Nature or Nurture: What Shapes Our Personalities?

[Another God]

Originally posted by Siv
Then Pinker's latest book is a must-read for you.
He explains why, although the intellectual community asserts this all the time, as if it was silly to even point it out, in reality, they don't follow it ... or fight its implications tooth and nail.

Well, personally, I say it, and follow it. I really do believe that you rgenetic make up determines such basic factors like whether seratonin makes you feel excited or stressed, and therefore affects whether your are a risk taker or a coward...

Of course DNA is the rules for how you body reacts to the environment, and then your mind 'chooses' the course of action that seems the most likely based on how its development has set it up. (to give an obvious, easy example.)

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Siv
Then Pinker's latest book is a must-read for you.
He explains why, although the intellectual community asserts this all the time, as if it was silly to even point it out, in reality, they don't follow it ... or fight its implications tooth and nail.
Although everyone says "Oh, we all know that its nature plus nurture. So stop wasting your time" ... the moment anyone dares to point out the nature component, they are all up in arms against that person.
The implicit rule of thumb seems to be that if someone's suggesting more than 0% nature, they're suggesting 100% nature and they're all Fascists !

Read the book, its damn enlightening.
It throws wonderful new light (by which I mean evidence) on mundane topics such as violence, child rearing, gender etc.

- S.

Siv,
I think one reason that people are defensive or combative about the "nature" arguements is that, at least here in the US, they are often used to support racism and sexism. These arguements are exaggerated and twisted by white-supremicists and male-supremicists so that they bring discredit even upon genuinely good science.
Njorl

 

[Psychodelirium]

Originally posted by Siv
Then Pinker's latest book is a must-read for you.
He explains why, although the intellectual community asserts this all the time, as if it was silly to even point it out, in reality, they don't follow it ... or fight its implications tooth and nail.
Although everyone says "Oh, we all know that its nature plus nurture. So stop wasting your time" ... the moment anyone dares to point out the nature component, they are all up in arms against that person.
The implicit rule of thumb seems to be that if someone's suggesting more than 0% nature, they're suggesting 100% nature and they're all Fascists !

The flip side is that people who assert first their moderation and their distaste for that pointless nature/nurture question, and then their interest in one or the other of these components often tend to stray from the reasonable center to which they pledge allegiance. Pinker, I think, is no exception to this. But let me quote from http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20021125&s=blackburn112502&c=1 of Pinker's book:

There is a standard move--call it the demon move--in such a debate. First we establish our own reasonable credentials. We, the good guys, are not taken in by the labels. We recognize, of course, that any human being is the result of both nature and nurture. There is the biological or genetic endowment and there is the environment in which the biological or genetic endowment gets expressed. We good guys understand that it is meaningless to ask whether iron rusts because of the nature of iron or because of the environment in which the iron is put. We know that the rusting requires both. It is the deluded others, the bad guys, who forget entirely about one or the other of these components.

So if you wish to demonize theorists on the nature side, present them as genetic determinists who hold that there is no more to growing up than following a formula written in the genes. These dangerous fools think that iron is programmed to rust wherever you put it, as if oxygen and moisture had nothing to do with it. And if you are demonizing theorists on the nurture side, then portray them as holding that human beings have no characteristics at all except those that are inscribed by environment and culture. These dangerous fools think that the chemical nature of iron has nothing to do with whether it rusts. (There is also a second-order, or meta-demonizing, move to make. Not only have the dangerous fools got themselves into an extreme position, they also have the gall to paint people like us as extreme. They are not only blind to their own extremism, they are also blind to our moderation. The things they call us! They must be doubly demonic.)

The irony is that, having satisfactorily trashed the other side, people tend not to stay in the reasonable middle that they claim to occupy. The fig leaf of moderation is very quickly discarded. Just as in football a defeat for one side is a victory for the other, and in politics a defeat for the left is a victory for the right, so here a defeat of the others is a victory for whichever extreme appealed in the first place. We want simplicity, and our binary thinking is not hospitable to compromise or to pluralism. George W. Bush can woo the people by saying that you are with us or you are against us. He cannot do so by saying that you are with us or against us or somewhere in between. It appears that only fitfully and with effort can we keep it in our heads that iron rusts owing to a number of factors. In our hearts, we are pulled one way or the other."

