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.