deleted in protest to really poor moderation

Nature=potential

Nurture=realisation of potential

Both are equally important.

Do you believe someones personality is the result of nature or nurture?

Both. We all have a capability to be irrational, violent, emotional, and all the other things humans instictually are. However, depending on how one is raised, we can be logical, rational, peaceful, and cultured individuals. Our nature rarely changes, and has really changed very little since the time of our earliest ancestors.

Define nature and nurture.

Shaping the person? My estimates are 80% nature and 20% nuture. But again, how one nutures you is the product of mostly nature (80/20). Going down the line thousands/millions of years (your pick) it was 100% nature. So really we are defined 100% by nature.

But in terms of how I think you mean nature/nuture (and how most talk about it).. I stand by 80/20. Just research twin studies.

Nature:
Genes, inherited characteristics, GODS DESIGN :)
(that may be a good strategy to invite response eh....God is always a good road into lengthy conversation here)


Nurture: external influences of the environment and people we are surrounded by and other influences such as culture, religion, education, media etc.

I can see my children are the product of nature, they are what they were designed to be at birth, and I struggle to alter any negative traits that manifested in minor ways from birth and have further developed along with the physical ability to better enable expression of those traits.

I also struggle to elicit more favourable responses not naturally present.

I have moderate success, but it is not easy. At the end of the day whatever success I and the external environment achieve in these regards, they will only succeed in repressing negative traits and by value of 'reward' enhance positive ones. The negative traits themselves will become dormant, redundant but will not disappear.

Indeed.

However, she didn't specify it however to merely shaping the person. On the grand level nature is dictating most it would seem. There is a woman standing alone at the bar. You cannot resist the urge to go and talk to her. The language is the result of nurture. The urge nature. What's more important? A question that cannot be answered?

Indeed.

However, she didn't specify it however to merely shaping the person. On the grand level nature is dictating most it would seem. There is a woman standing alone at the bar. You cannot resist the urge to go and talk to her. The language is the result of nurture. The urge nature. What's more important? A question that cannot be answered?

well we can communicate in other ways without language but we cannot communicate at all without nature.

In other words, nature exists regardless of nurture, but nurture does not exist without nature, as for nurture to take place we have to have a living product of 'nature' to nurture.

Or is it more a chicken and egg scenario?

No environment of nurture will result in absence of nature?

No matter how often you raise a child in an ideal environment for begonias it will still emerge as a child, not as a begonia.

I don't know about that. Was jesus born as a child and then nurtured into a demi-god/god, or born as a god and nurtured as a human?

I don't know about that. Was jesus born as a child and then nurtured into a demi-god/god, or born as a god and nurtured as a human?


:)

He was born mortal thus not born a God

BUTTTTTT would disagree he was nurtured to be 'super' rather he had those characteristics at birth and was as a man how he was designed to be. Unique, charismatic, able to influence, compassionate, philosophical...

Great question Spurious posed........ was Jesus product of nature or nurture?

My question: Was Hitler product of nature or nurture?

Today's news related to this thread:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5253040.stm

"This study demonstrates that this error detection system may be present in the brains of infants and is activated when they are surprised by an incorrect arithmetic solution."

The researchers said that their work showed babies could detect errors before the end of their first year of life, an ability linked to having the capacity to regulate their behaviour and emotion later on.

Babies can already see mistakes in arithmetic.

My question: Was Hitler product of nature or nurture?

Nurture mostly. That is his political ideas. How he was as a person was probably largely defined by nature.

That screen thing is like your messing with their heads. That would be funny to watch.

That screen thing is like your messing with their heads. That would be funny to watch.

On drugs?

Today's news related to this thread:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5253040.stm



Babies can already see mistakes in arithmetic.


It is possible in the linked experiment the reason baby looks longer is it it taking in a 'new outcome' to the one previously conditioned to expect, rather than noting an arithmatical difference.

Example:
When doing the 'magic' where you conceal a coin inside one hand and then offer baby both hands to choose the one where the coin lies, you have to first teach baby how to predict where it is as at that age they would not automatically make the connection, but once they make the connection, ie coin remains in hand you saw it placed in, you can then alter this outcome and baby will thus be surprised as the outcome they were conditioned to expect has changed.

On drugs?
No. It'd just be funny to watch the babies tripping out.

Is the desire for a God the result of nature of nurture, see new thread re God gene.

I don't know about that. Was jesus born as a child and then nurtured into a demi-god/god, or born as a god and nurtured as a human?
He was a mortal. Period. His personality was inflated postmortem by crazies who thought of him as a godlike figure, making him into a martyr for this upstart sect which became christianity.

I think each person has an individual nature. I don't believe in a "group" nature for the whole species. In general there are certain types of people and personalities that exist in all families. Different traits are more popular in some families, but theres the pedophile, the murder, etc. In general though, a persons nature is based on their emotional nature, some people have a lot of hatred, some people have a lot of love, and so on, there really is no standard. Nature decides how you feel and what instincts you have, while Nurture decides how you use those instincts to your advantage.

In general everyone is capable of violence, but some people don't feel hate and are violent out of fear. So there are different motivations for violence. If you fear someone or something enough eventually no matter how much you love it, it ceases being human and becomes "it", and you will attack it just like you'll attack a snake or spider that is attacking you, or a dog trying to bite you. At the same time some people are naturally aggressive and will be like the dog trying to bite you for no reason at all other than the fact that they want to bite something.

So you cannot judge nature by simply watching a persons actions, you have to know how they felt when commiting the act. When someone kills for fun, you know they have the killer instinct for example. If someone kills out of fear or self defense, they just don't want to be hurt and panic caused them to be violent. Aggression/passiveness is nature, temperment is nature, and emotions are nature.

no offense ToR, but you start the most useless threads ever.

no offense ToR, but you start the most useless threads ever.


from the guy who started these threads:


I am Cato, FEAR ME!
its go time! (help me look at cars)
practical joke

Hilarious, talk about glass houses

I can't comment beyond your thread title though, they may have been interesting, I wouldn't know, never read any of them, ever. Sorry, no offence.

from the guy who started these threads:


I am Cato, FEAR ME!
its go time! (help me look at cars)
practical joke

Hilarious, talk about glass houses

I can't comment beyond your thread title though, they may have been interesting, I wouldn't know, never read any of them, ever. Sorry, no offence.


lol :D

good one, ToR

I can't comment beyond your thread title though, they may have been interesting, I wouldn't know, never read any of them, ever. Sorry, no offence.

Liar. You posted in his Fear Me thread.
Oh. Wait. You just posted without reading... Yeah. That figures. After all, you were responding in another thread where you didn't even know which words were Superliminal's being quoted in another post. I mean... you'd have to read all those words... Ick.

Reading is for simps, right?

Ah. But that's ok. That's just your nature.
Of course, you've nurtured it as well, yes?

Liar. You posted in his Fear Me thread.
Oh. Wait. You just posted without reading... Yeah. That figures. After all, you were responding in another thread where you didn't even know which words were Superliminal's being quoted in another post. I mean... you'd have to read all those words... Ick.

Reading is for simps, right?

Ah. But that's ok. That's just your nature.
Of course, you've nurtured it as well, yes?

Indeed I have nurtured the ability to sort the shaft from the wheat, why waste time looking at coal when there are diamonds

oh and forgive me forgetting my 4 word or so post in the 'Cato talks about himself thread,' the irrelavance of it meant the information skipped my short term and long term memory.

The shaft? Have you been playing in the garden again?
I think you mean chaff. Shaft is pretty funny though.
Dirty girl.

Anyway.
How exactly do you seperate the wheat from the chaff without actually reading the chaff to determine its quality?

Intuition?

You judge books by their covers, yes?

Heh.
So do I.

Lose out on some interesting reading that way though.

Here in the forums, I poke my nose in a lot more places than the cover of a book would suggest.

Anyway.
Basically, I'm only getting on you here for two reasons:

1.) You lied and actually did read Cato's thread. (Which is funny.)
2.) You've stated in other threads that you hate long posts. (Which sucks because the best threads are made up of long posts. Of course, there are no 'best' threads going on at the moment. Or in the time you've been here, actually. You'll miss out on some good threads someday when the fever strikes again though. Your loss, however.)

The shaft? Have you been playing in the garden again?
I think you mean chaff. Shaft is pretty funny though.
Dirty girl.

Anyway.
How exactly do you seperate the wheat from the chaff without actually reading the chaff to determine its quality?

Intuition?

You judge books by their covers, yes?

Heh.
So do I.

Lose out on some interesting reading that way though.

Here in the forums, I poke my nose in a lot more places than the cover of a book would suggest.

Anyway.
Basically, I'm only getting on you here for two reasons:

1.) You lied and actually did read Cato's thread. (Which is funny.)
2.) You've stated in other threads that you hate long posts. (Which sucks because the best threads are made up of long posts. Of course, there are no 'best' threads going on at the moment. Or in the time you've been here, actually. You'll miss out on some good threads someday when the fever strikes again though. Your loss, however.)


you love promoting your ignorance don't you, google shaft from wheat and you'll find it is a commonly used expression, maybe not the original but used non the less. Shaft also applies more commonly to mining than cock, so get YOUR mind out of gutter.

no reply to rest of your comment, looks like coal, not worthy of my attention. sorry, no offence.

Shaft it is then, my sweet. And, yes, my mind is always in the gutter.

As to the 'no offence'. I'll leave that as it may be. As stated, tis your loss, love. But, tis also your nature.

Edit:
Hmm.
Have I been given the shaft?

Muaahahaha!

Wheat shaft (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wheat+shaft).

ok, TOR, you got me on the "I am cato, FEAR ME" thread. but that was just because I didn't think anyone really knew what I looked like, and I figured I should post a pic.

what I meant about your threads was that there cannot really be any conclusion. there will just be people bickering. the car thread was useful because I could get people's opinions on some of the cars I was looking at. and then there is my microcontroller thread, that is a highly useful thread for anyone trying to learn MCUs (MCU=microcontroller).

I didn't mean to piss you off ToR, I was just pointing it out. try and post something that can actually come to a conclusion.

anyway, I am off to draw a diagram of my MCU so I can post my plans for an initial test board. later.

Perhaps TOR should sort the CHAFF from the wheat instead of the SHAFT. It makes more sense.

don't be so hard on her. I was just trying to give some advise/criticism. sorry for making your thread go to shit TOR. =]

Well. I wasnt trying to piss her off either.
I just thought it was funny that she said she never read your thread and yet she had posted in it. That's all.
Plus the aversion to long post thing too.

She gets offended too easily sometimes.
Sand in her panties, I suppose.

Hmm.

Sand in the panties.
That'd be nurture, yes?'

Why am I thinking of oysters and pearls?
And is my mind in the gutter again?

Is that nature or nurture?

I think theoryofrelativity has succumbed to the idea that all perspectives are equally accurate.
It’s all part of the current trend to dismiss a standard of measurement which would create a categorization of intellect.

Equalitarianism demands that all should be made to feel good about who and what they are, in relation to the environment, and so they must be protected against anything that your cause them insecurity or hurt.
Insecurity and hurt, by the way, that results in effort and overcoming.

You see mediocrity seeks a level, inert common ground to rest its weary head and dream of greatness while remaining unaffected.

This social codling creates the myth that anything is possible as long as you believe in yourself or that you are just as good and lovable as anyone else no matter how stupid and pathetic and weak you are.
Awards are given to all just for existing and being their selves.

Here ideas such as relativity and perspectivism are used to establish the notion that no matter how dumb or blind you are, your perspective is just as ‘true’ as the next guys.
Stupidity becomes relative, along with reality.

Under such superstitious environments women attain intellectual status and can mingle amongst men musing about ideas they can never understand beyond a certain level, except for the rare exceptions of course.

When ‘truth’ became a matter of believing it ceased to mater.

I wonder if gravity can be believed away or if a sheep can hope and pray a wolf away.

ok, TOR, you got me on the "I am cato, FEAR ME" thread. but that was just because I didn't think anyone really knew what I looked like, and I figured I should post a pic.

what I meant about your threads was that there cannot really be any conclusion. there will just be people bickering. the car thread was useful because I could get people's opinions on some of the cars I was looking at. and then there is my microcontroller thread, that is a highly useful thread for anyone trying to learn MCUs (MCU=microcontroller).

I didn't mean to piss you off ToR, I was just pointing it out. try and post something that can actually come to a conclusion.

anyway, I am off to draw a diagram of my MCU so I can post my plans for an initial test board. later.

show me a single thread that has a conclusion in religion, ethics forums and you may have a point, I post topics of debate, no conclusion desired or expected. You may expect or desire them, but I don't create threads for you. Presumably the people engaging enjoy them or else why bother. The length of threads nd viewings speak for themselves. Your opinion is thus irrelevant.

Well. I wasnt trying to piss her off either.
I just thought it was funny that she said she never read your thread and yet she had posted in it. That's all.
Plus the aversion to long post thing too.

She gets offended too easily sometimes.
Sand in her panties, I suppose.

Hmm.

Sand in the panties.
That'd be nurture, yes?'

Why am I thinking of oysters and pearls?
And is my mind in the gutter again?

Is that nature or nurture?

Youa remistaken, you allow your projected annoyance to delude you into an expectation of me. There is humour in my posts, I enjoy the marksmanship. You do bore me though and it is true I barely read your posts in duration, as above, simply not read in full. Don't care this annoys you, it's life.

I note Satyr made a post, don't read his boring crap either after the last lot I responded too that is. I concluded he has nothing of value to say and thus nolonger read them, merely note his troll like prescence.

I note Satyr made a post, don't read his boring crap either after the last lot I responded too that is. I concluded he has nothing of value to say and thus nolonger read them, merely note his troll like prescence.

Actually I read his last post... he makes more sense than I think you are in this thread.

But I will leave it at that. I'm going back to sleep.

Actually I read his last post... he makes more sense than I think you are in this thread.

But I will leave it at that. I'm going back to sleep.

I don't read them, so can neither agree nor disagree. That is my perogative and shall continue to do so. If he drops his Ad Hom attacks on all and sundry, let me know and I may read them again to see if there is any insight worthy of my attention.

Well, all he said about YOU is this: I think theoryofrelativity has succumbed to the idea that all perspectives are equally accurate.

The bold is what he talks about.

But it's up to you if you want to read it or not.

Ok... I am NOW going to bed. Really. I am.

Yes.

Well, all he said about YOU is this: I think theoryofrelativity has succumbed to the idea that all perspectives are equally accurate.

The bold is what he talks about.

But it's up to you if you want to read it or not.

Ok... I am NOW going to bed. Really. I am.

Yes.

I think not, what I write and what I really think are for me to know and the rest to presume. He can presume away.

I think not, what I write and what I really think are for me to know and the rest to presume. He can presume away.That's a bit lame, isn't it. That's a standard schoolyard response when you have been caught out.

That's a bit lame, isn't it. That's a standard schoolyard response when you have been caught out.


caught out in what?

No one knows what I think, thats a fact, unless you are saying Satyr is telepathic. Is he telepathic?

You should no by now Ophiolite that I write things to elicit or test a response, and of course do express genuine opinions. If I appear non committal, then maybe the jury is still out. Maybe I'm playing devils advocate.
Those good at reading people will know the difference between all these things.

ToR,

Annoyed? Me? Hardly. I thought my posts were rather humorous as well. I only say 'as well' because you claim to intend humor rather than crankiness in yours. So, I'll take you at your word. But, I think your "I didn't read your post anyway" hardly compares with "sand in your panties" and oysters and wheat shaft.

And as far as your 'I didn't read your post anyway'... don't you think that's kinda... meh? It's like people who advertise their ignore list.
Pretty lame stuff.

Oh well. Nature is as nurture does.

The length of threads nd viewings speak for themselves.

Oh. By the way. I really don't intend this to be offensive or anything, but take it how you want.

As to lengths of threads, your 20+ a day post count certainly has something to do with that. (Along with certain others.)

And, a formula was once worked out long ago that was a pretty good indication of thread popularity. A popular thread tends to have 10 times as many viewings as postings. This was noted and observed to hold true in a vast number of cases. Of course, with the problem of justification and all that it is 'only a theory', but I've always found it true.

Of course, times have changed 'round the old SciWoods. The actors have become quite a bit smaller and shorter of attention span. So, perhaps the smaller amount of viewings is now par for the course?


Your opinion is thus irrelevant.

Starting to sound like Cool Skill now.



Ok. You may now inform me that you haven't read my post.
Carry on.

And, a formula was once worked out long ago that was a pretty good indication of thread popularity. A popular thread tends to have 10 times as many viewings as postings.
.

and mine generally do, so your point is?

Is eating meat morally wrong Theoryofrelativity 08-12-06
548 posts 8,817viewings

larger than 10 times what does that mean oh great one?



Now before you get carried away and note samples of other threads of mine that show less than 10 times viewings, compare them to other threads not mine made around the same time. Some of my threads are undoubtably shit and some threads were intended to be so, some were concocted out of sheer boredom.

It means that this is the zillionth thread on this topic.

I was talking about this thread in particular. When I posted that, it had 40 something posts, and only 200 something viewings.

Another thing to take into consideration is time. The x10 only works as long as the thread is really active and being posted in. If a thread sits for a few days or weeks without being posted in, the viewings might rack up (google spiders, whatnot) but don't actually indicate popularity. Your meat thread, for instance, was written in March. It's been out there for 5 months. The formula doesn't really hold.

Anyway. It's only a rule of thumb. Nothing to get sand in your panties about.

Popularity is for simps.

And, yeah. This thread topic has been brought up a million times. Nothing wrong with that, mind you, but your opening post leaves a lot to be desired.

But, that's ok. It's your nature.

But, we shouldn't nurture you as we do.

Anyway. It's only a rule of thumb. Nothing to get sand in your panties about.

.

stop patronising me you sexist ass wipe

If this was the zillionth thread why not just direct me to the previous instead turning into a little bitch.

It's only a rule of thumb.
Rule of Thumb:
The rule which prohibited the disciplining of women with a stick thicker than your thumb.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with offering false expectations and unearned respect to the undeserving is that they begin believing they are entitled to it, in time.

For example: The sanctity of life and the myth concerning human “rights” and inherent human “dignity” and the idea concerning indiscriminate love, have given birth to individuals falsely believing they are worth something and that they deserve something, by birth alone.

It’s the same process which makes the children of the rich and privileged think they are superior to others, without having to earn or prove it on their own, which creates the same social pampering, equalitarianism and its many outcrops, such as feminism, produce.

When a privilege is not won and suffered for and it is simply inherited or given and ensured, it is never appreciated and it is taken for granted.

The earning of wealth, for instance, imbues the mind with a sense of the sacrifices, efforts and providence that participated in it and so humbles the mind.
The inheritance of wealth, on the other hand, gives the false impression of value where none is present and the mind, so blessed, is characterized by an arrogance and posturing only ignorance and naiveté can produce.

Individuals ensured of safety begin flaunting their muscles, misconstruing their immunity as a product of their own strength rather than what it is: the combined strength of a community defending their right to exist no matter their quality.

For this reason the feeble and meek will not be characterized by magnanimity and humility when they are given respectability and equality and love and protection as their God given right, ensured and defended by institutional powers.
They turn vindictive, petty and, in their false assumption that they deserve attention and consideration, they exhibit their original feebleness while being protected from the consequences of their own stupidity.

The problem with offering false expectations and unearned respect to the undeserving is that they begin believing they are entitled to it, in time.

For example: The sanctity of life and the myth concerning human “rights” and inherent human “dignity” and the idea concerning indiscriminate love, have given birth to individuals falsely believing they are worth something and that they deserve something, by birth alone.

It’s the same process which makes the children of the rich and privileged think they are superior to others, without having to earn or prove it on their own, which creates the same social pampering, equalitarianism and its many outcrops, such as feminism, produce.

When a privilege is not won and suffered for and it is simply inherited or given and ensured, it is never appreciated and it is taken for granted.

The earning of wealth, for instance, imbues the mind with a sense of the sacrifices, efforts and providence that participated in it and so humbles the mind.
The inheritance of wealth, on the other hand, gives the false impression of value where none is present and the mind, so blessed, is characterized by an arrogance and posturing only ignorance and naiveté can produce.

Individuals ensured of safety begin flaunting their muscles, misconstruing their immunity as a product of their own strength rather than what it is: the combined strength of a community defending their right to exist no matter their quality.

For this reason the feeble and meek will not be characterized by magnanimity and humility when they are given respectability and equality and love and protection as their God given right, ensured and defended by institutional powers.
They turn vindictive, petty and, in their false assumption that they deserve attention and consideration, they exhibit their original feebleness while being protected from the consequences of their own stupidity.
Wow that was so well worded. Suggestive, but well-worded.

Wow that was so well worded. Suggestive, but well-worded.

it would have been more appropriate though in my 'You have no rights thread'
no relevance here.

nurture>nature