+127 Nature versus Nurture: It's //usually// a mixture of both, amirite?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

*always

by Anonymous 11 years ago

always is too absolute there might be something out there that isn't a mixture

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Are you referring to the most common usage of this phrase, used most in psychology? If so, then yes, it is ALWAYS a mixture of both nature and nurture. If you're not referring to psychology, please enlighten me on what you are referring to.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm saying there might be a possibility because we don't know everything there is to know there may be an aspect out there that we don't know or don't know about yet that includes a mixture

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Again, if you are talking about psychology, then there's no "may be". It's simple: human thoughts, behaviors, and everything that may be affected by nature or nurture is affected by both. It's about a 50/50 combination. Studies have been done, and they're quite accurate.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You apparently haven't been in a very good psychology class. That just isn't true, no one knows if it's 50/50 or how much of each it is, it would be impossible to actually do a study on how much nature and how much nurture makes someone do something, and it's really pathetic you lied about it just to make yourself seem right. There are certain things that are brought on only because of how you were raised or only because of your genetic predisposition, ex: schitophrenia is gentic.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Actually, I was in a really good psychology class. And please stop insulting me. People have done studies. Are you forgetting Harry Harlow's experiment? Not ethical, but proves my point. And I'm not talking about certain things. If you'll see above, I was talking about "human thoughts, behaviors, and everything that may be affected by nature or nurture ". I didn't want to say just behaviors because that's not what I meant...I'm talking about behaviors, thoughts, actions, personality, etc. You as a whole are a combination of nature and nurture; so is everyone.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yeah, a monkey chose the cloth mom over the food mom, what about it? That doesn't prove anything about how much is nature and how much is nurture. You said there has been studies that prove it is 50/50, that is a lie. It's impossible to prove that. Being honest isn't insulting you. The post isn't talking about everything that makes a person, otherwise it wouldn't say "usually". It wouldn't make sense "every thing a person is about, their entire personality, behaviors, all that, can be fully nature or fully nurture but it's usually both" so you can infer it is talking about certain things.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

You called me pathetic. I'd say that's pretty insulting. It proves that monkeys can't thrive without nurture; therefore, we need both nature and nurture. I think this can be extended to humans: orphans in a Siberian orphanage, once adopted, grew about 6 inches per year (compared to the average of 2, I think it was), while they had grown way less than the average before they were adopted. Why? Nurture. I'm really confused about how you can argue that things aren't nature and nurture. It's pretty simple. You must not have been in a very good psych class, or else your teacher would have taught you all this. Other studies: twin studies(there are lots), adoption studies (again, lots), and of course Harlow's experiment. So, no, it's not actually "impossible" to do a study on nature vs. nurture.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Needing nurture isn't what the nature vs. nurture argument is about ono It's not impossible to do a study on nature vs. nurture and I didn't say it was, I said it's impossible to say how much of something is caused by each. Nature vs. Nurture is about why people are they way they are, not about being nurtured or nurture being good for you. It's about "are you smart because your parents are, or is it because you all went to good schools?" that kind of thing. You don't seem to know what you're talking about, so this conversation is over.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Sure, you can't measure how much nature and how much nurture makes someone do something, but that wasn't what this post was about or what I was talking about. Nature vs nurture usually refers to human behaviors/thoughts/personality, and in that case, it is a mixture of nature and nurture, and it is impossible to argue otherwise.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

". It's simple: human thoughts, behaviors, and everything that may be affected by nature or nurture is affected by both. It's about a 50/50 combination. Studies have been done, and they're quite accurate." And use the context of the post to infer what it's talking about. In psychology in general, you'd be absolutely right but I think the post is talking about specific things. I might be wrong though, that's just what I inferred. OP may have implied something totally different. Sorry for rudeness, I just got home from school and sometimes I don't realize how I'm talking when I'm tired.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Colebowl: my point exactly. It's really hard to argue about this without knowing what the OP was referring to; I assumed it was about psychology because that's the context I'm most familiar with. However, it's fair to say she could have written this about something else. I asked her but I never got a response.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Your point exactly? You didn't say anything about it to them. "I'm saying there might be a possibility because we don't know everything there is to know there may be an aspect out there that we don't know or don't know about yet that includes a mixture"

