Kevin's Watch

Nature and Nurture, am argument that profoundly echo’s through every field in psychology.

Nature considers that behaviors are “inbred” from birth; many would identify this as instinct. Nurture on the other hand considers that we all start with a blank slate; that there are no instincts or inborn behaviors.

Behaviorism, Psychoanalysis, Social psychology, Humanistic, Biopsychology, and Cognitive psychology all have varying views on the debate of Nature versus Nurture.

The question is; what do you believe in, and why? Are we driven by our "instincts"? Or do we start with "Tabula rasa", meaning blank slate - and all our behaviors therefore a matter of learning?

The effects of nature (as in biology), are limited to physiological ones, such as genetic predispositions to conditions. Perhaps a person's brain has fewer dopamine receptors...so he's not a cheerful person by nature, becuase he can't be.

However, behaviours and actions are influenced a great deal more by nurture, (in my opinion anyway) than they are by nature.

The environment, experiences and reinforcements you recieve from your surroundings as a child, starting even ractically from birth, will have a marked effect on your behaviours.

I'm not saying that biological nature is inconsequential, but that nature, and instincts, can always be overcome by an effort of will, no matter what motivates them.

--A

I think, that all behaviours are a combination of genes and environment. For some behaviours it's almost exclusively genes and for other almost exclusively environment. But in no cases is it just the one.

The key to control of behavioural modification (psychotherapy or upbringing if you will) is determining the weight of each factor. And to realise that there is a large degree of individual variation.

Perhaps so...but I don't think that, for example, genetics makes you steal or kill, whereas your environment will play a large role.

What kind of thing are you thinking about in saying that in some behaviours its genetic? Stuff like Tourettes?

--A

Frog and the scorpion Av. We can attempt to overwrite our nature, but in times of extreme stress we will revert to type.

That said, the sociologist in me agrees with Prebe. Some things are hard-wired into us, others are learned.

I agree that there is a degree of hard-wiring (nature), and a degree of environment (nurture) involved. However, I posit that even your hard-wiring can be affected by your environment. For example, certain people are genetically predisposed to alcoholism. However, if the child is raised in an environment in which he is taught about the dangers of alcoholism in a way that is significant to him, it is very possible that he will avoid the very behaviors that would trigger his predisposition to alcoholism.

In my mind, I think it comes down to what has the absolute value. Cail has said that he feels that in times of stress people will "revert to type." Do we believe that we are merely the sum of our DNA? And if so, what then is the significance of environment, and of parents, and families too? And what value do we place on altruistic behavior--something that has long been said to separate us from the lower kingdoms? Who--and what--are humans?

So now that I've thrown all sorts of meaty questions out there (without even an attempt to answer them myself), I would like to say that one way that scientists have traditionally approached issues like this are with "twin-studies." Traditionally they find sets of identical twins and do extensive research on them to see what diferences are inherent. Some of the most famous studies have been with twins that were reared apart, yet have led almost identical lives.

Interesting question. I should like to see what others have to say about this.

Cail wrote:Frog and the scorpion Av. We can attempt to overwrite our nature, but in times of extreme stress we will revert to type.

That said, the sociologist in me agrees with Prebe. Some things are hard-wired into us, others are learned.

I tend to agree that stress, severe stress, will cause us to fall back onto the hard-wired. Afterall, evolution and genetics have had millions of years to "hard-wire" us, whereas for all its facility, society has had a much much shorter period of time to do its work.

Certainly we are nowhere near the point yet where modern society has had time to affect the hard-wiring.

When it comes right down to it, the survival mechanism is the ultiimate line in nurture/nature.

Raising a child who has a genetic predisopsition to alcoholism in an environment in which he is taught to avoid/abhor alcohol is not changing his wiring. All its doing is conditioning him against it.

--A