Talk:Nature versus nurture/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Listing Gene–environment interaction in the "See also" section

There is disagreement whether Gene–environment interaction should be listed under "See also."

Per the discussion above, the article on gene-environment interaction is highly related to this article. There is a link to it in the body of the article, but it is not easy to find. Imho, it should be included under "See also" given its extremely high relevance, and, per WP:ALSO: "Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense." Memills (talk) 19:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• The article has a whole section about gene-environment interactions. "See also" is for subjects that are not (or hardly) mentioned in an article. What we could do is move the wikilink to gene-environment up to the beginning of that section (only a slight re-wording would be needed), that should solve the problem. --Randykitty (talk) 20:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

External links to be added

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/opinion/thomas-edsall-how-much-do-our-genes-influence-our-political-beliefs.html?_r=0

Above article is reccomended to be added for this topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.48.46 (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Why that link, and why on this article? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 04:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Read article please, it demonstrates how genetics have more influence on human than environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.48.46 (talk) 20:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have that opinion solely because of your genes, or have you considered the underlying facts of the matter as they relate to the much broader topic of this article? ☺ (I'm not saying it's a bad article, and I'm familiar with the general conclusions of behavior genetics research, but why that particular external link for this particular Wikipedia article? What do you think the overall topic of this Wikipedia article is?) -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:48, 10 July 2014

(UTC)

The article demonstrates aspects of the mainstream research which prove the dominance of nature over nurture, this article is called 'nature versus nurture' after all.74.14.51.18 (talk) 21:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Another article for external links section

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/09/random_noise_in_biology_why_genetically_identical_twins_aren_t_identical.html 74.14.75.158 (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Epigenetics

I propose the addition of a section concerning Epigenetics. I have no advanced knowledge of the subject so somebody who has such knowledge should take care of it. --Tco03displays (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

article scope

I spent some time with the article and noticed the bad shape it is in. Apparently people came here to discuss at lengths topics like Gene–environment interaction, Heritability or Heritability of IQ. These are of course pertinent topics, but they have their own page for a reason. This page is clearly for the discussion of the "nature vs. nurture" debate proper. By this I mean it should not pile up information on pertinent research in the hope the reader will somehow decide how to "answer" this, it should trace the history of notable opinions on the question.

This is basically the history of sociology in the 20th century. In retrospect, it is clear that things went very wrong at some point, at least during the 1920s to 1960s. This can now be presented as a historical topic.

There were endless rambling passages on how "the question is now widely considered obsolete", but this is misleading, because it implies that there were two radical camps and we later-borns have the wisdom to see it was all a false dichotomy. The reality is closer to the situation of one purist camp, forming the majority, and moderate minority camp that held the position that is now mainstream all along. A pure "nativist" position was not to my knowledge held at any point. It is simply too obvious that "nurture" has an influence (but then you would also assume it is also too obvious that "nature" is important but the "there are no instincts" mainstream developed regardless). It was during the hot phase of the dispute that the "moderate" camp was denounced as holding purist nativist views, but as far as I can see this was just straw-manning.

I think I detect some effort by the formerly "blank-slatist" camp to save face by saying "we were both wrong, let's agree the question was badly put and move on". This is when you hear that the very concept of "nature" vs. "nurture" is "meaningless" or "irrelevant. The concepts are not, of course, "meaningless", they are just difficult to unravel, so it took us a century to get there. And lo and behold, both components exist (plus, as with any categories, a fuzzy boundary between them), and they can be quantified, just as the "there is also heritability" camp had always maintained.

In this sense, the "purist blank-slate" position is not now held and thus obsolete. The "purist nativist" position would also be obsolete (but I see no evidence that it was ever held by anyone). The "nature" and "nurture" components are far from obsolete, and it is perfectly usual, these days, to decompose observed variability of some trait in some population into a heritable and a non-heritable component (e.g. as cited in biology and sexual orientation, it is perfectly straightforward, good science to give estimates of correlations such as "genetic effects explain 34%–39% of the variance in sexual orientation, the environment 61%–66%" -- this is open to criticism and haggling over the precise range of figures, but the basic concept, and the general observation that heritable contributions strongly tend to be in the two-figure percentage, or somewhat below half, are perfectly undisputed now -- while in the 1960s or 1970s, a scientist publishing such estimates would have been sacked as a quack or worse).

