I think that it is interesting how society shapes us and makes us apart of society. Everyone learns from the beginning but how a person learns is the main goal. There are many groups that a person adapts to or grows close to and is taught things by them. I like when he said, how much is the things learned internal from a person. Because people learn many things on their own. That's what helps us make mistakes and learn from them. If we learn everything from other people then we are not having good self worth and are learning to achieve goals from others around us. I believe the majority of things we learn should be learned or taught by ourselves. Then the other little part should be relied on others. I understand we are around humans all day long but if we could teach ourselves then we wont have to rely on people for other things. Summer001
Everyone does make mistakes and so we can learn from them, however we could never just learn everything on our own. I would have never learned to ride a bike for example, if it was not for my parents who taught me. So, it does help to learn certain things on our own, but nurture and help from other people is also very important, in my opinion. swimmer001
I agree swimmer001, we learn almost nothing on our own. We can always trace the roots of that new knowledge back to our socialization. Even the lessons I learn today seem to always point back to family, church, school, etc. Packers001
Human beings are very unique in the context of learning. We are the only species who are Metacogniscient. We can think about how we think of things, we know that we know things. I think that to examine such experiments as those of monkeys would be fallacious due to this unique characteristic. FreedomUnderGod001
As an adult we should be at a point to self teach and to be aware of why we are the way we are, but as children, safety, and a nurturing environment are a must. I care for children who come from terrible places and it's been proven that to take them back to infancy in terms of milestones, we can do brain "surgery" and get them a little less damaged than they currently are. Arizona 001
I do agree with you partially swimmer001. Yes we learn these types of things when we were little because we have to start somewhere with learning. But as we get older the instinct in most cases of learning comes to us, The older we get we adapt these skills from others but then we learn to do thngs on our own. When it comes to education we do learn from a teacher but that is different because we are choosing to learn something new and out of our normal life style. With daily life challenges we learn and figure things out on our own. This is a way that we are capable of teaching ourselves. Your right, not everything single thing can be learned by ourselves but there are way to be better at it. Summer001
You make a great point. How are we to say certain traits aren't passed to children at birth? I will say that there are things that I think we pick up that's based off our parents' idea of us. It's them that tells you if you're messy or look a little rough from playing outside. In my experience that I find funny, I've learned to be aware of how I looked at a very young age. I was never a kid to like to get dirty and wanted to look nice. I don't think that's natural but instead nurtured. I think as a baby I was probably more messy and didn't have care in the world as any other toddler. Our personalities however may be more natural, but the things we're more self conscience about such as appearance may be nurtured into us.
Summer001 I agree 100% if someone makes a life changing mistake most of the time they learn from that mistake and try to change their life around such as finding beneficial habits, good group of friends to be around many other things that would help stay focused and out of troubles way. At least that is how I think and I know everyone thinks and feels a different way about many topics. LAWS001
Nature vs. Nurture is a very tough debate. Is the family we are born into decide how we act or our genes? Personally, I would say there is no 1 right answer. Both nature and nurture are at play in our lives, shaping who we become. I really liked his definition of socialization, which was acquiring culture. Like the instance of the child with a red dot of makeup on her face. This child learned to care that the makeup was on her face. I also thought it interesting how he said that cultures have different values. For instance, like the tribes in South America who was very aggressive. That is a part of their society, so any child living there will go through that type of socialization, or acquiring a different value that another culture values. swimmer001
I agree with you in this. The idea that a parent could be a bad parent and the child is still a good kid and vice versa seems very interesting to me. And I agree that there is no one right answer. I also think that it is probably different answer for everyone. Where nature and nurture impact in different ways for everyone. Delta001
I agree, nature versus nurture is a difficult debate and that they are both at play in our lives. Sometimes people rely too much on their human instincts, instead of thinking through all of their options. Also, in some circumstances people can be over nurtured and feel pressured to make every decision off of what they were taught therefore, people do not think for themselves. Toby001
I agree with you totally. Nature versus Nurture is definitely a tough debate. There is not much explanation, but I would like to say according to me Nurture plays a bigger role in a person's life than the nature. khush001
I agree with you that this is a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" situation. Nature v.s. Nurture, well I believe that both define who we are. We all have our own ideas and opinions, I can guarantee you that I did things differently than most of my friends, because I knew better. Peer pressure only works if you let it. You could chalk it up to good old common sense, or the fact that my dad was an Army guy and I had learned to behave. And there it is again- my common sense, and my upbringing. Both Nature and Nurture. Rosebudd001
I think nature vs nurture is pretty simple. Nature is finite when you look at it in the sociological human realm. Once mother gives birth, how far can an that child make it in life, if they are not longer assisted? Not far as the speaker gives example to. However, we don't just walk away and say good luck kid. We nurture, to a greater or lesser extent, our children. One caveat being, I think we claim to know far more about the natural proclivities of individuals brains, then we really do. For example, homosexuality, I wonder if we make generalizations when society claims it as a nurturing issue. Maybe their brains are wired differently, by nature, and see the world different. Yet, I am of the camp, the majority of responsibility for sociological perspective is better viewed in light of the nurturing aspect rather than nature.Packers001
I agree with you as to the importance of applying the sociological perspective through a lens of nurturing rather than nature. If you looked at some individual's particular problems or issues only in light of nature, you would have to blame some biological or genetic process for the existence of the problems or wrong behavior. This would remove accountability from the individual themselves because what could they do to change some thing they were born with or inherited. It would also remove accountability from the society or the parents or school who were responsible for the socialization of the individual. Granted, some people really are just born with predispositions towards different things and there's not much they or society can do to help it. I guess this just shows the importance of balancing both the nature and nurture views of socialization. thestig001
It is interesting how people think about Homosexuality. Theologically, having homosexual feelings is not in itself sinful, it is the act of homosexuality in which the sinfulness resides. There are two reasons that one may be Homosexual. The first is that Homosexuality is a choice. With this option it is pretty clear cut what the divine consequences are. The second is that people are born homosexual. Two points to touch upon: Firstly, being born homosexual does not mean that one has to act upon their desires, just as being born with a tendency to be hungry doesn't mean you should be gluttonous when eating, just as being born with the brain patterns of a person with aggressive criminal psychopathic tendencies and brain patterns means that one should act upon their desire to kill people. The second point, which is tangential, will stir up some emotions in some people. I encourage you not to have a knee-jerk reaction and listen to and respond to my Dialectic and not Rhetorically. I do not like the conclusion either (and I believe homosexuality is a choice) but the progression of thought is still coherent. If people are naturally born homosexual, then the only logical progression of thought would be that homosexuality is an abnormal birth defect. Because heterosexuality is statistically normal and homosexuality is not, this makes it abnormal (only about 2% of the US population is homosexual). A physiological condition in which the fitness (ability of an organism to reproduce) level is reduced is defined as a birth defect. Since being homosexual reduces your potential to reproduce to essentially nonexistent (since human beings require both sexes to mate) it must fall into this category. The existence of technology with the ability to inset sperm into a surrogate does not change the initial fitness level at birth, it only increases their fitness later in life. If you choose to believe you are born homosexual then to not follow the birth defect line of logic would be non sequitur. That only leaves the option that homosexuality is a choice. Do not misinterpret or jump to conclusions about me, I still believe that Homosexuals still deserve their rights, just like everyone else. FreedomUnderGod001
