# Nature vs. Nurture?



## Atlantean (Mar 26, 2009)

OK. Just curious as to what most people on here really believe about this longstanding dilemma. Basically, it means were you born this way, or were you made this way? Are genetics to blame, or issues such as parenting, life experiences and trauma the root of the issues you experience?

Personally, I believe its a combination of the two. I think genetics make us predisposed to have certain issues or illnesses or to be impacted more severely by traumatic experience, but ultimately I believe life makes us who we are. I know I wasnt born the way I am, but I believe that I was at higher risk to become what I became because of my genetics.

What do you all believe?


----------



## white page (Mar 26, 2009)

*Re: Nature Vs. Nurture?*

Hi , 
I agree with you , even if we are predisposed by genetics to have certain fragilities , they may never declare themselves if our environment is appropriate for our true self realisation.


----------



## Atlantean (Mar 26, 2009)

*Re: Nature Vs. Nurture?*



white page said:


> Hi ,
> I agree with you , even if we are predisposed by genetics to have certain fragilities , they may never declare themselves if our environment is appropriate for our true self realisation.



That was very well said.


----------



## forgetmenot (Mar 26, 2009)

I agree genetics have a lot to play in who we become but it is our enviroment that we are raised that has the greatest impact on us.  I think the genes that can cause mental illness will lie dormant if not for tragedy or abuse.


----------



## David Baxter PhD (Mar 26, 2009)

In terms of mental health and mental illness issues, my feeling is that the best way to think about it is that nature (genetics, biology) may create a propensity or vulnerability which may or may not appear full blown depending on what happens to the individual over the lifespan.


----------



## Yuray (Mar 26, 2009)

Nature versus nurture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

read the discussions tab as well


----------



## VFB (Apr 3, 2009)

I think that it is about 70% nature and 30% nurture, in terms of nurture exploiting the vulnerabilities that nature left with us.


----------



## y-bloc (May 13, 2009)

75% nurture, 25% nature....I think experience plays on experience and compounds and layers our subjective experience so much that we all become super-individual despite the foundation of nature.  We could become all of those things that we may be genetically predisposed to become, but life is such a winding road it seems just as likely that we don't, or that we become a variation of the predisposition that is far enough from the mark that it may as well have occurred independant the predisposition.  Sometimes we might think that we arrived at a certain place because of some genetic predisposition, but it is just as likely that we arrived at the same spot taking a different path.  
Maybe I just don't like the idea of genetics having too much to do with who I am...It seems to call up predestination or fate...but then I am a living thriving bundle of chemical reactions, cells, atoms, and generally lots and lots of genetics, so... :bonk:baaah!


----------



## sarek (Jun 2, 2009)

I have shifted my beliefs more and more in the direction of nature. I think I would put it at around 65% now. 
There are just too many elements of my personality that can not otherwise be accounted for.


----------



## braveheart (Jul 11, 2009)

Ah, but you see, I was 'born this way' because of very early trauma. Then later abuse and environmental, possibly also genetic factors, heaped on top.


----------



## Ryan Howes (Jul 22, 2009)

I love this question, if only because the answer is completely mysterious. Our brains want a clean result - it's just nature, or just nurture - but the reality is a complex, sometimes messy interaction between the two. 

Like most of you said, I agree that hard-wired nature predisposes us to certain strengths and limitations, and our life experiences continue to test, hone and refine them. 

I always think of a lecture on this topic where the professor asked: "what makes a pro basketball player, nature or nurture?" Certainly, some aspects like height and build are inborn physical features. No matter how I was parented, I'll never be 6'8". But height and build aren't enough: factors like nutrition, eye-hand coordination, competitiveness, teamwork and an understanding of the game come from the environment. They work together, even feed off each other. That's nature and nurture.

And there are always interesting exceptions. In the 80's, the NBA had two players - 7'8" Manute Bol and 5'6" Spud Webb. Manute was tall, but uncoordinated and frail, while Spud was tremendously athleteic and driven. Spud overcame his nature and became a competetive player. Manute never seemed to want to play basketball, he was just expected to because he was so tall. Spud went on to win the Slam Dunk competition Spud Webb, despite being the smallest player (at the time) in the NBA. 

