Can, yes, I reckon so.

When one interprets the terms more broadly, they simply partition the whole, along the lines of "nature" standing for "all things internal" and "nurture" for "all things external". Then, there's nothing else, so no.

When one interprets them more narrowly, though, introducing additional behavioural drivers makes sense. The first one that came to my mind is "destiny", seeming sufficiently distant from the core senses of both "nature" and "nurture" to be considered distinct. I suspect the thought process may have gone from "natural" via "non-natural" to "supernatural". I definitely do not mean to suggest that stepping outside the ordinary is necessary, however.

Can human things be described by having a cause that is neither nature nor nurture? If so, what? — TiredThinker

I'm not sure what you mean by a person having a cause. I think it is clear to say, though, there is a human nature that is independent of our experience in the world. We are not born as blank slates. We have inborn capacities, tendencies, instincts, temperament. There is plenty of science to show this. One of my favorite refrains, not based on science but on my experience with my own children - Babies come out of their mothers fully the people they will always be.

That still leaves plenty of room for experience in the real world, nurture, to have it's effect on our lives and our minds.

I was just being lazy. I just meant to talk about human science only. Not like chemistry and physics which try to stay independent of psyche.

I was curious about how many ways to describe how we ultimately become as we do. A 3rd category if per se nature and nurture aren't arranged to cover everything by themselves?

Humans can be describes as having an inherent need to refer to every item of experience as an ‘either or’ dichotomy purely because it allows us to navigate through the world not because there is any concrete distinction. When opposing forces collide we either ignore it, don’t notice it or create a new dichotomy from it (aka a paradigm shift).

Organisms come into this world with a constitution that is weak or strong, with great variations between the two. Upon coming into the world one is without identity, one is simply a constitution. It is the constitution that is to thrive or perish, with multiple degrees in between, but, ultimately, it is the context that defines, this is the nurture aspect, the nature aspect is the constitution. Both the constitution and the context have evolutionary histories. The complexity of which can only be searched through chaos theory but, the complexity itself rather assures us that the concept of free will is a highly functional illusion. It is all rather messy!

So a person's fear of say spiders can be the result of hereditary epigenetics of living in a jungle as well as first hand confrontation with dangerous spiders. Can this fear of spiders have a 3rd cause or by definition does nature and nurture already cover 100% of the ven diagram?

This might be a worthwhile approach: Pick a definition, then replace the common element in that definition by something else, then look for a third type in that new context. For example, if "nature" is "inherited traits" and "nurture" is "acquired traits", the common element is "traits", which, off the top of my head, I'll replace with "wealth". So is there a third way to become wealthy, besides inheriting and acquiring? FWIW, I'd categorise my earlier suggestion of "destiny" as "imposed", which overlaps partly with either and fully with neither of the original pair, IMO. Mind you, neither "imposed traits" nor "imposed wealth" makes a whole lotta sense to me... *shrug*

Can human things be described by having a cause that is neither nature nor nurture? — TiredThinker

Yes, a magical invisible soul with the magical power of free-will to magically create new chains of causation from nothing. If those creations are good you should be part of the elite 1% who are not taxed, if they are bad you should be punished in prison for an eternity. If you are white with blonde hair that is the goodness of your soul shining through. Otherwise you are probably evil.

(sarcasm)

(things republicans believe without realizing it)

So is there a third way to become wealthy, besides inheriting and acquiring? — onomatomanic

You have changed the question from a personal trait to possession of a third kind. Wealth comes from other people. That brings in the environment, both physical and social.

You have changed the question [...] — magritte

That was rather the point. Does it make a difference? Why or why not? The answers to those new questions may provide insight into the original one.

Wealth comes from other people. That brings in the environment, both physical and social. — magritte

Who are traits inherited from, if not other people? Where are traits acquired from, if not the environment? Those sound like similarities to me - am I missing something?

Can human things be described by having a cause that is neither nature nor nurture? — TiredThinker

By cause, do you mean the relative effectiveness of nature as heredity as against nurture as experience and learning being influential on the development of human behavior?

Who are traits inherited from, if not other people? Where are traits acquired from, if not the environment? Those sound like similarities to me - am I missing something? — onomatomanic

I think so. Genetic inheritance is in the genes but even inherited wealth and status are in one's family. That's about half of us given at birth according to wiki. The environment is complicated by geographic and cultural factors. It's much easier to gain the traits to become rich in a rich country than in a poor one.

It's much easier to gain the traits to become rich in a rich country than in a poor one. — magritte

Heh, I was only thinking of contrasting the two contexts, and here you are combining them. Interesting idea!

Can human things be described by having a cause that is neither nature nor nurture? If so, what? — TiredThinker

Yes. Human nature is both Natural and Cultural. That's the basis of my personal BothAnd philosophy. It's a holistic view of Causation. That's because, ultimately, the First Cause is Singular. :smile:

BothAnd-ism :
An inclusive philosophical perspective that values both Subjective and Objective information; both Feelings and Facts; both Mysteries and Matters-of-fact; both Animal and Human nature.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page10.html

Nature is constitution, nurture is context.

Look, your dad was a cop, so you became a crook.

My dad was a crook, so I became a cop.

We’re not that different. — John Hartley (Red Notice 2021)

Later in the movie, towards the end...

No. My dad was a con man, and I hated him.

So I decided to become better than he ever was.

Beat him at his own game. — John Hartley (Red Notice 2021)

Like computer has windows program, beings have also. Nature makes sure that you have good chance for :
1. Survive. Child is born start putting things not in his ears, but in mouth. In certain age, you notice women, if you are a man, and vice vrsa, you try to copy people, which they are in your indentity, has success
2. makes something better in your lifetime. We are all half alive, because it is very important that information what is succesfull in your time and place has to come to you, and you have to do it better, Or at least be quite.

For nuture: How many truth really are there ? I would argue only one, one thing and only at time right now is going on, and top of that this is happening all at our tip of the nose. Like you learn to write you have to figure life and hit a homerun - you have to nuture yourself, have longing to be something more tottal expansion which we can not get in "windows" program.

Hey OP,

Nature: Genes

Nurture: Memes

You might also be interested in :point: The biological status of memes.

When there's too much nurture, time's fatherhood has bias, and vice versa with nature's motherhood.

Nature is nurture, nurture is nature.