I felt compelled to reply to FreedomUnderGod001's response. After 36 years on this earth I've seen a few things. And one thing I believe is that you don't choose your kink or what turns you on whether it's the kind of car you drive, clothes you wear, or your sexual partner. You like what you like. It's inside of you. Yes you always can choose another way but when you are not your authentic self it can have very negative side effects like depression which can lead you down a path of drug abuse or suicide. Or even just simply not being fulfilled in life or unhappy. To say that homosexuals are a birth defect is a shocking thing for me to read. But being "abnormal" or a "birth defect" might not be a bad thing...it just is who they are...and I embrace the differences of this world in a positive light. I'd like to add I don't believe in your god or a heaven or hell so your beliefs obviously don't' apply to me or my life but to be open that people just are who they are. WonderWoman001
If we had choices when we were born I wouldn't have chosen to be 6'5". And being I am so tall you would think I would like to play or even watch basketball however I don't. Would my height be considered a birth defect? TooTall001
Thank you for your insight, the logical flow of the later half of your argument is really convincing. However, I must give some pushback to the examples supporting the first part of your argument in which your write “being born homosexual does not mean that one has to act upon their desires.” Though I do agree with you on this (that same sex attraction [SSA] should not be acted upon) your examples do not support your claim. Any natural desire like hunger attraction can be pursued in ways deemed immoral. For example, a herterosexual attraction can be pursued immorally through the grotesque act of rape. Its comparing apples to oranges. Also comparing SSA with a violent mental disorder also has its faults. I’ve commonly heard, even presented this argument only using alcoholism as an example. These arguments begin to fail we ask why these characteristics of an individual are objectively wrong, as they attempt. Both alcoholism and this mental disability inhibits a person from successfully integrating themselves in their society and from living a productive life. SSA cannot be observed as having the same innate isolating effect as the other two, though in many societies they face severe persecution. A person in western culture can fully aclement themselves into a society, living a fulfilling and productive life. Denying them the right to pursue their sexual desires is therefore enabling them from fulfillment. Like I said I believe SSA should not be acted upon, but I also don’t think its as easy an argument as you presented here. Karma001
These are my responses to those who responded to my post. I start off with offering my respects to each interlocutor and appreciate your willingness to discuss this topic.
WonderWoman001, Thank you for sharing your opinion. Unfortunately for your argument you have presented nothing but a rhetorical reaction to the dialectic that I laid out. Your anecdotal evidence is insufficient to determine whether or not homosexuality is a chosen or natural trait. Notice that I did not say that either the choice or the birth options are correct, I simply laid out the reasoning for them both, and then claimed a belief that it is choice and then advocated for their rights as individuals. You say that you are shocked from reading logic is perturbing, as it means that you have not distanced yourself emotionally from the issue to look at it objectively enough. After 18 years on this earth I’ve also seen a few things. For 17 ½ of those years I would describe myself as a blind midwit. Then I learned how to distance myself from my emotions in order to more easily understand the world. I do not get offended, I am not shocked at any statement, and I do not try to put people down. When reading my argument for homosexual birth defect you should not be shocked by reading it, you should be shocked at discovering the existence of the argument, then you should try and see if it is coherent. I also did not say anything about the status of being abnormal or a birth defect being a bad thing. I am a Muslim in the United States. The population of the U.S. is consisted only of about 1% Muslims, that makes me statistically abnormal. Your preconditioning has lead you to believe that a birth defect is a bad thing to have. This is not unusual in today’s society. What you have to understand is that all a birth defect means in this context is that it reduces an organism’s ability to reproduce. I made no judgement on the innate goodness or badness of said organism. It is fine that you don’t believe in God, your opinion of it is irrelevant in this discussion; this is not a forum discussing the existence of God. I only put the argument in context of religion because it panders to the majority of the audience. If you wish to discuss/debate/talk about the existence of God then I would gladly take up your offer. Looking over your post one more time confirms that my argument based on choice/birth of homosexuality still stands.
TooTall001, I don’t want to sound brash but you missed the point COMPLETELY. To say that a child has the choice to be tall is incoherent, especially considering that height has a strong positive correlation with your genetics. Being so tall doesn’t mean anything other than you are so tall. Your argument is a straw man, and non sequitur to the line of logic I laid out above. No your height would not be considered a birth defect unless you were incredibly short or incredibly tall, which reduces your lifespan significantly and therefore reduces your fitness level, thus being defined as a birth defect. Additionally, a birth defect can also be defined in genetics as an anomaly in your genetic code. You haven’t even addressed any of the Dialectic that I introduced in my argument. I would appreciate it if you sat down and took some time to read and understand an argument before writing your premature response.
Karma001, Your welcome for my insight. I agree that my examples were sort of shoddy, but the point was to get the general idea across, examples are not meant to be able to specifically correlate. I did not put as much thought into them because I was more concerned with making sure the Dialectic of my argument was consistent. Your counterexample also has no significance in rebutting my examples though. Try to use less rhetoric. If I have to simplify my argument to syllogisms then I would be glad to in order to make it easier. I was not comparing SSA with a violent mental disorder; I was comparing the individual acting upon their ideas. Alcoholism is a completely different subject that concerns addictive qualities. Drinking Alcohol is a choice. One cannot possibly hope to argue that Alcoholism is genetic. It is fallacious in its own definition. Your rebuttal is incongruent with my original statements. You are introducing a huge red herring as you continue your tangent into alcoholism and mental disability when we are talking about homosexuality. If you still think your counterexample is valid then I encourage you to try and fit it into the context of homosexuality. Nobody said anything about denying anybody’s rights to do anything. (sidenote: you use a word “aclement”. This group of letters actually has literally no discernable definition. I believe the word you are looking for is implement). My argument is very easy to put forth, you are misconstruing the incoherence of a rebuttal with the strength of the argument. Dialectically my argument still stands. To be fair, it was harder to pick apart your argument due to it being disguised in pseudo-dialectic, unlike the other two mostly rhetorical arguments presented before you.
I am still open to more counter-arguments. Throughout my research concerning this argument I have not been able to find a truly dialectic rebuttal.
