Morality question. Nature/nurture

Post Reply New Topic

Based on twin studies many personality traits have been shown to be approximately 50 percent heritable. However, finding the specific genes responsible for personality have been difficult, likely because many aspects of the human brain are highly polygenic.

Here is a very recent study from 2015 demonstrating the above:
http://www.nature.com/tp/journal/v5/n7/ ... 1596a.html

Some relatively recent studies have shown similar - or even higher - heritability for antisocial personality disorder (the perhaps best approximate for a "bad person", as stated in the OP):
http://psych.colorado.edu/~carey/Course ... gerson.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3606922/

It should be noted that it can be quite difficult to observe the heritable aspects of antisocial traits in an individual, since nature and nurture may manifest itself in the same manner...

For instance: If someone were to grow up in a household terrorized by a violent father and then become a real a**hole in adulthood, how is one to interpret this result?

- The individual became "bad" because of the "bad" family environment?
- The individual inherited "bad" genes from his/her "bad" father?

Both explanations are equally consistent with the above description of a childhood dominated by a violent father.

But they don't seem to be *equally* consistent over populations except on average. Witness a family where one child takes one path and another a very different path despite growing up in seemingly the same environment. Personality - which itself is a mix of nurture and nature - greatly affects how one reacts to threats, as does one's innate, hardcoded arousal level, excitability, etc.. Not to mention that one child might get gene set / expression x from its mother's bloodlines while its sibling gets it from the father's family's side.

This is where the really interesting work in neurology is being done, right now, and then handed off to psychologists & sociologists and the others. Together they are teasing apart which influences are innate/nature and which are modified/nurture. It's really exciting because they are beginning to see that what they thought were "personality traits" - basic units that could be measured - are actually made up of even smaller units or influences.

I don't believe the input of nature is "minimal." I believe it's more like a 60-40 split, in favor of nurture.

Based on my past research, I believe that personality is mostly genetic. No one really knows for sure. It may even be different for different people depending on the genes involved. Some genes have a stronger effect, or affect certain populations to a greater degree. It's very complicated.

I don't think autism is environmental, for the most part. It may be able to be "treated" with medical intervention. Maybe some futuristic type of medicine will be able to completely change the brain. It's hard to say whether this would be a good thing or a bad thing. I believe every situation is different.

But I don't see anything wrong with teaching people to cope with autism and learn how to adapt to the environment. I wouldn't expect a cure.

I believe PREDISPOSITION to certain personalities is genetic.

I believe the environment plays a greater role in the formulation of an ACTUAL personality.

Nature Vs. Nurture is best viewed as an RPG: Nature gives you a class and it may have prebuilt bonuses and skills but the majority of your character comes down to experience points and where you spend them.

Yep

How I feel and how I act are not the same

If you observe very small children (a 24/7 job if you have any of your own), you'll be hard-pressed to notice any innate malice or generosity. Rather, their world is defined by need and curiosity. The concepts of 'good' and 'bad' are social constructs rather than naturally occurring traits.

I've seen generous toddlers. I've seen toddlers who have malicious designs.

Are you possibly mistaking egocentrism for malice, or do you mean toddlers who are already developing socially?

I mean actual malice. Though not exactly of a Machiavellian nature.

i don't know i just want to say something u heard 100000 times
"fishing and eating chickens is evil because you cause harm to others. thank you vrt much

and oh
nature doesn't care about what we think is evil as long as it's important for survival, look at food chain. see how lions eat deer, look at their tooth bla bla,

today we humans talk/care about morality to survive as well. we live in groups, so we should have minimum basics of morality only because it's necessary for our survival.

I'd go one step further and say morals are actually the fabric of society. Without them there's no reason to trust your fellow man thus it would actually be foolish to contribute to society. Minimum is where we're at right now, I actually believe the stronger the underlying fabric the more satisfied we are. Easy things rarely lead to satisfaction, they will provide temporary boosts of happiness, but not satisfaction-- which is long-term and not actually a "feeling", but an emotional state of being. Taking, stealing, cheating, etc. these are all easy things to accomplish, and contrary to what your 1st grade teacher told you, they will actually make you feel good because you've gotten rewarded. But that feeling will only last for a short time-- you will need to continue to do these things to get your "boost". Now giving to someone in need, getting to share a bit of their emotional relief, that lasts forever-- it will always form a long term positive emotion. Regardless of how many times you repeat the behavior the feeling itself will never grow old, nor tedious, nor unfulfilling because you've actually connected with another human being-- that's your inherent biological pack instinct being fulfilled.