Grasscity - Cyber Week Sale - up to 50% Discount

Nature Vs Nurture?

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by 2313, Jun 8, 2013.

  1. Alright, before I start let me say I am baked and will probably mispell alot of words and make no sense at all but for all of you stoned enough to u derstand it here it goes. Do you think people's personalities are shaped from their nature as in biomedical theories of psychology or do you think it's based on behavior theories. Basically the question is do you think people learn to be the way they are or do you think people are born the way they are and can't be changed? I personally think it's a comibination but I think it's about 70% learning and 30% it's just the way the person was born.
     
  2. I think somebody's DNA is like, the ideal way things should work out, but environmental factors like shitty food or confusing relationships have a lot to do with how that genetic information could become dysfunctional. Everybody's nature is tested as time goes by, and psychology is really flexible in a complex mind like ours.
     
  3. Both because we need the genetics to give us the ability to form personalities while environmental factors will effect our epigentics. 
     
  4. #4 Hopinshasdjas, Jun 10, 2013
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2013
    I think its both, just from personal experience too I know babies that were funny and continue to be through their life, but depending on their environment yes there is a possibility of it affecting their personality. Like look at Eriksons Stages of Development. Ultimately I feel like we have that inner persona that knows who we are, but growing up we are taught to behave a certain way in certain situations. Not saying that its bad, we all gotta find a way to cause the least amount of conflict as possible so it makes sense, but some people really feel held back of their self expression because of it. Cant say I agree or disagree, its all just opinions and perceptions.
     
  5. From my extremely small background in psychology it seems like your combining the behavior studies of classic condition and the idea that our personality exists and develops in the 3 parts the id, the ego, and the super ego as recognized by Freud. The id is believed to develop first and wants immediate satisfaction and isn't concerned with what people think or social norms, this develops very early on. Next the superego is worried about logical thinking and the social consequences of your actions. You ego or personality exists from the ego mediating between the id and the superego to give a more balanced personality. This is can explain why some people are still like kids as adults because they are heavily dominated by the id, or someone uptight is more dominated by the superego. I'm my opinion I think a child's environment effects the development of the id, ego, and superego and in turn effects personality. This can explain why people who grow up in bad environments turn out to be successful and vice versa. I'm also a big advocate the perception rules everything, after all no one ever thinks they are a bad person in their own mind because of perception.
     
  6. From my extremely small background in psychology it seems like your combining the behavior studies of classic condition and the idea that our personality exists and develops in the 3 parts the id, the ego, and the super ego as recognized by Freud. The id is believed to develop first and wants immediate satisfaction and isn't concerned with what people think or social norms, this develops very early on. Next the superego is worried about logical thinking and the social consequences of your actions. You ego or personality exists from the ego mediating between the id and the superego to give a more balanced personality. This is can explain why some people are still like kids as adults because they are heavily dominated by the id, or someone uptight is more dominated by the superego. I'm my opinion I think a child's environment effects the development of the id, ego, and superego and in turn effects personality. This can explain why people who grow up in bad environments turn out to be successful and vice versa. I'm also a big advocate the perception rules everything, after all no one ever thinks they are a bad person in their own mind because of perception.
    </blockquote>
    Word I'm studying psychology in school too, just finished my second class, I'm loving every second of it. Yeah I totally agree that the environment effects our id, super ego, and ego. Everyone grows up in different situations so they grow to love and cherish different things and are taught differently as to what is considered socially acceptable. Also like you said it can make someone growing up in a stereotypical bad setting want to achieve more in their life, or they can let it take them under. We are truly an intersting bunch of living organisms haha, I am so fascinated in the way we think and respond to life, ill listen to pretty much anything anyone has to say, more knowledge in my eyes.
     
  7. Haha I took it my senior year in highschool this past year. I tore that class up As all year
     
  8. I think peoples personality's are shaped mainly by genes. Environmental conditions in early stages of life are second biggest factor imo. Environment and surroundings definitely play a role but DNA is the code of life. 
     
