Nurture v Nature.

Chuck Stone

Following on from another thread I was just interested in getting the views of people on what they think plays a greater part on how they've turned out as human beings i.e. their environment i.e. family society etc (nurture) versus their inherited traits (nature).

I'm not going to put up any figures on what the boffins say so as not to influence the poll - I'm sure that will be discussed on thread.

Jen Pigs Fly

I was raised on a strict diet of protein shakes, falcon eggs and rocks!!


+1 internet and a coupon for a free hug for anyone who gets it

shopaholic01

I watched a documentary once about identical twins who were separated at birth. They were adopted and lived thousands of mile apart.

Years later they met as adults - it was freaky. They had the same hairstyles, dressed the same etc. It does seem that nature plays a huge part, more than was previously thought.

I suppose nurture might play a bigger part when it is absent - neglect, abuse etc.

Monsieur Folie

You are born with many traits already somewhat established, I'd imagine, but it is down to to how you are raised and 'nurtured' as to how prominently certain traits show up in the end.

Somnus

Do you mean in terms of personality or physical traits?

Because it varies massively to be honest. Some traits, lets say height, have a big environmental influence: nutrition, living conditions etc.
Others the environmental influence may be present, but much smaller

But others are quite set in terms of your genes determining whether you have a trait or not, enironment doesn't matter. It's either yes or no.

There's no set answer because it varies for basically every trait you can think off.

Chuck Stone

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Years later they met as adults - it was freaky. They had the same hairstyles, dressed the same etc. It does seem that nature plays a huge part, more than was previously thought.

The validity of these studies has been questioned.

Apparently most of these twins had been in contact with each other for years before any studies were carried out. It's not like they were reunited by the study - if you know what I mean.

Chuck Stone

Dr.Poca wrote: »

Do you mean in terms of personality or physical traits?

Yes, personality rather than physical.

shopaholic01

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The validity of these studies has been questioned.

Apparently most of these twins had been in contact with each other for years before any studies were carried out. It's not like they were reunited by the study - if you know what I mean.

The documentary claimed they only became aware of each other recently - it probably does make more sense that this happened though.

Where To

This documentary is on the subject is very interesting;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjDbJQKDXCY

Somnus

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Yes, personality rather than physical.

Personality is an interesting one all right. Did genetics in college and the whole nature v nurture topic came up in regards physical traits. But we never really talked about personality or psychological traits.

Personally, I think that your genes define a predisposition for certain moods, personalities and music tastes etc. But environment definitely has a big impact. I think events in life can change your personality a lot, so I suppose I would say that environment has a bigger influence in the fine details of your personality.
But at the same time I think some personality traits are almost hardwired into your brain.

I'll go with environment being the major player though

Cork boy 55

maybe you should have focused on one trait.

Different traits are going to have different correlations with the
Ratio environmental/heredity

pragmatic1

I think nature plays the bigger role. Its not really a comforting thought though.

wonton

I think it gradually over thousands of years it became nurture over nature, the following on of information gained from people before us and the society which has evolved over time.

I think earlier humans would have been more nature.

Dave!

Twin studies show that genetics play a significant role, but upbringing, factors in the womb, and luck all help to shape us too.

I read something before which makes sense to me...Whether or not it's 100% accurate, it's a handy way to think about it! For intelligence anyway - essentially genetics sets an upper (and perhaps lower) limit on our IQs, and then our upbringing determines where on the scale we end up falling. In other words, our environment and upbringing determines whether or not we reach our potential, as set out by our genes.

Chuck Stone

Here's piece questioning the rigour of twin studies.

Excerpt.

Twin studies rest on two fundamental assumptions: 1) Monozygotic twins are genetically identical, and 2) the world treats monozygotic and dizygotic twins equivalently (the so-called "equal environments assumption"). The first is demonstrably and absolutely untrue, while the second has never been proven.

yuppies

It should be remembered as well that many physical traits a person is endowed with (eg. level of facial attractiveness, body frame, height (a very important factor in my opinion), propensity to fat-gain etc) strongly influence how every other person they meet reacts to them and treats them as they are growing up and throughout their lives. People with physical traits generally considered desirable will be treated more positively by others (eg. other people subconsciously wanting to be around them and be liked by them) and, all other things being equal, will more often develop desirable personality traits (eg. self-confidence, lower levels of neuroticism...) than those born with less desirable physical traits.
The result is that genetics strongly influences nurture by causing a person poorly endowed genetically to be subject to harsher social circumstances than their more desirably genetically endowed counterparts and consequently developing different personality traits because of it.
Nature and nurture are impossible to disentangle when it comes to humans personalities/behaviour; the feedback loops are tortuous!

Sindri

There was an interesting article about this in National Geographic recently.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2012/01/twins/miller-text


I'd also say that the results of the poll would be skewed towards nurture as when people account for their behaviour, it is usually a introspective process based on memory and their self concept.