The discussion of this paradigm change, or series of paradigm changes over the course of the 20th century, is well worth a standalone page, so that actual up-to-date discussions on the specific findings on "heritability of IQ" and "gene–environment interaction" should really go to their dedicated pages.

I realize "gene–environment interaction" is here as an argument to support that the "distinction is meaningless", but if such a position is held explicitly by someone notable, just quote whoever it is without giving a full introductory course on the topic. In fact, "interaction" between two entities does not at all mean that the two entities do not exist or that their separation should be abandoned (very much to the contrary, in fact), so the suggestion that such interaction somehow suggests the question is "obsolete" is misleading to say the least. --dab (𒁳) 15:16, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Use of "The phrase" at the beginning of the lead

With this edit, I removed "The phrase" from the lead per the WP:Refers essay. Yes, I know that it is a Wikipedia:Essay and not a Wikipedia policy or guideline (that's why I cited it as an essay when making the edit), but it makes sense and a good number of our editors follow it. With this edit, WeijiBaikeBianji returned "The phrase" wording, stating, "I read the essay (which of course is not official Wikipedia policy), and the examples there don't fit this case. This article is not about a field of academic study as such."

Huh? This article is not simply about the phrase "nature versus nurture." Like the WP:Refers essay states of a different article, it "is not about the words; it is about the theory." Similarly, the Nature versus nurture article is not simply about the phrase "nature versus nurture"; it is about the concept. And that is exactly why the WP:Refers essay applies in this case. Furthermore, this is an academic concept. I'm not interested in heavily disputing this, but having the lead of this article begin with "The phrase," as if this is an article about a phrase, is poor wording. The same goes for the "contrasting terms" wording that was in the article before WeijiBaikeBianji changed it to "The phrase." I'm likely to alert editors at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style to this matter, so that they might weigh in on it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

It might be helpful to define what the field of inquiry is that this article is about. Then it should be easy to fix the lede. I'll look forward to hearing what the active editors who have checked the article sources have to say about that, and I thank Flyer22 for suggesting that we resolve this amicably per Wikipedia policy. In the edit that launched this question, I was fixing a problem with yet earlier phrasing, as Flyer22 has kindly noted to establish context. I'm not sure if the editor who put that earlier wording into article text would like to join the discussion, but I would be happy to hear that editor and other involved editors speak up about what to do here. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:38, 25 April 2015‎ (UTC)

WP:Refers makes a lot of sense, and I am in agreement. If the article were about the history of the phrase, and the body of the article dealt with subjects such as Shakespeare's The Tempest and rather than heritability and allelic association studies, then "The phrase" would be appropriate. Since the article is about what the phrase refers to, and not the phrase itself, then I think Flyer22 and WP:Refers are correct. Not that I think this is the biggest problem with this article. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Pete, this is trivial stuff compared to the other problems of the article, which contains lots of stuff that doesn't really belong here (like a section on the heritability of IQ as but one example). --Randykitty (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Where is Jay Joseph? Why while it is assumed that the debate has no sense still insist to imagine that exist nature-nurture?

First: "The reason is that in many fields of research, close feedback loops have been found in which "nature" and "nurture" influence one another constantly (as in self-domestication)"

and then

"One way to determine the contribution of genes and environment to a trait is to study twins. In one kind of study, identical twins reared apart are compared to randomly selected pairs of people." and "Another condition that permits the disassociation of genes and environment is adoption." That sounds ridiculous. It is impossible to disassociate the unity in which an individual develop and growth in/with the "environment". In fact, there are no entities (genes / environment) at all. There are just individuals. The separation was imagined for eugenists like Darwin and Galton. The separation and, then, the interaction of these abstract entities are only in the mind.

