Zeraph

In this discussion, nature = genetics and/or souls (if you believe in them)
nurture = life experience

Once we're an adult, how much of your personality, the 'you' that makes you 'you', do you think is caused by nature (and vice versa?)

Personally I believe in some sort of soul, won't get into why, but I do. And the older I get, the more my 'soul' comes out. The normal (parents, peers, and genetics) nature and nurture aspects held much sway when I was younger. I was mostly a product of my genetics and parenting. But now, 20+ I'm seeing pieces of me that I sort always felt were there, become more dominant in a seemingly unconnected way to experience and what I would expect. In other words I'm changing in a way that is not connected to genes or environment.

Though I suppose I may be wrong and am just imagining the soul/X-factor.

How do you feel about it all?

PS this isn't the reasoning I used to come to the conclusion of some sort of soul...totally different topic, not what I'm trying to discuss. To rephrase, how much do you become unique, that is something beyond upbringing, experience, and genes?

Xerxys

Before I weigh in, could you please expand a bit more on this:

If it's not too personal ...

Skitto

It's a sliding scale... three, really:

Nature gives you things, and
you nurture what you dream of having

the balance and intensity of both of these dictate how your dreams come true, and also how much your own nature allows you to do with yourself.

---------- Post added at 01:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:59 AM ----------

Oh, to comment on the previous, and maybe save some time.

What you were talking about there can more be categorized as "becoming more Aware of the Depth your Personality with Age"...

As far as a soul goes, in connection with personality, at its theoretical heart I believe that a soul is simply a .... nevermind, I can't think of the word...

Maybe I can just give what I think science'll come up with; okay, Science Journal definition of the Soul: Simply: a mass of mechanical energy that feeds mostly non-mental, biological chemical reactions...

Annex: smaller (lesser) forms of life carry smaller souls.


You see what I'm sayin'?

__________________
Yeah, well, you're just that awesome, I guess. It's not like I guessed so anyways.

genuinegirly

Funny.

As I grow to know myself better, I realize more and more I am a product of my environment - what you describe as nurture.

My genes determine underlying health concerns, such as my increased susceptibility to breast cancer or my likelihood of experiencing alzheimer's. My genes also determine my body chemistry, allergies and general mobility - which have shaped my life. Indeed, my general lack of disability at a young age permitted me to be nurtured in a certain fashion that would not have been available had I been different.

I respond to stimulus in the manner I have been trained or chosen to teach myself. I can adapt and learn only as much as my mind has been opened. I cannot do non-linear algebra because I have not been introduced to the conceps, but I am certain that if I were to undergo training I could indeed perform such a task. This training would then determine the opportunities available to me in schooling. I could, for instance, become more proficient at physics and I might be less inclined to enjoy the chaos that comes with the study of biology.

I am capable of reading because someone taught me. The symbols would not have made sense without this instruction. I would not have been toilet trained without the efforts of my parents, nor would I be capable of forming complex phrases. I would not intuitively understand how to operate a computer, nor would I be capable of speaking on a telephone. I mimic those around me. I developed their speech patterns and their manner of dressing, bathing, etc.

Yes, I can think on my own. But my thoughts are entirely dependent upon the structure that surrounds me. Without human interaction and societal conventions, I would not be the same person. I would not make calculated decisions because no one would have taught me to calculate. I would not be able to see because I would not have corrective lenses. In the absence of societal stimulus, I would be no different than a ferrel animal, living my days grazing on herbs and hiding from predators.

__________________
"Sometimes I have to remember that things are brought to me for a reason, either for my own lessons or for the benefit of others." Cynthetiq

"violence is no more or less real than non-violence." roachboy

snowy

I actually had to write a paper this term on this topic--I'm a human development and family sciences major. I'm taking a human development course this term that deals with infant and child development. Obviously, the nature versus nurture debate creates a great deal of discourse in the field of human development.

Research has determined that some traits of temperament are hereditary; they established this through various forms of twin studies, including studies of virtual twins (siblings who are extremely close together in age but not actual twins). Temperament is the foundation of later personality, so yes, some aspects of personality are inherited.

