Talk:Nature versus nurture

message: — Assignment last updated by Adwf2 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Personality Theory

message: "The role parental genetic hereditability on offspring personality is negligible.  Moreover, no single gene is specific to a certain trait but rather combination of genes that collectively influence someone's personality trait.  Molecular genetic techniques have been able to guess what genes do what for the most part but it is mainly about guessing averages rather than precise data.  Alternatively, we can see that "genetic factors can be amplified or diminished due to environmental conditions or constraints".  Genetic code is passed on to offspring however personality is not directly and relies heavily on surrounding conditions of an individual's life."
This paragraph is incorrectly worded, and, as far as I can understand it, factually seems to contradict what is said above it. I propose to delete it, and will do so if no objections come. Backep1 (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's very poorly worded, support deletion or adjustment to match the source. Zenomonoz (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Zenomonoz for the confirmation. I've now deleted the paragraph. Backep1 (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  doesn't make sense 

message: I propose the body and introduction require some modification. At present, it suggests that "nurture" = "environment", however this is somewhat misleading. "Environment" also includes things that might be considered 'nature'. For example, handedness is a trait that is not completely genetic (it has environmental influence), however the environment in this case appears to be prenatal, and thus the trait is due to 'nature'
From Rutter (2014): 
There are a number of other sources that also discuss this.
Of course, it is necessary to discuss this in the body prior to making changes to the intro. What section is it best to discuss, or should a new section be made? Zenomonoz (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not convinced that this or other sources actually indicate that there is any fundamental problem with the way we currently phrase things. Of course inexact concepts like "nature" and "nurture" will break down when examined closely enough, and philosophical questions will emerge around limit cases like in-utero environment, where the distinction between nature and nurture appears to break down. We can certainly discuss this if we can identify sources which do so, but the existence of such limit cases in no way invalidates the macro-level appropriateness of "nature = genetics / nurture = environment", which is how most sources have historically described this topic. Generalrelative (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, for example transgender identity is largely 'environmental', but that would not prove that it is a case of nurture (non-social mechanisms exist). While it's certainly true that mistaken social scientists have often written 'environment = nurture', most of the behavior genetics literature (where this all stems from) are quite clear that environment ≠ nurture, it is a lot broader than that. Nurture, most accurately is probably described as the postnatal and social environment. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that your premise is correct. But it seems rather irrelevant, since we don't write articles based on our own original analysis. What you would need to be persuasive here is reliable, secondary sources which state what you are trying to say clearly and definitively. If you can provide such sources I would be more than happy to revise the language. It's also probably worth mentioning that we have no a priori reason to privilege behavioral genetics literature over social science. As you may know, behavioral genetics is an emerging field with some serious critics. Generalrelative (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's in notable sources. I very clearly implied in my original comment that sources for these changes would be needed. Second,  is a bit weak given 'nature versus nurture' was coined by Francis Galton, so the definitions from genetics are relevant (especially since it literally states "nature (genes)" in the opening which is blatantly false). You are also missing that regular geneticists (not behavioral geneticists) also use the terms genes and environment as I have (i.e. non social environment is part of the environment). Zenomonoz (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't believe that mainstream geneticists use the terms "nature" and "nurture" as you do. Of course environment extends beyond the social. Who would argue otherwise? That has nothing to do with whether we can say that the prenatal environment falls outside the realm of "nurture", which would imply some pretty silly things, e.g. that while childhood nutrition is obviously "nurture", prenatal nutrition is somehow "nature". For more on this I'd suggest reading the SEP article on "The Distinction Between Innate and Acquired Characteristics". As the authors conclude:  If some "behavioral" geneticists have agreed to draw a firm distinction the way you do (I'll take your word for it for the sake of argument), that is a conventional definition. But it is far from universal, or even mainstream.  Most scientists who study this stuff (and the philosophers who study what those scientists are saying) understand that gene/environment interactions obtain all the way down, and that the nature/nurture distinction is at best an everyday-language shorthand for these interactions. Your second point strikes me as a non-sequitur. At this point I feel like we're talking past one another so we should probably leave it to others to weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am wondering why you have started a long winded argument. Where did I say prenatal nutrition would be considered 'nature'? I didn't! However, prenatal fluctuations of hormones which occur naturally  would be nature. Many environmental components happen without outside influence. That is the distinction. Another example: a lot of the 'environment' can be down to genetic variation and stochasticism (simply chance in how an organism begins to grow, e.g. a zig or a zag of a cell), which is captured in 'environment', but can be entirely 'nature'. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean, my "long winded" argument was a good faith effort to engage with you. But I'll stop that now. As I said, we appear to be talking past one another, with neither of us understanding the other. You also seem to be claiming not to have said things you clearly did say, which is quite frustrating (e.g.  –– I point out that prenatal factors like nutrition are also forms of "nurture" and your response is I didn't say that.) Happy to let others take over from here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Generalrelative (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Nature (genes) nurture (environment)" 

message: Hi, 
actually I was even surprised that the quote doesn't appear in the article. A wide body of articles, having the nature-nurture interaction or some part thereof as their topic, use this synthetic and famous quote, sometimes even in their title. 
Sincerely yours, 
Adrijani 2A01:CB04:BC:3200:6D89:3DE3:F9E0:17D7 (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken care of that. Wiki Crazyman (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  I plead for a pertinent inclusion of the seminal quote "genes load the gun, environment pulls the trigger"  

message: Should this article include a discussion of Lysenkoism? Wiki Crazyman (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: On the surface it would seem an appropriate topic for this article, but first we'd need reliable sources that explicitly connect Lysenko to "nature versus nurture". My guess is that such sources shouldn't be hard to find. Generalrelative (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lysenko or not