I think that I might quit analysis of the human psyche and influences of our personalities if the words nature vs. nurture pop into my head next to each other one more time. Whether I like it or not, I am always thinking about it, even if it is in my subconscious, and it drives me so far up the wall that I feel like might crash into the ceiling. While the answer isn't discovered through experience or even by oneself, there has to be something about the question that addicts and maddens people on a vivacious cycle. So, what is it?
Something I find interesting about this question is the way the main purpose of its contemplation and embarking on a mental quest for its answer is also the very reason why the answer is undiscoverable. Exercising mentally on this treadmill is fatiguing, so let's take a break, shall we? Let's think that nature--something poems and literature this year have told us is the all-powerful, infallible last word on all things human--represents the all-powerful, infallible last word on all things human. If we were to let ourselves say this, would we be so far off?
Unfortunately, or at least in my opinion, the answer to which we let ourselves ask is--drumroll please--no. I say "unfortunately" because as much as we like to believe that our surroundings have an equal if not greater influence over us, we can only vary slightly, not typically reverse, natural thoughts and tendencies which were pre-determined. We fancy having freedom and being self-reliant, independent entities and mavericks. I, only being human myself, fall victim to these same patterns. As a matter or fact, I think that thinking these things has a bit of a placebo effect on us and does allow us to change ourselves (however, the degree of that change is blown significantly out of proportion). The inconvenient truth of this inconvenient truth blog post is that we are bound by, governed, and dependent upon the parameters which nature has put in place since the first steps of mankind were taken; that's just how it has been, is, and that's just how it's going to be.
My health teacher likes to say: "egg, sperm, shazam!" She gets me every time! But when I find myself truly considering the idea of conception, I don't think about the visual she so kindly provides. On the contrary, I don't even think about a physical being in the slightest, but I picture a hand, drawing out the roadmaps to our lives based on those related to us in all sorts of ways. So how do we defy fate? Well, it's the wrong turns take at the stoplights that The Hand has placed in our way. Those are the money's we live for and they're what makes us distinguishable from one another. But when all is said and done, I find that our tires find a way back to the sidestreets with no outlet, or the interstates that take you into infinity and purposelessness. I don't like it any more than you do, but too many of us have to admit that it is true.
I only somewhat agree with this post. I do believe that some aspects of our lives are created by fate or nature or whatever you want to call it, but not all. There are many things we have control over. I believe that this "road" we're put on brings us to intersections, but allows us the choice of which direction we want to go and continues from there. There's no one path we are meant to take, but there are decisions we are meant to make. Our destination isn't determined until we get there.
ReplyDeleteAaron, in this blog you create an in-depth analysis on one of science's most interesting questions; the famous nature vs. nurture debate. You come to the conclusion that while our surroundings do have an affect on us, it is mostly a placebo; because we think they do, we act like it, and so you take the side of nature.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I think defining what nature vs. nurture means would be beneficial. In my opinion, and in the way I think you use the terms,nature is your genetics, while nurture is your surroundings, education and opportunities.
I personally half - agree with Aaron's blog post. I have to say that his observation about a placebo-type effect when it comes to "nurture" is very insightful, I had never though of that before and it has actually changed my viewpoint on the subject. But I believe that nature only "wins out" in the most extreme cases; for example, Indian mathematician Ramanujan was born in his country's slums, and did not receive any schooling. He managed to get his hands on a math book, and from that he derived so many knew formulas, and even created new branches of math. That's how he was wired; that was his nature, and no matter what conditions surrounded him, it showed itself.
But, for example, the average North Shore student might not share the same experience. If he/she was very good at chess, maybe not incredible but very good, his/her environment would, in my opinion, prevent him/her from ever even starting to play; that's not something kids do these days.
So while I am impressed with Aaron's insight into the placebo effect of one's environment, I only agree with his hypotheses in the most extreme cases.