[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 50 KB, 300x278, nature-vs-nurture.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2710062 No.2710062 [Reply] [Original]

What do you think is the relationship between nature and nurture in human attributes?

I'd say it 25% genes, 35% environment and 40% free will.

>> No.2710067

THE WILL OF MY UNCONTROLLABLE ELECTRONS

>> No.2710073
File: 35 KB, 400x300, kain.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2710073

i'd say it's 65% nature, 35% nurture, and 0% free will.

free will is an illusion

>> No.2710082

>>2710062
Free will, AHAHAHAHAHA, sage.

>> No.2710079

50% radioactivity
50% magnets

>> No.2710092

100% genes, everything extends from genes.

>> No.2710094

90% genes, 9.999% culture, 0.001% random quantum events affecting neural connections free will

>> No.2710100

I'd say it 26% genes, 36% environment and 38% free will.

>> No.2710106

>>2710092
not so.

if that were true, identical twins would behave exactly the same even when brought up in different environments.

>> No.2710107

>>2710092
lol no

>> No.2710112

95% nurture, 5% genetics

>> No.2710114

>>2710100
that doesn't even add up to 100%, asshat.

>> No.2710119
File: 68 KB, 400x365, 1295863684054.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2710119

>>2710114

>> No.2710125

>>2710106
But how we adapt/are shaped by the environment is determined by genes, amirite?

>> No.2710135

itt we apply absolute percentages to things that numbers cannot ever be applied to

>> No.2710133

bullshit% nurture, bullshit% nature, 100% luck

>> No.2710132

100% God

>> No.2710140

>>2710062
>free will

>> No.2710143

50% nurture 25% genes 25% chance

>> No.2710146
File: 37 KB, 399x525, couldntresist.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2710146

>>2710119
okay that was me...couldnt resist.
;)

>> No.2710153

>>2710143
nurture (environment) and chance are one and the same.

>> No.2710154

50% genes 50% nurture

nuture = 50% genes of parents 50% their nuture

>> No.2710167

Genes are only activated given certain enviromental factors. So you might have a genetic predisposition to be depressed, but you'll only become depressed if you're bullied, abused, raped etc and the genes are activated

95% enviroment, 5% genes

>> No.2710168
File: 132 KB, 686x686, Thisiscorrect.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2710168

>>2710135
this...seriously.

/thread

>> No.2710173

ITT: Faggots ignore epigenetics

>> No.2710202

>free will.
I lol'd

Every decision you will ever make is made with your brain. The way in which your brain makes decisions is determined 1) by the genetic information deciding its structure and 2) by the environment it interprets as it develops and grows. When you decide between pie and cake you don't make a "free" choice, you use the genetically determined system of information processing to compare the two using information you already know about them- how they taste, typical serving size, etc. At no point do you make any decision that couldn't be made by a machine following the same logic as yourself.

>> No.2710230

>>2710202
Someone rip this apart. I can't cope with thinking that my philosophy is wrong and I could be corrected

>> No.2710232

>>2710202
Lets not forget that all the choices you make are made in your subconscious, long before you are aware of them.

>> No.2710236

>>2710202

12 year old detected

>> No.2710247

>>2710153
They aren't.

Nurture is something controllable.
Chance isn't.

>> No.2710257

>>2710202
and then you do the opposite?

>> No.2710266

>>2710236
flawless response. Care to provide an argument?
>>2710232
The conscious isn't so much a separate element of the mind as the output of it- the complex calculations are done in the "subconscious" and the "conscious" just shows the results. Even decisions about what to do next, though of as being conscious, are actually from the subconscious.
>>2710257
I don't understand what you're trying to say

>> No.2710267

>>2710135
>implying physics is wrong

>> No.2710275

>>2710230
Explain suicide. Clearly, this works against our genetics.

>> No.2710281

>>2710266
>Care to provide an argument?

I'm not saying I disagree with you. I'm saying you're a faggot and you probably like anime.

>> No.2710307

>>2710275
Suicide works in much the same way with free will or without. Humans do what seems like the best decision at the time, judging between options available using previously acquired knowledge. The fact that suicide makes you dead, as obvious as it seems, isn't given full value, as in the past humans probably wouldn't have considered it an option. The scale of death isn't ingrained genetically or environmentally because in a less structured environment it would be far more common, and causing it to one's self would defeat the object of living.

