Where do you stand on the "nature vs. nurture" debate in regard to human behavior?

Question

Do you think that everything we are and do is a result of our biology (genes)? Or does our environment also influence our behavior?

And is there a big difference between how anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists view this debate?

I'm asking because it seems to me that psychologists take into account both sides, while sociologists seem to focus solely on the nurture side, while anthropologists seem to focus on biology only.

Your thoughts?

Answer 1

I say it's 50/50.

Some people are gentically predisposed to certain personalities, as observed when researchers study identical twins (who grew up separately in different environments.) Usually, identical twins always share the same likes and dislikes.

Fraternal twins, share similar likes and dislikes but they only match up 50%.  And  the rest of their personality is formed from environmental interactions between parents, family, peers, and others.  Many families in the world do not have twin sets, be they monozygotic (identical) or dizygotic (fraternal). So one can only imagine how much of what we like and dislike is based on nature and nurture.

I think it is always 50/50.

Answer 2

One example that I can think of is when a child is adopted by a family that has a higher IQ then the biological parents.  Children in general will have an IQ similar to the parents, but children that are adopted generally have an IQ like the adoptive family.  So nurture would take precedence in considering intelligence.  It really is a mix of the two.

Answer 3

Bit of both. There's been a few studies of adopted kids to show that a tendency to criminality is inherited. One studies results were...

The highest risk of being a criminal was if birth and adopted parents were criminals.

The next highest risk was if the birth parents were criminals, but not the adoptive parents.

The second lowest risk was if the birth parents weren't criminals, but the adoptive were.

The lowest risk for the kids being criminals was if neither set of parents were criminals.

It does suggest that biology is more powerful in behavior.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OKIr6...

Current research for IQ is about 70% inhertited.

Answer 4

That it's among the stupidest "debates" ever.

Clearly the answer is "yes" -- we are the result of both what we're born with and our environment.

No, it doesn't seem to me that there's any group of people who seriously think it's one or the other.

People in different fields focus on different aspects, hence that influences what, exactly, they're looking at.

Answer 5

Most likely a combination of the two, although what percent of either is anyone's guess. Certainly many behavior traits such as aggression, sensitivity and propensity toward addiction have a genetic bearing. But some environmental circumstances must contribute to some degree.

Answer 6

i disagree, anthropology has a cultural focus as well.  I would say that all 3 allow for both sides.

Answer 7

Read "the bell curve" It basically says that

"Inequality of ...intelligence, is a reality. Trying to pretend that inequality does not really exist has led to disaster. Trying to eradicate inequality with artificially manufactured outcomes has led to disaster. It is time for America once again to try living with inequality...Cognitive ability is substantially heritable, apparently no less than 40 percent and no more than 80 percent. "

http://www.indiana.edu/~intell/bellcurve...

The book was met with a great deal of criticism.Most objected to the suggestion that there would be a permanent underclass.

This begs the question in nature vs nurture how much is each and what can or cannot be done to change it?

If nurture is in the majority, the point of the book is valid and "all men are created equal" is open to question.

Answer 8

Why do you always run over to anthro., Tera? Afraid of real science? Or, you can't find the science section?

There is no nature/nurture debate in science. Since the time of Darwin we have known that it is " nature via nurture. " What matter where anyone stands? Science does not settle empirical questions politically!!!

There is no " side ", Tera. The genes that create us, body and mind. created organs that respond to the environment. How this confusion was launched among people like you is beyond me.

We engender culture and society as human beings. This is why the evolved nature of all humans can be seen under the superficiality of culture.

You need to get out of the social science box and access the real material on this subject.

Start with, " Natural Selection and Social Theory, The Collected Papers of Robert Trivers. " A bit technical, but this is one of the basis for all behavioral biological theories. You have to dig deep to find the truth beneath the popular superficiality on this subject.

I suggest you let Mathilda guide you in this. She has a solid grasp on the material, as long as OOA is not under discussion.

Answer 9

I can't speak for other disciplines on this matter, but the nature/nurture debate was settled long ago among anthropologists. It has become clear that biology and culture both have their roles to play in the formation of human behavior. There actually isn't a nature/nurture debate anymore, to be honest. The focus is more about figuring out how these elements shape human behavior. The idea that it's primarily one or the other isn't really bandied around. That isn't to say that they don't come into conflict now and then, of course.

Answer 10

Most people underestimate the amount of influence that culture has on people.  Babies are very impressionable so it is nearly impossible to test.  There aren't any reliable examples of babies  being raised by animals.  Some where the child was severely neglected, they are very adversely affected.  That being said, there is a huge ingrained tendency that is determined by genes but it requires nurturing guidance to realize it.

Answer 11

It's both.  For example, it's been researched that 1 in 10 adult males have a gene for sociopathic behavior.  Obviously 10% of males are not sociopaths.  Environments brought it out.

Answer 12

This anthropologist doesn't focus solely on the biological side.  In fact, quite the opposite.  The way I see it, our biology is just the beginning.  It's our experiences and our culture which have the greatest impact.  You can see it with identical twins.  They carry the same DNA, but they have slightly different experiences as they grow, even the ones raised in the same household.  They end up as two different people.  They may both be shy, but then again one of them might have taken a customer service job and gotten over their shyness.  Life experience shapes us.

Answer 13

I don't really know much about sociology. From what I can tell, psychology takes both in to account but I'm not sure to what degree. Anthropology uses both as well, but I'd say there's a little more focus on culture/environment.

What I've been taught in my anthro classes is that nature and nurture work hand-in-hand. I think biology is the foundation, but "nurture" can determine what you make of that.

Answer 14

A bit of both.  I have both adopted & biological children & while the biological brats were borderline genius, they were much more difficult to raise & not nearly as loving as the adopted children.  Some of my adopted children have struggled with school & school work, while the biological children were reading & doing elementary math by age 4.

Back in the 70s some of the social science group came up with the idea that boys & girls raised in the same environment would chose the same toys & social views & that everything was cultural... this was a badly flawed concept that has been proven untrue.

Both my wife & I are somewhat introverted & quite, while some of our adopted children are outgoing social butterflies.  The biological children tended to be quite, but my youngest son (adopted) is also a very quite child.  None of the children have been in trouble & all are very loving & thoughtful about the needs of others.   Some of the adopted children loved competitive sports & were/are very good at them, while the biological children tended to avoid contact sports.  I played college football, so I do enjoy watching my children play sports.

Because of my experiences, I have to conclude that nuture & nature are about a 50/50 split.  Either one can induce life altering views & influence success or failure.

http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgen...