Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nature versus nurture article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
This level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I propose the body and introduction require some modification. At present, it suggests that "nurture" = "environment", however this is somewhat misleading. "Environment" also includes things that might be considered 'nature'. For example, handedness is a trait that is not completely genetic (it has environmental influence), however the environment in this case appears to be prenatal, and thus the trait is due to 'nature'
From Rutter (2014): "Our understanding of the environment has undergone a similarly great transformation. First, there has come a realization that because a feature describes an environment, that does not mean that the risks are environmentally mediated. A wide range of “natural experiments” have been devised to test environmental mediation hypotheses. Second, environments do not just involve socialization experiences, as implied by the word “nurture.” Environments involve prenatal, as well as postnatal, effects (as illustrated, e.g., by fetal alcohol influences); and they involve physical, as well as psychosocial, features (as shown by the importance of cannabis effects)"
There are a number of other sources that also discuss this.
Of course, it is necessary to discuss this in the body prior to making changes to the intro. What section is it best to discuss, or should a new section be made? Zenomonoz (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
If some "behavioral" geneticists have agreed to draw a firm distinction the way you do (I'll take your word for it for the sake of argument), that is a conventional definition. But it is far from universal, or even mainstream. Most scientists who study this stuff (and the philosophers who study what those scientists are saying) understand that gene/environment interactions obtain all the way down, and that the nature/nurture distinction is at best an everyday-language shorthand for these interactions. Your second point strikes me as a non-sequitur. At this point I feel like we're talking past one another so we should probably leave it to others to weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Arguably, one reason that people continue to have confidence in the distinction is that they believe there are scientific experts who are capable of definitively classifying traits as innate or acquired. But as we have shown in this entry, such classifications are in reality highly problematic and there is little agreement either about whether they have scientific value or about how they should be drawn.
Nurture, most accurately is probably described as the postnatal and social environment–– I point out that prenatal factors like nutrition are also forms of "nurture" and your response is I didn't say that.) Happy to let others take over from here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Generalrelative (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, randomness is everywhere (or almost so) in biology. And it does contribute to phenotype. See here, for example : https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25534050-900-nature-nurture-luck-why-you-are-more-than-just-genes-and-upbringing/
You can't do an article about two contributors of a phenomena and omit the third. Also, part of why I used capitals is because I have made such a submission here, which was not only ignored but even disappeared.
Nonetheless, truly yours, Adrijani 2A01:CB04:BC:3200:4977:38D9:A2A2:A9FC (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
indeed but actually, I am majoring in philosophy of sciences (and of knowledge and mind) (Master Degree) and I am not as knowledgeable in biology, developmental psychology or medicine as people holding degrees in these majors. So, I know that luck plays a role in a large array of biological phenomenons; e.g. we can read on NCBI Stochastic effects (ie, the accumulation of random mutations within specific cellular pathways) contribute significantly to cancer etiology, and it is well known that the accumulation of these mutations in the course of a lifetime contributes to the increased risk of developing cancer as we age. But I can't go through much depth, tell the state-of-the-art with much certainty or engage in technicalities, so I hoped someone or people more able to do so would find my point, give it credit and edit the page accordingly; adding to my reluctance, the nature-nurture debate is full of controversies and sociopolitical implications (even when these are in fact non-sequitur) and this is a page on the most visited version of the most visited encyclopedia in the world. So I was afraid to mislead in some way.
Nevertheless there are philosophers of biology who know well this topic, for example Francesca Merlin, from my former university, and with enough research and learning efforts from my part I should be able to overcome said factors of shyness.
Sincerely yours, Adrijani — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:BC:3200:4977:38D9:A2A2:A9FC (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
But are stochastic effects to be seen as a part of the environment? Literally speaking, environment is what environs while random factors aren't components of the milieu (even if there is some causal effect of the milieu on random factors: e.g. environmental stress tends to increase the mutation rate). In addition, genetic factors are seen as nature-sided more than nurture-sided (in spite of epigenetics, epistasis, pleiotropy, prenatal exposure, which can induce de novo mutations et cætera) and there is some randomness at their basis, through the inheritance of the allele of one parent over other parent's, for example.
"But are stochastic effects to be seen as a part of the environment?", in terms of modelling which attributes a fraction of variance to genes or environment, yes "randomness" falls in the environment box. Example: genetic studies estimate a proportion of variance attributable to genes, and the rest is simply attributed to 'environment'. However, they cannot say what type of 'environment' it is. It is simply an unfortunate artefact of early naming conventions in genetics. 'Environment' should be named 'environment and everything else', but that isn't going to happen. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi, actually I was even surprised that the quote doesn't appear in the article. A wide body of articles, having the nature-nurture interaction or some part thereof as their topic, use this synthetic and famous quote, sometimes even in their title.
Sincerely yours, Adrijani 2A01:CB04:BC:3200:6D89:3DE3:F9E0:17D7 (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Should this article include a discussion of Lysenkoism? Wiki Crazyman (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.