CreateDebate


Debate Info

12
14
Nature Nurture
Debate Score:26
Arguments:21
Total Votes:32
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Nature (11)
 
 Nurture (12)

Debate Creator

KingHarris(19) pic



Is Personality Mostly Determined by Nature or Nurture?

One of the oldest arguments in the history of psychology is the Nature vs Nurture debate. Each of these sides have good points that it's really hard to decide whether a person's development is predisposed in his DNA, or a majority of it is influenced by this life experiences and his environment.

Nature

Side Score: 12
VS.

Nurture

Side Score: 14
1 point

almost all human behavior and personality can be explained through the clockwork laws of cause and effect.

To determine why you do something, it starts at the neurons. Their is a consensus among the scientific community, that the firing of neurons determines not just some or most, but all of our thoughts, hopes, memories, and dreams.

Furthermore instances of normal adults becoming pedophiles or murderers after developing a brain tumor proves how the causes and behaviors of what we do are very dependent on the gray matter and neurons in our brain.

The number of court cases that have used evidence from neuroscience has doubled in the last decade. This is because what has been known in the laboratory for decades, and the philosophy class room for centuries, has now started to seep into the justice system. This is not to say there is going to be, or should be a time with no moral accountability, but simply shows that most actions, characteristics, physical or mental changes you make are a determinate of nature not of nurture.

Side: Nature
1 point

Okay. I could do this as a rant back at you but I'll do the break down ping-pong method as it's much more digestible for onlookers (and even you).

almost all human behaviour and personality can be explained through the clockwork laws of cause and effect.

The issue with you saying this is that you don't realise that the 'cause' (which you have conceded is to be held separate to effects) is the conscious behaviour and the 'effect' is everything else than that. Human behaviour is, in so many situations, the 'cause' and not the 'effect'. I do absolutely agree that we can affect other's behaviour (and therefore turn others into 'effects' instead of 'causes' in the short term) but this actually is a concept of nurture and not nature... ;)

To determine why you do something, it starts at the neurons.

No, no, no, no... It starts at the hormones (as well as nutrition etc) and context of the situation and then we add things like preconceived religion/morality/opinions/laws and such to alter how one acts and how one defies their instincts and THEN we begin to apply neurons to OBSERVE the process happening in the brain that is all due to everything other than the neural network.

There is a consensus among the scientific community, that the firing of neurons determines not just some or most, but all of our thoughts, hopes, memories, and dreams.

This is all about observing the thoughts that are already happening. You are basically comparing the observation of a pornographic video to causing the sex in that video. You don't understand what is the cause and what is a means of observation... They are not the same thing.

Furthermore instances of normal adults becoming paedophiles or murderers after developing a brain tumour proves how the causes and behaviours of what we do are very dependent on the grey matter and neurons in our brain.

There is nature, to deny that DNA and raw personality play a role is idiotic of course. What we are discussing here is which "mostly determines" personality (as your title puts it).

Blablabla "Justice" vs "But they can't help doing the crime"

If that's all true then we can't help but believe in free will so checkmate?

Side: Nurture
FactMachine(400) Disputed
2 points

Human behaviour is, in so many situations, the 'cause' and not the 'effect'.

Every effect can also be a cause but every effect needs a cause and every effect is effected by what causes it, human behaviour is just part of a chain of cause and effect and cannot be the sole cause of anything so what you are saying leads no where. Conscious "decisions" are just the causal effect of effects that where caused that can effectively cause things to be effected but cannot cause their own effect because they are effected by both external and internal causes which ultimately causes them to be subject to effects which they cannot control.

No, no, no, no... It starts at the

It doesn't start anywhere, because it's a complex issue which is reliant on many different factors which shape behaviour. You could just as easily say it starts with quantum physics or with gravity.

you don't understand what is the cause and what is a means of observation

You don't understand that there is no one specific cause, both nature and nurture and neurons and hormones all play their part and none of them can be called the "root of behaviour"

What we are discussing here is which "mostly determines" personality

All of it does, there is no definitive way to quantify which one "mostly" determines it because it wouldn't exist without all of the fundamental factors necessary for it to exist, it's like saying "What mostly determines the size of your dick, it's length or it's width?"

If that's all true then we can't help but believe in free will so checkmate?

There is no scientific basis for free will, there is a scientific basis for a mechanistic and deterministic worldview.

Side: Nature
KingHarris(19) Disputed
1 point

It is a common phrase "The smarter you get the less you speak", and this is a fine example of that. I am not talking about quantity but specifically context. In your second refutation point you made some broad scientific claims and statements about neuroscience in which I can easily tell credibility is lacking.

