Which is dominant? It probably depends on the exact scenario at hand, just what variables we're talking about.

Which is dominant? It probably depends on the exact scenario at hand, just what variables we're talking about. — Terrapin Station

I am thinking of life outcomes and personality outcomes and not including unavoidable genetic illness.

For example you could say someones choice to smoke cigarettes caused them to of die of lung cancer

Or you could say someones genes predisposed them to nicotine addiction.

Or you could say stresses from family and society drove them to smoke.

Or you could say it was a combination of all that.

You might say someone has a gene that increases their tendency to aggression but you might also say this gene is easily controlled by nurture and that a genes bad characteristic will only manifest in bad circumstances or can be redirected productively.

I am compelled by the seed example because it seems to me that genes definitely require an environment and nurture and these can be very variable.

If you view a plant as invasive and damaging you can alter its environment to kill it or if a plant is seems as valuable you can improve its environs.

I am not trivializing the role of genes but it seems to me they rely to heavily on environment to dominate environment unless you consider genes as part of the environment in some sense.

I think the genetic stance is far more deterministic personally even if nurture and societal influences can be hard to overcome.

How do you differentiate what is nurtured from the inside of what does the nurturing?

Nature nutures as much by the dominance of man as by the state of nature (whatever that is).

Man's dominance over nature is fundamentally subordinate to nature. But nature doesn't dominate anything, it selects for. Nature has selected for the adaption that dominates (makes a domain).

There is a sick brutality to nurturing (a form of dominance) which resembles the sick brutality of blind selection (shit happens in the absence of controlled selection).

Both man and nature select for one another rather than dominate one another.

This is a false dichotomy, read up on epigenetics.

I favor nurture over nature if I was being totally honest. This might illustrate the reason. if you have two genetically identical seeds and you plant one in good soil and water it it will flourish but if its twin is planted in bad soil and infrequently watered it will be poorly and struggle. — Andrew4Handel

And give the same amount of water and soil to different seeds and the difference in genes will cause different outcomes in how they grow. It seems like an equal influence from both.

Note: Instinctive behaviors (genetic knowledge) are a product of nature. Learned behaviors (learned knowledge) are a product of nurture.

This is a false dichotomy, read up on epigenetics. — MindForged

It is a dichotomy that still exists in discussion and literature.

And give the same amount of water and soil to different seeds and the difference in genes will cause different outcomes in how they grow. It seems like an equal influence from both — Harry Hindu

The way you get to discover potential genetic causes is by trying to give two things an identical environment. However the environment equals nurture.

I am obviously not denying people don't have different genetic outcomes but these occur embedded in environment/nurture.

It seems the genes only act after they are in an environment and being nurtured.

One thing I do not believe like some thinkers argue is that genes determine a child's outcomes. Also one thing about human society is that it is deeply artificial. So our genes are not a created to negotiate modern society. Only in a truly primitive state can our genes beside to be fulfilling a truly biological niche in my opinion.

Man's dominance over nature is fundamentally subordinate to nature. But nature doesn't dominate anything, it selects for. Nature has selected for the adaption that dominates (makes a domain). — Nils Loc

I think the position that nature dominates is a deterministic perspective. Indeed many thinkers now claim not to believe in free will. So these people would attribute everything to either blind physical forces or mechanical forces.

However if you view nature as the same as nurture this is not a mechanical view of nature and there is no problem. However I think human dominance is problematic and could destroy nature by man made climate change, pollution or nuclear weapons.

It is ironic how much we dominate the rest of nature considering some people hold it controls us.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDKDuvhXNME

Genes have the primary influence on intelligence.

This is a false dichotomy, read up on epigenetics. — MindForged

Yep. Anyone who thinks there is an agonistic relation between nature and nurture is uninformed about both.

Genes have the primary influence on intelligence. — Walter Pound

A heart exists because of genes however the environment a heart is in determines its health.

Intelligence is an abstract trait that manifests itself through actions. Being intelligent in it self does not guarantee life out comes which is the claim by some pro genetics theorists.

Yep. Anyone who thinks there is an agonistic relation between nature and nurture is uninformed about both. — StreetlightX

I have noticed that most people who work with children and families and in psychology or social work can see how important nurture is through experience without depending on abstraction.

I think the weight you put on nature and nurture is important for policy and values and interventions. If someone has a genetic disability then clearly this is going to be a purely medical issue but with dysfunctional families and social policy I think we really need to distinguish the main influence.

I think the idea that nature and nurture play an equal rule is vague and unhelpful really it is a common slogan but if you look further into the literature or polemics you start to see a clear bias.

I think the idea that nature and nurture play an equal rule is vague — Andrew4Handel

I didn't say they play an equal role. I said the whole debate is largely meaningless.

It is a dichotomy that still exists in discussion and literature. — Andrew4Handel

The point is it's a meaningless idea now. Epigenetics is in many ways the culmination of this age old topic. Nature and nurture are far from these easily separable things that we can then say play the determinative role in the traits people have. I've seen a lot of this lately, especially in very telling areas (this isn't directed at you) where people go on about "People Don't Like it When You Discuss IQ Research" (Sam Harris even does this crap) and they are just twenty something years out of date. Like, here's a fairly common expression of more recent understandings of this topic (nature vs nurtur, not IQ stuff, lol):

Since the 16th century, when the terms “nature” and “nurture” first came into use, many people have spent ample time debating which is more important, but these discussions have more often led to ideological cul-de-sacs rather than pinnacles of insight.
[...]
As psychologist David S. Moore explains in his newest book, The Developing Genome, this burgeoning field reveals that what counts is not what genes you have so much as what your genes are doing. And what your genes are doing is influenced by the ever-changing environment they’re in. Factors like stress, nutrition, and exposure to toxins all play a role in how genes are expressed—essentially which genes are turned on or off. Unlike the static conception of nature or nurture, epigenetic research demonstrates how genes and environments continuously interact to produce characteristics throughout a lifetime.

http://thepsychreport.com/books/the-end-of-nature-versus-nurture/

One of my favourite images from Evelyn Fox Keller's The Mirage of a Space Between Nature and Nurture:

I think the nurture VS nature axis is very little useful, and false even; since nature and nurture aren´t really separate worlds but two aspects of the same phenomenon. For example, you can say that people in West Africa usually show phenotypes with very dark skin, strong bodies, high fertility in women...but these traits, with a strong genetic make-up, are in turn the consequence of cultural and experiential phenomena: These tribes are like that because historically chose to live in certain places and through certain means, and if their ancestors had decided to develop a civilization their bodies would change a lot. Notice in this respect, how Indian populations in South America are gaining stature in respect to their grandparents, because they are eating differently and living differently; also their fertility is affected. In Spain, men have gained 12.5 cms in 100 years, which is remarkable in my opinion, and it affects how genes for being tall are selected by women (less, as there are many more tall men). There is no "nature" traits that are not conditioned by cultural choices, and there are no "nurture" elements that are free from genetic influence. Plus 99% of DNA in our bodies was never in our mum´s egg or our dad´s spermatozoid, but it is in our bacteria and other creatures in us.

I didn't say they play an equal role. I said the whole debate is largely meaningless. — StreetlightX

I think it is far from irrelevant when it comes down to helping people flourish, family interventions psychology, mental health, criminality and so on.

If something is being caused by nurture it is important to discover this and change and improve the environment.

Every theory in academia about humans and society can be influential in policy and have a major impact on people and society. It is a battle ground for influence. So for example Robert Plomin and Bryan Caplan economist believe parenting has little impact on education and life achievement. And Plomin,a behavioral geneticists, thinks you can examine someones genes as soon as they are conceived and predict outcomes and give them a polygenic score.

The problem is analyzing and selecting which data is most important and how it is being interpreted. This process will be influenced by biases.