But--and it's a big but--those aspects of personality that are built off components of temperament that are inheritable are still shaped by life experience. Let's say that a child has inherited some traits that make his/her temperament difficult (meaning a child whose temperament is characterized by irregular daily routines, slow acceptance of new experiences, and a tendency to react negatively and intensely). If this child has a parent who is understanding and willing to work with the child, the outcome is far better for that child, and the negative aspects of their temperament can be overcome. But let's say the child has a depressed parent, or a parent who is very authoritarian. The outcome in those situations is not nearly as good.

We have to take into account all of the contexts that children develop in. What kind of community are they in? What is their cultural background? What kind of resources do their parents have? Socioeconomic status plays a big part in positive child outcomes; this is largely because parents of a higher SES have more access to community and social resources than parents of a lower SES. The better educated parents are about development and positive parenting, the better the outcomes are overall, regardless of SES--and we see proof of this via various early intervention programs that help to educate low-SES parents.

The fact is, this debate is ongoing, and it will likely never be settled, because both columns have points in their favor.

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Derwood

Some of personality is genetic (I think).....having kids shows you this. My daughter is SOOOO like I was at her age.

Basically, I think genetics gives a basis for personality, which is then shaped by the environment.

Halanna

You don't. You won't become truly unique without factoring in upbringing, experience and genes. You can't because they are already influencing who and what you are.

Now, you can take those influences and apply them to what and how you are feeling but they will always color your behavior.

You can only become unique within the parameters of your upbringing, experience and genes.

Are you certain? No. You can not be certain that nature or experience isn't shaping or changing the way you currently feel. Some of the experience happened before you have conscience memory. Of course, you can't feel your genes working.

You don't need to identify the scientific reason for why you are feeling the way you do. You need to identify the remedy. What do you need to do in your life to make yourself happy?

Does it matter if it's your genes or your upbringing? Don't try and separate nature vs. nuture. Identify who and what you are, how to achieve what you want out of life.

You have one short life. Don't apply labels, don't worry for the reasons. Live, love, laugh, cry and mostly, live how you see fit. Your life is yours, it does not belong to anyone else. You do not need to look for or fabricate justification to live the one, short life you have.

Time will pass, you will get older whether you want to or not. The problem is you get wiser the older you get, you can look back, think "I could have done that better". To no avail. You can't go back in time.

The dream is to look back and think, I lived, I loved, meh I could have done it better, but damn, what a great life I had. Love who you are, what you are and where you are going. You only get one life, the best you can do is try and not fuck it up.

Zeraph

Sorry, somehow I totally forgot about this thread. I'll get back to you in a bit. Gonna take me awhile to read through the responses and craft my own.

---------- Post added at 04:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:54 PM ----------

OK let me start with Xerxys. The main difference, i.e. uniqueness of me I've noticed as I grow older is my...gawd I'm going to sound like an intranet retard...but my warrior (quasi evil) side of me. I basically grew up with near (not actual) pacifists. No major creepy life experiences to make me turn hard on the inside. And yet, slowly but surely I'm seeing human life as less and less important. Philosophically and emotionally. I'm going to get reamed for this, but who cares since no one here really likes me anyway, but I welcome the h1n1 virus. And I'm disappointed it didn't kill way way more. I'd like to see something that wipes out about half the population. I'd also like to see the economy fail much more so than it has. Get rid of (some of) the human waste infesting this country. Yeah good people will die, so might I, but its better than this farce. This isn't really based on hate I don't think, though I probably am a misanthrope, more seeing whats worth living for and being disappointed at what's available. I dunno, the reasons are vast and complex, too much to get into atm. Maybe if you react nicely I'll go into more.

curiousbear

First of all thanks to everyone for the posts, nice reading
1. The way the entire logic of body growth and especially the brain cell networking topology is passed through single cell from parent to child. it is so complex and something that I can not comprehend. The formula and algorithm involved in that process itself could be severely influenced by the environment. So the living conditions both physical and mental of the mother while the baby is formed itself is severely influenced by the environment. This environment is more of the elements. The kind of water, food, temperature, sounds, smell and taste the mother and consequently the fetus gets.
2. When the baby grows to be an adult once again the close environment like parents, siblings and school makes huge impact. This is very crucial stage and in above posting snowy had spoken on it.
3. Once grown and matured, a person seeks exposure in the areas of interest. Now they CHOOSE the environment influence that they desire. Based on their ability and infrastructure around the level of influence is controlled. So they have more control on how much the environment should influence them.

