Nature? Nurture? Scientists Say Neither

Nature? Nurture? Scientists Say Neither

www.sciencedaily.com

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.

"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,... "There is no gene for any of those things. At most, one can say there's a syst..."

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.sciencedaily.com

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Evil??? Born or bred?
Nature vs Nuture do Lies Trump Truth?
Homosexuality Nature V.S. Nurture

This is a good read for anyone who's as sick of this debate as i am. I have always thought it was a dumb debate, because we really cant determine the answer either way.

As the article says, its a lot more likely that its a massive system leading to behavioral outcomes that has to do with the environment and genetic makeup. Sounds like a viable solution to me, though I'm not sure if it can be grounded through empirical studies. This is the kind of thing we just have to let go, and accept an empty answer, until we have the technological means to make a solid stance on the issue.

I'm sure lots of people will argue for both sides, but I'll bet most of you agree that its not so black and white. This is a responsible announcement on the side of these Scientists.

www.sciencedaily.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I recently read a book that says it is both. Neither has the "upper hand."

The nature needs the nurture and vice versa.
It was called Nature Via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human by Matt Ridley.

Well worth the read.


[edit on 7/21/2009 by Amaterasu]

The reason Science cant figure out if its nature or nurture is because its not just the two of them. There is a third factor involved.

The soul.

Reincarnation and the souls journey throw in the wildcard that will forever baffle men that deal in only science.

'I have always thought it was a dumb debate, because we really cant determine the answer either way. '

Yeah, I agree... It can't 'at the moment' be proven either way.

I would suggest nurture is dominant over nature though....

But then after writing this I kind of realised the above, "It can't at the moment be proven either way", and as you stated "its a lot more likely that its a massive system leading to behavioral outcomes that has to do with the environment and genetic makeup"...lol

I posted instead of deleting and not posting!!

(1) my opinion, my opinion)

If you could detect at an early age(fetus stage) a genetic predisposition toward alcohol dependency alcoholism.about.com...

I would suggest through nurture you could teach that person coping mechanism's through therapy/NLP etc etc in advance, therefore overriding nature?

Another example of 'nurture' is www.theage.com.au...

Ok, so you could argue that the 'nature' side was dominant i.e. the genetic survival instinct taking over..? or 'nurture'? because her situation made her who she was and not' nature?

ibnlive.in.com...

although....

"It is almost impossible to convert a child who became isolated at a very young age into a relatively normal member of society" en.wikipedia.org...

Kind of backs up what that coke head Freud thought, "Freud was one of the earliest writers to emphasize the importance of the first five years in determining the personality for the whole of life" books.google.co.uk... DbbB4LDvRyVHmM8GY&hl=en&ei=dBBmSqiCM8fRjAeL8NygAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4









[edit on 21-7-2009 by slinkey10]