I would like this debate to be about why we haven’t figured it out yet, at least statistically.
Adoptions are common, and even if the child is of a different race from their adoptive parents or are told from day one they are adopted as long as they know nothing of their birth parents they are in a blind study.
At the age of consent children want to learn about their biological heritage and no doubt get excited when they like things or hate things their biological parent does despite never being raised in that environment.
But come on. Just to provide raw data this stuff seems easy to calculate.
-Do ACT scores match the biological parents or the adoptive ones?
-Does ability in any specifically defined areas coincide with the biological or adoptive parents?
-What is the likelihood of addiction, aggressive behavior, felonies.
-Are they introvert or extrovert
Please cure my ignorance if this has been studied thoroughly, but if it hasn’t why not? It seems like everyone would want to know, government services down to parents want to know how to best provide for children.
It’s been studied to death, but we haven’t figured it out because there are too many variables. Look at children from the same two biological parents, raised in the same household who vary widely. You can have one kid who scores high on the ACT and one that scores low; one who is an alcoholic and others who aren’t; one who’s an introvert and another who is extroverted.
There’s an interesting documentary called “Three Identical Strangers” about identical triplets separated at birth in a blind study., One was raised by affluent parents, one by middle class parents, and one with working class parents. They were reunited as young adults and the similarities were interesting, but so were the differences. One was very extroverted, another very introverted. One suffered depression (and I think drug addiction) and ultimately killed himself, but the other two did not. And these were 3 people with identical DNA.
I think there are just so many variables–genetic, life experiences, individual personality,coping skills, etc-that shape an individual’s personality and character, that there is no way to “figure it out”.
It’s been studied. Try the book Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are, written by one of the giants in genetic research, Robert Plomin. Genes have considerable influence on intelligence, extroversion/introversion, aggression and violent behavior, and many other psychological and social traits. It’s not in dispute among actual scientists who have studied the matter.
This should not be confused with saying that genes control everything or that free will doesn’t exist. Even among identical twins there is some variation. In IQ, for instance, it appears that in their entirety, genetics can predict about 50% of variation in intelligence. There is no one “gene for genius”, but hundreds of genes that interact to shape that trait and others.
The reason why you don’t hear about this important research is that some people are wedded to the “blank slate” dogma. I would know; I was one of them, once. I started threads on this very topic, 10-15 years ago, arguing that genes have no effect whatsoever on psychology or social behavior.
Back then I had read virtually no actual books on genetics. Now I have. But I would point out that much of the search in this field is very recent, as in the past five years or so. So some people can be forgiven for still denying that genes affect personality, if they’re not following the latest research.
There is at least a third factor. Influences in the womb. Even identical twins will be affected differently during the pregnancy. This will be attributed to nurture, but I’m not sure that’s what we would like
What I guess I was saying is, by now we have so much evidence we should be able to analyze SOME factors definitively.
Something at this point should be known. Black licorice, is that an acquired taste or is it genetic? (Fake question, of course it is nurture…you see my point though)
I have 7 sibs. Raised in the same house by the same parents. We are all different in so many ways, I can’t tell you. We all have the same history and memories, so we share that.
Also, I raised 3 kids to adulthood in the same house, the same 2 parents. They each have a different perspective on their upbringing. If you meet my middle daughter she would tell you how strict and tough I was. The lil’wrekker would tell you I was lenient and a pushover. My oldest Son-of-a-wrek was my trial kid. He is a good man and was a good kid, but man oh man he kept me guessing. He’s quick witted and scary smart and I was always playing catch-up it seems like.
I think you should, ideally nurture kids to their personality. And who knows what you’re gonna get. Consistency is most important. Nature or nurture? It’s a combo of both.IMO.
Order of birth is a factor. Whole ‘nother thing. For this topic I wanted to stick to just biological vs non parents. And totally believe you it is a combination of both. I am looking for scientific research about what and how much they affect kids. Eye color? Biology. Early pop trivia? Parenting.
My understanding from one of the Pinker books I read (maybe “The Blank Slate”?) is that it’s about 45%-55% genetics, 45%-55% “environment”, and maybe 10% direct parental influence. Environment would be such things as nutrition, peer groups, probably womb environment (I don’t remember). I wish I had a better cite, but that’s in one of his books for sure.