  9. I disagree. Your enviornment shapes your personality which is all based on perception. DNA doesn't directly translate to personality
     
  10. Id say 75% nature 25% nuture.  Experience is everything.  Grow up in the ghetto or with silver spoon, have your parents die/divorce or stay together forever.. the friends you have/relationships.. everything will shape how you end up, everyday adds to your personality.  But DNA will always have a part of it, and I think in some it comes out more then others.  So many people are completely lost and are not true to themselves, so nature makes up even more then 75%, others stay true to themselves or find themselves again in life and that takes over more.  
     
  11.  
    Agree with this. You can't just take what you want from genetics and your home life, pick and choose. Life doesn't work that way. It's like if you lived in the jungle for a year, you would be inherently different than other people.
     
  12. Everything in life is nurture. I came to this conclusion after the study of Freud and the unconscious. We have to observe to be able to react or to create. I do not think that a person is pre-programmed.
     
  13. I don't understand how anyone studies Freud in anything other than a historical context any more. Are there really classes that are still teaching Freud as valid? Or do you mean studying on your own? Either way... :hide:
    Anyhow, to frame it as a percentage of nature or even to talk about it as a nature vs. nurture thing is somewhat short of the mark, in my opinion.  The bottom line is....both are really important and are informed by each other. I'd say for the most part, nature draws the lines and nurture colors them in, if that makes sense. Genetics leave you with broad propensities towards certain traits and behaviors, and then the specifics are hashed out by your experiences in life.
     
    Obviously the extent to which any of this is true differs in everyone and with each particular trait or behavior. There is a lot of great interdisciplinary academic work being done in this area these days, so I don't know why anyone is looking to Freud for insight here (or ever.) Even putting questions of his relative merit aside, this isn't something that needs to be talked about only philosophically. This is a scientific question. I suggest you start reading about some of the literally thousands of relevant studies being conducted by evolutionary psychologists that are answering these questions. Here's a wikipedia page, and I can help point you towards some of the more specific studies if you'd like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology
     
  14. I have studied this extensively in my Sociology classes and I truly believe that no behavior is truly 'natural.' Societal views shape how people are expected to behave whether it is race, sex or gender, sexual orientation, and etc. Most people use the excuse of things being biological as an explanation to validate their claims of how people are expected to behave. In reality there is not a real major difference in the physical performance of males and females; however in our society there are different expected roles that imply that there is a difference. This notion is supported starting from a very young age when things like sports are separated and divided according to their 'gender appropriateness.' Because society places so much emphasis on difference the placebo effect causes people to believe that there are natural differences in the two genders. But what if the roles were changed and girls played football while boys were cheerleaders (basic example, there are better ones obviously)? What if there were no sex restrictions? Would girls really not be able to play football better then guys or vice-versa? I have a hard time believing that there are extreme differences in physical abilities between the sexes.
     
    Now in terms of sex or gender based behavior that is also nothing more then a societal construct that is also reenforced by 'natural law.' Even the concepts of sex vs gender become blurred in our society. While sex may refer to somebodies biological attributes gender is how somebody chooses to identify and what qualities they choose to embrace. A biological female may classify as a male and a biological male may classify as a female. There are different qualities related to each one in society and different roles that correspond to said gender and it has been proven time and time again that members of either sex can embrace qualities of either gender and still perform the societal expectations that are expected of their chosen gender. There are some biological factors that come into play here such as hormonal differences, however due to modern advancement and hormone replacement therapy this is no longer an issue.
     
    In conclusion to my crappy little sober morning thesis here I can safely say that in the case of Nature vs. Nurture that both factors are important; however because society often uses the concept of natural law as an excuse, most people remain blind to realities that most behaviors are a result of societal constructs and nothing more. If I were not on summer break this would probably have ended up being a 15-20 page thesis paper lol. But it is summer so I am honestly too lazy to go in depth on the subject (I could go on for days lol) and I am even to lazy to re-read and edit this. So I apologize if the grammar sucks, normally I re-type stuff like this and edit the hell out of it. I am also sober, the worst time for me to try and do anything.
     