>>2710281
>faggot
yes
>anime
never even watched pokemon. Criticising people for liking anime on a website originating in discussion of anime seems oxymoronic, though

>> No.2710320

>>2710275
Explain why cakes sometimes taste bad, even if the recipe was good.

>> No.2710324

If determinism is right (and it is), then it's 100% "nature".

>> No.2710325

>40% free will

0/10 troll harder

>> No.2710335

>>2710307
>Humans do what seems like the best decision at the time, judging between options available using previously acquired knowledge.
But it's not always based on rational decisions (e.g., teenage suicides). Rational and intelligent decision making is the hallmark of human evolution. Such stupid acts seem to counter that.

>> No.2710344

>>2710281
sage, just because your a ten year old whos calling people faggots does not make you cool

>> No.2710371
File: 75 KB, 567x667, tolman_edward.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2710371

the best way to find out how much a given attribute is shaped by environment vs. genetics would be to create a situation in which a group of highly diverse people were all reared, educated, and tested in an identical environment. Then the difference between these groups could be completely attributed to genetics.

So, the more control you have on the environment the more of the resultant variation is to be due to genetic variation.

>> No.2710374

>>2710335
as anyone who has attempted suicide will tell you, at the time of the suicide all evidence seems to suggest it's the most rational decision. Being beings that were designed for sex and killing, not rational discourse, working out alternatives to complex social problems(father I am homosex/son I am disappoint, for example) is far from perfect
Other possible factors would be the fact that the more socially active a person is the more they will be pressured to conform socially, meaning the young feel most at risk, and hormonal/structural changes which alter the way in which information is processed

>> No.2710387

20% Nature 70% Nurture 10% OP is a fag

>> No.2710398

>>2710387
>obvious butthurt

>> No.2710407

i'd say 20% genes 80% environment

wtf is free will??

>> No.2710445
File: 68 KB, 1445x800, evolution_is_suicide_wallpaper.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2710445

>>2710275
>Explain suicide.
It's the only rational alternative.

>> No.2710460

70% genetics 30% environment.
Ever heard of the twin experiment?
Twins have been seperated at birth and raised in different houses- different income brackets, different political leanings, etc, but they're still incredibly similar in personality, tastes, etc.

>> No.2710471
File: 7 KB, 284x177, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2710471

>>2710445
you need to spice up your life

>> No.2710520

>>2710460
That's also why some siblings seperated at birth want to fuck each other... because then Westermarck effect cannot take place

>> No.2710552

ITT: 100% misunderstanding and misuse of statistics.

>> No.2710565

>>2710552
>obvious libfag

>> No.2710583

>>2710520
Uh what
The twin thing has nothing to do with the Westermarck effect- I was not implying that they'd then go on to fuck each other.
I was trying to say that genetics have a much bigger role than not only people realise, but more than people want to actually admit.

Everyone should be a recoverable snowflake, tainted only by environment, and absolved of responsibility.
It's not true. Assholes are born assholes.
Sure they can be taught to reduce their assholeness, but they're still assholes.

>> No.2710639

50% genes, 50% nature, and 50% quantum tangling

>> No.2710695

>>2710062
OP watch: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5YJfPBqPNE

it's how it is.

>> No.2710723

>>2710695
this one is more fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUqbm-Sn89Q **dubstep :P**

>> No.2710788

randomness=/= free will. Free will is a concept that applies to people on a social level, it cannot apply to individual thought processes on a neuronal level, unless you try to argue that those neurons have full minds of their own, which only begs the question where THEIR minds' came from? and all the way down to infinity.

I think it's 25% Electromagnetic rays (including 5% HAARP), 35% chemical (hormones in meat, flouride in water and chemtrails) and >9000% jewish media conspiracy.

>> No.2710802

Cool unfounded bullshit OP.
Any development psychologist will tell you that genes cause the vast majority of your behavior. Tons of studies have been done that show this.

Free will? Your free will is the product of your genes to a lesser extent your environment. It does not play into this. At all.

Fuckwit.