FUG_ I am not debating on beliefs here I was initially just responding to your reply. I was doing just that sharing my opinion. And when you said being gay was a sin, do you not think that is a "bad thing"? I'm not 100% on my religious terminology. I guess I'm shocked at the beliefs that some people have and I do have that right. I am emotional in this subject because there are people in my life that are homosexual and I'm not going to apologize for it. I'm not here to offend just to learn from whoever I can learn from. For me that is what education is about. There isn't a right or wrong. Understand what you say or type on a blog does and will affect people. WonderWoman001
not sure if i agree with you? Theologically, having homosexual feelings is not in itself sinful, it is the act of homosexuality in which the sinfulness resides. WTF? To me this is like someone saying someone having child predator feelings is not in itself sinful, but it is in the act of molestation in which sinfulness resides. I don't feel that way, but I think if you have homosexual thoughts you are gay and most likely born that way and if you have child predator thoughts then you are a child molester. grateful001
WonderWoman001, you have the right to believe what you wish. I presented a position based on clear lines of logic. Once again this forum is not a proper place to debate the existence of God (i.e. sin), I simply presented the position in the context of theology. There is no need to apologize for having people in your life who are homosexual, why would you? I have a friends who are homosexual also, they took my explanation of the position with less shock and awe than you. I also never said that "being gay was a sin" so please do not place words into my mouth. If you do not understand my position on something, ask me to clarify and I will do so. I am not impeding on your rights to have an opinion or to feel your emotions. Objective Right and Objective Wrong do exist. To believe otherwise would consequentially fall into Moral Relativism. In which every action can be justified. Either you accept the existence of a right or wrong or you accept the idea that nothing you can do can be considered wrong. By inserting your emotions into your responses you are no longer looking at the situation in a scientific way. To maximize your objectivity you must react with the brain, not the heart. When you become easily offended, you automatically shut down the schools of thought to which you are offended by. Then again, you may just be one of the people whom Aristotle says cannot be persuaded through Dialectic. I understand that what I say or type will affect people. I will not self-censor myself in order to protect someone else's feelings if it gets in the way of determining rationality. Censorship does not proliferate intellectual discourse, in fact it hampers it significantly. FreedomUnderGod001
grateful001, Clarification: so you believe that by simply having the THOUGHT of breaking a law, you are automatically guilty of said crime? FreedomUnderGod001
I would argue that Nature is also required, and that it matters just as much as Nurture. Your example of adoption actually proves my point. A child can be adopted into a different culture, thus changing the way they are Nurtured. But what stays with them, no matter what Nurturing environment they enter, is their genetic makeup. To expand upon the idea, consider a young African black child being adopted into an East Asian family. The child's Nurture has changed completely, but their Nature will always be a deciding factor in the population's perception of them. Let's enter into a thought experiment: There is a primitive society that exists somewhere undiscovered isolated in the amazon. The tribesmen have extremely dark hair, skin color, eyes, etc. Generation after generation they reproduce, all of the kids being homogeneous in appearance. Until one day through a genetic anomaly, an Albino child is born. Even though that child may have been brought into a nurturing environment where all of the kids are raised the same, he is now going to be perceived completely differently, and thus his Nurture will be completely different from the other children's, directly dependent on his Nature. In order for Nurture to even exist, there must exist a fundamental basic Nature of a being. FreedomUnderGod001
I think the whole process of socialization is really interesting in that we basically need to be a part of society to turn out normally. This conclusion actually seems to support what the ancient philospohers such as Aristotle thought, even though they took a more idealistic approach. Aristotle thought that by his nature, man was intended to live in a polis, that is, a city of men. Aristotle realized that it was man's reason which set him apart from the animals and enabled him to be a social creature and he maintained that human interaction was a necessary part of the good life. This seems similar to the thought of Max Weber in his thought about the societal shift from tradition to rationality. What's really interesting, however, is that Aristotle lived in a society that Weber would most likely have considered as being preindustrial, yet Aristotle seems to have had ideas about rationalism which resonate with a more current and advanced society. thestig001
Just because Aristotle lived in a preindustrial society doesn't mean he couldn't philosophize about what could be. Back when Aristotle was alive, every civilization wasn't the same. Relative to him, he lived in a more advanced society than those of lands around him. Remember, Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. FreedomUnderGod001
Nature and nurture seems very easy to understand in things like sports to me. Nature in sports would be talent. Talent is where they might not have to work as hard to achieve a high level of skill in their particular sport. A different person with not as much talent might have to put in twice as much effort to get the same results. It seems to me that nature is natural talent that can't be taught and the nurture is the part where effort comes into play. Delta001
Nature verses nuture is an interesting concept. I’m a firm believer in nurture. Nurture is giving a child a self- identity and a cultural identity in which they have a role to play. The roles that are available to play may not be what we would call “nice.” But it’s up to that society to esteem each individual with a role that is worth playing, which starts in the home. Since families are the basis to a society, the roles we play are very important and should be taught to the upcoming generation as a great work and a great responsibility. The nature side reminds me of Tarzan. In the cartoon he adapts very quickly to Jane and her father but I don’t think it’d be quite so ideal. Arizona001
The concept of nature versus nurture has been debated and studied thoroughly. Many people believe that we are who we are because of our biological DNA and others believe the external world shapes us. However, I think that nature and nurture play an equal role within our lives as a human being. I wish I could say that if our parents raised us to be perfect we would be, but we are not and, that is part of human nature. It is in our nature to make mistakes and learn from then, that is how we grow as individuals. However, we nurture our children to help them decide what is right and what is wrong. Toby001
Nature giving the possibilities vs. nurture allowing or defining what we could be either way. Biologically my possibilities of becoming who I am are there irregardless. But nurture takes it's toll for sure when teaching us how the world/people will treat us and or how life will make those choices for you. Choices vs. control. We can't control who we are as a person but we can make choices to become who we want to become. I've always been interested in how happy people were raised. I see these people and wonder did they get so much love and attention growing up that they are just naturally positive happy people? Or are they faking it? I grew up in a very negative unloving abusive home, til this day I'm fighting against it all to be happy and loving when I don't know what it looks like. My choice is to go against my biology and it's never easy and it's work and sometimes I feel like it's impossible to beat. But I'm not going to give up for my daughter's sake. In the end we don't get to choose what happens to us we do however get to decide how we deal with it. Wonder Woman001
Nature and nurture, as explained in this video, do not appear to be in a conflicting relationship to each other, which only makes it humorous that we still title this topic with “Nature vs. Nurture.” Instead of conflicting, the video describes apparent relationship as extremely correlative, interweaving the two concepts all the way down to the definition of culture, that being: “the way of life of a people, in other words the shared and created strategies for adapting to the social or physical environment.” The definition provided reflect the work of Maslow’s and his theory of the hierarchy of needs. Nature within a child's development could then be viewed as an ends by which nurture presents the means. As a child begins to socialize herself or himself in a cultural environment, they can be observed as seeking to secure their natural needs. However, The nurturing of others provide a structure of framework by which the child can meet said needs. This is far from comprehensive, it’s more like mere jibber jabber. Karma001
I can see where you are coming from with the jibber jabber. But, I think the point of this video was to give us a better idea of the difference between both of them because it is tricky to know what is what. I actually thought the guy speaking was sounding unsure of some stuff when he spoke about the mythologies. I was like -.- is that really the story now HollaGurl001
This is an interesting topic for me I was born into a household with a police officer for a father. My father's views were and still are everyone is a criminal until proven not to be. He would say derogatory things about how people looked assuming they were one way or another. I love and respect my father but I knew he couldn't be right. And I had to figure this out on my own. It was in my nature to be like him. After spending time outside of my house I was able to see other points of view. TooTall001
Your post is really interesting to think about. You state you were able to see other points of view and this is what was able to change or differ your opinions from your father. I wonder what your father's upbringing was. I would imagine he was shaped by society during his years of law enforcement. Did he as a child see everyone as a criminal? Everyday dealing with criminals it is difficult to trust someone when some of people you encounter are trying to deceive or lie to you. I think I would also have this approach of "Prove your not a criminal" attitude. I don't think I would do it to look down or judge people, but I would do it out of safety and fear that the next person I encounter might want to blow my brains out for no apparent reason. SVT001.