And then,

If we imagine a scale from zero (genes have nothing to do with human nature) to ten (culture has nothing to do with human nature), I should guess that Pinker scores about nine.

...

Pinker believes that anybody who scores around five on my scale is in the grip of his demon myths, and really scores zero.

(I confess this last bit may be too harsh, but the point is well taken.)

Though I find evolutionary psychology interesting and valuable, I like to think that I am one of those rare individuals who have managed to keep their centrism throughout the debate, and I do not feel particularly pulled either in the nature or the nurture direction. From what I can gather though, Pinker is very obviously drawn to the former, which explains his strangely dismissive attitude toward explanations of human behavior that invoke culture. At times, Pinker also seems to think that human behavior is always determined bottom up, from the individual to the society, but never top down. I have said before, and continue to assert now that what we really have is a feedback relationship that flows both ways - one of those suggestions that everybody waves away as obvious but nobody turns out to believe once the pressure is on.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Psychodelirium
Though I find evolutionary psychology interesting and valuable, I like to think that I am one of those rare individuals who have managed to keep their centrism throughout the debate, and I do not feel particularly pulled either in the nature or the nurture direction. . . . I have said before, and continue to assert now that what we really have is a feedback relationship that flows both ways . . .

Nice post.

I think you might agree that in addition to those who agree it is both nature and nurture, are those who believe our "nature" is not just the result of evolution and genetics. It is an important question because how we consciously nurture ourselves and others should work best when we base it on what human nature really is.

That is why, in my opinion, there is passionate debate around whether we are only programmed beasts, or if we have a "spiritual" nature too (whatever that means) which precedes the physical conditions it is subjected to. In other words, part of the debate is deciding what we should consider a full complement of nurturing for humanity both now and for future generations.

 

[Siv]

Originally posted by Njorl
Siv,
I think one reason that people are defensive or combative about the "nature" arguements is that, at least here in the US, they are often used to support racism and sexism. These arguements are exaggerated and twisted by white-supremicists and male-supremicists so that they bring discredit even upon genuinely good science.
Njorl

But then that's wrong application of the theory. Why dismiss the valid theory just because someone applied it wrongly to justify their bigotry ?!

Again, that's no excuse.

- S.

 

[Siv]

Originally posted by Psychodelirium
The flip side is that people who assert first their moderation and their distaste for that pointless nature/nurture question, and then their interest in one or the other of these components often tend to stray from the reasonable center to which they pledge allegiance.

Does Pinker pledge allegiance to the "reasonable centre" ?! What is the reasonable centre BTW ? Why should the truth be in the middle of 2 opposing factions ? As someone (was it Dawkins ?) used to say ... " If 2 people disagree, one of them may just be wrong !" The truth need not always be in the centre.

PD, don't get me wrong. I know that you have read Pinker and know what you're talking about ... but from what I have read of him, I don't see him straying towards the nature side.
In fact, he does explicitly say multiple times that only 50% of the variation in behaviour can be attributed to a variance in genes. The rest is not. It has to do with the environment interaction. And he does say that it could have something to do with the early environment in the womb, chance factors which tend to "push" brain development a particular way rather than another.

His emphasis is more to dispel common myths about childhood family environment being more important than anything else etc. And it is true. I myself have read numerous studies which makes parenting responsible for almost everything - torturing working mothers and busy fathers. He just dispels these myths systematically, with evidence.
The assumption many people have that children are silly putty in the hands of their parents and home environment ... to be shaped and moulded as needed ... its so effectively refuted by him. Children are individual people, with their own unique natures. And have to be respected as such.

I don't understand how anyone can assert that he is far more towards nature in the nature-nurture scale. Based on what do they do that ?

Though I find evolutionary psychology interesting and valuable, I like to think that I am one of those rare individuals who have managed to keep their centrism throughout the debate, and I do not feel particularly pulled either in the nature or the nurture direction. From what I can gather though, Pinker is very obviously drawn to the former, which explains his strangely dismissive attitude toward explanations of human behavior that invoke culture. At times, Pinker also seems to think that human behavior is always determined bottom up, from the individual to the society, but never top down. I have said before, and continue to assert now that what we really have is a feedback relationship that flows both ways - one of those suggestions that everybody waves away as obvious but nobody turns out to believe once the pressure is on.

