Nature vs Nurture Debate
There is a long standing debate about Nature vs Nurture and how one or the other affects things like intelligence.
Which do you think has the greatest influence on intelligence?
Here is an interesting article with two professors challenging the born or made concept in relationship to entrepreneurs: http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/228273
Nature
Side Score: 6
|
 |
Nurture
Side Score: 16
|
|
|
|
|
I saw a graph once that said that happiness is determined 50% by genetics, 40% by day-to-day behavior and 10% by circumstance. I do think genetics is a strong driving force in us, but given the fact that some people manage to contradict this impulses (like people willingly starving themselves to death) there's obviously other forces at play as well. The environment and the especially the people in it especially play a very large role. I am picking nature, because there's specific impulses that everyone hare which stem from nature. Same can't as easily be said about nurture. Side: Nature
I wouldn't trust a simple graph. The study described in this article allegedly shows that happiness has a genetic component. Yeah, just because happiness has a genetic component doesn't mean that intelligence has. Furthermore having a high IQ doesn't necesarilly make you succesful (that's atleast a common theme in this thread). If we consider people like Plato, Darwin, Galileo, Einstein and the rest of them intelligent, then I think commitment plays a much larger role. Commitment requires discipline, and it's possible that discipline requires things like not being lazy. Laziness might have a genetic component according to a study described here. Side: Nurture
1
point
It is both, really. Different traits and behaviors have differing causes. Some tend to be more determined by biology, some by environment and society. But I find nature to be a lot more prevalent. First of all, our personalities are simply the result of biological mechanics, chemical reactions and energetic reactions. Seemingly small physical changes can have huge effects on personality. Further, how malleable you are to your environment is itself likely to be determined by the collection of physical factors mentioned above. Some people change readily and easily, others are all but imutable. Or another way of looking at it: Some people who get into an accident while driving drunk will decide to never drive drunk again. Some will never drink at all again. Some won't change their behavior at all. Some might start to drink more because of all of the stress and end drunk driving a again a week later. The same experience can and will cause a huge range of reactions. Side: Nature
|
4
points
In terms of intelligence, I'd say that both are applicable, but I personally favor nurture over nature. My reasoning for this is as follows: As a percentage value, the genetic difference between any two given humans is all but negligible. For the most part, our brains are very similarly structured- and yet, huge differences in overall intelligence are observed across populations. Very intelligent children are born to average (or unintelligent) parents, and children with less intellect are born to very intelligent parents as well; were nature to be the dominant factor here, I would expect to see a stronger correlation between the intelligence of the parents and the intelligence of the offspring. At the same time though, one does not need to be particularly intelligent to create an environment for a child that stimulates his or her intellect. I imagine that a pair of intelligent parents might be more prone to assume their child will be intelligent and place less of an emphasis on building the childs intelligence and more on a happy childhood. On the other hand, parents of lesser intelligence who want a better future for their child may well put forth significant more effort in honing the childs intellect. From the article, it appears that the arguments in favor of genetics are all based on personality traits that have something of a 60% chance of being passed on to the child- I assert that nurture is a component of that as well, rather than pure genetics. If I were to sum it up in one sentence: Nature and nurture are both components of a childs intellect, but nurture is the more significant of the two. Of course, we'd need to agree on a definition and metrics for intelligence to actually test anything and draw valid conclusions... Side: Nurture
1
point
1
point
I would prefer a position midway between nurture and nature, but, if I must choose, I will take the position which gives the greatest power of choice to the individual. I once read the results of an experiment - many years ago, so I do not recall the source. The question being investigated was when choices are made and whether something called the self makes decisions. People were asked to, when a signal appeared, to either choose yes or no by touching the appropriate button. The people were thoroughly wired so any electrical impulse implying decision would be noticed.There was no right choice. What was noted was that a fraction of a second before the decision was made there was electrical activity, then another fraction further activity appeared in the area of the brain which implied awareness. Apparently a decision was made, then the individual became aware of that decision, and then yet a bit later the action of indicating the choice occurred. So, the evidence seemed to indicate that choice occurred prior to awareness and that, therefore, nature controlled action. However, a fascinating variable could happen. Sometimes, after the activity that indicated choice and the awareness of choice occurred, another flash of activity appeared and the individual reversed his initial choice and indicated the opposite choice. So, the ability to choose exists as the ability to negate choices that have been conditioned or established by the genetic make-up of the brain. This fascinates me because it opens the possibility of free will regardless of whether one is behaviorally conditioned or controlled by his or her nature. Side: Nurture
|