Socialization truly is what everyone goes through to adapt to our environment. We all go through it. Through this process children learn their identity. There are so many cultures that create so many different societies all over the world. Culture is what creates us is what I believe. Also, I think that the way a child is nurtured, raised affects how they will be when they get older. Based on experiments and research that has been conducted to prove that a child's development all depends on how they are nurtured. How they are taken care of is what determines whether or not they'll survive this world in our society. HollaGurl001
Everyone will develop into unique and interesting individuals. I feel that society has a huge role in shaping the individual. Science/nature plays a very important role. I think nature gives a person a foundation, almost like a scaffolding of sorts. I think the way the person will develop to his/her highest potential would be determined by nurturing that specific individual. Nurturing shapes people within nature. We need human culture when developing. This video talks about Ferrell children being raised among animals. A person can develop but will be far behind and not fulfill the best potential without the nurturing of humans. Without nature or human instincts we would surely have never made it as far as we have as a society. Overall I think though that nurturing plays a larger role and is overall more important when talking about today's society. SVT001.
I like the scaffolding metaphor, it reminds me of the Vygotsky theory. In his theory he talks about something known as ZPD which is basically that we can reach a certain potential only if people help us get there. I also agree with you when you stated that nurture plays a bigger role in shaping lives. glassonion001
One of the age of old questions of the social sciences is if nature or nurture has more of an impact in the way a person acts or thinks. I think that they both play a huge role but nurture is more of a driving force in what a person does and thinks. Any professional athlete is a good example of this. While a person may be blessed with a genetic makeup and talent to play a particular sport, the practice and what they have been told plays a huge role in their success. A tip that a coach gave them at one time, or a camp that they attended is all part of the nurture that the athlete went through to get to where they are. Those individual experiences made the athlete successful and gave them an opportunity to enhance their given talent. Without those experiences the athlete may have not been as successful and therefore their nurture made them the athlete they are today. glassonion001
nurture is in our nature, while I do believe both nurture and nature both play significant roles in shaping our everyday lives I feel that nurture plays the biggest role. Michael Jordan was not born the worlds greatest basketball player over night, it took years of practice and coaching for him to make it to the level of success he achieved. without any coaching or guidance he would not of made it past the high school basketball team. gratful001
Nurture is something that is required and that matters more than nature. To put it in a simple way, like Adoption. When someone's adopted from a different culture to the family, they may look like their own culture. But their values, their act they are solely based upon the family nurturing given to the kid. Nature does not decide whether they'll attend public school or private etc. The kind of nurturing, teaching, coaching for sports or anything else that is what matters more than the nature. khush001
I would argue that Nature is also required, and that it matters just as much as Nurture. Your example of adoption actually proves my point. A child can be adopted into a different culture, thus changing the way they are Nurtured. But what stays with them, no matter what Nurturing environment they enter, is their genetic makeup. To expand upon the idea, consider a young African black child being adopted into an East Asian family. The child's Nurture has changed completely, but their Nature will always be a deciding factor in the population's perception of them. Let's enter into a thought experiment: There is a primitive society that exists somewhere undiscovered isolated in the amazon. The tribesmen have extremely dark hair, skin color, eyes, etc. Generation after generation they reproduce, all of the kids being homogeneous in appearance. Until one day through a genetic anomaly, an Albino child is born. Even though that child may have been brought into a nurturing environment where all of the kids are raised the same, he is now going to be perceived completely differently, and thus his Nurture will be completely different from the other children's, directly dependent on his Nature. In order for Nurture to even exist, there must exist a fundamental basic Nature of a being. FreedomUnderGod001
The video did a good job of giving examples of Nature vs.Nurture, this means how an individual learns behavior throughout a persons life. How someone gets a sense of self. The examples of the two extreme societies, one docile and the other completely violent shows how environment will shape you to your core being. But each individual of both communities are expected to behave as the rest of the group does. This is kind of like the analogy of " Birds of a feather will flock together." as my dad used to say, when trying to guide our friendships in a positive way. Nature will give a person what they inherent in their dna makeup-but the Nurture will prove how society has impacted you to use your full potential or not. Nature gives us range in identity, Nurture is how you are shaped by the influences around you. Rosebudd001
I do believe there are certain qualities that we naturally get from our parents. I also think there are natural things in everyone that make us react to things naturally. For example, babies di naturally suckle. Later in life everything else finds its way to their mouths. This is something we all can see. The next thing that takes place is learning what is and isn't okay to put in mouths. In one country it's perfectly fine to eat a hissing cock roach, but here it wouldn't be looked at quite the same. This goes along with nurturing the acceptable things to just pick up and eat. I chose this example because babies come out with a clean slate. They're gonna be in a state when almost everything they do is a natural act. Taylojj2
I agree with you how you are born knowing some things like who your mother is and how to cry to get what you want . And they learn how to express there selves better later though nurture. But how do babies learn to crawl and go up and down the stairs is it nature or nurture? Player001
I really like nature vs nurture how your physical traits are nature know one has control over what you look like. It determines your capabilities like how smart you can be and how fast you can be . I think nurture plays a much bigger role it ships the way you act, how you talk and how far your natural aspects can go. with nurture what or who ever your raised by is who your going to act like . If monkeys raised you your going to act like a money, and it's just like how some people call soda pop and different things even though we all live here in the u.s.a. player001
Socialization, acquiring culture. When a child is born they do not have any boundaries, everything has to be learned from the very start using socialization. Identifying self as an individual first step. Identify what group someone belongs to. Amino being warrior like, proud of being aggressive. Internalize rules that are important to follow in the society. How much is it from the person inside or the society around them. Nature or Nurture? Nature gives possibilities and Nurture shapes the person of the possibilities. Children being raised in forest like environments raised by monkeys or wolves how can that change their psychological thinking. They may not think the same way as they grow older. I find it interesting that some children from a study were becoming mentally challenged and were given to women with the same problems but as the children grew older they began to grow out of it and became smart adults due to the women playing and interacting with them. LAWS001
I think that it is interesting how society shapes us and makes us apart of society. Everyone learns from the beginning but how a person learns is the main goal. There are many groups that a person adapts to or grows close to and is taught things by them. I like when he said, how much is the things learned internal from a person. Because people learn many things on their own. That's what helps us make mistakes and learn from them. If we learn everything from other people then we are not having good self worth and are learning to achieve goals from others around us. I believe the majority of things we learn should be learned or taught by ourselves. Then the other little part should be relied on others. I understand we are around humans all day long but if we could teach ourselves then we wont have to rely on people for other things.
