Nature vs Nurture
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-06-2013, 10:26 PM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2013 10:40 PM by Purdurabo.)
RE: Nature vs Nurture
(05-06-2013 10:02 PM)I and I Wrote:  you believe there are genes that determine ones sexuality? what genes are these? empathy is a learned trait from society like empathy towards x, how each particular brain takes in info from the outside world is different hence different personalities. Have you ever been around an autistic kid? they fixate on things, foods, phrases, etc etc that are all impressions on them from the outside world.

You seem to believe that a human mind exists and is complete in a vacuum. This is a popular idea in an individualistic society (ideology influencing science) yet there has never been a human mind that existed outside of all cultural influence. How would you ever prove the idea that human minds are complete things regardless of outside influence?



Epigenetic basis for homosexuality.
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/h...tudy-98712

Empathy is not a learned trait. it is neurologicalin basis as evidenced how certain forms of autism have no ability with empathy. and it is also found amongst babies and many different social animals. Empathy has a neurological basis but how we express that empathy and who we show empathy towards is largely but not entirely based upon society.

"You seem to believe that a human mind exists and is complete in a vacuum. "
where have i said this? i have not once said nurture has no influence on our behavior only that nature and nurture both influence us. You on the other hand seem to think that the genetic makeup of our brains make no difference to human behavior.
"There is no evidence that genes have anything remotely to do with behavior. "
and i have shown that this is a rediculous notion as evidenced by people with genetic mental problems that greatly influence their behavior. Or do you think that the only reason autistic people behave differently to non autistics is because they where not raised properly?

You should give this a watch if you have some free time.
"Professor Pinker talked about his book, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFey_0cbgeo
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2013, 10:51 PM
RE: Nature vs Nurture
(31-05-2013 02:55 PM)tear151 Wrote:  nature because why else would there be more communists in communist countries, more christians in christian countries, how else could peoples average politeness in different cultures vary etc.

How did you learn your native tongue?

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-06-2013, 11:30 PM (This post was last modified: 05-06-2013 11:33 PM by bbeljefe.)
RE: Nature vs Nurture
(05-06-2013 10:26 PM)Purdurabo Wrote:  Epigenetic basis for homosexuality.
http://www.science20.com/news_articles/h...tudy-98712

Epigenetics is essentially genetics controlled by environment. e.g., nurture dictating nature. On homosexuality, there is compelling evidence that it is caused by a rush of the hormone androstendione in utero. This must happen after genital formation and before brain development reaches a certain point. Rat sexual orientation has been pretty reliably changed by introducing this hormone to pregnant mothers. The natural occurrence of this phenomenon is thought to be a result of prenatal stress on the mother... which further reinforces the notion that environment plays a significant role.

Quote:Empathy is not a learned trait. it is neurologicalin basis as evidenced how certain forms of autism have no ability with empathy.

Empathy is learned. Not having the ability to learn empathy is different. A child who's brain develops normally has the ability to learn empathy. However, the ability to learn empathy can be destroyed through parental neglect during early infancy, in utero trauma or even later in childhood. As for biological brain abnormalities, it's unwise to use those examples as comparisons with normal brain development because they are demonstrably different and, extremely rare as a percentage of the total population. It is for this same reason that we don't consider men with no legs when discussing the ability to high jump.

Quote:and it is also found amongst babies and many different social animals. Empathy has a neurological basis but how we express that empathy and who we show empathy towards is largely but not entirely based upon society.

Again, there is a conflation of ability to learn and learning. Also, any baby that is old enough to demonstrate empathy is old enough that it must necessarily have had the opportunity to form a bond with its primary caregiver. It's learned very early in life.

Quote:and i have shown that this is a rediculous notion as evidenced by people with genetic mental problems that greatly influence their behavior. Or do you think that the only reason autistic people behave differently to non autistics is because they where not raised properly?

Again, birth defects cannot be used in comparison with normally developed brains. As for autism, recent research in cognitive therapy has proven successful in mitigating symptoms, which indicates that autism has a high likelihood of being caused by prenatal stress.


Genes determine hair color, height and other traits but they do not determine behavior, except when they malfunction and produce birth defects. But even then, birth defects are often caused by the fetal environment. Consider thalidomide as a severe example.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 01:00 AM
Nature vs Nurture
So basically we agree that genetics has very little to nothing to do with behavior.

Empathy, love, desire, and even sexual desire (sexual orientation) are tools that we learn from society to then express outwardly back onto people in society. If you don't learn how to love then you won't love. One can see a clear pattern in men and women that grow up in abusive homes, most likely they seek out the very same types of relationships that they observed growing up.
Sexual orientation is also a tool, its only labeled a sexual orientation when the subject has or is expressing desire in another person. The act of desire is predicated on the other. Clearly sexual desire is not genetic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 05:06 AM
RE: Nature vs Nurture
(06-06-2013 01:00 AM)I and I Wrote:  So basically we agree that genetics has very little to nothing to do with behavior.