I include all that basketball trivia to make a point - yes, nature does predetermine many things, but nurture is pretty powerful stuff.


----------



## David Baxter PhD (Jul 22, 2009)

*Nature Or Nurture? New Epigenetic Model Blurs Line In The Debate*

Nature Or Nurture? New Epigenetic Model Blurs Line In The Debate
_ScienceDaily_ 
July 22, 2009

A research report published in the journal _Genetics_ complicates the debate over whether nature or nurture plays the most important role in complex diseases such as psychiatric disorders, heart disease, and cancer. In the report, a scientist from the University of California, Berkeley explains how epigenetics (temporary changes in gene function) and gene mutations (permanent, heritable changes in gene structure) contribute to disease risk in a population at a given time and in subsequent generations.

This study provides an important theoretical foundation for future public health interventions designed to reduce a population's genetic risk of disease by limiting or eliminating epigenetic changes brought on by the environment.

"This paper calls attention to the potential importance of epigenetic factors that can influence the risk of complex diseases," said Montgomery Slatkin, the researcher who devised the study, and a professor at the University of California, Berkeley's Department of Integrative Biology, "and to the need to identify such factors and determine their rate of gain and loss."

The model described in the report represents a first step in quantifying the effect of epigenetic change on disease risk and recurrence risk. It found that while mutations have the largest effect on disease risk heritability, epigenetic factors play a surprisingly large role in the disease risk that gets passed down through the generations. Several other studies have already suggested that environmental factors, such as a pregnant woman's diet, might lead to epigenetic changes in her offspring, making it imperative for researchers and public health officials to understand exactly how these epigenetic factors and their causes influence disease risk.

"Almost every article on disease heritability describes 'genetics' as being an important factor in a person's likelihood to contract disease," said Mark Johnston, Editor-in-Chief of the journal Genetics. "Indeed that is true, but what is not often explained is that less permanent changes to our DNA also significantly influence our risk for disease. We tend to view disease risk as a tug of war between nature and nurture, but this study shows that nature and nurture are more closely related than we had imagined."

*Reference:*
Montgomery Slatkin. Epigenetic Inheritance and the Missing Heritability Problem Genetics. _Genetics_, July 2009; 182: 845


----------



## David Baxter PhD (Jul 22, 2009)

*Nature or Nurture?*

Nature or Nurture?
Shrink Rap Blog
July 21, 2009

It?s easy to explain why we act a certain way by saying ?it?s in the genes,? but a group of University of Iowa scientists say the world has relied on that simple explanation far too long. In research to be published today in _Child Development Perspectives_, the UI team calls for tossing out the nature-nurture debate, which they say has prevailed for centuries in part out of convenience and intellectual laziness.

They support evolution ? but not the idea that genes are a one-way path to specific traits and behaviors. Instead, they argue that development involves a complex system in which genes and environmental factors constantly interact.

?You can?t break it down and say there?s a gene for being jealous, there?s a gene for being depressed, there?s a gene for being gay. Those types of statements are simplistic and misleading,? said UI psychologist Mark Blumberg (right), a co-author of the paper. ?There is no gene for any of those things. At most, one can say there?s a system of which that gene and many others are a part that will produce those outcomes.?

The UI team believes genes are expressed at every point in development and are affected all along the way by a gamut of environmental factors ? everything from proteins and chemicals to the socioeconomic status of a family. These ideas are unified by a perspective called developmental systems theory.

?The nature-nurture debate has a pervasive influence on our lives, affecting the framework of research in child development, biology, neuroscience, personality and dozens of other fields,? said lead author and UI psychologist John Spencer.

?People have tried for centuries to shift the debate one way or the other, and it?s just been a pendulum swinging back and forth. We?re taking the radical position that the smarter thing is to just say ?neither? ? to throw out the debate as it has been historically framed and embrace the alternative perspective provided by developmental systems theory.?

The UI researchers illustrate the inadequacies of the debate by examining recent studies of imprinting, spatial cognition and language development that support the nature point of view.