ReplyDeleteSummer001
Everyone does make mistakes and so we can learn from them, however we could never just learn everything on our own. I would have never learned to ride a bike for example, if it was not for my parents who taught me. So, it does help to learn certain things on our own, but nurture and help from other people is also very important, in my opinion.
Deleteswimmer001
I agree swimmer001, we learn almost nothing on our own. We can always trace the roots of that new knowledge back to our socialization. Even the lessons I learn today seem to always point back to family, church, school, etc. Packers001
DeleteHuman beings are very unique in the context of learning. We are the only species who are Metacogniscient. We can think about how we think of things, we know that we know things. I think that to examine such experiments as those of monkeys would be fallacious due to this unique characteristic. FreedomUnderGod001
DeleteAs an adult we should be at a point to self teach and to be aware of why we are the way we are, but as children, safety, and a nurturing environment are a must. I care for children who come from terrible places and it's been proven that to take them back to infancy in terms of milestones, we can do brain "surgery" and get them a little less damaged than they currently are. Arizona 001
DeleteI do agree with you partially swimmer001. Yes we learn these types of things when we were little because we have to start somewhere with learning. But as we get older the instinct in most cases of learning comes to us, The older we get we adapt these skills from others but then we learn to do thngs on our own. When it comes to education we do learn from a teacher but that is different because we are choosing to learn something new and out of our normal life style. With daily life challenges we learn and figure things out on our own. This is a way that we are capable of teaching ourselves. Your right, not everything single thing can be learned by ourselves but there are way to be better at it.
DeleteSummer001
You make a great point. How are we to say certain traits aren't passed to children at birth? I will say that there are things that I think we pick up that's based off our parents' idea of us. It's them that tells you if you're messy or look a little rough from playing outside. In my experience that I find funny, I've learned to be aware of how I looked at a very young age. I was never a kid to like to get dirty and wanted to look nice. I don't think that's natural but instead nurtured. I think as a baby I was probably more messy and didn't have care in the world as any other toddler. Our personalities however may be more natural, but the things we're more self conscience about such as appearance may be nurtured into us.
DeleteTaylojj2
DeleteSummer001 I agree 100% if someone makes a life changing mistake most of the time they learn from that mistake and try to change their life around such as finding beneficial habits, good group of friends to be around many other things that would help stay focused and out of troubles way. At least that is how I think and I know everyone thinks and feels a different way about many topics. LAWS001
DeleteNature vs. Nurture is a very tough debate. Is the family we are born into decide how we act or our genes? Personally, I would say there is no 1 right answer. Both nature and nurture are at play in our lives, shaping who we become. I really liked his definition of socialization, which was acquiring culture. Like the instance of the child with a red dot of makeup on her face. This child learned to care that the makeup was on her face. I also thought it interesting how he said that cultures have different values. For instance, like the tribes in South America who was very aggressive. That is a part of their society, so any child living there will go through that type of socialization, or acquiring a different value that another culture values.
ReplyDeleteswimmer001
I agree with you in this. The idea that a parent could be a bad parent and the child is still a good kid and vice versa seems very interesting to me. And I agree that there is no one right answer. I also think that it is probably different answer for everyone. Where nature and nurture impact in different ways for everyone.
DeleteDelta001
I agree, nature versus nurture is a difficult debate and that they are both at play in our lives. Sometimes people rely too much on their human instincts, instead of thinking through all of their options. Also, in some circumstances people can be over nurtured and feel pressured to make every decision off of what they were taught therefore, people do not think for themselves. Toby001
DeleteI agree with you totally. Nature versus Nurture is definitely a tough debate. There is not much explanation, but I would like to say according to me Nurture plays a bigger role in a person's life than the nature.
Deletekhush001
I agree with you that this is a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" situation. Nature v.s. Nurture, well I believe that both define who we are. We all have our own ideas and opinions, I can guarantee you that I did things differently than most of my friends, because I knew better. Peer pressure only works if you let it. You could chalk it up to good old common sense, or the fact that my dad was an Army guy and I had learned to behave. And there it is again- my common sense, and my upbringing. Both Nature and Nurture. Rosebudd001
DeleteI think nature vs nurture is pretty simple. Nature is finite when you look at it in the sociological human realm. Once mother gives birth, how far can an that child make it in life, if they are not longer assisted? Not far as the speaker gives example to. However, we don't just walk away and say good luck kid. We nurture, to a greater or lesser extent, our children. One caveat being, I think we claim to know far more about the natural proclivities of individuals brains, then we really do. For example, homosexuality, I wonder if we make generalizations when society claims it as a nurturing issue. Maybe their brains are wired differently, by nature, and see the world different. Yet, I am of the camp, the majority of responsibility for sociological perspective is better viewed in light of the nurturing aspect rather than nature.Packers001
ReplyDeleteI agree with you as to the importance of applying the sociological perspective through a lens of nurturing rather than nature. If you looked at some individual's particular problems or issues only in light of nature, you would have to blame some biological or genetic process for the existence of the problems or wrong behavior. This would remove accountability from the individual themselves because what could they do to change some thing they were born with or inherited. It would also remove accountability from the society or the parents or school who were responsible for the socialization of the individual. Granted, some people really are just born with predispositions towards different things and there's not much they or society can do to help it. I guess this just shows the importance of balancing both the nature and nurture views of socialization.
