Nature VS Nurture, which one defines a person more?

There are people who say that a person's behavior is hereditary and other say, the way a person is raised.

What do you think?

EX:

If your clan has a history of men being gay or having mental issues, there is a possibility that you will suffer the same thing.

or

He lives in the slums, he must be the violent type.

A mixture I think. But Nurture more.

The way a person is raised. THere may be some genetic traits that you inherit but 95% of who you are is determined by your surroundings.

Its a mix in my opinion.

I agree with Pyrogram and partially pooty

This debate is still raging on til this day.

A person can make a good argument for both sides.

v.v It's a stupid debate because they both change each other. We do x that reinforces y which causes z that prompts x

The environment can have an impact but the largest effect is how they are nurtured because that will determine how they interact with the environment.

80% Nurture

15% Nature

5% Batman

Can you explain the Batman Factor, because I'm pretty sure, if what I am thinking is correct would go 80%. LOLZ

It's very simple. I say don't let others determine who you are, be happy with who you are....unless you can be Batman, then be Batman. Everyone of us has a 5% chance of being Batman.

In all of my psy classes the best way to answer this question they told me was a mix of both but nurture had a sligh more edge to the person's behavior.

Bold statement, but a little naive (no offense). By saying so, are you saying that you are prepared to be a social outcast just to assert yourself as an individual? That would take a lot of determination, if you can then kudos to you.

I AM VENGEANCE, I AM THE NIGHT!!!

Any evidence for that?

I look at it like a trick question based on how our species has understood reality in the past. If you raise a child or leave man to his own nature what becomes of him, and how different is that if you care and nurture the child and instruct the man to live in society among peers? Everything is nature and natural and nurture falls under that, but nurture can be a subjective and relative thing and peoples ideas of what is natural or not can differ. Many people have considered many of man's inventions and technology and actions as unnatural because they were novel, unusual or greater or worse than what (other) animals were up to.

In a sense nurture can often be considered more important because of how we perceive it, as actions and choices that involve proactivity and decision, but either way perceptions (and shunning, reacting, acting, affirming, living up to, denying etc those perceptions) usually defines a person and others more than nature and nurture and nature and nurture acting as reference points for those perceptions.

Of course not.

@the_stegman: 30% Nature 30% Nurture 40% Justice League

Then why label statistics?

Nurture takes precedence to Nature.

Nice

It's both. But the percentages differ. Some people are mostly defined by their nature, while some are mostly defined by their nurture. Some are equally defined by their nature and nurture. Either way, nature and nurture both affect you

@omgomgwtfwtf: @cameron83: @silkyballfro94: @kiltro95: @durakken: @humanrocket: @the_stegman: @sc: @flashdamn: @mrdecepticonleader: @the_pain: @batmannflash: @pooty: @pyrogram:

Another question, is malice innate in man or developed?

I feel it's developed. There has to be reasons to why the person would want to cause harm to another whether its because of jealously or creed or other reasons.

@overlordarhas: I think it's developed (nurture) and innate (nature). You can't be born evil. HOWEVER, you can be born with more aggressive tendencies or chemical imbalances which could lead to evil. The choices you make are nurture and your nature might make give you different desires and make it harder to control those impulses. I think.

However I do feel that humans are all born imperfect and will do plenty of dishonest actions. What I mentioned above is the higher tendency to do malice

Evil? What is evil? How exactly are you defining evil here?

@mrdecepticonleader: sorry, "malice." the intention to do immoral things...as in killing. A lot of serial killers are born with chemical imbalances. Some killers become who they are because of their environment

@overlordarhas: Malice is a symptom to an ailment all men are born with, self preservation.

You meant malice instead? Okay.

@overlordarhas: No one intends to do harm in general. In specific sure... people sometimes want to hurt others for various reasons, but its not innate in our nature to want to hurt others... if it were, we'd have killed ourselves by now. Things like that tend to destroy themselves...

Is it not malice the act of doing something wrong/perverse when you know and with full knowledge that what you are about to commit or committed are against the law or what is socially acceptable?

Isn't our ID the dominant trait when we are born which focus on self all the time.

It would be 70 nurture - 30 nature, Imo. I recall reading somewhere that people with violent family history tend to be violent, though it could be just a claim..

@overlordarhas: If we define malice as the intention to do evil, wrong, and or desire to commit or cause injury or pain or harm to another or others. Then it depends. Its as innate in us as our awareness, intelligence, consciousness and individuality are. Are we considered aware, intelligent, conscious or as individuals when we are sperm? Not usually. I can't remember exactly but I think babies usually develop what we consider consciousness around five months of age and the development of awareness, knowledge and intelligence within us as well as our individuality are all things that occur in various different ways. Since we don't like in a perfect bubble, the development of the aforementioned as well as just the development of our physical health will be influenced by factors both internal to us and external. Our combination of awareness, intelligence, consciousness and individuality is what determines our ability to act in malice. Since there are different degrees of awareness, intelligence, consciousness and individuality and another important variable, experience, you can have situations where people will act in malice.

From there you can question whether the person felt justified, why they felt justified, whether they were driven by righteousness, whether they consider themselves wrong but consider the other person deserved it, whether they even considered anything at all, maybe they acted from instinct or emotion and retroactively process their acts as malice. In any sense the capacity for moral or ethical behavior and action depends on internal and external factors, intelligence, experience, awareness, empathy, consciousness and also the situations to apply that ability in practice and also contrast it with others, and other things. Like we can contrast such questions against cats and stones. Stones have no brains or capacity for awareness, intelligence etc but cats to some degree are, just not on the same level as humans, but humans experience, awareness, knowledge and all that can differ quite a bit and again differ for internal reasons and external reasons.

@sc: Another long but well thought of post. Nice :)

@sc:

Kind of a touchy subject, let us put it in an example;

A head hunter in an African tribe hunts and decapitates his victims and coming back to his tribe a hero. We know it is bad to kill someone but to them it is the norm and I do not think that there is malice on the head hunter's heart for it is his duty. Correct me if I am wrong.

@overlordarhas: I believe malice is innate in us because of our ability to know what is right and wrong. If it is not, then why is it so damn hard to resist?

Maybe it is innate to man to be evil?

@princearagorn1: Thank you kindly!

Sure! I would dispute the notion that we know it is bad to kill someone though, not that I would say that it isn't bad to kill someone, just that its a lot more complicated and nuanced than that, or at least it often can be. A very standard definition of kill, is to cause the death of. For many elderly in severe and agonizing pain in which there is no reasonable chance of recovery and hope for comfort for them, euthanasia isn't considered by many to be bad. A trained medical professional causes the death of a patient = they kill the patient = they kill someone = its not bad/wrong. Many soldiers and police are put into situations where they must kill someone, and the decision to kill isn't the worst or inferior choice, but then it isn't necessarily the best either. Whether its bad or not depends on the circumstance.

Many tribes and peoples have engaged in and practiced headhunting, and so its as you say the norm. Its common practice, and because it perceived as normal and natural and unbiased and not necessarily personal your right that a lot of malice may be removed by circumstance especially for the person doing the headhunting, then again to the children or family of the victims who lost their heads, the headhunter responsible is evil, and now a target for retribution and revenge and when his head is decapitated then justice will be served right? Well maybe... maybe not in the eyes of the children and family of the original headhunter. Thats a potential cycle of bloody brutal violence that both negatively impacts on both tribes feuding based on perceived and actual vendettas. The malice here (intent to injure and harm others) can be justified, as in they killed my father and stole his head, I will seek to injure and harm them and remove their head or it can be justified by being righteous. I see these evil men do evil things, like chop off the heads of others, I will exact justice by removing their heads. To others though that approach can't justify such actions and so its labeled as malice.

To many modern day anthropologists, psychologists, biologists, historian or just people who know a bit about those topics, we can understand the reasons why headhunting behavior between two tribal groups is an unideal and not the most optimal situation for both groups to be in contrary to their understanding and beliefs. They'd also understand the reasons and behavior that would go into creating that scenario as well. Often its just ignorance. A situation with two groups interacting with each other and not headhunting each other is also and has been normal and common and can be advocated as the superior of the two situations which presents an objective basis to conclude that the situation with the two groups engaging in headhunting is bad/wrong, even if considered normal by the groups headhunting each other.

I don't think it is innate to want to harm others or want to see others suffer, unless you have some sort of mental illness. But I do think it is a somewhat natural tendency to be aggressive and ruthless. After all, we are animals.

Back in the days when everything was all creepy and the rules weren't so tight, people began to do experiments, cruel ones at that. They would take a baby and come feed it it's meals and give it water and then leave it be for the rest of the day (Healthy Physique). Though it never was given a hug or a reason to live, simply growing without purpose, it died without any "physical" explanation, other than simply having lost the will to live.

You decide.

Malice is a human construct created from our moral perspective.

An animal killing another animal is not considered malicious, but rather as an act of survival and a part of the natural order.

Humanity has to put to things in perspective in order to comprehend our place in the universe.

@overlordarhas said:

I don't see how that is relevant. The Id is carnal. Carnality isn't intent to do harm. And the Id, Ego, Super-ego paradigm is nonsense in itself. People aren't divided like that.Carnality is simply taking pleasure in the physical world, rather than the mental or "spiritual". People are generally carnal and that's ok if that is all they can experience. It doesn't mean that they have no interest in others and carnality isn't innately self serving, but if it were, it does not matter because the self and the group are both served by what is best for the other. Our systems a mistaken and not everyone is capable of fully understanding why it is the case that this is true, but regardless it is. The problem doesn't lie in the will to do harm or one putting them self above others. The problem stems from a lack of education, knowledge, and thinking things completely through... and allowing people who are not able to understand that what is best for the one and the group is the same thing to control the world

@overlordarhas: In terms of malice, I believe currently it occurs naturally. Maybe at one point in time it was a learned behavior. But since the practice has been past down for so many generations it is now a natural behavior. I also think monogamy is a learned behavior that now people think is a natural behavior.

Both nature and nurture have the potential to define a person as they are both in poay, but a conscious choice can be made by virtue of our intelligence and therefore, I would lean towards nurture which involves the individual and not just the environment.

As for malice -- it's developed.

90% of statistics are made up on the spot.

Bump