Nature vs Nurture

I've had this debate with myself a thousand times and with others a few less and I always come to the same conclusion. People are built, constructed and are ultimately a product of their environment. Now that might be an uncomfortable thought for many, and I think, for some, potentially quite comforting, but just like matters relating to God, Religion, Science or any attempt at reasonable discussion, I don't think that our comfort level when thinking about the topic should have any relevance to actually coming to a conclusion.

If you look at people all over the world, what they are like, what they think like, their beliefs and social norms they vary at the most basic level by geography. Obviously people living together, under similar conditions and circumstances are going to tend towards a unified society and beliefs. They deal with the same problems and use each others solutions and more importantly the Description of Why those solutions work. For example ancient astrologers attributed their ability to predict weather patterns and predict certain climatic events as some divine inspiration and choosing which made them immensely powerful and important. As long as their "solution" held up, then their description of how they came to that solution was irrevocable. So these descriptions of the world are imprinted with ultimate authority upon the youth, as is only natural, as they are the best possible ways the elders know how to survive in the world.

To look at more specific examples the obvious choice for me is religous beliefs. Undeniably the majority of people brought up in a particular religious household will follow that same religion. The reasons for that are pretty self explanatory in that obviously, just as with any other belief or solution a elder has, religous practice is not only followed by the elders but either forced or suggested to the youth. I would certainly also venture that the level of devotion and practice of that religion by the youth is directly proportional to the devotion and practice by that of the elders.

 The one large critisism of that is people often will refer to the many people who have switched from being completely devote to one religion to another or no religion. I think that is a pretty hollow critisism in the sense that the variables in those individuals to me seems self evident. The people who do switch I think are massively in the minority and I would also claim that a large portion of that minority were brought up in a way, as mentioned before, that their lack of devotion to that particular sect is proportional to the level of devotion of their elders ( ie their parents perhaps believed in the core religion but didn't practice much or any of what I refer to as religious reinforcers - church, praying, reading of religeous texts, etc).

This interestingly brings up another point which has taken me a while longer than I would have hoped for to think of. I kind of assumed the nature vs nurture debate would have a definite or perfect answer, which I have long since realised either doesn't exist for most things or is impossible to determine. In this case I think the ratio of who someone is in terms of the source of their attributes and personality is completely variable. I used to just assume there would be an answer such as 80 percent nurture and 20 percent nature. But I think the level of influence of nurture in your makeup over nature is quite obviously proportional to the Level of nurture. For example I think a lot of the people who break the mould of an abusive family history and go from rags to riches, do so purely due to the Lack of nurture they receive, and so their inherent nature is brought through a lot stronger and so, they are, in my opinion, more nature than nurture. Although I must acknowledge this last point is only true to a point and true to a certain defintion I placed upon the idea of "nurture", they are still highly influencable by their respective environments.

So if your nature vs nurture ratio has no definite answer then is it safe to say they are equal and completely dependant on circumstance? No, I don't think so. I think "nurture" is far more powerful than any inherent "nature". So essentially I believe a highly capable "natural" without "nurture" is at a disadvantage to a equally incapable "natural" with high levels of "nurture". So finally, "nurture" is more powerful than "nature".

So I think, as mentioned before, this is a very uncomfortable conclusion for many people, especially those who would frown upon their "nurturing" as a youth. But I think we can avoid that by agreeing we are a construction of All our past experiences and we can essentially choose which experiences define us as people. Another potential hurdle on the way from discomfort to comfort is a large belief we are a unique person as defined by our physical and genetic charicteristics. For example we grow and learn more but essentially remain the same core person. I think this is a source of confidence for many people because it gives them a rock solid foundation which is unshakable, somewhat comparable to the unreasonable idea of "Faith", a sort of lighthouse in a hurricane of uncertainty.

So instead of this idea I believe (reasonablely conclude from the evidence, not a emotional belief) we are as liquid and mouldable as we want to be. Yes many people do have foundations of stone based on their sense of uniqueness or religion or whatever it may be but I would suggest those foundations are self imposed, ie they are stone because you Believe them to be stone, as opposed to some intrinsically defined core we cannot change.

I think the conclusion of this is also somewhat variable. We can realize our changeability and yet, if we wished, still create a unshakable core of what we could perceive as "ourselves" as long as we believe it to be true.

This is quite a short description of a million and one debates I've had with myself, but I think it projects some level of the Idea that we are essentially a construction of experiences. Early on we are a combination of other people ideas and outside influence, and, as time goes on, we become more aware of the that construction and essentially architect ourselves by choosing our future experiences and how we view them. 

It's a matter of Principle

Recent events have turned my gaze once again to this idea of personal "principles". I'm struggling to grip the level of devotion to which these principles must be followed. I've always been vaguely arrogant about following certain principles that I live by and only recently accepting of the idea that they change and mold with the times, as well as your own personal perspectives.

The real world is, unfortunately, far more grey, than the idea of a clear black and white distinctions between choices and actions of: good and evil; right and wrong; than heroic fiction would have you believe. Although this is true for normal decisions, like whether to give the hobo/charity worker the £2 you were going to waste on a comfort item, it's when it becomes personal that choices become difficult. If something appeals very strongly to your principles and yet to pursue it may be completely futile, or worse: negatively effect your life, then surely your logic must refer to the trusted reward vs risk/cost model. For example, you're not going to pay £1000 for a random lottery ticket. The problem with that logic however is the very nature of "principles", we use the reward vs risk/cost model daily, without pause, because obviously it's the only way we can gain assets as opposed to lose assets. The idea of "principles" however is that it transcendent of the "now" or direct consequences and refers to something that is far more important than personal gain/loss. So do we choose to follow principles on that basis or do we sometimes decide its risk/cost is too much and so essentially place a distinct purchase value on those same principles?

This is all very complex and confusing and despite me trying to find some sort of universal calculator that can decide how we value certain principles, and how we follow those principles, I think that's impossible. The problem is we're only scratching the surface, the awful reality is that this can become even more complicated when the risk involves others and yet you the one making the decision. How can you justify risking something that someone else values for your own selfish "principles" (especially if you have no direct link to the particular situation)? Who's to say your set of personal principles are the correct ones?

I feel extremely frustrated by these extremely murky and grey areas, partly due to the fact I grew up reading many fantastical, heroic novels whereby the hero goes to great effort for some pure ideal such as saving his people/kingdom/world from the dangers of some malevolent and evil forces.
These stories are important but I don't think they address the more day-to-day and realistic problems of non-contrasted moral/life decisions. I think that fighting for good against evil is a pretty easy choice, I think the real question comes in when there is no good and evil but rather conflicting views.

I think this is a pretty messy analysis and potentially full of missed arguments and lost statements, but I do hope it coalesces into some sort of meaningful conclusion. A "Right" or "Wrong" decision is very rare in real world activities, all one can be expected to do is to make the best judgement based on their own knowledge and their own principles, and to actually Make that decision. I think there is a value to decisiveness when coupled with principles, although there certainly is a delicate balance. I think it's more likely the definition of "Wrong" should be associated with absence of actually Trying to make the Right choice as opposed to the final outcome, and vice versa.

New Blog Style

I've decided to change my blog approach. I constantly find myself thinking of ideas and arguments that I don't always have the opportunity to express. I think what I'm going to do now is just post ideas and arguments that I often have with myself. If people find it interesting then great, I'd love to hear other views, if people find it boring or offensive then I apologize and you don't have to read it. Anyway, not going to post anything right now but the next time I have a heated argument with myself I'll release those scraps of genius to the world (or more likely just scraps, full stop).