Subject:
|
Re: File under 'D'...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 20 Dec 2003 00:48:20 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
565 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys wrote:
>
> 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.
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. That is, nature can affect the flight considerably, but not the arrows
so much.
I tend to think that, even though identical twins may end up with very different
personalities and hair dos over 30 years, and their DNA may even mutate slightly
differently, but on average, I like to think that nature & nurture are pretty
balanced - some people are changed more by their environment, some less.
In the end though, it's probably impossible to quantify, as you can only take a
(very) small subset of human (or whatever) attributes to compare anyway, and the
proponents of "nature" are likely to use a wildly different subset in order to
substantiate their belief. Sorta like who pays the statistician really...
ROSCO
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: File under 'D'...
|
| 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
