Subject:
|
Re: File under 'D'...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:43:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
588 times
|
| |
|
|
Just going thru this in my mind--
Nature is basically the 'building blocks' you are given at birth--hair colour,
sex, height--and yes, nature changes your appearance as you row older, but, if I
understand genetics properly, that change is pretty much set from the
start--i.e. given two people with *exactly* the same genes, DNA, whatever, those
two people will be physically identical as time goes by.
That is, if they also live exactly the same life--but that's just a point to
consider. We have to start factoring out things--so to start--nature, for me,
is pretty much set at birth. Cosmetically, we can alter our 'nature' (change
hair colour, weight, etc...) but those are cosmetic differences only, and we are
consiously changing the 'environment (nrture) of our body.
So here it is--if we could test this--you get two people who have exactly the
same "nature" (DNA, etc...), and you place these two identical people in
radically differnt environements at birth. Come back in 30 years and see how
they grew up.
Then you grab two people, with somewhat different "natures" (different DNA
makeup, whatever) and you raise them identical environments... and see how those
two turned out.
I hypothesize (without any degree of scientific credibility by far :) ) that the
two identical people raised differently would be extremely different people,
whereas the two genetically different people raised in the same fashion would be
pretty much the same.
Here's my rationale behind this hypothesis--
Chaos theory ;)
Expound--if nature is basically set at birth, it's like an archer releasing an
arrow.
So two archers, two identical arrows, pointing in the same direction, released
at the same time with the same force (all things equal). That said, once the
arrow is in motion, external factors (nurture/environment) push each arrow in
different directions--and the arrows would not hit the target (30 years later)
remotely close to one another.
Take the two archers, change a few initial settings (arrow colour, maybe the
feathers are different sizes, maybe one arrow is released with somewhat less
force than the other)--understand I'm not talking *radically* different, like
the difference between the genetic make-up of a monkey vs the genetic makeup of
a human--just somewhat different. Both archers take their shots, and the
environment treats the arrows exactly the same--the arrows would, I think, be
close to one another at the target (30 + years)
This is a very brief explanation as to why I think, personally, nurture
influences us more than nature does. Nature does affect who we are, but I think
Nurture is a bigger influence.
Dave K
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: File under 'D'...
|
| (...) Ahhhh but you're only looking at the point of impact as defining the arrow, but in fact its probably more physical things about the arrow that define it. And these are unlikely to change much no matter how they're influenced in their flight. (...) (21 years ago, 20-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: File under 'D'...
|
| (...) Sure, if we have parents raise a racoon, I favour nature as well... That said, you raise a racoon in a house with humans, that racoon would behave substantially different as an adult than a racoon raised by other racoons "out in the woods". So (...) (21 years ago, 19-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