I don't think he dismisses culture anywhere, PD. He just refuses to believe that fundamental differences in behaviour can be entirely due to culture.

That nature cannot act in a vacuum is self evident, PD. I don't think anyone is denying that. Maybe you should cite where Pinker does that.I may be wrong, but I'd like to know why.

Why Pinker's work really fascinated me is because I have had many of the misconceptions that he dispels ... and to see how baseless they have been is really eye-opening. I have read only 2 of his books - How the Mind Works and Blank Slate (plus his assorted articles). I have, till date, not seen him make a baseless statement or exaggerate to prove a point. I know a few others (like Sagan) who used to do that.

- S.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by Siv
But then that's wrong application of the theory. Why dismiss the valid theory just because someone applied it wrongly to justify their bigotry ?!

Again, that's no excuse.

- S.

I agree. It is not an excuse, but it is a reason. Most people are not scientists, and their cultural, social and political motivations outweigh their scientific curiosity.

When they have experienced one alleged scientist begin a discussion by rationally talking about genetic differences between races, and winding up by saying blacks are inferior to whites, they are not going to wait for the next geneticist to finish. That next geneticist may very well be discussing the dangers of sickle-cell anemia, but as soon as he starts discussing genetic, racial differences, the audience smells racism and his message fails to reach them. It is wrong. It is unfortunate. It is also very understandable. Combatting this mentality requires not just education in science, but also education in human nature.

Njorl

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Njorl
When they have experienced one alleged scientist begin a discussion by rationally talking about genetic differences between races, and winding up by saying blacks are inferior to whites, they are not going to wait for the next geneticist to finish. That next geneticist may very well be discussing the dangers of sickle-cell anemia, but as soon as he starts discussing genetic, racial differences, the audience smells racism and his message fails to reach them. It is wrong. It is unfortunate. It is also very understandable. Combatting this mentality requires not just education in science, but also education in human nature.

What I don't understand is how someone can be certain there isn't superior races if he/she believes that humans are entirely a product of material processes. In that view, the universe hasn't guaranteed equality between the races, and there is nothing special about humanity over any other physical manifestation in creation. So why then couldn't the Black race be utterly inferior to the White race, or men superior to women, or any other twist evolution wants to give life?

 

[Njorl]

LW Sleeth,

The way you edited my post changed the meaning significantly. You should restore it or delete it, and be more careful how you do it in the future.

Njorl

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Njorl
The way you edited my post changed the meaning significantly. You should restore it or delete it, and be more careful how you do it in the future.

My sincere apologies. No distortion intended . . . I was trying to capture your meaning and save space.

 

[Njorl]

Thank you. I didn't think you did it on purpose. I was informing rather than accusing. Upon re-reading my post, it did look a bit terse. Sorry about that.

Njorl

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Zero
Where do you fall on this one? Do you believe we are programed from birth with our entire personality, do you believe that we start clean, and are the product of environment? Or do you believe it is a combination, and if so, what is the balance? 50/50?

I think that the level and versatility of our
personality has changed considrably over a time
period far shorter than any genetic change could
account for.

In my opinion, we mostly develop and adept to our
environment as we find it. (In Zero's scale
I'd put it as at least 7 to 3 for.) I further
think that most of it has to do with mathematics.

The "recent" developments in mathematics including
chaos theory, fractals and others and connected
research of our animate and inanimate environment
appear to show more and more clearly that our
genes (and we have just about 50% more of them
than the most "basic" insects) are merely the
basic codes (somewhat like logic circuits in a
computer) that dictate how we will evolve in
the world in every sense "through" the conditions
and environment in which we evolve. This is
demonstrated by the simplest examples like the
specific patterened amount of petals of all
flowers and can be, with massive future
research, expanded to cover social sciences.

Of course, I suppose genes still play an
important role when "critical" genes like those
that affect some areas of our minds are involved,
aspecialy since small changes in those can cause
segnificant social differences in modern "sensitive"
in this sense societies (while the vast majority of
genes is probably not really involved in this).
But, if the question was general and not just about
personality, I guess it's at least 9 to 1 "against"
the genes.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Njorl]

I don't think you could assign a ratio to nature/nurture easily, if at all. If you are comparing a well schooled dullard to a feral genius, you could say that nurture is what allowed the dullard to read, and that nature failed to allow the genius to read. But what if you start with a turtle. No amount of teaching will make that turtle read. You could then say that nature allowed the dullard to read, and that nurture failed the turtle.

