Nature vs Nurture (Or try to dismantle my theory)

[The Black Wolf]

In the Nature vs Nurture debate, which side are you on? Or do you like the 50/50 theory?

Here's what I think and I'm interested if anyone can refute it.r

So we know nature is talking about genetics and nuture is talking about environment, right? Well, from what I've learned about dog and animal breeding, I say Nature is 70% and Nurture is 30%. That includes humans.

We're humans but technically we're animals. If you talk to any reputable dog breeder, they'll tell you a dog is not only bringing what he brings to the breeding, but he's bringing his parents, grandparents, and more dogs on his pedigree. Training and titling a dog shows what he can do and how well the breeding was.

So in other words, nuture or training a dog and titling a dog shows how well the genetics mixed and the results of the genetics.

Why can't humans be done the same way?

Black people are generally good athletes. Some people believe it's because black people were BRED to do physical stuff and excel at it.

So, that's my thoughts on why nature is more important than nuture.

What about you?

[podsaurus]

In the Nature vs Nurture debate, which side are you on? Or do you like the 50/50 theory?

Here's what I think and I'm interested if anyone can refute it.r

So we know nature is talking about genetics and nuture is talking about environment, right? Well, from what I've learned about dog and animal breeding, I say Nature is 70% and Nurture is 30%. That includes humans.

We're humans but technically we're animals. If you talk to any reputable dog breeder, they'll tell you a dog is not only bringing what he brings to the breeding, but he's bringing his parents, grandparents, and more dogs on his pedigree. Training and titling a dog shows what he can do and how well the breeding was.

So in other words, nuture or training a dog and titling a dog shows how well the genetics mixed and the results of the genetics.

Why can't humans be done the same way?

Black people are generally good athletes. Some people believe it's because black people were BRED to do physical stuff and excel at it.

So, that's my thoughts on why nature is more important than nuture.

What about you?

Eugenics? Trying to attain a superior breed of people?

Well it's difficult to say since I've been brought up and nurtured. I can't say I would be the same person if I was brought up by a different mother. I can't refute your 70/30 split but I'd say it's 50/50. Only because I don't know the extent nature and nurture play. They both play an important role but I don't know if one is stronger than the other with influence.

I do however think there are traits and things about you that would stick no matter how you're brought up. I still think I'd be a sarcastic person and a caring person.

[Chickenooble]

[The Black Wolf]

I do however think there are traits and things about you that would stick no matter how you're brought up. I still think I'd be a sarcastic person and a caring person.

Ah, but did you know temperament in dogs is a product of genetics? And temperament can be argued as "personality".

[x6Teen]

genetics + environment tbh

if you have the genetics for something, sport for example, you could be a potential pro athlete but if you don't have the right environment for it i doubt you'd get far and actually realise what you're born to be good at.

if you don't have the genetics for something but the environment, like sprinting, you can get far but the 100m sprint is dominated by africans, jamaicans to be specific because of their genetics.


when you have both, genetics and environment to do something, that's where you get far in life.

[Rapture]

So, that's my thoughts on why nature is more important than nuture.

What about you?

I'm not even sure what you're really asking. Are you curious of the placement and width of the dichotomy between predisposed values on the genetic scheme in comparison to surrounding influence throughout development after conception? The simplest and honest answer is that you really can't place a number on either. Both are, by technicality, the same thing anyways; it's just variables resulting in a product, which is the person. However, as podsaurus questioned already, you appear to be dipping into eugenics territory.

Could you be clearer with the subject? I'd very much like to play some further part in this if I can.

[PeanutButterMunky]

Nature and nurture are both important. An infant human child will die if the mother doesn't cradle it after it's born. Human beings are such fragile things when we're brought into the world. I think we just give as much love as we can... and nature will simply do the things that are beyond our control.

I think eugenics is another topic entirely...

[The Black Wolf]

I'm not even sure what you're really asking. Are you curious of the placement and width of the dichotomy between predisposed values on the genetic scheme in comparison to surrounding influence throughout development after conception? The simplest and honest answer is that you really can't place a number on either. Both are, by technicality, the same thing anyways; it's just variables resulting in a product, which is the person. However, as podsaurus questioned already, you appear to be dipping into eugenics territory.

Could you be clearer with the subject? I'd very much like to play some further part in this if I can.

I'm not sure what you mean. I mean, it's nature (genetics) vs nurture (environment). I'm asking which one is the most important.

[itachi73378]

Ah, but did you know temperament in dogs is a product of genetics? And temperament can be argued as "personality".

Yes but animals will not change their personalities because they have no reason to. Humans on the other hand are complicated beings that may find reasons in the most irrational of situations, therefore they CAN change such characteristics about them. I never liked any comparisons between human vs animal because we are just not the same.

On topic I think both are important but I can't put numbers on them, so 50/50 it is

[Completely Average]

I'll go with the 50/50.

I've done Schutzhund training. Only about 10-15% of the German Shepherds born are capable of being excellent Schutzhund dogs, so there is genetics at work there. Most simply are not capable of handling the training and doing the job, no matter how much you work with them.

But by the same token, NONE of them could be shutzhunds on their own. They require the training, and the quality and abilities of the trainer is more important to the end result than pure genetics are. Of the dogs that are capable of doing shutzhund, less than 5% earn the highest ratings, yet the same trainers can consistently produce dogs with those high ratings.

So I'm going to have to say it's about equal. Genetics matters, but so does the nurturing. To put it simply, genetics provides the potential, and training determines the execution.





BTW, if you don't know what shutzhund is....

Courage


Obedience

[PeanutButterMunky]

We're talking about dogs now?

[The Black Wolf]

Wow Completely Average, I didn't know you liked dogs or German Shepherd dogs for that matter.

I know all about Sch titles and working dogs. I was and still am into German Shepherds. I also like Golden Retrievers and Siberians.

In fact, I want to be a reputable breeder of siberians someday but I also want to own a GSD.

[Completely Average]

We're talking about dogs now?

They were used as an example of nature vs. nurture, I simply expanded on that example to make my point.