Science often tries to grapple with the question of 'nature or nurture'. Can nurture create something in humans that nature has not provided for? Can anyone show me how nurture can actually create something that was not there? And are there any instances when nurture creates something which nature did not provide for and does not harm the nature individual? What do you think?
I think you probably stand entirely alone. <sigh> This debate has raged for many decades and the general consensus is that both have effects on the personality of the individual. In fact, there are very few people knowledgeable about the subject that disagree with that finding. And it's also agreed that it can affect the personality for the better or worse. As always, feel free to discuss as long as you like - but it's largely a wasted exercise which will produce nothing useful or insightful.
I guess anyone who introduces a new idea --- away from the accepted view has to stand alone. I'm not afraid of that --- as long as I stand and am not dethroned. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! From whatever I have read about this debate, the points I am raising above have not been considered. Often, when we debate something from within our cultural perspectives we may fail to take into account a simple fact which is excluded by our cultural mores, but which an outsider may easily catch. Science can be a useful institution only if it continously looks at new ideas and information and is continuously updating itself, otherwise it runs the risk of becoming stale like religion. I agree that nurture can have effect on the personality of a person. But a person's personality is not entirely based on his nature anyway. Personality is something which has a heavy socio-cultural influence and may supercede or run contrary to our nature. But our inner nature --- who we really are, what we really feel, what we really need --- these are things that cannot be 'created' by the environment. The environment can only give our 'nature' an encouraging environment to develop or give it a 'hostile' environment and inhibit its development. That is the role of nurture. It cannot create something that nature has not provided for. Let's see. At the worst, it will still make me see my folly. And that is worth the effort.
Without nurture you would be as helpless as a baby. Unable to direct any movement in your body with efficiency, unable to think properly, unable to wipe your own ass. Is that a positive thing?
if there is an argument behind that sarcasm it completely misses me. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Here's an example to illustrate this point. A climber plant whose nature it is to climb/ grow up a support will, if left on its own find the nearest upright thing and cling to it to grow upwards. Nurture/ artificial environment cannot make the plant grow downwards by creating several artificial infratructures that continously keeps the plant's natural tendency to shoot upwards, and by exerting continuous pressure on it. The moment that pressure is withdrawn, new shoots will start growing upwards again. Any success in making the plant grow downwards will be limited, and will be harmful to the plant, and it will not be able to grow to its full potential. Thus the environment influence is limited to destroying or tampering with nature. Can anyone show me how nurture can actually create something that was not there? And are there any instances when nurture creates something which nature did not provide for and does not harm the individual?
Nurture is useful or positive only when it is in the direction of nature, i.e., only when it works with nature not against it.
Even animals nurture. animals will 'bat' teir young when they get over excited ad/or misbehave........we do same, tho with us it dan lead to abuse ude to oppressive pressures from the culture so you can have positive or negative nurture and postive or negative nature. say that a could meet make love and some genetic ffect from that coupling effects babies growth etc. so nature a can make mistakes in our culture which supposedly clings to life cept when forcing yung men/women to die in its wars .......usually severely genetically damaged childre are forced to stay alive. as far as i know thiswasn't the casein many Iindigenous cultures which self-regulated teir populations for sake of overall ecological balance, resources and o on. so they wouod have allowed severely disabled children to die--which for me seems much more human. we dony, after all allow animals to live when diseased etc. but mention about this now and it can be construed nazism. VERY controversial subject, i know. but i am making a npoint that Nature is not some grotesque conveyor-belt efficiet machine. itis a livng pocess and mis-takes can happen wit nurture too---how e raisechildren is how inwightful we are. are we gonna push te children towards belivng in a soul-dead belief system, or are we gonna maybe have to stand alone and look to other alternativs?
i know...second paragraph i unintelligible whati said is...that a couple can mate and produce off spring that have a genetic physical impairment
Duendy, that's what I'm saying. Nurture is useful and positive only when it supports nature, not goes against it. I don't know if there are exceptions to this rule, but generally this seems to be true.
You fail to see that being more than a helpless baby is good? Have you wondered how our brain develops? Do you think it is because of nature? Nature gives us a huge amount of neurons. In fact a baby has more neurons than you do. Still it isn't a genius. Why? Because nurture weeds out bad neuronal contacts and neurons and strengtens good ones. Do you still fail to see why nurture is positive?
i have wondered the same thing the way things are going it seems to me that nature must eventually be destroyed. what then? can humanity survive without nature? does nature provide something that humanity needs? i am not talking food here. look at our cities, the crime rate, could that be the result of humanity moving further away from nature? if this is what you are talking about buddha then by god we agree on at least one thing.
Even though I fail to comprehend your example and its relevance here fully, let me say that I have not said that nurture cannot be positive. What I'm saying is that it can only be positive when it goes in the direction of nature and not against it. (let me add: ) And it remains in moderation not in excess. Whenever nurture goes against nature it is negative. It seems that nature allows nurture to extend it in the 'other' direction only till a point. Beyond this nurture cannot create anything even negative. In the other words, if nurture goes against nature, it cannot create something , it can only destroy. nurture away from nature = negative
Clearly you once again have a definition of nature and nurture that is totally different than anyone else in the world. Goodbye.
Cleary, you could not disprove me again. If you can't find fault with my definition, then you have to admit that it is true. Otherwise show me where I'm wrong. If you can't then you are obliged to accept my definition. I think that is the way it should work. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Nurture: The sum of environmental influences and conditions acting on an organism. I disproved you. See my previous posts. Nurture has positive influences. end of discussion.
What are you, Hitler? Can you show me where I have said that nurture cannot have positive influences? Why don't you read before you comment.
Let's read the very first post in your thread: Oops...did you say 'only a negative influence?' Or did I read that wrong and it says 'nurture can have both positive and negative influences'? I'm so terribly sorry that I read it wrong. How could I have mistaken 'only negative' for 'also positive'. I must go back to elementary school and attend some more classes on simple grammar. I'm so terribly sorry.
I agree, in the first post I did not qualify what I said --- and it can be construed to mean what you are trying to counter. But in my next post on the topic, I have expanded on it through an example and accounted for the possibility of positive environmental influence, but only under certain conditions. And again in my next post I have clearly stated:
