#1
Classic debate in psychology and zoology: what has the biggest impact on who you are, the way your parents raised you or factors they can't control (your genetics, etc.)?

Take a position and battle it out!

I'll take Nature. While how your Mommy brought you up is important, and her doing a crap job can certainly have a negative effect, I say nature wins.

We'll tease out the details as this thing moves along.


Note: as with any debate topic this is potentially controversial. The point is to have fun, keep an open mind to others' opinions and perhaps learn something, if only how to have a slightly better debate next time. There are no winners or losers, and the side I have chosen (Nature) is for the purpose of the exercise. I could as easily select Nurture and argue that stance, though I honestly do favor Nature in this discussion.
"Virtually no one who is taught Relativity continues to read the Bible."

#2
Which is the one where you can smoke weed.


Ill take that one
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#4
Depends entirely on the issue at hand.

Example:
sexual preferences: nature
religion: nurture
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
Last edited by Neo Evil11 at May 19, 2015,
#5
The concept of "nature vs. nurture" is pop psychology and is largely outdated. Both are acknowledged to have substantial contributions to human development. It is deemed archaic and aimless to debate which is more of a factor. Psychologists currently observe how nature and nurture work together rather than how they oppose one another as it can be largely difficult, and at times, impossible, to ascertain whether a characteristic is of nature or of nurture (Snibbe, 2004).

References
Snibbe, A. (2004). Taking the 'vs.' out of nature vs. nurture. Monitor On Psychology, 35(10), 22.

Further Reading
Heine, S.J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D.R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C., et al. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 599-615.

Kameda, T., Takezawa, M., & Hastie, R. (2003). The logic of social sharing: An evolutionary game analysis of adaptive norm development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(1), 2-19.

Nesse, R.M. (2000). Is depression an adaptation? Archives of General Psychiatry, 57(1), 14-20.
Free Ali
Last edited by chrismendiola at May 19, 2015,
#7
Quote by Bubonic Chronic
You can copy-paste!

Lol, aren't you the one who seriously suggested literally copy-pasting someone's work and changing it around and to submit it as schoolwork?

For the record, I copied and pasted that from a Word document. I wrote it, but I did it in such a way that it couldn't be deemed plagiarism.
Free Ali
#8
Quote by Bubonic Chronic
You can copy-paste!


So nurture then?
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#9
Quote by chrismendiola
Lol, aren't you the one who seriously suggested literally copy-pasting someone's work and changing it around and to submit it as schoolwork?

The structure, ideas, even tone, yes. And no, that's not plagiarism.

It's generating your own original content extracting the key compositional elements of anothers' work, which are not copyrightable.

And this is supposed to be an exercise in discussion not a pissing contest.

Not interested then **** off.
"Virtually no one who is taught Relativity continues to read the Bible."

#10
Quote by Bubonic Chronic
The structure, ideas, even tone, yes. And no, that's not plagiarism.

Yes, it is.

Quote by Bubonic Chronic
It's generating your own original content extracting the key compositional elements of anothers' work, which are not copyrightable.

Yes, it is.

Quote by Bubonic Chronic
And this is supposed to be an exercise in discussion not a pissing contest.

I am discussing it. I'm just not discussing it the way you intended it to be discussed.
Free Ali
#11
it's nature, nurture and a bit of randomness in every person.

I doubt that the nature/nurture elements could be a set ratio of what makes up any person.

you could approximate but you would still get people that turn out completely contrary to any model you create.

we're a long way from knowing since we'd probably have to work out wtf is happening in our brains first and who knows to what level that goes down. wouldn't be surprised if there is some quantum shenanigans down at planck length.


but besides all that waffle, I instinctively feel nurture/environmental elements have much bigger impact than anything. just look at the wealth of studies on the general differences in socio-economic statuses and attitudes.
O.K.

“There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want.”
~ Bill Watterson


O__o
#12
Quote by chrismendiola
The concept of "nature vs. nurture" is pop psychology and is largely outdated. Both are acknowledged to have substantial contributions to human development. It is deemed archaic and aimless to debate which is more of a factor. Psychologists currently observe how nature and nurture work together rather than how they oppose one another as it can be largely difficult, and at times, impossible, to ascertain whether a characteristic is of nature or of nurture (Snibbe, 2004).

References
Snibbe, A. (2004). Taking the 'vs.' out of nature vs. nurture. Monitor On Psychology, 35(10), 22.

Further Reading
Heine, S.J., Kitayama, S., Lehman, D.R., Takata, T., Ide, E., Leung, C., et al. (2001). Divergent consequences of success and failure in Japan and North America: An investigation of self-improving motivations and malleable selves. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(4), 599-615.

Kameda, T., Takezawa, M., & Hastie, R. (2003). The logic of social sharing: An evolutionary game analysis of adaptive norm development. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(1), 2-19.

Nesse, R.M. (2000). Is depression an adaptation? Archives of General Psychiatry, 57(1), 14-20.


yeah, but people love debating nonsense binaries that don't actually exist anywhere outside theory so what can you do.

next week is the "left" vs the "right"
O.K.

“There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want.”
~ Bill Watterson


O__o
#13
Quote by theguitarist
yeah, but people love debating nonsense binaries that don't actually exist anywhere outside theory so what can you do.

next week is the "left" vs the "right"

It's gotta be someone's job to get rid of versus threads*.

*except for "This or that" thread, obviously
Free Ali
#14
tbf the versus thread rule was more when we were all dumb kids back in the day arguing Korn vs Slipknot or Avril Lavigne vs Britney Spears and stuff.


pretty much now it's some okay debate or amusing banter thread.
O.K.

“There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want.”
~ Bill Watterson


O__o
#15
That anybody would argue this seriously undermines my faith in humanity.

It's Britney by a mile.
Quote by jakesmellspoo
ooh look at me i'm ERIKLENSHERR and i work at fancy pants desk jobs and wear ties and ply barely legal girls with weed and booze i'm such a classy motherfucker.
#17
Quote by Fat Lard
Avril for her epic cover of Metallica - Fuel


Better than the original at any rate
Quote by zgr0826
My culture is worthless and absolutely inferior to the almighty Leaf.


Quote by JustRooster
I incurred the wrath of the Association of White Knights. Specifically the Parent's Basement branch of service.
#19
Nature/Nurture is pop psychology. I know that. I thought I'd try to start an interesting debate that wasn't about abortion or whether Jesus is your Lord and Savior, or any of this other shit that gets people riled up. Also, I tried to pick something intelligent enough but not..

"Is space-time spherical or saddle-shaped?"

Interesting topic, but a bit heady, don't you think?

Oh well. Let's just go back to talking about penises and farts.
"Virtually no one who is taught Relativity continues to read the Bible."

#20
I'd rather have a debate about abortion. These Contra-life people really piss me off.
Quote by Carmel
I can't believe you are whoring yourself out like that.

ಠ_ಠ
#21
Quote by Bubonic Chronic
Nature/Nurture is pop psychology. I know that. I thought I'd try to start an interesting debate that wasn't about abortion or whether Jesus is your Lord and Savior, or any of this other shit that gets people riled up. Also, I tried to pick something intelligent enough but not..

"Is space-time spherical or saddle-shaped?"

Interesting topic, but a bit heady, don't you think?

Oh well. Let's just go back to talking about penises and farts.

I'm not even trying to discourage your discussion. I'm throwing in my thoughts (really, others' thoughts and I agree with them) on this topic.
Free Ali
#22
Quote by Bubonic Chronic
Nature/Nurture is pop psychology. I know that. I thought I'd try to start an interesting debate that wasn't about abortion or whether Jesus is your Lord and Savior, or any of this other shit that gets people riled up. Also, I tried to pick something intelligent enough but not..

"Is space-time spherical or saddle-shaped?"

Interesting topic, but a bit heady, don't you think?

Oh well. Let's just go back to talking about penises and farts.


I guess.

those other topics have no where to go anyway cause

- abortion is great
- jesus was some conman troll
- probably flat. I don't think anyone can say otherwise at present until experiments are finished that show otherwise.
O.K.

“There's never enough time to do all the nothing you want.”
~ Bill Watterson


O__o
#23
This debate always has been a stupid false dichotomy.
Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
Better than the original at any rate

I have some affection for the original tbh.
Quote by Axelfox
Reeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Quote by H4T3BR33D3R
I also have to do that. Cottaging this weekend
#24
genetic determinism is the refuge of internet sexists.
i don't know why i feel so dry
#25
Quote by chrismendiola
Lol, aren't you the one who seriously suggested literally copy-pasting someone's work and changing it around and to submit it as schoolwork?

Yes.

So you've brought up the topic of copy-pasting work into a Word document and manipulating its content into an original composition that maintains the original themes, ideas, arguments, structure, virtually everything except what the author specifically said. That's not plagiarism.

If writing a paper for a US History class I would start with something I know my prof likes. If it were an intro Rock Composition class and at some point the prof extolled the virtues of Metallica's "The Four Horsemen," I might write a song about Abraham's sacrifice.. something loosely Biblically-themed. The song would feature some palm muted pentatonic riffage with about a 120 bpm 4/4 drum beat, lots of crash cymbals and a driving bass line, and of course a guitar solo toward the end somewhere.

Artistically that's shit. Would it probably get me a good grade in the class? Yes!

That's the point. Reverse-engineering the works of others and sticking (at first) as closely as possible to the structure you find there is the best way to learn. How do you build a lawnmower? Take one apart.

How do you learn to play the guitar? You learn to copy others as closely as possible. It's the best place to start. There is nothing wrong with imitation as long as you are doing it for the right reasons.

There is also no such thing as "purely original." That's crap! To think anyone ever created anything that doesn't directly or otherwise owe to another's work is nonsense.

Since we know that's true we might as well start with a really solid piece and take some time to dissect it.
"Virtually no one who is taught Relativity continues to read the Bible."

#26
this is only a controversial topic in highschool classrooms

with that being said, you are primitive and archaic ts


Gozd in gora poj,
silen ženimo hrup,
uboga gmajna, le vpup, le vkup,
le vkup, le vkup z menoj,
staro pravdo v mrak tulimo,
da se pretulimo skozi to zimo
#27
Quote by Bubonic Chronic
Yes.

I've got no clue why you're bringing this up now when you could've done it earlier, but okay.

Quote by Bubonic Chronic
So you've brought up the topic of copy-pasting work into a Word document and manipulating its content into an original composition that maintains the original themes, ideas, arguments, structure, virtually everything except what the author specifically said. That's not plagiarism.

You don't have to copy exactly what a person says for it to be plagiarism. As long as it's someone else's idea, even the "structure" of it, you have to cite the authors.

Quote by Bubonic Chronic
If writing a paper for a US History class I would start with something I know my prof likes. If it were an intro Rock Composition class and at some point the prof extolled the virtues of Metallica's "The Four Horsemen," I might write a song about Abraham's sacrifice.. something loosely Biblically-themed. The song would feature some palm muted pentatonic riffage with about a 120 bpm 4/4 drum beat, lots of crash cymbals and a driving bass line, and of course a guitar solo toward the end somewhere.

Artistically that's shit. Would it probably get me a good grade in the class? Yes!

That's the point. Reverse-engineering the works of others and sticking (at first) as closely as possible to the structure you find there is the best way to learn. How do you build a lawnmower? Take one apart.

It's plagiarism if you intentionally take someone's work and take their ideas. We're not talking about music, we're talking about academia. In any case, you're attacking a straw man as I'm not talking about using ideas that have already existed loosely.

Also, "palm muted pentatonic riffage with about 120 bpm 4/4 drum beat

Quote by Bubonic Chronic
There is also no such thing as "purely original." That's crap! To think anyone ever created anything that doesn't directly or otherwise owe to another's work is nonsense.

I never said your work had to "purely original." I said taking someone's work, changing it a bit, and then passing it off as your own is plagiarism. Nothing would ever be accomplished that way.

Even work that is similar enough can be ruled as intellectual theft.

Even if you forget the law and institution rules, it's still lazy and tacky to take someone's work, change a few things, and pass it off as your own.
Free Ali
#28
Quote by chrismendiola
I've got no clue why you're bringing this up now when you could've done it earlier, but okay.

Probably related to the fact that I have a job.

"Originality itself is a fiction. Everything is derived from the work of others, always." might make an interesting topic.

Maybe I'll find some people who aren't complete dickheads about everything and see what they think about it.

"Virtually no one who is taught Relativity continues to read the Bible."

#29
Quote by Bubonic Chronic
Probably related to the fact that I have a job.

"Originality itself is a fiction. Everything is derived from the work of others, always." might make an interesting topic.

Maybe I'll find some people who aren't complete dickheads about everything and see what they think about it.




Good artists copy, great artists steal.

If you copy from one you're a thief, if you copy from 10 you've done your research.

Much of corporate America is based on the C.A.S.E. Method.

Copy And Steal Everything!
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
Last edited by Arby911 at May 19, 2015,
#31
Quote by beadhangingOne
about 50/50

Also each can influence the other so there's that...


Closer to 48/48.

4% aliens.
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.”
Charles Darwin
#32
To see this question in action, everyone should watch Orphan Black :3

...modes and scales are still useless.


Quote by PhoenixGRM
Hey guys could you spare a minute to Vote for my band. Go to the site Search our band Listana with CTRL+F for quick and vote Thank you .
Quote by sam b
Voted for Patron Çıldırdı.

Thanks
Quote by PhoenixGRM
But our Band is Listana
#34
There's a difference between the two concepts?
Quote by Bubonic Chronic
Take a position and battle it out!

Last edited by Zaphikh at May 20, 2015,
#35
Humans can get raised by wolves so it's all due to environment. Genetics only define physical ability to an extent.
Happy to help.
ZEN JUDDHISM
The new solo project, and spiritual philosophy... Album out now !
----------------------------------------------------------
hybrid 6.0
Debut album 'Silent Destruction' out now
Read the Two Guys Metal review here
#36
I think when it comes to mental illness nature wins. I have some crazy ass relatives!
"Virtually no one who is taught Relativity continues to read the Bible."

#37
Quote by Bubonic Chronic
I think when it comes to mental illness nature wins. I have some crazy ass relatives!


consistently lowering the bar on your own "intelligent discussion"
i don't know why i feel so dry