Now if you want to consider 'nurture' covers all this three stages of environmental influence, then I think your uniqueness is more of 'nurture' than 'nature'.

snowy

The technical term for this is "niche-picking", by the way

__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau

ASU2003

I think your over-all health has a lot to do with the environment and what chemicals were in the foods your parents ate and you ate growing up. It probably has some influence on attractiveness even.

Your personality is more impacted on your lifestyle growing up, your friends, and your surroundings.

Ourcrazymodern?

__________________
BE JUST AND FEAR NOT

squeeeb

i'm not trying to be an annoying nitpicky cockbite here, i just want some clarification.

do you mean how much do you change once you are already an adult, or do you mean from childhood on?

from childhood on, i think its both nature and nurture. you are genetically predisposed to a certain amount of personality, perhaps depression caused by chemical imbalance, a natural aptitude for learning and reasoning, causing you to act rationally or not.

but along with that, you have outside influences which cause you to behave in certain ways that you take to adulthood. for example: look at most people who packrat, or are constantly buying tons of shit. you find out many of them either grew up poor, or lost a bunch of shit and became poor when they were young, and psychologically they will never go through that again.

so the person you are right now was shaped and formed by nurture, but nature helped guide that shaping.

two adults go through the same tragic horrible event (prisoner of war/disaster survivor/audience member on springer). one is disturbed, ruined, says it broke him and he will never be the same again. the other comes out a "survivor" and is stronger for it, has a deeper appreciation for the world around him. one guy took it as negative, the other used it to become positive. why? it was how they were brought up, their "nurture"and the experiences they had growing up affected them in part by their genetic makeup, their "nature."

i think once we are adults, we are pretty much set in our ways and changing is extremely difficult. you can change, but it takes a pretty significant amount of energy.

__________________
onward to mayhem!

Vana

Did someone say this already?

I was not born gay. I was not made gay. I choose to be gay.

rahl

But a counter to your "pow" scenario is that twins growing up in the same household exposed to the same things sometimes turn out differently. One may be successfull the other may be a drug addict. They should have been the same since they have the same genetics and upbringing.

Vana

That's because they choose to.

rickysymo

Both nurture and nature certainly affect a person in different ways, no matter which of these affect a person most over the other, it just boils down to the choice that a person makes.

tisonlyi

And you're the chooser? The one that sits inside your head and pulls the levers, eh?

Human beings are very much more of a pattern-reflection device with added narrative creation for dissemination of said patterns, successful or otherwise.

Choice requires decisions.

A decision requires information over situations and options, which at some point the decider decides is sufficient, and then you can decide to decide... etc.

Each 'decision', when you look at it, contains an unending recursion.

That's without even thinking about left brain/right brain differences, etc.

For me, the process is about exposure and response.

The whole DECIDER who DECIDES seems rather silly.

Even to the point of our language... There are languages, most Asian languages for example, where the whole idea of free will and absolute individuality is utterly ludicrous from within the world view engineered by that language...

This is a very Western-centric preoccupation/disease.

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

Zeraph

I'm trying to figure out what has shaped certain tendencies in me when I can point to neither a genetic or environmental cause...it could just be that I fail to see it and it *is* an environmental or genetic cause.

Vana

I am familiar with this criticism: Ryle's The Concept of Mind.

Witt asked "How do I move my arm?"

Also he asked: "Where do thoughts come from?"

In either case, the answer is nothing.

Hence the massive importance the Existentialists, the major philosopher of freedom, at least of the last century, put on the word nothing.

You are nothing. Thus you are free.