In civil law there is a practice by which all responsible parties essential to the contribution of a damage are all considered 100% responsible for it. For example, suppose a doctor marks the wrong leg for amputation. Later, a different doctor in the operating room sees one healthy leg marked for amputation, and one horribly mangled leg, and proceeds to amputate the healthy leg. Without both mistakes, the damage would not be done. Both are considered to be 100% at fault, not 50/50 or 60/40. Similarly, I think both nature and nurture are each 100% the cause of most of our behaviour.

Njorl

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Njorl
I don't think you could assign a ratio to nature/nurture easily, if at all. If you are comparing a well schooled dullard to a feral genius, you could say that nurture is what allowed the dullard to read, and that nature failed to allow the genius to read. But what if you start with a turtle. No amount of teaching will make that turtle read. You could then say that nature allowed the dullard to read, and that nurture failed the turtle.

In civil law there is a practice by which all responsible parties essential to the contribution of a damage are all considered 100% responsible for it. For example, suppose a doctor marks the wrong leg for amputation. Later, a different doctor in the operating room sees one healthy leg marked for amputation, and one horribly mangled leg, and proceeds to amputate the healthy leg. Without both mistakes, the damage would not be done. Both are considered to be 100% at fault, not 50/50 or 60/40. Similarly, I think both nature and nurture are each 100% the cause of most of our behaviour.

Well, I agree that such percentage and ratio
estimates are somewhat foolish in this case.
But, I'm innocent - that was part of the question...

 

[Siv]

Njorl,

When they have experienced one alleged scientist begin a discussion by rationally talking about genetic differences between races, and winding up by saying blacks are inferior to whites, they are not going to wait for the next geneticist to finish. That next geneticist may very well be discussing the dangers of sickle-cell anemia, but as soon as he starts discussing genetic, racial differences, the audience smells racism and his message fails to reach them. It is wrong. It is unfortunate. It is also very understandable. Combatting this mentality requires not just education in science, but also education in human nature.

Depends on what you mean by "understandable". I am sure that, in some way, the behaviour of murderers and thieves is also "understandable", but that doesn't mean we don't hold them responsible for it
There are 2 important factors to this common misinterpretation/misconception.
1. The is-ought fallacy. Believing that finding out what-is somehow condones it or automatically puts it up as what ought to be. So people go out of the way to deny what is. The danger here is in the classic denial syndrome. Ignore the unpleasant realities of human nature and they'll somehow go away. So scientists and anthropologists go out of their way to falsify evidence or selectively use evidence re: societies and cultures to suggest that there is hardly any or no violence or aggression in those. So that they can then rationalise this denial by saying - See ? Human nature is naturally benign. But what does that really help ? Nothing. It in fact compounds the dangers.
2. Discrimination justification. On average differences don't imply that individuals can be discriminated against. In certain fields like politics, education, law etc, we have to treat people as equals. Not because there are no average behavioural differences between groups, but because morals are a separate issue altogether. And average differences are only average differences. They do not at all mean that every member of the group is different from every member of another group by the same measure. Each individual has to be considered separately and cannot be replaced by the group average.
What matters is the equality of opportunity, not the equality of outcome.

I don't think you could assign a ratio to nature/nurture easily, if at all.

Nobody is assigning ratios that way. They are only assigning variation in behaviour based on variation in nature/nurture. And that can and has been done very well.

If you are comparing a well schooled dullard to a feral genius, you could say that nurture is what allowed the dullard to read, and that nature failed to allow the genius to read. But what if you start with a turtle. No amount of teaching will make that turtle read. You could then say that nature allowed the dullard to read, and that nurture failed the turtle.

The turtle can never be taught to read because of its nature. It has neither the brain mechanisms nor the vocal mechanisms for such behaviour. So whatever be the nurture, it can never read. Period.

Both are considered to be 100% at fault, not 50/50 or 60/40. Similarly, I think both nature and nurture are each 100% the cause of most of our behaviour.

That behaviour is a complex function of both nature and nurture is nothing new. But variance in certain behaviour can very much be attributed to one component or the other.
So although it feels nice and politically correct to say that you cannot assign percentages to the components, its not true. You can very well assign percentages based on variation in behaviour to particular components.

- S.