Originally posted by closettrekkie
I have to say I think it's wrong to just take one side of things and say "That's the way." Life is so much more complex than that.
Agreed. I think it is tough to take a stance on anything. I often do take stances, but openly admit my right to change my mind, at any time.
But this Nature vs. Nurture question is something I have looked into the last little while, and to be honest, it has frustrated me. I've read
articles of brilliant men, that were so openly biased and ignoring the findings of other studies. I've read their studies where they firmly believe
their study is more relevant than another's.
It is not enough to proclaim yourself a maturationisnt or an interactionist. In my opinion, it goes much deeper than either of those.
A study I read last night was of the Colorado Adoption Project
. This has been a project that has been
running for thirty years, and has countless pages of information. Their initial effort consisted of 245 adoptive families, and 245 non-adoptive
families. The children were studied at years one, two, three, & four. Their findings actually shocked me.
It was found that children who were with their adoptive parents from a very young age, were more prone to have an IQ in the same vicinity as the
adoptive parents. This was expected, and I fully agree. However, it was also discovered that the child's disposition was not influenced by the
adoptive parents, regardless of how long they had been with them. So, from their study, they determined that our IQ is influenced by our environment,
but our dispositions are predetermined from our genetics.
This, I have a tough time believing. I believe we are a product of our environment and our intelligence, personality, tendencies, etc., all come from
our experiences. Our genetics pave the roads, but our environment determines which road we travel.
Lastly, is the main purpose of this thread.
Is Nature vs. Nurture just a method of disinformation?
erroneous material intentionally promoted to confuse, distract and otherwise make it more difficult to determine the truth. Some disinformation is
amplified by well-meaning persons who unwittingly adopt the material without understanding that it is not genuine. ...
What do you think? How can these great minds actually believe it can be one without the other?
Are their studies a tool of disinformation?
[edit on 30-11-2006 by chissler]