Does our environment shape who we are or are we just born to be a certain way?
shareBoth, but mainly nurture.
"Trading Places" covers this topic. It's a great movie.
What about people that are just born bad?
shareWhat is your definition of bad?
shareThe sort of people that usually end up in prison for doing the kind of things that is universally considered wrong.
shareDisproportionate number of people in prison are poor. Therefore, they're born poor, not bad. That's nurture.
A huge difference between the life of a kid born to parents with an income of $150,000 and $12,000.
"Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man."
- Aristotle
As if somehow being poor causes you to be a criminal. I think it is probably the other way around. If you are a criminal then you are more likely to be poor. Of course, there are white collar criminals but far fewer. The problem isn't poverty it is ethics and morality.
Ethics and morality are a nurture kind of thing but no matter how much persuasion you apply to a child, they will still turn out different than a twin with the same exposure.
It's both. Simple.
Poor people have crappier schools, harsher environment, less opportunities, know fewer people to network for good jobs, crappy public defense attorneys, harsher sentences, harsher school punishments which lead to higher dropout rates, peer pressure to commit crime, dropout or remain poor, contend with stereotypes that say poor are stupid and immoral which lead to discrimination, less exposure to basic things which help with success, more health issues due to malnutrition and pollution which is concentrated in poorer areas, different skill set needed to learn to make it, live in an environment with more peers already involved in gangs and crime, etc..
The lifestyles of a poor, middle-class and rich child are totally different.
Statistically, most people stay within the social class in which they're born because there is a learning curve to move out of it.
"Trading Places" and "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" touch upon some of those differences.
And then there are people like me who think that poor people are just like rich people and are not more prone to crime. Nor do I cook up excuses for the ones that do commit crime. Poor people are good people and are not more susceptible to lapses of morality/ethics.
The poor overwhelmingly outnumber the rich. So the examples of behavior will share that %.
The poor and rich live a completely different life and not treated the same.
There is a steep learning curve to move up from one socio-economic group which is why most people fail. Most Americans play the lottery because they want to be rich, but don't know how to do in a practical way. Could you make $5 million by December? Bill Gates would have no problem.
From poor to middle-income is just as difficult. Like I wrote, it's a different skill set.
"The poor overwhelmingly outnumber the rich. So the examples of behavior will share that %."
Most Americans are middle-class, but most incarcerated are poor. Why? Some stats:
2.2 million incarcerated. Arrests rates went up - especially drug crimes - and sentences became longer even though crime went down since 1990s. Some of it is privatizing prisons which lead to mass incarcerations for profit.
Related to poverty:
1/4 (555,000) incarcerated pre-trial because they can't afford bail. Most are non-violent low-level drug or property crimes.
Homelessness is criminalized: sleeping in public or in your car; begging; loitering, sharing food with homeless. 1/4 homeless arrested for activities related to homelessness.
Homeless are 11x more likely to be incarcerated.
Failure to pay child support:
70% of debt owed by individuals making less than $10,000.
Inability to pay fines.
Only 49% of incarcerated men were employed in the three years prior to incarceration and their median annual earnings were $6,250; just 13 percent earned more than $15,000.
https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/incarceration-and-poverty-in-the-united-states/
You get the idea. Our society kicks people when they're down - or poor.
Agreed.
shareI'm in the both camp, but I think nature is stronger than nurture. For example, lots of people grow up in countries and environments being told A is right and B is wrong and with certain teachings from birth, but they still go against them even when this could result in the loss of their families, their liberty and their lives.
shareCould you give an example of the kinds of teachings to which you're referring?
shareSure. There are countries where being gay, for example, is not only considered immoral but also illegal - and this is taught from birth. Yet people still risk their lives and familial relationships to be with someone of the same sex.
shareAhhh, got you. You're right.
shareCheers. Sorry if I was too ambiguous initially.
shareIt was probably me being a bit slow on the uptake. I really should've been able to figure out that sexuality was the sort of thing you were driving at.
shareTbh I didn't want to use it because I don't really want to get into the politics of "are we born gay", but it's just one example. There are plenty, to do with sexuality, religion, etc.
sharePersonally, I've always thought the debate about 'are we born gay' or 'the gay gene(s)' or whatever is - or rather should be - politically irrelevant. I mean, it's academically interesting, but in political terms, it's an issue of consent as far as I'm concerned.
If someone doesn't have the 'gay gene' (or whatever), are they still entitled to have consexual sex with another adult/adults of their choosing? The only sensible answer is yes - so, as far as I'm concerned, the 'are we born gay' thing is a bit of a red herring politically-speaking. I know why people use it - as a response to bigotry - but, to me, it's allowing bigots to set the frame of debate... But, anyway...
An example from religion? I'm confused again now. Perhaps it's just my day for it: what religious ideas would appear to stem more from nature than nurture?
I agree - I think a lot of nature versus nurture conversations in relation to homosexuality are unnecessarily framed to treat it as unnatural or sinful, which I find dull.
As for religion, a lot of culture-based religious "beliefs" are almost indoctrinated in people - for example, in certain countries women dressing immodestly is seen as an act against their faith and can lead to them being beaten and killed, and yet they do it even growing up believing that it's both unethical and illegal.
I agree about religious/cultural indoctrination. You think there's a natural or instictive element to 'rebellion' against this? That's interesting. And not something I've ever really considered. I've always thought of these things as more intellectual objections. Hmm, I'll have to think about that one.
shareNature trumps nurture, in my experience.
share
Both are important.
😎