questions regarding individual differences the nature and nurture controversy?
80319
The study of twins (raised together or separated at birth) sheds much light on the controversy.
1041645
nature = genetics\nnurture = upbringing/social influences\nFrankenstein's monster would be a combo - his was built by man so you know that there would be some problems but then societies reaction to him because he was different also affected him
647576
It may be that conditioning may have a very small part of a person being gay but it would be a very small percentage of gay people that are effected in this way. However, I do think that the majority of gay people are born with this disposition.\n\n'God' doews not make nature perfect. for instance, I am sure that most of you have heard of a condition called hermaphroditism (or the more politically correct term these days is 'intersex') where a person is born with the fully formed genatalia of BOTH sexes. The subject, apart from their genitalia, is physically and mentally sound in every other way.\n\nSometimes, these children are operated on at birth if the doctors decide (guess) that the baby appears to have a female or male inclination and the genitals are modified accordingly. In many cases though, a modified 'girl' grows up with feelings for other women and modified 'boys' grow up feeling something for other men. It seems in these cases, the doctors have made the wrong decision and the psychological makeup of the child was in fact the opposite to the physical modification they performed on the child. So even though, for instance, a child may be brought up as a girl with girls toys etc, the 'nature' side of the brain kicks in at puberty (if not before) and overrides the 'nurture' side.\n\nNow, if nature can produce a visible, physical example of developmental confusion on the outside of the human body, who is to say that there are not processes at work of developmental confusion going on inside the unseen brain of a person ... where there may not be an obvious physical example of gender disorientation externally but internally their brain does not dictate in the way that their external body would suggest to the rest of society.\n\nThere is very strong evidence that sexuality is largely determined by development in the womb. Perhaps, while 'intersex' is firm external physical proof of developmental issues, we ought to consider that perhaps the developmental differences in gay people are more subtle and obviously invisible to the naked eye due to the brain being internal - but that does not mean that the differences are not there.\n\nHomosexuality has been around since the beginning of time and if you research gay history in cultures across the world, the present prejudices seem to stem with the spread of the three major monotheistic religons and it is this prejudice that is ingrained into the psyche of people today. But like racism, for instance, perhaps this prejudice towards gay people will diminish as society recognises that alternative sexuality is actually just a normal part of nature's rich diversity.
234681
This is a large question, and the source of much controversy, conflict, anger, and hilarity for all of recorded history. Aristophanes' Lysistrata is merely one of the earliest in a long literary tradition exploring the question. James Thurber is only one of the most recent, and funniest, of those writing in English.\n\nOnly in the last few decades has there been any scientific evidence which even begins to explain why the so long observed differences exist. \n\nIt is clear that there are, on average, anatomic differences between female and male brains. For instance, in the connection between the two hemispheres. And imaging studies of working brains ('PET scans') have shown some apparently characteristic differences in the areas of the brain used by males and females when their brains are ostensibly doing the same thing. There is even enough of such evidence that there are now centers for the study of gender differences. \n\nFrom a behavioral viewpoint, the field of evolutionary psychology (or sociobiology) has produced a series of testable hypotheses about differences between female and male behavior. These are essentially unique in the field because they suggest experiments which can test them. Thus far, this approach has shown promise in accounting for some of the non-cultural non-religious behavior differences. Thus far, even such things as the clothing styles chosen when going to dance clubs have been accounted for to some extent by this approach. Much of this work is controversial amongst one or another group since it deals with issues (eg, sex, reproduction, mating behavior, ...) which are of great importance socially or religiously.\n\nThe most reasonable account of behavioral differences between the sexes is based on reproductive success. Males who behaved this way (or these ways) tended to have more descendants (more children who survived to have children themselves), and females who behaved that way (or those ways) also had more children who survived to have children of their own. Much of the reasoning on these matters is based in the fact that, in humans, females cannot have more than a small number of children, given the underlying biology. We humans are born far from able to cope with life, and require a long period of maturation before we can. We share some of this extended infancy with some other species (such as chimpanzees and orangutans) and, to some extent, they show similar sex linked behavioral differences. Males, on the other hand, are capable of having a great many children. But, because of the long term helpless infancy period, together with typical human female awkwardness during much of pregnancy, it seems likely that males who stayed with the female increased the chances that children (half of whose genes came from him) were more likely to survive to child-bearing age. This pattern may also account for male jealousy (only if the female is sexually exclusive can he be sure the child is his) and female interest in male resource control. If he's rich (however rich is measured in a society), he will likely be able to increase the chance that her children will survive to have children of their own. Some of these suggestions (hypotheses) are subject to test in humans and some other species; the evolutionary approach has illuminated some hitherto opaque behaviors.