with this knowledge. No change will result in your findings, therefore it is pointless to pursue it. To pursue nothing is very foolish indeed.

 

[Digital Watches]

Wait, so... We cannot FULLY comprehend and empathize with person in x situation without being in x situation. Therefore, any attempt to analyze it is meaningless? That makes no sense! Producing meaningful data and interpreting it in such a way that proves a hypothesis doesn't require empathy, or the knowledge of how something "feels."

Once again, just because a man isn't the one who's having to carry the baby to term (or not) doesn't mean he should have no say in decisions that affect him quite significantly. I could list numerous ways in which this occurs, not the least of which are the families that men would be forced into, women doing this intentionally by secretly ceasing their birth control; men who are forced into paying child support; men who DO want to have a child, and the women who agreed to, only to change their minds at the last minute. And again, someone who's never ***** anyone or been molested can have an opinion on the treatment of sex offenders in today's legal system. To assume that empathy is the only possible knowledge, or to claim its necessity in either research or decision-making is entirely fallacious.

The other position is so infuriatingly irrational that I fear for my sanity should I attempt to address it in depth. I will merely reiterate that broad knowledge such as this can in and of itself be useful at best, harmless at worst, and its uses may be impossible to anticipate. I would equate preventing research and discussion to burning books.

 

[Deleted member]

It's frivolous because you can't do anything with this knowledge. No change will result in your findings, therefore it is pointless to pursue it. To pursue nothing is very foolish indeed.

That's a john if I ever heard one. You're afraid of the results.

This is clear because in this quote you're basically telling us that it's pointless to speculate on things unknown.

A. Is God real?

B. If God is real, what came before Him?

C. What happens in a black hole?

D. How can I ever truly know whether or not other people are sentient like me? I could be the sole sentient being on this world, and all of you are simply AI or something along the lines of that.

E. If God is all powerful, could God Himself make a rock so heavy that even He can't lift it?

Please refrain from getting offended by the slightest of things that may point to something you *shocker* don't want to hear about your homosexuality.

Also, wobbling is mad gay. You should have gotten at least second. Props.

 

[Digital Watches]

New thought on this whole "understanding requires empathy" thing:

You argue that in order to understand homosexuality, for example, since that's the obvious direction this has been going, one must be homosexual, implying that research requires a full emotional understanding of a topic. I would argue the exact opposite. Meaningful results are nigh-infinitely harder to obtain when impartiality enters into the equation. Look at astronomy. Insanely complicated and horridly incorrect solutions for the solar system were designed by BRILLIANT Greek astronomers simply because they had cultural and religious biases (That the earth is the center of the universe) that obfuscated the simpler and correct solution to the problem, not only from them, but also from generations long afterwards. To say that bias is necessary for understanding is an absolute b*stardization of scientific methodology.

EDIT: Wow. I have the last post of every debate thread that's been active within a YEAR. Epic. Also sad.