No doubt, but you will have to spell that out more clearly, I am not familar with your thinking, so it's hard for me to be sure what you mean here, how you use the words, etc.

Is an "unending recusrion" an Infinite Regress? If so, it obviously does not help the determinist cause, since it means that a chain of causation is impossible to assemble.

Good plan to avoid that. What does left-right brain have to do with this?

If you think of the problem from the objectivist line, naturally you will come to this conclusion.

My interest in entering this thread is to point out that it contains a false or dumby choice: between nature and nurture: both of which are scientific, rational, and objective criteria. It is sort of like asking which is better Coke or Pepsi, and not considering that some people prefer spirits, fruit juice, etc.

The objective line: determinism, and the subjective line: free-will, are both true. Something very few ever grasp. They are equal and opposite, simultaneous: each is a perfect contradiction of the other.

Silly is a powerful argument, google for the fallacy: "Appeal to ridicule".

How many Asian languages can you speak?

("ludicrous": google for the fallacy: "Appeal to ridicule".)

Unfortunately you are trying this on someone who speaks several.

That some Far Eastern languages use the plural first-person pronoun and not the singular, says something about culture: not about metaphysics.

Looking at every problem from the perspective of objectivity, science and rationality? Your right, it is.

DaniGirl

I do believe that genetics/nature is a big part of who we become. Either we repeat the same mistakes are parents make or we think about it enough that we change what we are. It is always about choice, we determine who we become. But what is in are genes is always there, no matter if we try to run from it. I have always feared that I would be like my father when it came to being a parent. He always had anger issues and took them out on me and my mother. With my kids I try to control my temper. And in some ways I see my father when I react then I need to step back and take control.

Vana

I like how you put this. Both.

squeeeb

why did you choose to be gay? what happened that caused you to make that choice?

__________________
onward to mayhem!

tisonlyi

There are lots of assertions of fact there(guilty as charged also, all of what I said should all have been prefaced with "I muse" - though I think that's redundant on a forum such as this), most of which are up for debate. Sources of knowledge, assertion of radical freedom (Good Faith?) through Sartre's Existentialism without its 'nature and nurture' component of facticity, etc.

As for where do thoughts come from, your answer looks distinctly idealistic. Asserting the existence of entities and sources of knowledge outside of the observable universe we'll have to agree to disagree about. That's a discussion that pretty much ends up in qualia, and there's no agreement on that at all. It's a topic for another thread, which as far as I'm aware pretty much always ends with Idealists in the "They Exist!" trench and Materialists manning guns from the "Huh? What are you talking about?" fox holes.

(Materialists in Foxholes. They Exist!)

"You are nothing. Thus you are free."... I'd rephrase that to: "You are utterly inconsequential within your time, the time of your species and the time of your sector of the universe. Thus you are free."

Being "nothing" and "you" and "free" simultaneously? Could you point me to your particulars?

My view of the brain is of many massively parallel processing apparatus independently dealing with senses, etc. (Neural nets, as a horribly obtuse analogy) Shaped and 'wired' in different ways to suit different tasks, interlinked in some way, and passing information to other, similarly specialised structures which then deal with decision making, aspects of memory above the localised, orientation and motion, spacial awareness, etc and then on to towards speech, etc. There's a massive gap in human knowledge here, but it's getting there.

That God of the gaps for Idealists is being plugged more and more every day.

If you can direct me towards an excellent source for the assertion of radical free will as an equally valid truth, I'll be very glad to go read it. It's always seemed to me an argument from Idealist thought, that we should be free to just make unverifiable stuff up that sounds good... because we should. In my view, it's very similar to the problem of induction for many materialist points of view.

Nature and nurture are similar concepts in many ways, but not the same. The genetic material with which you are endowed, combined with the physical development processes you are exposed to aren't the same thing as the culture you are indoctrinated with.

That's nowhere near a selection of different colas, one with more sugar than the other. I'm struggling for a metaphor.

Unending recursion was my patois for what i know see to a "Vicious Infinite Regression". This _clearly_ isn't an academic paper, but thanks for pointing out that terminology.