\n\nThese matters are very near to the center of much conflict in traditional (and some other not so traditional) societies, many of whose citizens are made uneasy by new and different behaviors and by research which either 'endorses' some of those behaviors or 'undermines' some of their existing or traditional behaviors. In fact, the science is still in its infancy, and those who claim it endorses this or that don't understand it, and those who fear the science would be better advised to concentrate on policy makers of various kinds who don't understand the nature of science, nor much of this emerging scien
978640
Genetics...\n\nBlame your parents for having unprotected sex with each other.  \n\nMy lovely (Bottom of the gene pool)  father,  used to tell us kids to; "Always f*ck,  up... never down! \n\nOne parent is usually with the other because they couldn't do any better... That poor matching damages the gene pool and causes numerous problems such as teeth, weight, addiction, mental illness.  You are not alone darling.  We all have a thing or two we would rather not have been genetically predisposed to.\n\n It is actually the thing that Hitler was trying to do away with by genetics perfection and race cleansing and for a few years he actually did breed a perfect race... Right before he brainwashed them into killing machines,  baby machines,  and little blond haired blue eyed monsters!   In an insane and completely wacked out kind of way he was trying to illiminate imperfections.
28235
Ahh, another Nature vs Nurture discussion.  Of course it is both.  If we didn't have the genetic component, our early anscestors would have eaten non-healthy food and the human race would have died out.  For the environmental aspect, we learn to like what is around us and is easy to get.  If pig farmers couldn't get used to the stench, then no one would be pig farmers.
515752
I do think there is a difference if you grow up around a race that is different than your own.  I don't think it is negative or positive just as long as they do not forget who they are. I think it is up to the parents to help the child realized the difference but not make that big of a deal to where they feel different.   Make sense???
943918
In Christianity, God created man in His own image. No one knows what God looks like as we are in human form. I think that image is of seeking knowledge and a conscious of right and wrong and the need to survive. Psychology is the study of mans mind, his thought capabilities, emotional triggers, (stimuli) and others. The word stimuli is key, for example you can give a list of careers to 3rd graders and ask them to read well and then form a line a verbalize which career they want to be. The majority will give the same answers. This often is not what they have considered, but that they do not want to stand alone, or go against the tide. Many personality traits of people are followers.( amicable) They do as their fathers tell them as far as religion/sects or politics too.
230841
Hi. First off, its "deScent with modification".\nThat was Darwin's term for what is now known as genetic variability in a population, and a stage of his proposed evolutionary mechanism, natural selection.\nHe did not have the genetic background to explain the variations that he saw generation after generation (Mendel's works had been ignored at the time), but he noticed that in every new generation, the individuals showed varied characteristics: some traits where similar to their parents, but others were novel or maybe similar to those of older ancestors. \nThese variations occur because of 1) spontaneous mutations in the parental gametes; 2) recombination between homologous chromosomes during gamete formation (crossing over); 3) the combination of the parents' genotypes to form the genotype of the offspring (this is not strictly new material, only a new combination of preexisting ones).\n\nOnce there is a new generation of individuals that are growing and living together, some of those characteristics may result in better adjustment to the environment. The individuals with those "adaptively advantageous" traits will have higher probabilities of growing, maturing and reproducing more, with respect to other individuals. \nIf those advantageous characteristics are heritable, that is, if they are determined by the individual's combination of alleles (=the two versions of the same gene in each of us), when the individual is able to "pass them on" to more descendants those alleles will spread in the population, and eventually be present in most individuals. This, in a nutshell, is natural selection. NS leads to gradual adjustment of the population with respect to its environment.\nFrom a population genetics perspective, evolution is defined as _the change in allele frequencies_; thus, "descent with modification", coupled with evolutionary factors, leads to evolution of the population. \nIn addition to mutation and natural selection, this change in allele frequencies may be occasioned by migration (genetic flux among different populations), genetic drift (a random process) and selective mating (which strictly speaking only alters the proportion of combinations, but does not produce new material).\n\nSorry for the lengthy answer, but evolutionary processes need a little context to be understood. Good luck with your explanation!