Jay Joseph has refuted and demonstrated largely the trouble with twin studies and there is nothing about it in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emibacter (talk • contribs) 16:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

• You're wrong about the origin of heritability. Jay Joseph is largely unknown in the fields of behavioral or psychiatric genetics, although he has some notability because of some more popular oriented books. --Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Endnote 11

Dear article author,

There is a typo in endnote 11: "Mizonni, John. "Ruse's Darwinian ethics and Moral Realism". metanexus.net. Metanexus Institute."

The correct spelling of the author's name is Mizzoni, John. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:4B:100:37D0:59A3:74E1:24A:D81A (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Article needs update

This article seems a little confusing. It doesn't clearly address nature versus nurture, but instead discusses a bunch of assumptions. It's probably best to focus on what we know. The twin and adoptive studies are clear (most notably those of Robert Plomin). The shared environment has a correlation of 0.0 with nearly all psychological traits. Children have zero correlation with the traits of their adoptive parents, and instead, correlate with their biological parents. What we think of 'nurture' are *usually* random, unsystematic, unstable environmental influences, which means that we can do little about them. The article does currently highlight a few of these points, but the twin studies are arguably the most important finding in recent time relating to this question of 'nature versus nurture'. Sxologist (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The article tends to stray a little bit from the main theme of nature versus nurture. While there is an outline provided, some ideas have been discussed in more detail than they need to be - it's hard to keep track of their relevance. The various sub topics could've been woven better for a more cohesive flow (the ending also seems a bit abrupt). The content could definitely use some updation for the last decade or so as well more diverse authors/sources of information. Rianahen (talk) 19:12, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Rianahen, it would be great if it relied more on empirical evidence. If you would like to do some updating that would be great. Sxologist (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

