Wednesday 12 December 2012
For Christine
When prompted on nature vs. nurture via Facebook chat, with terrible grammar and some attempt at paragraphing:
i think there's enough empirical evidence from an infinite variety of different cases
where growing up in a certain environment or having an event happen to someone has impacted them to act in a particular way. people are born with different levels of potential, but it's like this: http://zenpencils.com/comic/94-the-two-wolves/ as to how they are ultimately shaped.
the empirical evidence isn't what i would base my entire argument on, but i do think each person has their natural inclinations and, as discouraging as it sounds, limitations. However, no matter which is more or less correct at the end of the day, I still think living by the belief that environment can help you realise that potential is the most constructive way to live. person A might never have as high of an IQ as person B, but by always challenging themselves to be better and think differently, at least leads a fulfilling life.
I think that our environments really dominate in this way tweaking and bringing out whatever in our personalities it 'feeds' while other things we have a capacity to be lie dormant. doing my political ideologies subject this semester, especially the essay, made me realise that the very crux of an ideology depends upon what interpretation of human nature people are willing to employ. so for the sake of simplicity, when we limit it down to whether humans are naturally social beings or competitive i.e. collectivist vs. individualist, communism goes to one extreme and liberalism to the other and neither of them are really quite right... altruism can and does exist, as well as the ability to cooperate, but at the same time, competitive interests are equally there and can help spur on progress. it'd be too easy, for example, for a communist to take everything i've said so far and make a case for themselves that if both cooperative AND competitive spirits exist within a human being, then by nurture we can spur on the cooperative side and quash out the competitive... but I highly highly doubt that's possible. it's the attempt of doing so which has brought so many disasters to countries that have attempted to reach the true state of communism.
interpretation is paramount, and it helps keeps your line of argument consistent if you can always come back to what you think a human being is like, and capable of.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree with your view on the environment/nurture coming down heavier on potential and personal inclinations. I think DNA is too narrow of a personal definition to be left unchallenged by individuals after birth - people might react affirmatively or negatively to genetic predisposition to create a distinct identity for themselves. for example, from a young age i probably subconsciously tried to fulfil my asian heritage/stereotype by working extra hard to get good grades, which is an indicator of the work ethic i've claimed for myself (affirmative to nature), but others might want to break free from the natural 'fate' by creating a separate niche for themselves - very much shaped and influenced by nature, but in a 'negative' way.
ReplyDeleteinteresting you spoke of IPI, because locke was a big proponent of the tabula rasa idea, that we're all born with a blank slate on which nurture writes its plans. conversely hobbes is the one who champions the role of nature, that we're all born with inherent mental content, and endowed with certain traits like competitiveness and selfishness. freud would also have a word or two to say about the role of family dynamics in the development of the psyche.. :P
as for which side of us wins - cooperative or competitive, really interesting ideas about what happens when one side completely takes over....die hard communism and the apocalypse haha. the fact that we've managed to live relatively comfortably and peace of mind with die hard capitalism probably has implications that humans are more competitive than cooperative (but is this the result of nature or nurture...?). Eek. Having said that i think it's v important that these extremes do exist, as they serve as the conscience of the other, ensuring that we find ourselves choosing the middle way. the threat of communism should moderate die hard capitalism and the excesses of CEOs, i suppose (and the fact that it probably hasn't means capitalism is too safely ingrained in western society).
but yes, interpretation is most definitely paramount. Now going to have a hearty archive binge :)
Yet the state we live in right now isn't really 'die hard capitalism' as there are still state regulations and controls over things, and the average person would probably agree that this is a good thing... myself included. To have completely unregulated free market capitalism where nothing is controlled by anything (i.e. privatisaion of courts, abolition of minimum wage and child labour laws) can actually be quite scary. Try reading some Noam Chomsky when you can; I don't agree with everything he says but he explains this point of view much better than I can.
Delete