Thread replies: 20
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3
Which one do you believe takes a more prominent role in peoples personalities. Personally I believe that nurture is the biggest role. The best way to raise a child is to teach them that waiting for a greater reward is better than having instant satisfaction as tested in the Stanford marshmallow experiment.
What is /sci/'s thoughts on this?
>>
This is gonna be a delicious /pol/ vs reddit shitfest. *Grab popcorn*
>>
This is retarded meme that is decades old. It's always about gene-environment interaction. There is no one or the other. It's always both.
>>
Nurture is more important
>>
File: genetics.png (204KB, 444x604px) Image search:
[Google]
204KB, 444x604px
thread theme
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVTXPUF4Oz4
>>
>>8294377
This.
>>
>>
>>8294377
This. 100% of diseases has a genetic component.
>>
>>8294398
>5% genes and 95% nuture
I think you are trying to oversimplify it. How it works is that your genes determine how you respond to the kind of nurture you are given. Generally speaking, humans have basically identical genes so implementing a kind of nurture will affect all people in a generally similar way. When you go down to specifics like how a person dresses and how much they crave attention etc, that's where you see the differences of people's genes affecting their response to their nurture.
Take a look at twin studies. Time and time again, you see identical twins raised in different households becoming more alike than non identical twins raised in the same household. One more thing to add is that a significant amount of what shapes a person is actually related to the friends they make. That does come around to environment once again but the point is, when it comes to environment, the friends you make affect you more than your parents.
I'd prefer to be citing sources here but a good, well referenced book that attempts to consider all of these possibilities without bias is Steven Pinker's book " the blank slate". He's definitely one of the best when it comes to making pop sci book as academic as possible.
>>
To be fair I would say that genetic hard code the variable distribution while nurture decides what the actual value is.
>>
>>8294418
>Time and time again, you see identical twins raised in different households becoming more alike than non identical twins raised in the same household.
No I don't. I'ver never seen that in fact.
>Steven Pinker's book " the blank slate"
>Steven Pinker
>psychologist
You have the wrong board mate.
>>>/b/
>>>/pol/
>>>/soc/
>>>/mlp/
>>
>>8294438
>No I don't. I'ver never seen that in fact.
Maybe you should take a look then. There's plenty of studies out there.
What is the basis for your argument then? Are you basing what you're saying off of something that has been studied or are you saying something that "makes sense" to you? Something akin to a gut feeling.
>Steven Pinker
>psychologist
It seems a little much to dismiss his work simply because of what he's studied. I can see it because there's a lot of bullshit in the field but he doesn't talk about work he's done. He's citing work that others have done and a lot of the work he cites has been carried out by physicists who've somehow become interested in these things. I can trust a physicist in charge of the statistical work. I've at least taken a look Pinker's book to judge for myself. Have you?
>>
>>8294465
>There's plenty of studies out there.
Where?
>simply because of what he's studied.
No, it's simply because of what he hasn't studied. You don't understand hard sciences and there's no point explaining anything to you. You're just another /pol/tard who has taken a more covert approach to racist propaganda because the obvious one would get you banned.
Just go back to your homeboard.
>>>/pol/
>>
>>8294500
>Where?
Man, you have to look for it. I'm not gonna spoon feed it to you. If you want to take a serious look at something, you have to dig in. It's inconsequential to me whether or not you look at this shit.
>No, it's simply because of what he hasn't studied
That's totally fair. The thing is, I'm not talking about his work. We're talking about people with physics Phd's who've taken the time to look at these things. Sure the guy is presenting it to you and trying to interpret if for you but the results are there.
>You don't understand hard sciences
I'm trying to tell you about studies I've read while you're expecting people to submit to your opinion without any rational discussion. In the hard sciences you don't expect people to submit to your opinion. You show them the results of your experiments/proofs of your theorems and possibly elaborate on what it could mean.
>You're just another /pol/tard who has taken a more covert approach to racist propaganda because the obvious one would get you banned.
What the fuck. I don't even know how to interpret this. It sounds like you've created an image of me so that you don't have to have any discussion and simply brush everything I have to say under the rug. I think strawman is the word. It doesn't seem like you're putting any thought into anything I'm saying.
>>
>>8294521
>Man, you have to look for it. I'm not gonna spoon feed it to you.
You can either link the study here or fuck right off with your pseudoscience.
>>
>>8294573
I'm not talking about a specific study. I'm not talking about many studies that I've read a while ago in a book. You're just as capable as me to go out looking for it.
>5% genes and 95% nurture
How about you talk about some studies supporting your claim? I'm interested in having a debate here and it doesn't seem like you're capable of having a scientific discussion.
>>
File: this is moot.jpg (101KB, 800x599px) Image search:
[Google]
101KB, 800x599px
Moot.
The debate is irrelevant.
Nature = DNA information which creates personality traits
Nurture = Memory information which creates personality traits
But all humans have some form of genetic memory. It's why we know to hold our breath underwater when born and gives us fears and phobias. In this regard memory in the brain and memory in DNA are indistinguishable. The argument is moot.
>>
>>8294373
is Random Bullshit included in Nature
>>
>>8294904
I dont think op meant this to be asked as only nature or only nurture but rather which plays the larger role in development.
>>
Individuals experience/perceptions/ways of interacting with stimulus
>free thought's thought
Thread posts: 20
Thread images: 3
Thread images: 3