Nevertheless I think even if you believe someones intelligence is inflexible I think policies should encourage everyone to flourish and not be based on an interpretation of someones polygenic score.

Sure, there are reasons to find 'causes' for things and attempt to intervene; one wonders what good it does to place those causes into little pre-marked boxes labelled 'nature' and 'nurture'. If anything, such an artificial parsing of phenomena would prejudice an investigation, not facilitate it. The world doesn't care about whatever concocted categories we'd like to make for it.

The point is it's a meaningless idea now. — MindForged

I do not think it is meaningless to look at someones life or circumstance and work out how much is caused by their ingrained personality and how much developed through nurture and is being sustained by environment.

Here is an example of the dichotomy still alive:

https://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/parenting-doesnt-matter-or-not-as-much-as-you-think/

In this debate the Two female panelists who think parenting matters work with families and in therapy and the two men who have the opposing view are theorists working in university.

Sure, there are reasons to find 'causes' for things and attempt to intervene; one wonders what good it does to place those causes into little pre-marked boxes labelled 'nature' and 'nurture'. If anything, such an artificial parsing of phenomena would be little more than a hindrance to investigation, not a spur. — StreetlightX

I have never heard of a non medical intervention into someones life or family where genes have been mentioned. You do not have to explicitly say nurture but it is clear that most interventions outside of genetic illnesses are nurture interventions and the intervention is not based on any knowledge of the peoples involved genetic traits.

I think social change needs to come about by changing environments and values and anything else is fatalistic.

I have never heard of a non medical intervention into someones life or family where genes have been mentioned. You do not have to explicitly say nurture but it is clear that most interventions outside of genetic illnesses are nurture interventions and the intervention is not based on any knowledge of the peoples involved genetic traits. — Andrew4Handel

This is not an argument. This is barely an anecdote. Nothing doing.

The point is that it is one thing to claim something is genetic or nature and another thing to have isolated and treated a cause. Maybe there are strong genetic causes to family dysfunction?

Possibly. In that case it would be hard to alter dynamics but we would alter our approach to the situation.

The point is that it is one thing to claim something is genetic or nature and another thing to have isolated and treated a cause. Maybe there are strong genetic causes to family dysfunction? — Andrew4Handel

Maybe they are. But gene expression is far more complex than you make it out to be - in fact, it's not at all the case that simply saying something is 'genetic' automatically situates it on the side of 'nature'. Both MindForged and DiegoT have already mentioned just how implicated the very idea of 'genes' are with the cultural and social environment in which they belong. It simply an obscene simplification to align genes with nature to begin with. It is no accident in fact that some authors have called into question the very idea of a gene as a causal agent unto itself, precisely given the complexity of their expression. Again, this attempt to put things into little boxes labelled 'nature' and 'nature' is nothing but oversimplification that would make for worse policy crafting, not better.

I have highlighted the circumstances where ascertaining nurture problems is important which is when intervening in problem lives and dysfunction. You seem to be talking only from an abstract theoretical perspective.

It is not trivial or an obscene simplification to highlight when bad nurture is causing life problems for someone. I think examples such as skin color, height and diet are trivial compared to the outcomes of peoples lives in general. Not every genetic feature is relevant to someones quality of life.

So for example where skin color can be a problem is in a racist social context but in general it is not an inherent problem.

Just because there are numerous influences on someones life it does not mean you cannot isolate plausible specific causes.

Racism can cause mental health problems. One attempt to tackle racism is to criminalize and prosecute racist actions. This is an attempt to tackle racism as a social problem regardless of whether we might have a biological tendency to racism. This is what I was referring to earlier concerning the actual nature of interventions.

Even if you think the nature-nurture dichotomy is a fallacy it is still alive and well and influential and I personally have a preference for nurture interventions over deterministic naturalistic perspectives.

