Post # 1
Just for fun, do you believe that a persons gentic makeup (nature) or their surrounding influences and their upbringing (nurture) is responsible for the development of their personality and traits.
I believe that nurturing plays a more significant part in the development of a persons personality, morals, ethics and values, but that in some cases genetics can play a role too (history of mental illness, psychosis etc)
What are your views bees and why?
Post # 3
As a criminologist, and someone who has spent a lot of time reading current research on this debate as it pertains to criminality, I don’t think you can say either side really has a monopoly. Most research indicates that both nature and nurture play significant roles in the developement of a character, ethics, morals, etc – neither exclude each other.
Post # 4
I believe it is a mix of both. I didn’t vote because that wasn’t an option, and I honestly don’t believe one is more important than the other. There are some things that just CAN’T be overcome. And there are others that CAN be overcome with the right set of circumstances. It’s not an either or.
Post # 5
I think it’s a little of column A & a bit of column B. Babies definitely have personalities in the womb; some people just start off more agressive/passive, outgoing/shy, active/easygoing but nurturing goes a long way.
Post # 6
You need to add a poll option for both!
My FI is adopted, and while there are definitely aspects of his personality that I believe can be attributed to his parents, there are *definitely* things about him that we think he gets from his biological family, whom he has never met. He says sometimes he feels like his adoptive parents don’t always understand him, and that he thinks his biological parents might ‘get’ things about his personality that his adoptive ones sometimes don’t.
Post # 7
- Wedding: June 2014 - Ontario, Canada ♥ EDD- April 2016
I would vote both if that was an option (:
Post # 8
Both, definitely. I suppose I lean towards nurture being a bit stronger than nature though.
Post # 9
The interaction between both and the compound effects thereof.
Post # 10
What I learned in school was that nature gives you the tendency or higher likelihood of developing a mental illness (or a talent, for that matter) and that nurutre or environment is what puts you over the line. Either one is highly unlikely to do it alone.
Post # 11
I think both certainly have an effect; however, I would weight nurture as being much more important than nature.
Some of you may have seen this clip (link below) before, but I think it’s worth posting here in relation to this discussion. This clip explains more about how I personally feel about this issue than anything else I might be able to say.
Post # 12
@MissMfutureMrsB: You should add “both” as an option. I was a nueropsychology major and believe that we and all things are an intricate combination of the genes we are born with and environment we are raised and exist in.
Post # 13
I believe in the bio-psycho-social approach to understanding.
I’m sometimes challenged to see things from more than a nature or nurture standpoint. I recently read an article about possible environmental factors that can lead to the development of schitzophrenia. Whether I subscribe to the findings it was a good eye opener that there are some things I easily take the nature route and don’t consider that there may be other factors.
I think understanding through a holistic approach lends itself to a more hopeful outlook toward one another IMO.
Post # 14
Um, impossible for it not to be both.
Post # 15
An option for both has been added Bees
Post # 16
Epigenetics research suggests a complicated combination of both genetic predisposition and environmental elements. I personally agree with the interaction of both forms aspects of a person, especially those such as personality or psychological state.