Amazon.com Widgets

Does nurture effects in psychology have to be effects people would normally think of?

Asked by: MasturDbtor
  • Yes I agree

    Life is cool. Life is cool life is cool life is cool life is cool life is cool life is cool life is cool life is cool life is cool life is cool life is cool life is cool life is cool life is cool life is cool lifes cool

  • I don't quite understand the question, but I'll give you my view

    I don't know what 'people would normally think' about this matter, but this is sort of what I learned in my study (biology), grossly summarized: Nature are your genes. These genes affect the development of your body greatly (including brain and therefore behaviour), but these effects can be altered or mediated by environmental factors (nurture). These factors can be anything that is not biological from your own body: infections, learning events, drugs, parenting style, food, etc. How big the effect is depends on the type of trait, the genes and, of course, the environmental factor itself. Of course, there are many different ways to look at the nature vs. Nurture issue, and the definitions can differ...

  • Effects that would seem to not relate to anything at all could influence a person's psychology

    Imagine a person sees X amount of color or sound stimuli (or heck smells, tastes, anything) at certain points in time, perhaps it could even matter what the combination of influences are and possibly only effect people who have certain genes (so rather than it being separable as X% nurture Y% nature some effects would be dependent on both at once) setting off very hard to detect (at this point in neuroscience) chemical pathways that only years later influence things like anger, aggression, happiness, depression, sexual attraction, etc...? This could be experienced mentally by the person (that is they might experience certain feelings from these things even if they're not aware of the later effect) or not even be noticed by them, though perhaps if one was a strong enough intellectual they could parse out some of these effects in retrospect.

    Whenever people think of "nurture" they always think it has to be something that intuitively and regularly occurs to people in society to think of when thinking about nurture such as child abuse, the media, what the parents say. Nobody ever thinks of such off-the-wall and random environmental effects and yet they probably do factor in to some things.

  • No it does not.

    Nurture effects in psychology do not necessarily have to be something a person would normally think of. It could be something totally random but effective. I think as long as the treatment or method works and is showing that it is making progress with the subject/person that it should be allowed to be used.


Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
MasturDbtor says2015-04-10T22:55:29.590
I hate when debate.Org does this.

I understand the need for moderation. But seriously when I type out a question I have an argument ready to go in my head.

Debate.Org inconsistently puts it in moderation either after the question and before a comment can be left or after the comment.

Why not always wait until the first comment has been typed and then approve the comment along with the question or just don't approve it at all?
MasturDbtor says2015-04-10T22:56:41.387
Woops. Looked in the No section and can see I have commented here already.

So this question is not an example of that problem.

But that has happened quite a bit. It's the reason there are so many questions with zero comments in them. I don't understand why not just approve them both together or not at all? Why does it have to be submitted to moderation after the question with no opportunity to type the first comment?