Empathy, love, desire, and even sexual desire (sexual orientation) are tools that we learn from society to then express outwardly back onto people in society. If you don't learn how to love then you won't love. One can see a clear pattern in men and women that grow up in abusive homes, most likely they seek out the very same types of relationships that they observed growing up.
Sexual orientation is also a tool, its only labeled a sexual orientation when the subject has or is expressing desire in another person. The act of desire is predicated on the other. Clearly sexual desire is not genetic.

No, we don't agree.
Homosexual attraction is not a learned behavior.

And if genetics plays little part, you'll have a hard time explaining child prodigies and the developmentally challenged.

Where do you define nurture? After conception? After birth?

This is not a black & white, either/or issue. There is a complex interplay of biochemistry and environment.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
06-06-2013, 05:38 AM
RE: Nature vs Nurture
(06-06-2013 05:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, we don't agree.
Homosexual attraction is not a learned behavior.

And if genetics plays little part, you'll have a hard time explaining child prodigies and the developmentally challenged.

Where do you define nurture? After conception? After birth?

This is not a black & white, either/or issue. There is a complex interplay of biochemistry and environment.

100% this. It is nature AND nurture, not one or the other.

"Good news, everyone!"
-Cody
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 06:20 AM
Nature vs Nurture
(06-06-2013 05:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-06-2013 01:00 AM)I and I Wrote:  So basically we agree that genetics has very little to nothing to do with behavior.

Empathy, love, desire, and even sexual desire (sexual orientation) are tools that we learn from society to then express outwardly back onto people in society. If you don't learn how to love then you won't love. One can see a clear pattern in men and women that grow up in abusive homes, most likely they seek out the very same types of relationships that they observed growing up.
Sexual orientation is also a tool, its only labeled a sexual orientation when the subject has or is expressing desire in another person. The act of desire is predicated on the other. Clearly sexual desire is not genetic.

No, we don't agree.
Homosexual attraction is not a learned behavior.

And if genetics plays little part, you'll have a hard time explaining child prodigies and the developmentally challenged.

Where do you define nurture? After conception? After birth?

This is not a black & white, either/or issue. There is a complex interplay of biochemistry and environment.

Mental disabilities have been discussed already, in fact mental disabilities can be brought on by external factors when a fetus and early childhood. Even the behavior of a Down's syndrome kid isn't determined by their genes, they all have different personalities.

What type of physical features will turn you on isn't determined by genes either, this too is learned by ones environment much like language or tastes in food are. Nobody decides one day to like Italian food, speaking ones native language etc, these were learned by our environment, just like sexual tastes are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 06:22 AM
RE: Nature vs Nurture
(06-06-2013 06:20 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(06-06-2013 05:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, we don't agree.
Homosexual attraction is not a learned behavior.

And if genetics plays little part, you'll have a hard time explaining child prodigies and the developmentally challenged.

Where do you define nurture? After conception? After birth?

This is not a black & white, either/or issue. There is a complex interplay of biochemistry and environment.

Mental disabilities have been discussed already, in fact mental disabilities can be brought on by external factors when a fetus and early childhood. Even the behavior of a Down's syndrome kid isn't determined by their genes, they all have different personalities.

What type of physical features will turn you on isn't determined by genes either, this too is learned by ones environment much like language or tastes in food are. Nobody decides one day to like Italian food, speaking ones native language etc, these were learned by our environment, just like sexual tastes are.

Sexual orientation is not learned. Sexual preferences, tastes are.

You still haven't defined where 'nurture' starts.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 07:16 AM
Nature vs Nurture
(06-06-2013 06:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(06-06-2013 06:20 AM)I and I Wrote:  Mental disabilities have been discussed already, in fact mental disabilities can be brought on by external factors when a fetus and early childhood. Even the behavior of a Down's syndrome kid isn't determined by their genes, they all have different personalities.

What type of physical features will turn you on isn't determined by genes either, this too is learned by ones environment much like language or tastes in food are. Nobody decides one day to like Italian food, speaking ones native language etc, these were learned by our environment, just like sexual tastes are.

Sexual orientation is not learned. Sexual preferences, tastes are.

You still haven't defined where 'nurture' starts.

Semantics is fun, now you are Implying that sexual orientation and sexual tastes are different. Your way of trying to win an argument is pure gold.....oh wait or is it silver?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-06-2013, 07:26 AM
RE: Nature vs Nurture
(06-06-2013 07:16 AM)I and I Wrote:  
(06-06-2013 06:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  Sexual orientation is not learned. Sexual preferences, tastes are.

You still haven't defined where 'nurture' starts.

Semantics is fun, now you are Implying that sexual orientation and sexual tastes are different. Your way of trying to win an argument is pure gold.....oh wait or is it silver?

Since you do not understand the difference, let me clarify.

Homosexuality and heterosexuality are not learned behaviors.

Liking blondes or nuns or lacy underwear are learned or conditioned.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: