Nature vs. Nurture. I choose nither.

[austrianfoster]

Kudos to Gracchus for understanding my argument, instead of taking it out of context and misapplying it's premise. *cough*cough*michabo*cough* I mean that if humans accepted the idea that we have greater power over the kind of people we become, we realize that we don't need to succumb to our "nature or nurture" as much as we currently think we need to. I don't make the claim that we have absolute control over such things, I mean, they do have their influences over us. But I believe that they are far weaker than people currently think.

austrianfoster

 

[michabo]

austrianfoster,

I think you may have my argument confused. I'm not saying that we don't have the ability to change aspects of our personality, but I'm saying that the limits of change do not appear to be infinitely flexible. There are limits set by nature (genetics and development) and a great amount of our attitudes, morals, beliefs, and actions are set by our upbringing (nurture).

Nothing you have said makes me think that this is any different. You simply do not have the ability to reject these boundaries.

I suspect it is you that do not see my argument

 

[TeddyKGB]

Kudos to Gracchus for understanding my argument, instead of taking it out of context and misapplying it's premise. *cough*cough*michabo*cough* I mean that if humans accepted the idea that we have greater power over the kind of people we become, we realize that we don't need to succumb to our "nature or nurture" as much as we currently think we need to. I don't make the claim that we have absolute control over such things, I mean, they do have their influences over us. But I believe that they are far weaker than people currently think.

This all appears to assume that your hyper-flexible model of human personality is true, which hardly answers previous criticisms. How do you know there is a valid "idea" such as you describe that humans ought to accept?

 

[quatona]

I think that in the classic dispute of nature vs. nurture, niether one is correct. I think that anyone who claims that they are who they are because of genetic predisposition, or their "environment," is just trying to shed accountability for having become who they are.

1. I don´t think it is a good idea to replace arguments by insinuations as to what the disingenious motives of those who disagree with you are.
2. I always have problems with this "no accountability" strawman. As far as I can see I can´t avoid accountability for what I am and do, no matter what the causes are. I have to face the consequences of what I am and do. So what exactly are you talking about?

I think that people have a far greater influence over how this world affects them than anyone thinks.

Please describe the process as to how they acquire this power.

But, of cource no one wants to admit it, because then we'd actually have to take responsibility for what we become.

And - apart from repeating such mind- and motive-readings - do you have any arguments in support of your idea?

What, in your terminology, woud be "taking responsibility", other than what we cannot help doing anyways?

 

[Species8472]

I think that in the classic dispute of nature vs. nurture, niether one is correct. I think that anyone who claims that they are who they are because of genetic predisposition, or their "environment," is just trying to shed accountability for having become who they are. I think that people have a far greater influence over how this world affects them than anyone thinks. But, of cource no one wants to admit it, because then we'd actually have to take responsibility for what we become.

austrianfoster

yea it's called perception. Words or symbols are like doorways to perception. What we think, what we do--all have to do with what we perceive ourselves and the world to be. I am not merely the sum of my experience or genetics. I am who I perceive I am; therefore affecting myself to the accordance of my will. If that makes any sense...

 

[Lugus]

I agree that there are huge numbers of people who are not held accountable for their actions. They want the freedom to make their own decisions but they do not want to be held accountable when they make bad decisions.

But, why is it that some people have a lifetime of bad decisions while others seldom make poor decisions? This is where nature vs. nurture comes into play.

Poor decision-making, lack of self-accountability, and little self-control can be traced to genetic and environmental influences. However, this does not relieve us of the responsibility of accountability. If we say that our environment or our genetics made us do something, we can justify anything and take responsibility for nothing.

 

[b4uris]

I always have problems with this "no accountability" strawman. As far as I can see I can´t avoid accountability for what I am and do, no matter what the causes are. I have to face the consequences of what I am and do.

How can you be held responsible for anything you do if everything is determined?

 

[Gracchus]

How can you be held responsible for anything you do if everything is determined?

Most people in society have to believe in free will so that they will have someone to blame, someone on whom they can take revenge. It gives them the illusion that they have control.

Subjected to sufficient stress, we all fail. Different stress means we fail in different ways. Because of age and health, I don't have problems with lust. So I can look down on those whose circumstances and raging hormones lead them into "sins" of lust. We all have different sets of weaknesses, and we are all subjected to different varieties and intensities of stress.

We all fail. Some of us fail privately and hope we are never found out. Some of us fail publicly and are subject to social censure. How comforting it is to conveniently overlook our private failures and look down our noses at those who have been found out. It is often secret guilt that impels the casting of that first stone.

That is why those who condemn others are hypocrites.

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

-- KJV Matthew 7

How can you be held responsible for anything you do if everything is determined?

God may hold us responsible. We may hold ourselves responsible. It is not our right to hold others responsible.

Judge not, that ye be not judged.

-- KJV Matthew 7:1

Hey! It is your holy book, not mine.

 

[quatona]

How can you be held responsible for anything you do if everything is determined?

I observe things and beings being "held responsible" no matter whether their state is determined or not.
I guess you agree that apples don´t have free will - but if an apple falls down the tree it will be damaged.
People hold things "accountable/responsible" all the time, in that they act according to their state. If an apple is rotten, people will throw it in the trash can. If a lion attacks them, they will shoot him. Etc.
Maybe I still don´t understand what you mean when saying "responsibility/accountability" (that´s why I keep asking this question over and over, btw.). From what I mean to understand most people to say it means being faced with the consequences of and reactions to what, how and where something/someone is.

 

[Gottservant]

No one has mentioned "Niceness" or "Neatness", I'll guess. Come on, you can be nice if it's not in your nature and you can be neat if you haven't been nurtured!

 

[funyun]

It occurs to me that social and ethical questions like "If there is no free will how do we hold people accountable for their actions" is irrelevant in a discussion that is defined by deduction, logic, and fact, as this one is.

Free will is the "spontaneous generation" of philosophy. Can't we just let it die already?

I think Schopenhauer said it best:

"You can do what you will, but in any given moment of your life you can will only one definite thing and absolutely nothing other than that one thing."