Nature or Nurture?

Niceguy · Nov 23rd 2009, 8:14pm

Esmo wrote:

I think you're getting confused on causation.

Does me wanting the woman directly affect the way I behave?

Think about that carefully. Because the way I behave, which is the subject of this debate, is not actually directly down to the lust. It's like trying to explain what happened in a car crash by saying 'the drivers were drunk' and nothing else. That doesn't actually explain how the car crash happened; the most it gives is some context. The most that blaming lust does is give a motive, but not a reason for the way I behaved.

I find your greed example quite useful, because not everyone is greedy and it helps in summarising the argument: The nature vs. nurture debate is about why I am greedy, not about what I'm greedy for.

The driver being drunk would indeed explain why they crashed in the first place. It would explain what set the crash in motion. Therefore no matter what happened in the crash, the drunk driver (genes) caused the crash (behavior); and so nature inherently affects behavior.

Survey_Man · Nov 23rd 2009, 9:45pm

As an orphan, I found oddly when I'm sober my nurture is completely present. When I'm drunk, nature takes over including using my birth name. I think it's mixed, but nurture usually holds dominance.

Esmo · Nov 23rd 2009, 10:27pm

Niceguy7 wrote:

The driver being drunk would indeed explain why they crashed in the first place. It would explain what set the crash in motion. Therefore no matter what happened in the crash, the drunk driver (genes) caused the crash (behavior); and so nature inherently affects behavior.

You've missed a crucial part of the analogy:

Esmo wrote:

I think you're getting confused on causation.

Does me wanting the woman directly affect the way I behave?

Think about that carefully. Because the way I behave, which is the subject of this debate, is not actually directly down to the lust. It's like trying to explain what happened in a car crash by saying 'the drivers were drunk' and nothing else. That doesn't actually explain how the car crash happened; the most it gives is some context. The most that blaming lust does is give a motive, but not a reason for the way I behaved.

I find your greed example quite useful, because not everyone is greedy and it helps in summarising the argument: The nature vs. nurture debate is about why I am greedy, not about what I'm greedy for.

The crash does not equal the behaviour, (I think it's rather spurious to say that the drunkenness represents the genes as well but that's irrelevant) what happened in the crash represents the behaviour, ie. the details that would interest a policeman or a detective. Tell them that 'the driver was drunk' and that doesn't explain anything to them.

Niceguy · Nov 24th 2009, 10:00pm

But without the genes, nobody would be behaving. Therefore, again, by default, you must choose nature.

Esmo · Nov 24th 2009, 10:54pm

Niceguy7 wrote:

But without the genes, nobody would be behaving. Therefore, again, by default, you must choose nature.

Without genes, not an awful lot is going on in the first place. The debate wouldn't exist if it was meant to be condensed to such a basic point.

Rise of Gatlinock · Nov 25th 2009, 1:43am

i don't think anyone in this thread provided evidence, myself included.

Niceguy · Nov 25th 2009, 2:43am

Another example: the seven deadly sins are all in the genes. They affect your behavior every single day. No matter how you react to them, they do, in fact, affect your behavior. You're behavior revolves around suppressing, or directly acting on those feelings. You have to see nature as the logical winner in this debate.

ameera-creme · Nov 25th 2009, 2:58am

Nurture.

If your mother/father treated you like crap, that would change your personality and the way you treat people.

Nature is just secondary. It all starts at home (forgot where i heard that =/)

Rise of Gatlinock · Nov 25th 2009, 4:48am

Niceguy7 wrote:

Another example: the seven deadly sins are all in the genes. They affect your behavior every single day. No matter how you react to them, they do, in fact, affect your behavior. You're behavior revolves around suppressing, or directly acting on those feelings. You have to see nature as the logical winner in this debate.

this, it's all about the base and foundation of who we are, not the specifics.

Bebop · Nov 25th 2009, 7:29am

^^^

Esmo · Nov 25th 2009, 5:08pm

Niceguy7 wrote:

Another example: the seven deadly sins are all in the genes.

Come back to me when we've found the pride gene and all that.

Dr.Carter · Nov 26th 2009, 11:29am

Niceguy7 wrote:

Another example: the seven deadly sins are all in the genes. They affect your behavior every single day. No matter how you react to them, they do, in fact, affect your behavior. You're behavior revolves around suppressing, or directly acting on those feelings. You have to see nature as the logical winner in this debate.

You aren't even responding to points, you are just reciting the same stupid shit over and over again.

Good job.

Niceguy · Nov 27th 2009, 3:02am

That's because it's true.

The foundation itself must affect behavior more. See my previous example. If you truly understand that, then nature wins.

Nature or Nurture?

Re: Nature or Nurture?

Esmo wrote:

Re: Nature or Nurture?

Re: Nature or Nurture?

Niceguy7 wrote:

Esmo wrote:

Re: Nature or Nurture?

Re: Nature or Nurture?

Niceguy7 wrote:

Re: Nature or Nurture?

Re: Nature or Nurture?

Re: Nature or Nurture?

Re: Nature or Nurture?

Niceguy7 wrote:

Re: Nature or Nurture?

Re: Nature or Nurture?

Niceguy7 wrote:

Re: Nature or Nurture?

Niceguy7 wrote:

Re: Nature or Nurture?

Share