Tabula Rasa or not? Nature or nurture?

[Natapoc]

Some decades ago mainstream psychology and others who study human behavior settled on the idea that human behavior is based off a mix of learned behavior (social conditioning, ect), and "instincts", "natural tendencies", and genetic predispositions and of course nearly everyone agrees that both play a big part in human behavior. Still everyone has a bit of a bias in one direction or the other, especially when data upon which to base a valid argument is sparse or contradictory.

I'm certain that everyone on NSG allows their opinions to be shaped solely by a rational evaluation of evidence and of course picks the interpretation that best fits their data.

But which tendency do you favor when there is simply not enough information to form a valid hypothesis?

Do you have a tendency to interpret human behavior from a "nature" or a "nurture" perspective?

I, personally, tend to interpret human behavior as learned until proven otherwise.

What do you think NSG?

[Genivaria]

I come down heavily on the side of nurture as the dominant influence on character.

[Luziyca]

I think it is a bit of both: the basic states that we have are nature, but we can fine-tune things by nurturing them.

[MERIZoC]

I'm of the opinion that it's incredibly naive to say our environment doesn't shape the vast majority of our nature. Exactly how much though, we may never know.

[Natapoc]

I think it is a bit of both: the basic states that we have are nature, but we can fine-tune things by nurturing them.

Of course it's a bit of both. Every rational person agrees that it's a bit of both.

But do you have any preference to interpret behavior one way or another when you don't have enough objective evidence to back it up?

In other words if a person exhibits behavior B (and no you are not allowed to pick which B. I could say anything from enjoyment of English poetry to sexual behavior ): What's the probability that it's predominantly influenced by genetics vs learned in your mind?

[Flyover]

While there are several known genetic stuffs that can have an impact on behavior and personality (ADHD, etc.) and several case studies where twins that were separated at birth ended up having similar jobs, hobbies, etc. I still believe that most human behavior is likely learned and influenced by the environment. I want to believe it's mostly nurture and personal choice, but I feel like it might end up being 50% Nature/50 Nurture.

In a case where I have to explain behavior, I do tend to pick nurture though. Seems more reasonable.

[Mushet]

Both, though I suppose I'll err unto nurture.

[Kiruri]

I lean heavily toward nurture. It just seems like the heaviest influence out of both.

[Vandario]

I am support of both, have my reasons nurture because its very much true, thats simply fact, if someone is mistreated heavily in life chances are high, not always but high that they might repeat the behavior, victims of sexual abuse sometimes come out to be rapists later in life and such, but Nature also is huge, we are human and have many things in common with each other because of that little fact, but also, and this one is on me personally, I have no scientific proof so this is on my word alone, your welcome to accept it dismiss it, or take it with a grain of salt.
I was raised not around my biological father didn't even know the father who raised me, was not my biological father until I was about 18-19, wasn't mad or nothing, my mother had her reasons lots of complicated stuff, no need to go into it, its not important and personal.
See not only do I look quite a bit like my biological father, but he and I have quite alike personalities too, of course we still have our differences we all do, but he and I are very alike, but the father who raised me, I also have much alike to him personality wise, because of Nurture he raised me, he was there my whole life, where the one who is my biological father, who I've only first spoke to few years back, also much alike him in many ways, Nature, I think some of personality traits also are genetics, science has said already of a addict gene, if a parent has additive problems, that the child also run the risk, I myself having this making me extremely careful to most things, most my family smokes, and some have had pasts with alcohol abuse and hard drug use, so I have made it something to pretty much avoid or be very careful with.
My point is, I strongly say its both, not one or the other but both play a strong factor and varies from people to people, some its more Nurture then Nature and some more Nature then Nurture, but its a firm mix of the two.

[Kiruri]

I am support of both, have my reasons nurture because its very much true, thats simply fact, if someone is mistreated heavily in life chances are high, not always but high that they might repeat the behavior, victims of sexual abuse sometimes come out to be rapists later in life and such, but Nature also is huge, we are human and have many things in common with each other because of that little fact, but also, and this one is on me personally, I have no scientific proof so this is on my word alone, your welcome to accept it dismiss it, or take it with a grain of salt.
I was raised not around my biological father didn't even know the father who raised me, was not my biological father until I was about 18-19, wasn't mad or nothing, my mother had her reasons lots of complicated stuff, no need to go into it, its not important and personal.
See not only do I look quiet a bit like my biological father, but he and I have quiet alike personalities too, of course we still have our differences we all do, but he and I are very alike, but the father who raised me, I also have much alike to him personality wise, because of Nurture he raised me, he was there my whole life, where the one who is my biological father, who I've only first spoke to few years back, also much alike him in many ways, Nature, I think some of personality traits also are genetics, science has said can already spoke of a addict gene, if a parent has additive problems, that the child also run the risk, I myself having this making me extremely careful to most things, most my family smokes, and some have had pasts with alcohol abuse and hard drug use, so I have made it something to pretty much avoid or be very careful with.
My point is, I strongly say its both, not one or the other but both play a strong factor and varies from people to people, some its more Nurture then Nature and some more Nature then Nurture, but its a firm mix of the two.

I believe nature can only go so far. After that, nurture takes it further.

[Natapoc]

I am support of both, have my reasons nurture because its very much true, thats simply fact, if someone is mistreated heavily in life chances are high, not always but high that they might repeat the behavior, victims of sexual abuse sometimes come out to be rapists later in life and such, but Nature also is huge, we are human and have many things in common with each other because of that little fact, but also, and this one is on me personally, I have no scientific proof so this is on my word alone, your welcome to accept it dismiss it, or take it with a grain of salt.
I was raised not around my biological father didn't even know the father who raised me, was not my biological father until I was about 18-19, wasn't mad or nothing, my mother had her reasons lots of complicated stuff, no need to go into it, its not important and personal.
See not only do I look quite a bit like my biological father, but he and I have quiet alike personalities too, of course we still have our differences we all do, but he and I are very alike, but the father who raised me, I also have much alike to him personality wise, because of Nurture he raised me, he was there my whole life, where the one who is my biological father, who I've only first spoke to few years back, also much alike him in many ways, Nature, I think some of personality traits also are genetics, science has said can already spoke of a addict gene, if a parent has additive problems, that the child also run the risk, I myself having this making me extremely careful to most things, most my family smokes, and some have had pasts with alcohol abuse and hard drug use, so I have made it something to pretty much avoid or be very careful with.
My point is, I strongly say its both, not one or the other but both play a strong factor and varies from people to people, some its more Nurture then Nature and some more Nature then Nurture, but its a firm mix of the two.

Of course it's clear that it's both as I mentioned in the OP and elsewhere.

But what interpretation do you tend to favor when there is not enough information to fully conclude one way or the other in your mind?

It's a mix of course but what kind of mix? A 50/50 mix?

Are you saying that any arbitrarily selected behavior is equally influenced by both?

[The Alexanderians]

While of course it's a mixture of both I feel that it leans towards the nurture part of the scale, this is of course discounting mental/neurological disorders such as autism spectrum disorder which may tip it the other way very slightly.

[Vandario]