Also, Materialist I am. Objectivist I am not. Rand can rot.

(You got me with the Asian language thing, I couldn't profess to speak any Asian languages. I'm aware of the rudiments of Indonesian, and was mostly regurgitating information from sources I'm scrabbling around to find)

Your mother tongue shapes and informs your reality, your worldview, which shapes your metaphysics.

The view of the person who has number ingrained in their being is different from the person who does not(some of the native Australian languages). The view of the person who describes the majority of their everyday world in relative directions (left, right, etc) is different from the person who only has a cardinal system of direction (analogous to North, South, East, West)(Ngaanyatjarra in Australia, IIRC). The view of the person who must always mark tense/time(roughly)(All Indo-European languages, afaik(less accurately in English than most)) is different from the person who does not(Vietnamese, Indonesian, etc).

Are you a student of Linguistics?

I've not studied linguistics, but AFAIK, the above is pretty standard stuff?

Google: 'Appeal to ridicule' + 'sarcasm' + 'superior attitude'

I liked it, though.

And don't google it. I didn't.

Aside: Until there's a point of view that has the capability of solving the developing energy crisis, reliably describing the motion of the heavenly bodies, growing enough crops to feed the 10 billion who are coming and designing the logic machines and networking systems that allow you to flippantly toss it away or equate it to... well... some mysterious source of thought and truth... I'll keep my materialism, empiricism and skepticism with the scientific method applied (careful with the induction, which probably goes some way towards what seems to be your problem with (hard)determinism. I don't subscribe to hard determinism either).

I was going to write something about Nietzsche, but i'll let it bubble.

Myos... "Vana" = Eesti? (Minä asuin lähellä. Suomessa.)

__________________
"I do not agree that the dog in a manger has the final right to the manger even though he may have lain there for a very long time. I do not admit that right. I do not admit for instance, that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia. I do not admit that a wrong has been done to these people by the fact that a stronger race, a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race to put it that way, has come in and taken their place." - Winston Churchill, 1937 --{ORLY?}--

Vana

It seems that it does not matter if we put our sentences into the negative, or use question marks, everything we write will be reversed and also questioned.

Correct me if I'm wrong, qualia is made up by the atheist materialist camp, as a word to replace the idealists: phenomena. What is the difference between qualia considerations and phenomenology? Qualia is a science propaganda word, Dennett coined it, popularized by Dawkins. Nice word for this thread actually with its association with homosexuality: "Believers in qualia are known as qualophiles; non-believers as qualophobes." Propaganda obviously, and a tool of the homosexual agenda. As philosophers and not science-zombies; we don't stand a chance against the budget and media power of the atheist-objectivist agenda. (If we explore this longer, we can show that qualia is a capitalist concept.)

No. Not my meaning. You are not nothing because you are insigniicant, not because of your objective rank. Nothing is free. "Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose", the phenomenological reduction (complete doubt, total skepticism), that is: deconstruction of all frames and constructs, leaves a consciousness that can not be touched by objective cause and effect, it does not play in the relation of things.

Neurology has nothing to do with philosophy of mind, where is this going?

How about "Being and Nothingness"?

Culture is physical, it is part of the meaning of "physical development processes".

How do you view these as being different?

You fell for debate tactics, and worse, the fallacy: Argument from Authority.

Seeing as Asian languages speak and write in the reverse order of particularity that the West does: West: Orlando, Florida, United States; East: United States, Florida, Orlando, I think there could be an interesting case made for a metaphysical meaning of this John Smith/Smith John...?

Witt, "The limits of my language are the limits of my world."

If I said yes or if I said no, there would be no certainty possible, so no sense claiming anything.


You have moral problems mixed in with objective ones. "No is implies an ought." - Hume. Do you propose to solve moral problems with science?

Why not? You\re left with a half-true mitigation if you attempt to resolve the two: seems to me more sensible to maintain both Hard Determinism and Radiclal Freewill.

Are you Finn?

Vana

Does my assesment of my motivation constitute causality?