Deletethestig001
It is interesting how people think about Homosexuality. Theologically, having homosexual feelings is not in itself sinful, it is the act of homosexuality in which the sinfulness resides. There are two reasons that one may be Homosexual. The first is that Homosexuality is a choice. With this option it is pretty clear cut what the divine consequences are. The second is that people are born homosexual. Two points to touch upon: Firstly, being born homosexual does not mean that one has to act upon their desires, just as being born with a tendency to be hungry doesn't mean you should be gluttonous when eating, just as being born with the brain patterns of a person with aggressive criminal psychopathic tendencies and brain patterns means that one should act upon their desire to kill people. The second point, which is tangential, will stir up some emotions in some people. I encourage you not to have a knee-jerk reaction and listen to and respond to my Dialectic and not Rhetorically. I do not like the conclusion either (and I believe homosexuality is a choice) but the progression of thought is still coherent. If people are naturally born homosexual, then the only logical progression of thought would be that homosexuality is an abnormal birth defect. Because heterosexuality is statistically normal and homosexuality is not, this makes it abnormal (only about 2% of the US population is homosexual). A physiological condition in which the fitness (ability of an organism to reproduce) level is reduced is defined as a birth defect. Since being homosexual reduces your potential to reproduce to essentially nonexistent (since human beings require both sexes to mate) it must fall into this category. The existence of technology with the ability to inset sperm into a surrogate does not change the initial fitness level at birth, it only increases their fitness later in life. If you choose to believe you are born homosexual then to not follow the birth defect line of logic would be non sequitur. That only leaves the option that homosexuality is a choice. Do not misinterpret or jump to conclusions about me, I still believe that Homosexuals still deserve their rights, just like everyone else. FreedomUnderGod001
DeleteI felt compelled to reply to FreedomUnderGod001's response. After 36 years on this earth I've seen a few things. And one thing I believe is that you don't choose your kink or what turns you on whether it's the kind of car you drive, clothes you wear, or your sexual partner. You like what you like. It's inside of you. Yes you always can choose another way but when you are not your authentic self it can have very negative side effects like depression which can lead you down a path of drug abuse or suicide. Or even just simply not being fulfilled in life or unhappy. To say that homosexuals are a birth defect is a shocking thing for me to read. But being "abnormal" or a "birth defect" might not be a bad thing...it just is who they are...and I embrace the differences of this world in a positive light. I'd like to add I don't believe in your god or a heaven or hell so your beliefs obviously don't' apply to me or my life but to be open that people just are who they are. WonderWoman001
DeleteIf we had choices when we were born I wouldn't have chosen to be 6'5". And being I am so tall you would think I would like to play or even watch basketball however I don't. Would my height be considered a birth defect? TooTall001
DeleteThank you for your insight, the logical flow of the later half of your argument is really convincing. However, I must give some pushback to the examples supporting the first part of your argument in which your write “being born homosexual does not mean that one has to act upon their desires.” Though I do agree with you on this (that same sex attraction [SSA] should not be acted upon) your examples do not support your claim. Any natural desire like hunger attraction can be pursued in ways deemed immoral. For example, a herterosexual attraction can be pursued immorally through the grotesque act of rape. Its comparing apples to oranges. Also comparing SSA with a violent mental disorder also has its faults. I’ve commonly heard, even presented this argument only using alcoholism as an example. These arguments begin to fail we ask why these characteristics of an individual are objectively wrong, as they attempt. Both alcoholism and this mental disability inhibits a person from successfully integrating themselves in their society and from living a productive life. SSA cannot be observed as having the same innate isolating effect as the other two, though in many societies they face severe persecution. A person in western culture can fully aclement themselves into a society, living a fulfilling and productive life. Denying them the right to pursue their sexual desires is therefore enabling them from fulfillment.
DeleteLike I said I believe SSA should not be acted upon, but I also don’t think its as easy an argument as you presented here.
Karma001
These are my responses to those who responded to my post. I start off with offering my respects to each interlocutor and appreciate your willingness to discuss this topic.
DeleteWonderWoman001, Thank you for sharing your opinion. Unfortunately for your argument you have presented nothing but a rhetorical reaction to the dialectic that I laid out. Your anecdotal evidence is insufficient to determine whether or not homosexuality is a chosen or natural trait. Notice that I did not say that either the choice or the birth options are correct, I simply laid out the reasoning for them both, and then claimed a belief that it is choice and then advocated for their rights as individuals. You say that you are shocked from reading logic is perturbing, as it means that you have not distanced yourself emotionally from the issue to look at it objectively enough. After 18 years on this earth I’ve also seen a few things. For 17 ½ of those years I would describe myself as a blind midwit. Then I learned how to distance myself from my emotions in order to more easily understand the world. I do not get offended, I am not shocked at any statement, and I do not try to put people down. When reading my argument for homosexual birth defect you should not be shocked by reading it, you should be shocked at discovering the existence of the argument, then you should try and see if it is coherent. I also did not say anything about the status of being abnormal or a birth defect being a bad thing. I am a Muslim in the United States. The population of the U.S. is consisted only of about 1% Muslims, that makes me statistically abnormal. Your preconditioning has lead you to believe that a birth defect is a bad thing to have. This is not unusual in today’s society. What you have to understand is that all a birth defect means in this context is that it reduces an organism’s ability to reproduce. I made no judgement on the innate goodness or badness of said organism. It is fine that you don’t believe in God, your opinion of it is irrelevant in this discussion; this is not a forum discussing the existence of God. I only put the argument in context of religion because it panders to the majority of the audience. If you wish to discuss/debate/talk about the existence of God then I would gladly take up your offer. Looking over your post one more time confirms that my argument based on choice/birth of homosexuality still stands.
TooTall001, I don’t want to sound brash but you missed the point COMPLETELY. To say that a child has the choice to be tall is incoherent, especially considering that height has a strong positive correlation with your genetics. Being so tall doesn’t mean anything other than you are so tall. Your argument is a straw man, and non sequitur to the line of logic I laid out above. No your height would not be considered a birth defect unless you were incredibly short or incredibly tall, which reduces your lifespan significantly and therefore reduces your fitness level, thus being defined as a birth defect. Additionally, a birth defect can also be defined in genetics as an anomaly in your genetic code. You haven’t even addressed any of the Dialectic that I introduced in my argument. I would appreciate it if you sat down and took some time to read and understand an argument before writing your premature response.
(1/2) FreedomUnderGod001
Karma001, Your welcome for my insight. I agree that my examples were sort of shoddy, but the point was to get the general idea across, examples are not meant to be able to specifically correlate. I did not put as much thought into them because I was more concerned with making sure the Dialectic of my argument was consistent. Your counterexample also has no significance in rebutting my examples though. Try to use less rhetoric. If I have to simplify my argument to syllogisms then I would be glad to in order to make it easier. I was not comparing SSA with a violent mental disorder; I was comparing the individual acting upon their ideas. Alcoholism is a completely different subject that concerns addictive qualities. Drinking Alcohol is a choice. One cannot possibly hope to argue that Alcoholism is genetic. It is fallacious in its own definition. Your rebuttal is incongruent with my original statements. You are introducing a huge red herring as you continue your tangent into alcoholism and mental disability when we are talking about homosexuality. If you still think your counterexample is valid then I encourage you to try and fit it into the context of homosexuality. Nobody said anything about denying anybody’s rights to do anything. (sidenote: you use a word “aclement”. This group of letters actually has literally no discernable definition. I believe the word you are looking for is implement). My argument is very easy to put forth, you are misconstruing the incoherence of a rebuttal with the strength of the argument. Dialectically my argument still stands. To be fair, it was harder to pick apart your argument due to it being disguised in pseudo-dialectic, unlike the other two mostly rhetorical arguments presented before you.
DeleteI am still open to more counter-arguments. Throughout my research concerning this argument I have not been able to find a truly dialectic rebuttal.
(2/2) FreedomUnderGod001
My bad. Using big words confuses me. Too Tall001
DeleteFUG_
DeleteI am not debating on beliefs here I was initially just responding to your reply. I was doing just that sharing my opinion. And when you said being gay was a sin, do you not think that is a "bad thing"? I'm not 100% on my religious terminology. I guess I'm shocked at the beliefs that some people have and I do have that right. I am emotional in this subject because there are people in my life that are homosexual and I'm not going to apologize for it. I'm not here to offend just to learn from whoever I can learn from. For me that is what education is about. There isn't a right or wrong. Understand what you say or type on a blog does and will affect people. WonderWoman001
not sure if i agree with you? Theologically, having homosexual feelings is not in itself sinful, it is the act of homosexuality in which the sinfulness resides. WTF? To me this is like someone saying someone having child predator feelings is not in itself sinful, but it is in the act of molestation in which sinfulness resides. I don't feel that way, but I think if you have homosexual thoughts you are gay and most likely born that way and if you have child predator thoughts then you are a child molester.
