Subject:
|
Re: File under 'D'...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 19 Dec 2003 20:45:36 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
590 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
> > 1-though I am usually more disposed between nurture over nature for
> > how kids turn out--not 100 percent, to be sure, but nurture is more
> > than 50 percent of the battle.
>
> Since I'm still slummin in .debate for now, I figure I just can't
> ignore this little nugget.
>
> Care to discuss why you give the advantage to nurture? I mean, if
> I were to adopt a monkey for instance, I'd tend to say "advantage
> nature".
First of all, George W. Bush already has parents, so there's no need to adopt
him.
Secondly, the "nature vs. nurture" argument generally involves comparisons
between individuals very similar to each other except regarding a specific range
of behaviors. That's why identical twins separated at birth are favorites for
this kind of research. You can use a chimp and a human to evaluate nature vs.
nurture, but you'll need to broaden your criteria in proportion to the range of
difference between the two species, so that there is some common ground between
them. I'd suggest that "ability to socialize after a childhood spent in
isolation" or "ability to find food without peer instruction" would be more
appropriate measures in that regard.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: File under 'D'...
|
| (...) Since I'm still slummin in .debate for now, I figure I just can't ignore this little nugget. Care to discuss why you give the advantage to nurture? I mean, if I were to adopt a monkey for instance, I'd tend to say "advantage nature". Which (...) (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
|
|
|
|
