 Nature Vs Nurture |
Greyone 
Master Producer
Registration Date: 01-04-2005
Posts: 6,285
Helpfulness rating:
 |
|
| quote: |
Nature versus nurture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The nature versus nurture debates concern the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature", i.e. nativism, or innatism) versus personal experiences ("nurture", i.e. empiricism or behaviorism) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits.
The view that humans acquire all or almost all their behavioral traits from "nurture" is known as tabula rasa ("blank slate"). This question was once considered to be an appropriate division of developmental influences, but since both types of factors are known to play such interacting roles in development, many modern psychologists consider the question naive - representing an outdated state of knowledge.[1][2][3][4][5] Psychologist Donald Hebb is said to have once answered a journalist's question of "which, nature or nurture, contributes more to personality?" by asking in response, "which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?"[6][7][8][9]
For a discussion of nature versus nurture in language and other human universals, see also psychological nativism.
|
i had a big discussion about this yesterday
i say when you are creative for example that it is formed by the (right) connections in your brain , or when you are emotional sensitive it is formed in your brainstructure , that is ... growing and getting better when you grow up (example: bob dylan his son , he doesnt play music but when he would play it doesnt mean that he would be good in it just because his father was good )
while the other person said , it is in your dna and that you are creative /emotional /... that is ... allready there from birth (example : Bob dylan his son , if his son would play music he would be as good as his father cause he has it in his genes)
what do you think ?
|
|
|
08-08-2009 12:15 |
|
|
demure
mastication fo de nation
Registration Date: 22-01-2009
Posts: 921
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by Greyone
| quote: |
Nature versus nurture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The nature versus nurture debates concern the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature", i.e. nativism, or innatism) versus personal experiences ("nurture", i.e. empiricism or behaviorism) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits.
The view that humans acquire all or almost all their behavioral traits from "nurture" is known as tabula rasa ("blank slate"). This question was once considered to be an appropriate division of developmental influences, but since both types of factors are known to play such interacting roles in development, many modern psychologists consider the question naive - representing an outdated state of knowledge.[1][2][3][4][5] Psychologist Donald Hebb is said to have once answered a journalist's question of "which, nature or nurture, contributes more to personality?" by asking in response, "which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?"[6][7][8][9]
For a discussion of nature versus nurture in language and other human universals, see also psychological nativism.
|
i had a big discussion about this yesterday
i say when you are creative for example that it is formed by the (right) connections in your brain , or when you are emotional sensitive it is formed in your brainstructure , that is ... growing and getting better when you grow up (example: bob dylan his son , he doesnt play music but when he would play it doesnt mean that he would be good in it just because his father was good )
while the other person said , it is in your dna and that you are creative /emotional /... that is ... allready there from birth (example : Bob dylan his son , if his son would play music he would be as good as his father cause he has it in his genes)
what do you think ? |
good subject
i honestly believe no one has a natural ability to do a certain thing i believe its more down to peoples commitment and attention to perfecting what they choose to do. every human on the planet regardless of circumstances. has the ability to be creative/mardy/ intellegent etc etc. but people have subjects that interest them and if they apply themselves they will easily master their chosen subject.
i watched a really good documentary, i am sure you know who vannessa mae is ( i think thats how its spelt), she tried to find out whether her violin skills were natural gift or the result of hard training and practice. it showed that humans being humans will be very biased towards the extreme answer as opposed to the logical one. all through the documentary you could see that clearly she wanted the answer to be that she was naturally gifted, suppose its just natural to behave in that (i say this lightly) elitist fasion with the society in which we live. but i really think if you want to be good at something you need to really work at it and hard.
i also believe that education though it has its weak points and faults, can teach you beyond the subject you are learning, what i mean is, for example you are in a science class, yes on one hand your learning about science, but you are also nurturing the ability to take in information, hence learn. which can then lead to the quicker learning of other subjects and help gain skills in those chosen topics a lot quicker.
just my 2 cents on the topic.
This post has been edited 1 time(s), it was last edited by demure: 08-08-2009 14:00.
|
|
|
08-08-2009 13:57 |
|
|
cynik
Cp6uja
Registration Date: 15-03-2005
Posts: 5,646
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
I believe its a combination of both and heres how... to be good at somehing its a given you need to master it well. to master something well you must be doing it relatively a long time (all is individual). there is my point... it must be in the in the genes what is something you really like to be doing so much and eventually be good at it. so both nature, then nurture are improtant
__
https://soundcloud.com/tsai-vidro-voves
|
|
|
08-08-2009 15:23 |
|
|
Greyone
Master Producer
Registration Date: 01-04-2005
Posts: 6,285
Helpfulness rating:
|
|
| quote: |
Originally posted by demure
| quote: |
Originally posted by Greyone
| quote: |
Nature versus nurture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The nature versus nurture debates concern the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature", i.e. nativism, or innatism) versus personal experiences ("nurture", i.e. empiricism or behaviorism) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits.
The view that humans acquire all or almost all their behavioral traits from "nurture" is known as tabula rasa ("blank slate"). This question was once considered to be an appropriate division of developmental influences, but since both types of factors are known to play such interacting roles in development, many modern psychologists consider the question naive - representing an outdated state of knowledge.[1][2][3][4][5] Psychologist Donald Hebb is said to have once answered a journalist's question of "which, nature or nurture, contributes more to personality?" by asking in response, "which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?"[6][7][8][9]
For a discussion of nature versus nurture in language and other human universals, see also psychological nativism.
|
i had a big discussion about this yesterday
i say when you are creative for example that it is formed by the (right) connections in your brain , or when you are emotional sensitive it is formed in your brainstructure , that is ... growing and getting better when you grow up (example: bob dylan his son , he doesnt play music but when he would play it doesnt mean that he would be good in it just because his father was good )
while the other person said , it is in your dna and that you are creative /emotional /... that is ... allready there from birth (example : Bob dylan his son , if his son would play music he would be as good as his father cause he has it in his genes)
what do you think ? |
good subject
i honestly believe no one has a natural ability to do a certain thing i believe its more down to peoples commitment and attention to perfecting what they choose to do. every human on the planet regardless of circumstances. has the ability to be creative/mardy/ intellegent etc etc. but people have subjects that interest them and if they apply themselves they will easily master their chosen subject.
i watched a really good documentary, i am sure you know who vannessa mae is ( i think thats how its spelt), she tried to find out whether her violin skills were natural gift or the result of hard training and practice. it showed that humans being humans will be very biased towards the extreme answer as opposed to the logical one. all through the documentary you could see that clearly she wanted the answer to be that she was naturally gifted, suppose its just natural to behave in that (i say this lightly) elitist fasion with the society in which we live. but i really think if you want to be good at something you need to really work at it and hard.
i also believe that education though it has its weak points and faults, can teach you beyond the subject you are learning, what i mean is, for example you are in a science class, yes on one hand your learning about science, but you are also nurturing the ability to take in information, hence learn. which can then lead to the quicker learning of other subjects and help gain skills in those chosen topics a lot quicker.
just my 2 cents on the topic. |
well its those 2 cents replies that i want to read 
you are right imo
|
|
|
08-08-2009 15:25 |
|
|
|