Deletegrateful001
WonderWoman001, you have the right to believe what you wish. I presented a position based on clear lines of logic. Once again this forum is not a proper place to debate the existence of God (i.e. sin), I simply presented the position in the context of theology. There is no need to apologize for having people in your life who are homosexual, why would you? I have a friends who are homosexual also, they took my explanation of the position with less shock and awe than you. I also never said that "being gay was a sin" so please do not place words into my mouth. If you do not understand my position on something, ask me to clarify and I will do so. I am not impeding on your rights to have an opinion or to feel your emotions. Objective Right and Objective Wrong do exist. To believe otherwise would consequentially fall into Moral Relativism. In which every action can be justified. Either you accept the existence of a right or wrong or you accept the idea that nothing you can do can be considered wrong. By inserting your emotions into your responses you are no longer looking at the situation in a scientific way. To maximize your objectivity you must react with the brain, not the heart. When you become easily offended, you automatically shut down the schools of thought to which you are offended by. Then again, you may just be one of the people whom Aristotle says cannot be persuaded through Dialectic. I understand that what I say or type will affect people. I will not self-censor myself in order to protect someone else's feelings if it gets in the way of determining rationality. Censorship does not proliferate intellectual discourse, in fact it hampers it significantly. FreedomUnderGod001
Deletegrateful001, Clarification: so you believe that by simply having the THOUGHT of breaking a law, you are automatically guilty of said crime? FreedomUnderGod001
DeleteI would argue that Nature is also required, and that it matters just as much as Nurture. Your example of adoption actually proves my point. A child can be adopted into a different culture, thus changing the way they are Nurtured. But what stays with them, no matter what Nurturing environment they enter, is their genetic makeup. To expand upon the idea, consider a young African black child being adopted into an East Asian family. The child's Nurture has changed completely, but their Nature will always be a deciding factor in the population's perception of them. Let's enter into a thought experiment: There is a primitive society that exists somewhere undiscovered isolated in the amazon. The tribesmen have extremely dark hair, skin color, eyes, etc. Generation after generation they reproduce, all of the kids being homogeneous in appearance. Until one day through a genetic anomaly, an Albino child is born. Even though that child may have been brought into a nurturing environment where all of the kids are raised the same, he is now going to be perceived completely differently, and thus his Nurture will be completely different from the other children's, directly dependent on his Nature. In order for Nurture to even exist, there must exist a fundamental basic Nature of a being. FreedomUnderGod001
DeletePlease excuse my previous post, I miss-posted it. FreedomUnderGod001
DeleteI think the whole process of socialization is really interesting in that we basically need to be a part of society to turn out normally. This conclusion actually seems to support what the ancient philospohers such as Aristotle thought, even though they took a more idealistic approach. Aristotle thought that by his nature, man was intended to live in a polis, that is, a city of men. Aristotle realized that it was man's reason which set him apart from the animals and enabled him to be a social creature and he maintained that human interaction was a necessary part of the good life. This seems similar to the thought of Max Weber in his thought about the societal shift from tradition to rationality. What's really interesting, however, is that Aristotle lived in a society that Weber would most likely have considered as being preindustrial, yet Aristotle seems to have had ideas about rationalism which resonate with a more current and advanced society.
ReplyDeletethestig001
Just because Aristotle lived in a preindustrial society doesn't mean he couldn't philosophize about what could be. Back when Aristotle was alive, every civilization wasn't the same. Relative to him, he lived in a more advanced society than those of lands around him. Remember, Aristotle taught Alexander the Great. FreedomUnderGod001
DeleteNature and nurture seems very easy to understand in things like sports to me. Nature in sports would be talent. Talent is where they might not have to work as hard to achieve a high level of skill in their particular sport. A different person with not as much talent might have to put in twice as much effort to get the same results. It seems to me that nature is natural talent that can't be taught and the nurture is the part where effort comes into play.
ReplyDeleteDelta001
Nature verses nuture is an interesting concept. I’m a firm believer in nurture. Nurture is giving a child a self- identity and a cultural identity in which they have a role to play. The roles that are available to play may not be what we would call “nice.” But it’s up to that society to esteem each individual with a role that is worth playing, which starts in the home. Since families are the basis to a society, the roles we play are very important and should be taught to the upcoming generation as a great work and a great responsibility. The nature side reminds me of Tarzan. In the cartoon he adapts very quickly to Jane and her father but I don’t think it’d be quite so ideal. Arizona001
ReplyDeleteThe concept of nature versus nurture has been debated and studied thoroughly. Many people believe that we are who we are because of our biological DNA and others believe the external world shapes us. However, I think that nature and nurture play an equal role within our lives as a human being. I wish I could say that if our parents raised us to be perfect we would be, but we are not and, that is part of human nature. It is in our nature to make mistakes and learn from then, that is how we grow as individuals. However, we nurture our children to help them decide what is right and what is wrong. Toby001
ReplyDeleteNature giving the possibilities vs. nurture allowing or defining what we could be either way. Biologically my possibilities of becoming who I am are there irregardless. But nurture takes it's toll for sure when teaching us how the world/people will treat us and or how life will make those choices for you. Choices vs. control. We can't control who we are as a person but we can make choices to become who we want to become. I've always been interested in how happy people were raised. I see these people and wonder did they get so much love and attention growing up that they are just naturally positive happy people? Or are they faking it? I grew up in a very negative unloving abusive home, til this day I'm fighting against it all to be happy and loving when I don't know what it looks like. My choice is to go against my biology and it's never easy and it's work and sometimes I feel like it's impossible to beat. But I'm not going to give up for my daughter's sake. In the end we don't get to choose what happens to us we do however get to decide how we deal with it. Wonder Woman001
ReplyDeleteNature and nurture, as explained in this video, do not appear to be in a conflicting relationship to each other, which only makes it humorous that we still title this topic with “Nature vs. Nurture.” Instead of conflicting, the video describes apparent relationship as extremely correlative, interweaving the two concepts all the way down to the definition of culture, that being: “the way of life of a people, in other words the shared and created strategies for adapting to the social or physical environment.” The definition provided reflect the work of Maslow’s and his theory of the hierarchy of needs. Nature within a child's development could then be viewed as an ends by which nurture presents the means. As a child begins to socialize herself or himself in a cultural environment, they can be observed as seeking to secure their natural needs. However, The nurturing of others provide a structure of framework by which the child can meet said needs. This is far from comprehensive, it’s more like mere jibber jabber.