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I asked Fuzala in the beginning what it is she's referencing. I then assumed it was about psychology. I mentioned it a while ago.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Studies by whom? When? How? Do you have any kind of source for your statement? It's just, you obviously made that up, I failed psychology and even I know that that statistic does not exist and no one has or even could do an experiment to validate it.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I just told you about the studies. Harry Harlow. Countless twin and adoption studies. http://lornareiko.wordpress.com/2009/10/08/identical-twins-who-were-separated-at-birth-what-are-they-like/ If you care enough, go validate the facts yourself. Otherwise, take my testimony.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That is a study in favour of nature, not even remotely 50/50, nor does it even imply a 50/50 correlation. I have noting to validate, you are the one who is claiming to have all the facts, I was merely pointing out that you completely made them up.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I didn't make them up. I learned them. At this point in time, I don't want to research them for you. However, feel free to research it yourself or retake psychology. Otherwise, you don't know that I made them up and it's unfair of you to say that without validating my facts.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm saying there might be a //possibility// because we don't know everything there is to know there may be an aspect out there that we don't know or don't know about yet that includes a mixture

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, but specific to what? Psychology?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

this goes for pretty much any topic the studies and research found are not 100% science and other subjects are still developing and are subject to potential change

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Any...topic? I'm confused. Please be more specific as to what you are talking about.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Or give an example?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

that's exactly it my post was made to look at generally not specifically

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I am just soooo confused. I don't understand how this point references anything other than human behavior/actions/thoughts/personality

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm saying that even with psychology, nature vs. nurture there is a possibility of finding an aspect where there isn't a mixture of both we may not know of an aspect now but we may very well find this aspect one day just because we don't know it now, doesn't mean it doesn't exist

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay, so it isn't USUALLY a mixture. It's ALWAYS. True, someday, we might find something that isn't a mixture. For now, though, it's always.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Oh, and i don't want this to sound like I'm yelling--I don't know how to do italics (even though I've been here 2 years..)

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I used to use that too it's two slashes, word, two slashes

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I try not to use absolutes to take into account a range of possibilities

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Wellll all the evidence points to a mixture, as of now

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Schizophrenia, down syndrome, etc is genetic, so false.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

there is a possibility of environmental factors that can trigger these

by Anonymous 11 years ago

With schizophrenia, yes. But when it is genetic, it is just genetic, not both. Down syndrome can happen from an environmental factor in the womb, which alters their genetic code, it's purely genetic. You don't get down syndrome from being in a shitty enviorment.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I honestly don't have enough knowledge to give a good response on what you said

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I wasn't talking about any diseases. If you'll look above, you'll see I was talking about human behaviors/thoughts/personalities in general.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

nature vs. nurture in psychology includes developmental aspects such as down syndrome as well

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Sure. But that wasn't what I was talking about specifically. It's only a small part of the big picture.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

thus, //always// is not the term for this post

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Well, yes, if you're referring specifically to mental disorders. Are you?

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm referring to nature and nurture in general

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Okay. I assumed you were referring to personality, not mental disorders. My bad.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

That's why I //usually// stay away from absolutes notice I said I don't //always// stay away from them

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Those aren't diseases, they //are// thoughts, personalities, and behaviors. You didn't take a psychology class.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes, I did (AP, actually). Schizophrenia is a mental disorder. It doesn't define a person's personality. Disease wasn't the right word, I meant disorder. Sorry.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

No, you didn't. Stop lying.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm not lying...I did really well, too, with a B and an A in each semester and an 5 on the AP exam.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Right. You're just like everyone else on the internet: got really good grades in whatever topic is relevant to the conversation, but some how everything you say is wrong.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I'm not lying!! I actually would send you my AP scores if there were a way to do that without you seeing my identity. I think the fact that I'm educated on the studies shows I know more than most people. Also, I'm not wrong.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Provide me with a scholarly article that proves nature and nurture are 50% responsible for a person. All you did was provide an article that supports nurture effects people. You're NOT educated on the subject and you haven't shown you know more than most people. I go to college for this shit, you //are// wrong. Anyone in AP psych will know you can't put percentage on how much of nature and how much of nurture is responsible for how a person is. Oh look http://www.dnate.com/nature_vs_nurture/ There is a DEBATE on nature vs. nurture specifically because no one can prove the claims you're trying to make or any similar claims. Btw: your articles of twins and adopted kids more prove that it is more due to nature, not nurture of 50% of each, you invalidated yourself.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

I said my psych teacher said it was ABOUT 50/50. Either way, it's a combination of both. And as I told truuninja, I really don't want to. If you're that invested, find it yourself.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Yes you did, no you didn't, I don't need to do that, yes I do, no it is not.

by Anonymous 11 years ago

Truuninja: are you serious? How can you be sure I didn't make them up when you refuse to research the subject? Also, you can't tell me what I learned and didn't. My psych teacher literally told me that it's about a 50/50 combination of each. I know that he had an article or something at the time; I can't be bothered to find it right now, but feel free to try and find it yourself.

by Anonymous 11 years ago