Nature vs. Nurture

Joy · December 7th, 2006, 11:19 PM

Do you believe that we are born with a clean slate and our personalities and behaviors are shaped by our previous experiences? (Nurture)

Or, do you believe that our personality and behavior are coded into our genetic pattern? So, we are who we are from the moment we are conceived. (Nature)

This is a very big controversial discussion. What side do the members of KHI take?

Square Ninja · December 8th, 2006, 12:28 AM

It has been pretty much established in the scientific community that it is a combination thereof.

KrytenKoro · December 8th, 2006, 01:15 AM

Combination, with an emphesis on nurture.

ozymandius · December 8th, 2006, 01:31 AM

Yup, SN just about completely summed it up. I think that the notion that every action you make is based on genetic coding is completely rediculous. Plus, if that were true and accepted in court as a defense, it would almost completely undermine the justice system.

Think about it: A guy murders someone (we'll call him Bob) and there's like, 5 witnesses. Bob is arrested and has a trial. In the trial, his lawyer argues that his client's gene's say that he has a genetic disorder that causes him to burst into fits of uncontrollable rage that are stimulated by loud noises. Then, all the lawyer has to do is to tell the jury that cars were driving by and honking their horns, thus causing Bob to have one of his infamous bursts of rage. Assuming that the murder happened in the city, we can almost guarentee (sp?) that somewhere in the neighborhood, a car was honking its horn. The witnesses would have all heard it as well, and thus, cannot prove that it (the murder) was commited for personal reasons. See what I'm getting at here?

KrytenKoro · December 8th, 2006, 01:58 AM

Or, you know, you could have just said the much shorter and understandable "Twins" argument. As it, you know, consists of ONE WORD

Plus, I think your example is actually, and unfortunately, permissible in American Justice.

So the point of the argument: if you have a twin sibling, you have a free ticket to crime, so long as you get them to play along.

ozymandius · December 8th, 2006, 09:23 PM

Hhhmmm...well, that's true, but I was having a really good day with examples and the like, so I just decided to use Bob and the loud noises xD.

Either way, Bob would still be accountable for his actions, even if he had such a disorder.

CK the Fat · December 11th, 2006, 09:55 PM

I find Phoenix's theory in the religious debates interesting, that the concept of "free will" cannot exist because everything we do is based off of nature and nurture, and that there is no room for anything else (as known by the scientific community, anyway... the idea of the soul and God will likewise be among the religious communites).

That makes me ask, though... at what point is a human an intelligent being, and at what point is it just another mass of cells working together to eat, drink, and have sex?

Square Ninja · December 11th, 2006, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CK the Fat

I find Phoenix's theory in the religious debates interesting, that the concept of "free will" cannot exist because everything we do is based off of nature and nurture, and that there is no room for anything else (as known by the scientific community, anyway... the idea of the soul and God will likewise be among the religious communites).

That makes me ask, though... at what point is a human an intelligent being, and at what point is it just another mass of cells working together to eat, drink, and have sex?

Are you sure this is in the right thread?

CK the Fat · December 12th, 2006, 03:22 AM

"Are you sure this is in the right thread?"

Why isn't it? The debate revolves around genes and experience (or nature vrs nurture,) and after all, "This is a very big controversial discussion."

Scientifically it's been proven humans are a combo of both--so i take it if there is to really be a debate it has to be about something slightly different.