Post by James Hannam on Jun 27, 2008 14:08:07 GMT
Hi all,
This is a discussion on nature and nurture from this blog post: bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/06/parents-versus-peer-groups.html
Let me start by saying that personal experience is useless with a question like this. There is a huge literature on how humans can foll themselves and how bad we are at correctly connecting cause to effect. That is why we need the scientific method and why science was so incredibly difficult. By previous blog post on how bad the ancient Greeks were at science is related to this point. Aristotle never managed to move beyond a direct correlation between observation and underlying cause. Consequently, he was wrong about almost everything. Of course we need large scale objective studies. And they trump anecdote and experience every time.
Let me also say that parents and teachers remain important. They may not be able to mold personalities, increase intelligence or (in that hackneyed phrase) foster a love of learning. But they impart knowledge, they can provide a healthy diet (diet remains the essential environmental factor which can affect characteristics), they should determine boundaries and discipline, and they help determine how happy children are. That final point, I'd say, although subject to genetic limits, is probably the most important of all.
Finally, we are talking here about outcomes, not immediate behavior. You can change a child's behavior in the short term very easily by intervening. But in the long run, that does not effect their characteristics. Children deprived of their mothers get upset (this I know very well from experience of my three year old) but this will not turn her into an introvert. It will just make her miserable.
By the way, this article explains some of the recent research in this area and what it means. Please read it before commenting on this thread:
pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/papers/nature_nurture.pdf
Best wishes
James
This is a discussion on nature and nurture from this blog post: bedejournal.blogspot.com/2008/06/parents-versus-peer-groups.html
Let me start by saying that personal experience is useless with a question like this. There is a huge literature on how humans can foll themselves and how bad we are at correctly connecting cause to effect. That is why we need the scientific method and why science was so incredibly difficult. By previous blog post on how bad the ancient Greeks were at science is related to this point. Aristotle never managed to move beyond a direct correlation between observation and underlying cause. Consequently, he was wrong about almost everything. Of course we need large scale objective studies. And they trump anecdote and experience every time.
Let me also say that parents and teachers remain important. They may not be able to mold personalities, increase intelligence or (in that hackneyed phrase) foster a love of learning. But they impart knowledge, they can provide a healthy diet (diet remains the essential environmental factor which can affect characteristics), they should determine boundaries and discipline, and they help determine how happy children are. That final point, I'd say, although subject to genetic limits, is probably the most important of all.
Finally, we are talking here about outcomes, not immediate behavior. You can change a child's behavior in the short term very easily by intervening. But in the long run, that does not effect their characteristics. Children deprived of their mothers get upset (this I know very well from experience of my three year old) but this will not turn her into an introvert. It will just make her miserable.
By the way, this article explains some of the recent research in this area and what it means. Please read it before commenting on this thread:
pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/papers/nature_nurture.pdf
Best wishes
James