  15. Seriously? Sexual dimorphism is a very real thing. Have you....looked at a woman recently?  :confused: Males and females have two completely different mating strategies, as they have two completely different gametes. One is incredibly mobile, and carries almost no investment while the other is a huge investment and is, for all intents and purposes, stationary. This fundamental difference has led to divergent evolutionary paths in every species that has it. I don't see how you can dispute that males and females do not have the same bodies. They do not have the same muscle structure or fat deposits at all. I'll get into the specifics if you want, and they have all been extremely well-documented and proven cross-culturally in the literature but....you should be able to see these differences pretty easily....
     
    Does a male peacock have a different mating strategy than a female peacock? Does it have a body that is designed to promote this type of behavior? Why would humans not work the same? Again, if you want to take this to the specifics of human sexual dimorphism, I will....but come on you can see that this is ridiculous on a general level....
     
    I was a sociology guy also. In fact that's where my degree lies. What I think maybe you're failing to see here is that society is also shaped by our own evolutionary past. Social constructs are the result of the genetic impulses of a bunch of individuals thrown into one environment. They are still just as much shaped by those genetic impulses as individual behaviors. You cannot escape the link to genetics if you're maintaining a scientific perspective. Not in sociology, not in anthropology, not in psychology, not in political science, not in history, etc. You have to realize that genetics are not always as cut-and-dry and intuitive as everyone seems to think they are. The "gene's-eye-view" is what's important in genetics, not the needs of the individual per se (although these often are in line with each other.) Not all adaptations help the individual, or even the group - adaptations are simply those traits which have been most successful in propagation and have become the most prevalent. It's the passing on of the genetic material that matters and, beyond that, not much else. It's a lot to get into and no matter how long I stay here I could never give you a decent overview, but I will say that if you're studying the humanities and you're not paying attention to our evolutionary history, you're doing yourself a great disservice and invalidating a lot of your efforts. 
     
    The links between social behavior and evolutionary context are so strong and so many of them have already been shown, by real empirical science, to be cross-cultural human universals that it's just silly to claim evolutionary impulses can even be separated from social ones in any real way.  
     
  16. Wow that is seriously an awesome way to put it. Somewhat literally paints a picture (ba-dum-cha!).

    In my first psychology class we learned a bit about Freud and what he contributed to psychology, my teacher really liked him. But my second class was lifespan so we learned more Erikson and yada yada
     
  17. I have fully woken up and hit the bong so now I can go a little bit more in depth, I honestly was not putting much thought into the last post. I didn't even have pants or contacts on yet lol.
     
    Like I mentioned before I would need quite a few pages to really go in depth on the subject and obviously because this is a forum I need to keep it brief. I am not trying to say that there are no biological differences between males and females, that would just be absurd to try and assert; rather I am trying to say that the importance society places on these differences is where the concept of natural law spawns from. Some things are indeed very natural for males and females and like you mentioned they evolved for mating purposes as a natural precaution to ensure the survival of the species. I wasn't totally forgetting about the evolutionary adaptations that factor in but I was not stoned at the time and I had just woken up so my brain was still in disarray.
     
    In terms of physical difference once again you are correct that the sexes have very different physical features and chemical balances; I was never really trying to argue that that is not the case. What I am asserting is that when you decrease the emphasis placed on adhering to set gender roles you will find that females can develop masculine qualities and males can develop feminine qualities. As somebody who is also interested in Sociology I am sure that you are aware of the definitional differences between sex versus gender and how the terms came to be defined so I can skip over most of that. So basically an individual whose physical sex is female can still chose identify in society as a male; that person can still have a vagina and the body of a female but if they chose to adopt masculine qualities and live life as a male then their gender is male. The same goes for a male who would rather live life as a female and have feminine qualities. 
     
    The fact that the words gender and sex have different meanings is an example of how much emphasis is placed on these biological differences in our society. Language construction is also an important thing to look at when determining how a society approaches these variances. In the English language, and most Romantic languages, there a the masculine and a feminine tense; He, She, Him, Her, Mr. Mrs. Ms. Monsieur, Madamme, etc... However in many Eastern languages, Turkish for example, there are no gender prescripts and everybody is 'it' which implies that gender is a less important, or at least a differently viewed, concept. In Japan titles such as kun, san, sama, and many others are given based off of age, career, or social status but very rarely is gender involved.
     