Obviously, parents can have a very negative effect, but my impression was that it’s hard to have a positive effect other than creating the right environment (good schools, good food, etc.)
I rhink this debate frequently lacks good definitions for what we mean by Nature and what wd mean by Nurture. Do we mean Genetics v Everything else, or Everything else v Post natal environment? Hapenstance v Direct decisions?
It’s difficult to suss out genetics, prenatal environment, epigenetics from nurture. The triplets separated at birth were from a twin study that shut down and hasn’t published its results because of how crazily unethical it was.
It’s not just birth order. There’s all sorts of ways siblings in the same house are being raised in different environments. One may be in the bedroom with the lead paint! And there’s all kinds of other factors, as well: one may look like a parent superficially, so people make a connection, and there’s a lot of expectation that they will share traits with that parent more than the other. I think I take after my dad more than my mom partially because my sister was a needy baby who clung to mama all the time, and so I ended up spending a lot more time with my dad. Kids have different classmates, different teachers.
So you can’t even begin to treat kids in the same household as having the same “nurture” and attribute differences to “nature”.
There’s also almost certainly interactions between the two–so a mild genetic difference could be amplified tremendously in one setting and minimized in another. Is that nature or nurture?
We haven’t " figured it out" because the “vs” should be “and”.
The question is flawed.
Think of it like this, you get a video game character with these stats.
Strength:20
Speed: 70
Accuracy: 40
Intelligence: 30
Now you can do practice missions to gain points in each category, certain missions are likely to increase certain qualities but there’s a 30 limit to how far off they will go from where they are. So your 30 intelligence will never reach 100.
That’s the basics.
Though we have one more complication. With real people and psychological aspects, we can’t predict accurately whether some of those practice missions may actually detract from a certain quality. So your 70 speed character won’t drop below 40 but could also reach 100.
Being a strict parent could get you a more rigid child, or a more rebellious one because how they react to external factors is always different no matter where they started out. We can just look at likely results.
My grandmother bred and trained dogs.
She would say you could see their personality differences from the start.
You could get pretty similar dogs by training the fight into a lover or out of a fighter but it’s easier to amplify their natural tendencies and each will only go so far off from that.
Has there been any research on this topic in cloned animals? They are now cloning polo horses to create a consistent stable of competitive horses. It seems that they could do animal experiments where they raise cloned animals in different environments to see what behaviors are genetic versus learned from the environment.
But that can’t be answered. If a slight genetic difference leads to a negligible difference in outcome in one setting and a radically different outcome in another, is that difference because of nature or nurture? Both were necessary, neither was sufficient. Which is more important? That seems like a meaningless question to me.
I recall reading a summary of studies on the contributing percentages of nature and nurture on homosexuality. The conclusion of the “average” of the studies and of those that were deemed the largest and highest quality was that homosexuality was roughly 35% genetic and 65% environment. Yeah I was surprised too.
A look at this subject wouldn’t be complete without noting the well-marked-out political dimensions. The right wing advocates nature, opposed by the left wing advocating nurture. That’s the reason that, for example, the Soviets pushed the concept of the “new Soviet man” and why Lysenkoism was promoted under Stalin. Why racists attempt to tie economic theory and moral character to the color of people’s skin. Objective science keeps finding the fine nuances of interplay between the two sides, while ideologues in the social sciences keep trying to pull it all toward one side or all the other.
Grab them by the scruff of the neck, and demand that they define nature. Beat them with sticks until they comply in a repeatable, verifiable way. Most of them will stop arguing with you.
When someone gives you a three digit value for intelligence, ask them for a uniform definition of it.
Is someone who declines to subject himself to an examination thereby qualify as having less intelligence than the one who wishes to do the examining?
The phrase “human nature” is most frequently used as an argument by popularity in support of making vile choices of personal conduct.
What behavior qualifies nurture rather than coercion? Is successful coercion desirable nurture? Is it a completely statistical measure? “That which falls closest to median for the population is the best outcome.”
Does the desire of the mode attitude of a population absolutely define the best behavior?
Identical robots would be the very most desirable society under that view.
Get me a new stick.
Tris
If I want to know what you think, I have already decided that you do.