Twin photo caption

Hi Sxologist: Maybe we can start actually citing sentences from this article, because I'm still lost. Here's what I was talking about in the paragraph I referred to: Twin studies established that there was, in many cases, a significant heritable component. These results did not, in any way, point to overwhelming contribution of heritable factors. Then, there's the way you've now worded the caption. I have two confusions. One is in this sentence: Identical twins who are reared apart from birth had the same chance of being as similar as twins who were raised together. What does that sentence even mean? Similar genetically? Similar behaviorally? Similar in musical tastes? A natural assumption from an unqualified use of the word "similar" is that it means "similar overall" or "similar in all ways". What sentence in this article suggests that? Then your next sentence is It is increasingly understood that environmental effects are largely random, rather than systematic effects of parenting or culture. That may be true but can you point me in the right direction within the article? And, further (and maybe I'm just being a dummy here), but... how is that possible? Again, if you provide the evidence, specifically, maybe that would help me here. I only really see parenting, for example, significantly mentioned once in this article: Harris was criticized for exaggerating the point of "parental upbringing seems to matter less than previously thought" to the implication that "parents do not matter." Correct me if I missed something. Wolfdog (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Sxologist, if you're going to restore something like that, you should have it supported by a source, for WP:Verifiability. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Wolfdog, it refers to psychological/behavioral traits like intelligence and personality, practically anything measurable through testing, both via self assessment and by assessors. Testing is intensive and happens at a variety of stages throughout life. You compare the similarity/difference in results between datasets of twins reared together and those apart. They both have the same level of correlation, and subsequently, tell you how heritable a trait is. This claim in the article: "Twin studies established that there was, in many cases, a significant heritable component. These results did not, in any way, point to overwhelming contribution of heritable factors" - is completely wrong, since it's also followed by the point that traits, on average, are 50% heritable, which is a huge effect. It means genes are a larger contributor than all other factors combined. The findings are robust and are backed up by large adoption studies too. Children adopted by parents correlate with their biological parents. For example, smarter parents who adopted children did not have smarter children. The correlation adoptive children have their parents is zero. Nancy Segal reviews a bunch of twin cases here for the sake of simplicity. Similarities in all sorts of things. Segal also covers more extreme cases, such as twins separated into a nazi german family, and another in a jewish family, who were just as similar in psychometric testing at age 40. As for the criticism of Harris, that's all well and good, but Harris argued that peer groups shape personality. This isn't really been shown to be true at all, but rather, environmental effects have been shown to often be genetic effects in disguise (such as children selecting friends based upon their personality). Other environmental effects include random stochastic events; prenatal hormones and random brain formation. It is commonly said that twin studies don't take abuse into account, but critics also say abuse is widespread, so these studies are still taking some forms of abuse into account and having little effect. Studies in romanian orphanages where the most horrendous abuse occurs, although they focus on the bad, have largely shown that most orphans turned out surprisingly resilient. That isn't an endorsement for abuse, but it probably means extreme abuse is the thing that needs measurement. Being treated poorly by a parent can certainly affect your relationship with them and give you bad memories, but sweeping causation/correlation statements about bad parents, divorce and later poor outcomes of children have largely ignored genetics - which is unfortunate. Schizophrenia was once blamed on an overbearing mother as well. When parents are asked why they have a shy child they usually give one of two answers: "I took them out too much as a kid", or "I didn't take them out enough as a kid". This is indicative of the topsy turvy logic of the nurture assumption. A few key points under this review are noteworthy too. As for why there is so little impact of 'nurture', well, it's most likely the the result of millions of years of evolution. We aren't so unique among mammals. Genetically informed traits are polygenic in nature, meaning they are informed by many thousands of genes. Although some shared environmental effects exceed zero, these tend to be small and diminish with age. I do think this article needs an update as I, and another user, expressed above. I don't blame you for wondering why there is conflict between the two. The caption I added isn't saying 'environment doesn't matter', it means environmental effects aren't what we once thought them to be. I will say a lot of criticsms are somewhat disingenuous in nature, although that does not mean they shouldn't be included. Typically they involve some kind of silly claim such as 'epigenetics', which is wrong. It is often said by geneticists that we could clone you and raise you in a different environment, and you'd be just as similar as a twin who was raised with you. That that's exactly what studies of twins reared apart are comparing: genetic clones reared apart and genetic clones reared together. The film Three Identical Strangers focuses on one such instance in which three triplets were put into upper, middle and lower class families by a freudian who believed it would demonstrate the effect of nurture. All very similar, all had the same mental illnesses. Just because something is 50% genetic does not mean the other 50% is 'nurture' as in parenting, quality of school and so on. EDIT: Yes parents matter, they feed us and get people to school on time, and they can provide opportunities that others don't get, and abuse could certainly derail your ability to do well in life. But in terms of "rearing" influence on children and psychological traits, the relationship is not so strong. P.S. for influence of parents in twin studies look at the 'shared environment', which as I said before, typically has a small effect and diminishes over time. It is about 10-15% in teenage years and even lower later (oftentimes, zero) Sxologist (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

This comment isn't addressed to anyone in particular: For some (including passerby) who may not be clear on what "shared environment" means, I feel the need to list a few definitions here. Most sources limit the term to siblings, especially to twins, while others are broader in their definition. For example, like I stated here at the Neuroplasticity talk page, this 2005 "Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science" source states, "The shared environment (also called common environment) refers to environmental influences that have the effect of making siblings more similar to one another. Shared environmental influences can include shared family experiences, shared peer groups, and sharing the same school and community." By contrast, the American Psychological Association (APA) defines "shared environment" as "in behavior genetic analyses, those aspects of an environment that individuals living together (e.g., biologically related individuals in a family household) share and that therefore cause them to become more similar to each other than would be expected on the basis of genetic influences alone. Examples of shared environmental factors include parental child-rearing style, divorce, or family income and related variables." The APA doesn't limit the matter to only siblings, at least in that source. Either that, or the APA isn't clear in that source that it's only referring to siblings.