I am support of both, have my reasons nurture because its very much true, thats simply fact, if someone is mistreated heavily in life chances are high, not always but high that they might repeat the behavior, victims of sexual abuse sometimes come out to be rapists later in life and such, but Nature also is huge, we are human and have many things in common with each other because of that little fact, but also, and this one is on me personally, I have no scientific proof so this is on my word alone, your welcome to accept it dismiss it, or take it with a grain of salt.
I was raised not around my biological father didn't even know the father who raised me, was not my biological father until I was about 18-19, wasn't mad or nothing, my mother had her reasons lots of complicated stuff, no need to go into it, its not important and personal.
See not only do I look quite a bit like my biological father, but he and I have quiet alike personalities too, of course we still have our differences we all do, but he and I are very alike, but the father who raised me, I also have much alike to him personality wise, because of Nurture he raised me, he was there my whole life, where the one who is my biological father, who I've only first spoke to few years back, also much alike him in many ways, Nature, I think some of personality traits also are genetics, science has said can already spoke of a addict gene, if a parent has additive problems, that the child also run the risk, I myself having this making me extremely careful to most things, most my family smokes, and some have had pasts with alcohol abuse and hard drug use, so I have made it something to pretty much avoid or be very careful with.
My point is, I strongly say its both, not one or the other but both play a strong factor and varies from people to people, some its more Nurture then Nature and some more Nature then Nurture, but its a firm mix of the two.

Of course it's clear that it's both as I mentioned in the OP and elsewhere.

But what interpretation do you tend to favor when there is not enough information to fully conclude one way or the other in your mind?

It's a mix of course but what kind of mix? A 50/50 mix?

Are you saying that any arbitrarily selected behavior is equally influenced by both?

Well I guess it leans a bit more to Nurture then, I out of all my parents and the people who raised me I'm VERY alike to my mother, to levels that its almost scary, even personality tests she and I score about the same, but maybe it was Nurture that made me so, or possibly that just her genetics won out? I still lean more toward Nurture then Nature, but I'm very close to the middle, maybe a 60/40? Nurture being the 60

[Kiruri]

Of course it's clear that it's both as I mentioned in the OP and elsewhere.

But what interpretation do you tend to favor when there is not enough information to fully conclude one way or the other in your mind?

It's a mix of course but what kind of mix? A 50/50 mix?

Are you saying that any arbitrarily selected behavior is equally influenced by both?

Well I guess it leans a bit more to Nurture then, I out of all my parents and the people who raised me I'm VERY alike to my mother, to levels that its almost scary, even personality tests she and I score about the same, but maybe it was Nurture that made me so, or possibly that just her genetics won out? I still lean more toward Nurture then Nature, but I'm very close to the middle, maybe a 60/40? Nurture being the 60

That's significantly different than 50/50

[Vandario]

Well I guess it leans a bit more to Nurture then, I out of all my parents and the people who raised me I'm VERY alike to my mother, to levels that its almost scary, even personality tests she and I score about the same, but maybe it was Nurture that made me so, or possibly that just her genetics won out? I still lean more toward Nurture then Nature, but I'm very close to the middle, maybe a 60/40? Nurture being the 60

That's significantly different than 50/50

it is? idk I don't think so, then again I've never been a numbers person, I'm just trying to say that it leans a bit more to Nurture but Nature is just about as much, would a better number be 55/45? idk whos to say there is no real measurement here

[Eastern Equestria]

I've always been a fan of the idea of tabula rasa. However studies regarding the behavioral patterns of twins separated at birth have led me to believe that nature plays just as big, if not bigger, a role in behavioral development as nurture.

[Imperium Sidhicum]

The two cannot really be separated. Nature influences nurture, which in turn influences nature in an endless loop.

A good example is the prevalence of left-handedness in warlike tribal societies. Left-handedness is largely caused by genetic, biological factors (nature). However, the warlike ways of some tribes (nurture) put a considerable evolutionary pressure on their men, those born left-handed having an advantage over the right-handed majority in combat and hence being more likely to survive long enough to secure a mate and have children, who will also be more likely to inherit and pass down their father's left-handedness (nature).

The average IQ of the Jewish people is measurably higher than that of their host nations - most likely as a result of centuries of evolutionary pressure that favoured the smart, the crafty, the cunning, qualities necessary to thrive in occupations that were historically available to the Jews, leading to people with those qualities being more likely to secure reproductive success. Furthermore, this pressure also affected Jewish culture, placing a social emphasis on learning and success, further contributing to evolutionary pressure favouring the intelligent within the Jewish community, enhanced by the fact that this community has historically been strongly endogamous.

Genetics do not define personality, but make it more inclined towards certain talents and behaviours. Experiences determine which of these inclinations will develop further.

Then there is also the relatively-poorly understood phenomenon of epigenetics, life experiences leaving their mark on the genes and becoming hereditary. For example, it was determined that people whose grandparents or parents had experienced famine were more prone to excessive gaining of weight than others. Mice were experimentally induced to associate cherry aroma with pain and fear it. The grandchildren of these mice were never exposed to the electric shocks that accompanied the release of cherry aroma, and had never even been in contact with their grandparents, yet they too displayed aversion to the scent of cherries.

So I think it is wrong to choose one or the other, when they in fact form one complex feedback cycle, the many factors of which are far from completely understood.

[Natapoc]

The two cannot really be separated. Nature influences nurture, which in turn influences nature in an endless loop.

A good example is the prevalence of left-handedness in warlike tribal societies. Left-handedness is largely caused by genetic, biological factors (nature). However, the warlike ways of some tribes (nurture) put a considerable evolutionary pressure on their men, those born left-handed having an advantage over the right-handed majority in combat and hence being more likely to survive long enough to secure a mate and have children, who will also be more likely to inherit and pass down their father's left-handedness (nature).

The average IQ of the Jewish people is measurably higher than that of their host nations - most likely as a result of centuries of evolutionary pressure that favoured the smart, the crafty, the cunning, qualities necessary to thrive in occupations that were historically available to the Jews, leading to people with those qualities being more likely to secure reproductive success. Furthermore, this pressure also affected Jewish culture, placing a social emphasis on learning and success, further contributing to evolutionary pressure favouring the intelligent within the Jewish community, enhanced by the fact that this community has historically been strongly endogamous.

Genetics do not define personality, but make it more inclined towards certain talents and behaviours. Experiences determine which of these inclinations will develop further.

Then there is also the relatively-poorly understood phenomenon of epigenetics, life experiences leaving their mark on the genes and becoming hereditary. For example, it was determined that people whose grandparents or parents had experienced famine were more prone to excessive gaining of weight than others. Mice were experimentally induced to associate cherry aroma with pain and fear it. The grandchildren of these mice were never exposed to the electric shocks that accompanied the release of cherry aroma, and had never even been in contact with their grandparents, yet they too displayed aversion to the scent of cherries.

So I think it is wrong to choose one or the other, when they in fact form one complex feedback cycle, the many factors of which are far from completely understood.

You say the two cannot be separated but then you proceed to separate them...

I also made it clear in the OP that this is not about choosing one or the other but rather about describing the explanation you, personally, tend to show preference to when neither explanation has enough evidence of dominance.

So are you REALLY saying they are inseparable? Because it seems to me that you just separated them and explained how you view them as related in a type of evolutionary way.

[New Werpland]

Sure there's a little room for nature, but it's mostly nurture. People's character traits or whatever you want to call them are products of society, not nature.

[United Russian Soviet States]

I prefer to interpret it from a nurture perspective.

[Scomagia]

Both.

[Natapoc]

Both.

In your haste to answer the title I believe you have forgotten to read the OP. I suspect this is mainly a nurture response on your behalf.

[Idzequitch]

Of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_%28feral_child%29
Even more information is available if you watch the video about Genie on YouTube.
I think this case is a strong argument that nature's effects on our behavior are limited.

[Wulfenia]

Probably have to go with both.

[Brusia]

But which tendency do you favor when there is simply not enough information to form a valid hypothesis?

Do you have a tendency to interpret human behavior from a "nature" or a "nurture" perspective?

I, personally, tend to interpret human behavior as learned until proven otherwise.

What do you think NSG?

I'd like to think I wouldn't favor either nature or nurture until I have enough info to form a valid hypothesis, but since I'm only human and know that probably isn't the case, I'd say I tend to favor nature over nurture.