884144
Hi\nVery genuine question!\nIn my opinion everyone has one's own individuality and we have no rights to make any goof-ups with their personality at all.\n\nNevertheless,if I were to choose a boy of my kind,I would love to reject the following things in him,which are:\n\nDouble-mindedness\nUnfaithfulness\nSuspicious-nature\nDemanding\nDominating\nFussy\nUn-supportive\n\n\nAnd the day I'll find my boy,I'll surrender my whole life to him.\n\nRegards \nPooja
234359
He can't blame anything on nurture, since he nurtured himself. (The whole nurture vs. nature debate)\n\nI'm assuming as this is in jokes and riddles you want a funny/ clever answer.
12135
The other's answers are partially right, but take the common social constructivist view too far. Race/creed/caste/religion/clan/ethnicity are all slippery terms that are not easily defined. In a similar manner it is very hard to define what a species is (The common idea that a species is defined by when organisms can reproduce is violated for many species and meaningless for asexual organisms). A race or population from a biological perspective is a grouping of organisms that tend to breed more among themselves than with other groups. Subsequently they tend to have distinctive features. Now of course our common definitions of race have a large social influence that defies the logic of a group that tend to breed more with itself than other groups. For example the U.S.'s idea of hypodescent that dictates that someone who is 1/16 of black african descent is African American is kind of silly (on the other hand if these African Americans tend to breed mainly with other African Americans then perhaps it is not so far fetched).\n\nJust because something can not easily be defined and overlaps does not mean it does not exist. Males are on average taller than females, but many females are taller than many males. This doesn't mean that it is a social construction to say menare bigger then women.\n\nTo answer your original question, with these caveats acknowledged, genes are distinctive among different human popularions (populations which follow human conceptions of race pretty well). Many of these genes are neutral and depend upon similar techniques to those used in forensics to get a DNA fingerprint. Interestingly, some of these gens are functional, they change the way our bodies and minds work.\nFor example, the sickle cell gene which helps protect against malaria is at much higher frequency in populations which must deal with malaria.\nA genetic polymorphism, the dopamine receptor D4 gene varies radically among populations. This is a gene that has been associated with behavioral differences among people including ADHD. It is thought by some that different social background may select for different frequencies of the DRD4 gene. The frequency of ADHD associated genese in a population probably also impacts how that culture evolves.
103950
I think nature and nurture.
954706
You know hormones have great effects on your own behavior. Have you ever been very afraid, or angry? We are quite certain the human behavior is probabilistically influenced by heredity. The only argument left among scientist is the proportion of the heredity of behavior.
867443
OK people...here's the lesson for the day...this is an actual bonified case of a genetic trait that is actually inherited through birth....you will notice that it's not some sort of sickness or illness that we all like to pass off as genetic, but it's an actual physiological trait that can be attributed to a genealogical factor...ooooooohhh...amazing isn't it?.......it's just  pigmentation...nothing to worry about...actually kind of unique and cool...a genetic trait stamp like a birthmark, high intelligence or big feet etc...this is what we inherit genetically from our lineage...v cool...
178193
Evrything is individual, and we are all different persons, with different beliefs, personal values, emotions, and genetics. Don't expect people to be similar to each other. Accept differences.
60382
Nature and nurture both play big roles - you can't really isolate one or the other.  And you can't really say that one or the other would make a random person smarter.  If you really want to learn more, check out some studies of identical twins who were raised separately.