Neurotransmitters and hormones are both are chemicals in the brain that carry messages throughout the body, so making the distinction between the two, as you did, and then throwing in completely unrelated matters such as preconceived religion and how one defines instinct, completely shows the huge problem with ethos (or lack of) through your whole refutation.

Side: Nature
1 point

Sadly, determinism is, according to what the neurosciences say, the way of things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t_Uyi9bNS4

I so want to disagree, but they know more about it than I do.

Side: Nature
1 point

Here we see another pathetic slave to his fate. Rather than working with fate and changing things he will live life as a drone.

Side: Nurture
EldonG(531) Disputed
1 point

No, actually it's within my nature to struggle against the way of things.

Side: Nature

Sadly, determinism is, according to what the neurosciences say, the way of things.

It is also the logical consequence of astrophysics, since linear time is not something which exists in a real sense. There are no such things as definitive past, present and future. Time is more of a flat sheet than a ladder. If we draw from our own direct experience it tells us that the past (which remember doesn't exist) is set and cannot be changed. Hence, there is no plausible reason to believe what we interpret as the present and future can be.

Side: Nature
1 point

Don't join the drones Nomen, fight your fate and master your destiny.

Side: Nurture
KingHarris(19) Disputed
1 point

I'm glad to see someone presenting arguments which are not cluttered with ad hominem attacks, unlike other specific debaters. The main problem I have with you argument is that you claim the past, present, and future do not exist, however this statement is false. I believe a more accurate statement would be: "The past, present, and time, are all the same thing, when looking at the universe from an external view rather than internal"

Side: Nurture
1 point

As I raise my two boys (going on 4 and 2) and see the similarities and contrast in their personalities I believe I am witnessing BOTH nature and nurture. They’re different boys, despite having the same family. BUT, when people like teachers and friends and extended family observe them they say that despite their differences they are both unmistakably our boys distinct from all the other kids around them. Which is a huge evidence of nurture. And frankly birth order (the younger having the older brother close in age to learn from and model after) is by far the biggest influence on his rapid development, confidence, and ego, and technically birth order and the exposure to his own brother are nurture factors, not a nature like genetics. And other families with this second child close behind the first observe similar things to us. Sibling nurturing may be even more influential than parental nurturing.

Side: Nurture

Preach the truth, don't let these maniacs spread their ideas of inescapable fate.

Side: Nurture

Heroes and villains tend to both have the exact same predisposition for anti-conformity and egomania.

Surgeons, serial killers and mathematicians all tend to be sociopaths whereas artists, authors and farmers all tend to be paranoid by nature.

There's a lot of strange tendencies linked to multiple professions and lifestyles that would surprise you and so many ways the exact same DNA's personality type can end up in life.

A classic example is Max sec prisons... The guards are usually as sadistic as the criminals they keep. They pick max sec because they know they get to be much meaner and beat the criminals senseless more often than in lower security prisons with tamer criminals.

Side: Nurture
KingHarris(19) Disputed
1 point

The overall claim you are making, but for some reason putting behind loaded wording, is: because there are some what consistent characteristics, or traits in populations that correlate with things like profession and geographic location, it is nurture that caused that, and it had nothing at all to do with genetics. If this were true then things like fears, desires, and neurological make up, would have nothing to do with ones personality.

This whole contention can be brought down by the observations of twins separated at birth. There are countless studies and research that show the similarity in life style and personality between twins who had been separated at birth. Many of these individuals having the same injuries, same mental problems, same cars, and even same jobs.

In conclusion your whole argument is based of a straw man claim that "so many ways the exact same DNA's personality type can end up in life." when in reality evidence shows that DNA is highly dependent on not only neurological factors as I addressed in my argument, but also personality and life style factors.

Side: Nature
0 points

The traits are nature, but the professions are multiple every time as well as the outcomes and often are so shockingly different form one another (a serial killer and a mathematician, an author and a farmer) so that was supporting the idea that inspit eof similar nature, nurture can end people on different ends of the same prison's bars.

As for the twin argument you are just outright lying. Twins separated at birth (and even together since birth) end up shockingly different, so much so one can be lesbian while the other straight http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/11/17/what-can-gay-and-straight-twins-tells-us-about-sexuality/.

You are completely lying about the research into twins it has always, heavily and with completely shocking results showed such severe differences in identical DNA and outcome in life. Even lifespan of the twins can differ from 6 to 20 years based on lifestyle decisions (I don't mean one gets murdered I mean disease or something). Yes, even in cases of both twins catching cancer, one can outlive the other purely due to mentality and willpower to stay optimistic as this produces healthy immune system whereas if the other is stressed or depressed it can severely stop the body even trying to inhibit the cancer in any shape or form and makes the body less receptive to chemicals including chemotherapy as depression and stress lower metabolism.

Side: Nurture