ReplyDeleteKarma001
I can see where you are coming from with the jibber jabber. But, I think the point of this video was to give us a better idea of the difference between both of them because it is tricky to know what is what. I actually thought the guy speaking was sounding unsure of some stuff when he spoke about the mythologies. I was like -.- is that really the story now
DeleteHollaGurl001
This is an interesting topic for me I was born into a household with a police officer for a father. My father's views were and still are everyone is a criminal until proven not to be. He would say derogatory things about how people looked assuming they were one way or another. I love and respect my father but I knew he couldn't be right. And I had to figure this out on my own. It was in my nature to be like him. After spending time outside of my house I was able to see other points of view. TooTall001
ReplyDeleteYour post is really interesting to think about. You state you were able to see other points of view and this is what was able to change or differ your opinions from your father. I wonder what your father's upbringing was. I would imagine he was shaped by society during his years of law enforcement. Did he as a child see everyone as a criminal? Everyday dealing with criminals it is difficult to trust someone when some of people you encounter are trying to deceive or lie to you. I think I would also have this approach of "Prove your not a criminal" attitude. I don't think I would do it to look down or judge people, but I would do it out of safety and fear that the next person I encounter might want to blow my brains out for no apparent reason. SVT001.
DeleteSocialization truly is what everyone goes through to adapt to our environment. We all go through it. Through this process children learn their identity. There are so many cultures that create so many different societies all over the world. Culture is what creates us is what I believe. Also, I think that the way a child is nurtured, raised affects how they will be when they get older. Based on experiments and research that has been conducted to prove that a child's development all depends on how they are nurtured. How they are taken care of is what determines whether or not they'll survive this world in our society.
ReplyDeleteHollaGurl001
Everyone will develop into unique and interesting individuals. I feel that society has a huge role in shaping the individual. Science/nature plays a very important role. I think nature gives a person a foundation, almost like a scaffolding of sorts. I think the way the person will develop to his/her highest potential would be determined by nurturing that specific individual. Nurturing shapes people within nature. We need human culture when developing. This video talks about Ferrell children being raised among animals. A person can develop but will be far behind and not fulfill the best potential without the nurturing of humans. Without nature or human instincts we would surely have never made it as far as we have as a society. Overall I think though that nurturing plays a larger role and is overall more important when talking about today's society. SVT001.
ReplyDeleteI like the scaffolding metaphor, it reminds me of the Vygotsky theory. In his theory he talks about something known as ZPD which is basically that we can reach a certain potential only if people help us get there. I also agree with you when you stated that nurture plays a bigger role in shaping lives. glassonion001
DeleteOne of the age of old questions of the social sciences is if nature or nurture has more of an impact in the way a person acts or thinks. I think that they both play a huge role but nurture is more of a driving force in what a person does and thinks. Any professional athlete is a good example of this. While a person may be blessed with a genetic makeup and talent to play a particular sport, the practice and what they have been told plays a huge role in their success. A tip that a coach gave them at one time, or a camp that they attended is all part of the nurture that the athlete went through to get to where they are. Those individual experiences made the athlete successful and gave them an opportunity to enhance their given talent. Without those experiences the athlete may have not been as successful and therefore their nurture made them the athlete they are today. glassonion001
ReplyDeletenurture is in our nature, while I do believe both nurture and nature both play significant roles in shaping our everyday lives I feel that nurture plays the biggest role. Michael Jordan was not born the worlds greatest basketball player over night, it took years of practice and coaching for him to make it to the level of success he achieved. without any coaching or guidance he would not of made it past the high school basketball team.
ReplyDeletegratful001
Nurture is something that is required and that matters more than nature. To put it in a simple way, like Adoption. When someone's adopted from a different culture to the family, they may look like their own culture. But their values, their act they are solely based upon the family nurturing given to the kid. Nature does not decide whether they'll attend public school or private etc. The kind of nurturing, teaching, coaching for sports or anything else that is what matters more than the nature.
ReplyDeletekhush001
I would argue that Nature is also required, and that it matters just as much as Nurture. Your example of adoption actually proves my point. A child can be adopted into a different culture, thus changing the way they are Nurtured. But what stays with them, no matter what Nurturing environment they enter, is their genetic makeup. To expand upon the idea, consider a young African black child being adopted into an East Asian family. The child's Nurture has changed completely, but their Nature will always be a deciding factor in the population's perception of them. Let's enter into a thought experiment: There is a primitive society that exists somewhere undiscovered isolated in the amazon. The tribesmen have extremely dark hair, skin color, eyes, etc. Generation after generation they reproduce, all of the kids being homogeneous in appearance. Until one day through a genetic anomaly, an Albino child is born. Even though that child may have been brought into a nurturing environment where all of the kids are raised the same, he is now going to be perceived completely differently, and thus his Nurture will be completely different from the other children's, directly dependent on his Nature. In order for Nurture to even exist, there must exist a fundamental basic Nature of a being. FreedomUnderGod001
DeleteThe video did a good job of giving examples of Nature vs.Nurture, this means how an individual learns behavior throughout a persons life. How someone gets a sense of self. The examples of the two extreme societies, one docile and the other completely violent shows how environment will shape you to your core being. But each individual of both communities are expected to behave as the rest of the group does. This is kind of like the analogy of " Birds of a feather will flock together." as my dad used to say, when trying to guide our friendships in a positive way. Nature will give a person what they inherent in their dna makeup-but the Nurture will prove how society has impacted you to use your full potential or not. Nature gives us range in identity, Nurture is how you are shaped by the influences around you. Rosebudd001
ReplyDeleteI do believe there are certain qualities that we naturally get from our parents. I also think there are natural things in everyone that make us react to things naturally. For example, babies di naturally suckle. Later in life everything else finds its way to their mouths. This is something we all can see. The next thing that takes place is learning what is and isn't okay to put in mouths. In one country it's perfectly fine to eat a hissing cock roach, but here it wouldn't be looked at quite the same. This goes along with nurturing the acceptable things to just pick up and eat. I chose this example because babies come out with a clean slate. They're gonna be in a state when almost everything they do is a natural act. Taylojj2
ReplyDeleteI agree with you how you are born knowing some things like who your mother is and how to cry to get what you want . And they learn how to express there selves better later though nurture. But how do babies learn to crawl and go up and down the stairs is it nature or nurture? Player001
DeleteI really like nature vs nurture how your physical traits are nature know one has control over what you look like. It determines your capabilities like how smart you can be and how fast you can be . I think nurture plays a much bigger role it ships the way you act, how you talk and how far your natural aspects can go. with nurture what or who ever your raised by is who your going to act like . If monkeys raised you your going to act like a money, and it's just like how some people call soda pop and different things even though we all live here in the u.s.a. player001
ReplyDeleteSocialization, acquiring culture. When a child is born they do not have any boundaries, everything has to be learned from the very start using socialization. Identifying self as an individual first step. Identify what group someone belongs to. Amino being warrior like, proud of being aggressive. Internalize rules that are important to follow in the society. How much is it from the person inside or the society around them. Nature or Nurture? Nature gives possibilities and Nurture shapes the person of the possibilities. Children being raised in forest like environments raised by monkeys or wolves how can that change their psychological thinking. They may not think the same way as they grow older. I find it interesting that some children from a study were becoming mentally challenged and were given to women with the same problems but as the children grew older they began to grow out of it and became smart adults due to the women playing and interacting with them. LAWS001
ReplyDelete