    In essence there is no concrete answer to the Nature vs. Nurture question; however it is safe to say that both do play an extensive role in everyday life. Nature creates variances and each individual society translates them into a unique meaning.
     
  18. #18 coopinnadaze101, Jun 13, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 13, 2013
    Meursalt so you're saying that Freud played no role in the study of nurture and is not valid in his studies?
     
  19. Yeah I don't think we really disagree. All I'm saying is that, while there's definitely room for elasticity, or even drawing right outside of the fucking lines that biology has set up for you.....that doesn't mean those lines aren't still salient and aren't still tied to an evolutionary history that, for 97% or more of it, took place in a hunter-gatherer environment. The social roles and expectations for a man are different from that for a woman. That is painfully obvious, even to those of us who'd like to overcome all iterations of the gender/sex binary and who really want to believe that everyone is born with a clean slate. In the LGBTA community, you see a lot more people saying, "Well my biology is X but I really feel like Y," than you see people saying, "Well my biology is X but I really feel like...just a nondescript human." To be clear, there are those who claim to experience true androgyny, and perhaps there is some validity to those claims - it wouldn't be my place to say - but they are much rarer than the aforementioned 'born in the wrong body' people, and there will always be outliers in any study so I don't know that they tell us that much about gender and biology on the whole....the point is that most of us recognize, at least on some level, that there are masculine ways of thinking and acting and there are feminine ways of thinking and acting and that these traits are largely universal, appearing in all cultures that have been studied. These include people like the Yanomami and all the other recently-"contacted" tribes in the Amazon and the Pacific. If these were purely social constructs...they'd probably look substantially different in these groups that have been isolated for hundreds of years, but they don't...  
     
    What I'm getting at here is that there are real, evolved norms for behavior that are generally different in men than women and they all speak to that most fundamental difference between sperm and egg. Men tend to engage in more high-risk, high-reward social behaviors than women (such as coalitional warfare, to name the most obvious) because that's what sperm are all about. A man can have hundreds of his offspring developing at the same time (well...if he's got a lot of stamina lol) while a woman can only have one.
     
    Being the most badass warrior in her tribe isn't going to make a woman pass her genes on to the next generation much more than any other woman. She can still only have one pregnancy at a time. Her genetic strategy is to make goddamned sure that this one pregnancy goes off without a hitch and that the offspring survives to pass the genes on again. Being the most badass warrior for a man is going to make him have...like...all the babies. Look at Genghis Khan lmao. Men who are more prone to risk-taking than others father lots of sons who are also more prone to risk-taking, and so on. 
     
    So yeah, I don't think your biology necessarily ties you to any one kind of psychology, but it definitely pushes you in certain directions. Most people who feel that their gender doesn't match their body seem to be switching lanes into the other gender, entering into a clearly carved out social niche that we all recognize as masculine or feminine...because, on some level...it is. I know that saying anything like that will get you lynched in most humanities classrooms lmao, but I don't see anything wrong with it. Certain types of behavior are generally seen in people with certain types of bodies, but that doesn't presuppose any judgment about those who don't fit those generalities. It is just a statement of phenomenological and empirical fact. And of course, it doesn't always do us much good because saying anything too specific about human behavior becomes impossible, but there are certain behaviors that are so cut and dry that we can study them and start pulling out these differences statistically, which is what evolutionary psychologists have been up to for the past 30 years or so. Okay fine, I'll stop plugging evo psych now lmao...
     
  20. He did, in the same sense that Newton played a role in physics. He was very influential in the field and he had some theories that, when taken very generally, might actually be okay. But, like Newton, when you get down into the specifics of it...a lot of his shit starts to fall apart. Modern physics classrooms teach Newton as a stepping stone on the way to quantum physics, just as modern psychology classrooms teach Freud as a stepping stone on the way to more modern conceptualizations. 
     

Share This Page