What is the meaning of nature vs nurture in a man?

Answer 1

Ahh, the ancient philosophical question. 'Nature versus Nurture" is the idea that a person's surroundings, upbringing, and general environment mean more to that person's personal development than the genetic or racial background. For example, if you took someone born in poverty in a society where he or she would not have much chance to better themself, and gave him or her a good education, a loving family life, and the opportunities to become a 'better citizen', that nurturing would overcome the 'nature' of that person. Most social scientists now believe that NURTURING can overcome any negative natural forces. See the Eddie Murphy/Dan Ackroyd movie "Trading Places" for a Hollywood-ized version of this idea. The upshot of the argument is that no one is "born" a criminal or a bad person - that, given the right surroundings and environment, anyone can grow to be a 'good' person. I beg to differ. While the first answer makes the argument for the "nuture" side of the equation, the term itself refers to a dichotomy that mankind has been asking about for a very long time: Which affects a human's behavior more; genetic or "natural" traits including instinct, or their experiences once the individual has left the womb. Over the years, the pendulum of opinion on this question has swung both ways. Notably, in Victorian England, the thinking was that a man carried "foreknowledge" as a result of the circumstances prior to birth. These included such ideas as a the "criminal type" which could (supposedly) be determined by inherited factors, intelligence as manifested by the shape of the skull, etc. In the later half 20th century, the pendulum had swung the other way and, as late as the 1960's the general opinion was that man actually had no instincts (only animals had those), there was no criminal type and no physiological aspect to criminality, anti-social behavior was not a disease in the classic sense, but purely the result of behaviorism, etc. Nowadays (early 21st century), the pendulum has crept back towards the middle. We believe there may be genetic components at work in cases of voilent offenders, schizoform disorders, etc. and that some of these factors are therefore inherited. But even now, we don't rule out the very potent effects that a person's environment will have on their behavior and health. The ultimate test was thought to be bringing up two identical twins, one is a very positive environment and the other in a highly negative one. Students of Ethics will understand why this experiment is not acceptable in practice. And at this time, we start to surmise that the answer has always been: Both.