Imprinting is a rapid form of learning in which animals develop preferences through brief exposure to things early in life. Nativists (researchers who align themselves with the ?nature? perspective) attribute the quick learning to a genetic predisposition, pointing to examples like ducklings following their mother?s call as soon as they hatch. But research has shown that embryonic ducks, while still in the egg, are exposed to sounds from their embryonic siblings as well as sounds that they themselves make.

When these so-called ?talking eggs? are deprived of these embryonic experiences, they do not show a preference for their mother?s call upon hatching. Clearly, Blumberg said, to say that imprinting in ducks is innate does not come close to capturing the elegance and complexity of the real process.

UI researchers also raised issues with studies proposing that children and animals have a built-in sense of direction as they move through the world around them and thus exhibit an innate reliance on geometric cues.

In a 2007 experiment, fish reared in a circular tank were placed in a rectangular tank to see if they would know where to find food when it was hidden in the diagonally opposite corners. They did ? which was presented as evidence of an innate ability to use geometry ? but the UI team pointed out that each fish had eight to 12 days of experience in the rectangular tank prior to the experiment and could have learned the behavior then.

?Researchers sometimes claim we?re hard-wired for things, but when you peel through the layers of the experiments, the details matter and suddenly the evidence doesn?t seem so compelling,? Spencer said. ?The problem is that it?s much more complicated to explain why the evidence is on shaky ground, and often the one-liner wins out over the 10-minute explanation.?

The challenge young children face when they encounter a new word has also been used to bolster nativist claims. When children are told a new word and shown a visual scene that contains unfamiliar objects, there are an infinite number of possible meanings for the word. But children are very good at figuring out which object in the scene the new word refers to. Given this amazing ability, researchers have suggested that kids have an innate ability to consider only some of the possible meanings of the word.

But in 2007, researchers at Indiana University placed cameras on children?s foreheads to examine, from the child?s perspective, how they found the correct referent for the word. They learned that a child?s view of the nearby world ? which is limited by her small size and short arms ? is much more focused than originally thought. With few possibilities in sight, it?s easy to figure out which object matches up with a novel word.

?When people say there?s an innate constraint, they?re making suppositions about what came before the behavior in question,? Spencer said. ?Instead of acknowledging that at 12 months a lot of development has already happened and we don?t exactly know what came before this particular behavior, researchers take the easy way out and conclude that there must be inborn constraints. That?s the predicament scientists have gotten themselves into.?

UI psychologist Larissa Samuelson (left), a co-author of the paper, points to the ?shape bias? as evidence that word learning is a cascading developmental process ? not an ability that?s there from the beginning. Babies and toddlers learn to recognize solid objects with standard shapes ? things like ball, car, or book ? and those easy-to-distinguish objects typically become their first words.

?Language is so complex that people can?t imagine how kids could do it so well without it somehow being innate,? Samuelson said. ?But if we steer clear of the nature-nurture debate and consider it from a developmental systems perspective, we can see how pieces of knowledge ? which may not even seem related to language ? build over time. It gets us closer to understanding the full complexity of language learning.?

The UI authors realize their paper is raising eyebrows ? it has spurred several responses from other researchers that will be published in the same issue of the journal. And they understand that getting scientific peers to buy into their ideas will be a challenge ? after all, the debate dates back to Aristotle and Plato, and many scientists are passionately rooted on one side or the other.

?This is one attempt at getting the ideas out there and starting a dialog, continuing to educate the public and the scientific community, especially the younger generation of researchers,? Blumberg said. ?We know we don?t have a sound bite that?s as clean and simple and sexy as saying ?it?s genetic.? But we?re working on it.?

_Additional co-authors of the paper, Short Arms and Talking Eggs: Why We Should No Longer Abide the Nativist-Empiricist Debate, are Bob McMurray, Scott Robinson and Bruce Tomblin, faculty in the departments of psychology and communication sciences and disorders in the UI College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. The authors are also all members of the Delta Center at the University of Iowa, a research center and a movement of change as it relates to understanding learning and development. For more information about the Delta Center, visit Delta Center _


----------



## HBas (Jul 23, 2009)

:2thumbs:

Very Interesting!

HB


----------