I have highlighted the circumstances where ascertaining nurture problems is important which is when intervening in problem lives and dysfunction. You seem to be talking only from an abstract theoretical perspective. — Andrew4Handel

The only thing abstract here is the artificial attempt to lump causes into fake boxes labelled 'nature' and 'nurture'. Nothing I said implied that we cannot isolate causes. What I object to is the secondary, derivative, and unnecessary effort to qualify them by some under-considered metaphysical distinction that does nothing but impair investigation into such causes. Everyone knows what it is to find the cause of something; discerning weather that cause belongs to 'nature' or 'nurture' is just the kind of 'abstract theoreticism' that does more to obfuscate than illuminate.

The way you get to discover potential genetic causes is by trying to give two things an identical environment. However the environment equals nurture. — Andrew4Handel

No. The environment is Nature. Isn't another name for the environment, "Mother Nature" and "Natural"?

I am obviously not denying people don't have different genetic outcomes but these occur embedded in environment/nurture. — Andrew4Handel

Again, it's environment/nature.

It seems the genes only act after they are in an environment and being nurtured. — Andrew4Handel

It seems to me that the environment has nothing to act on if genes didn't make copies of themselves with the potential for "mistakes", or mutations (nature). It's called, NATURAL selection, not Nurturing selection.

One thing I do not believe like some thinkers argue is that genes determine a child's outcomes. Also one thing about human society is that it is deeply artificial. So our genes are not a created to negotiate modern society. Only in a truly primitive state can our genes beside to be fulfilling a truly biological niche in my opinion. — Andrew4Handel

Then raising a dog and a human together in the same environment would result in equal outcomes (nurture). That obviously isn't the case. One's nature is a powerful influence on how you can be nurtured and how you can behave or respond to the environment.

Also, human society is natural. If humans are natural outcomes of natural processes, then our skyscrapers are as natural as a beehive. "Artificial" is a term that people who still think that humans are separate from nature use.

Nature and Nurture. It's time to think of them on equal footing. They are one and the same.

Again, it's environment/nature. — Harry Hindu

In the nature nurture debate I believe they are referring to human nature not how nature effects humans.

It usually refers to innate personal nature/inheritance versus nurture/rearing. Behavioral genetics is about genetic correlations as opposed environment. Dawkins Selfish genes is about inherited traits with primitive motivations and Plomin whom I mentioned earlier is concerned with polygenetic scores and deterministic genetic outcomes.
Stephen Pinker's Blank Slate is concerned with proving we are born with a specific quite deterministic nature.

I think it is a chicken and egg thing with genes but the theory is that genes arose in a primeval soup not that genes preexisted their environment which to me does not favor genes.

Important social policy and psychological theory hinges on this. The issue is that people who favor genes or personality as most powerful advocate different policies, ideologies and therapies but people who advocate nurture and environment are more likely to advocate changing societal and family dynamics.

I do think genes are important but they are important in context of nurture. For example you raise your child based on what is best for his or her genes or simply preferences and dispositions. But people like Plomin and Caplan will argue that parental intervention has limited effect which is implausible. One notable statistic is that people most often share their parents religion.

The archaic "nature" literally meant birth ("it natures" which is like our use of it nutures). That which births, nurtures. Take this as a psychological truth if not fact. Some mothers destroy their babies which might be arguably a type of nurture belonging to an indifferent nature, that of Darwininan selection which is not deterministic. Those that survive survive, those that die die.

Look at the word, nascent: "just coming into existence and beginning to display signs of future potential."

Once you recognize the signs of future potential you put a child in an environment (group or mentor) that helps him/her to flourish. The recognition of a child's potential is the problematic part. Our monoculture can be somewhat preferential and brutual ( like a mother or father) selecting for some traits and being indifferent to others. For an adult it is like following their instincts and intuitions (which has become a nightmare of psychological tension for so many people). Signs of future potential can be hidden by maladaptive behavior but that in-itself is a sign that the organism needs a new type of nurturing environment.