Beyond that, this 2003 "Handbook of Dynamics in Parent-Child Relations" source, from Sage Publications, page 151, states, "The term 'shared environment' has been misunderstood by some authors to index the influence of the family environment. In fact, it is not possible to derive any estimate of the influence of family environment from the magnitude of the shared environment parameter. It may be, for instance, that the magnitude of 'family influence' on children's adjustment is substantial but that family factors do not make siblings alike (in which case the magnitude of shared environment would still be minimal). Additionally, finding an effect of shared environment would not provide particular clues to the kinds of specific environmental variables that are having such an effect. That is because behavioral genetic models estimate the sum total of environmental effects that function to make siblings similar rather than testing specific hypotheses concerning specific environmental variables. It is possible to include measured risks in traditional behavioral genetic models to see if they explain sibling similarity, but replicated examples of this are rare. To date, because many outcomes of interest show little shared environmental effect, the meaning of shared environment has not been explored in much detail and has been neglected. Therefore, it remains to be seen whether or not the notion of 'shared environment,' as defined by behavioral genetic methodology, is a useful explanatory concept. What is clear at this point is that if the aim of research is to describe processes and mechanisms rather than simply outcomes or effects, then the answer is no." Since this source is from 2003, I'll leave others to debate whether they feel, or today's evidence shows, that some aspects of the quoted paragraph are outdated.

As to the question of whether parenting affects the psychological traits (including behavior) of an individual? It does to some degree. We know, for example, that people aren't born racist. They were reared that way, fell into a social sphere that led them to develop their racist psyche, or their individual experiences led them there. Many ex-racists, including ex-Nazis, are clear that they were raised to be racist and behaved accordingly. Even if one wants to state that "born racist" is a bit too strong and simplifies the matter too much in terms how genetics impact individual behavior, there is no research there is no solid research that suggests that people are predisposed to being racist. We also know that many people state that they whip or whipped their kids because they were whipped as children as well; they were conditioned to think of whipping as the only or best way of disciplining a child. We know that many people state that they chose a certain job -- became passionate about it -- because either their parents had the same job or reared them in that direction. Of course, some people who were reared to take on a certain job state that they realized it was their parents' dream rather than theirs, but others maintain that they became passionate about the job because of having watched their parents do the same job or their parents having pushed them in that direction. We also know that some people state that they have pretty twisted views because of the household they grew up in (which goes back to racist viewpoints as just one example). And the list goes on.

Although twin studies provide insight into this topic, I can see how one wouldn't want to rely heavily on them since they are specifically about twins and are limited. But then again, this 2014 2013 "Shared environmental influences on personality: A combined twin and adoption approach" Behavior Genetics source, which speaks of the "biases of twin and adoption studies", states, "In the past, shared environmental influences on personality traits have been found to be negligible in behavior genetic studies (e.g., Bouchard & McGue, 2003). However, most studies have been based on biometrical modeling of twins only." So most of these studies have been done on twins with regard to biometrical modeling only. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Additional comment: And I did notice this "New research suggests racism could be a genetic trait" August 2020 source from Phys.org. But there is no solid data supporting the notion that people are genetically predisposed to being racist. Racism is hardly ever considered to be a biological/genetic matter in the literature on racism. A racist saying "I was born racist" isn't going to work. Given that racism was very much acceptable in the past for many years but no longer is (even though institutional racism still exists), it's highly unlikely that most racists have a biological predisposition to being racist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

This nonsense about the environment being so "random" that we can't and shouldn't bother manipulating it is, frankly, irresponsible to put as the caption to a page where a lot of people are going to come and read about something they aren't knowledgeable about. While Plomin's views may very well be sound within the specific subfield of twin studies, outside of that he's little more than a modern-day Bell Curve enthusiast with his talk about personalized education based on preschool DNA testing and ongoing IQ testing. This is, at *best*, controversial. It seems to me like this at the very least needs to be qualified by either (1) making it clear that Plomin's views do not mean "increasingly understood", given the controversy of his new little intellectual dance in his attempt to show genes > everything else, or (2) re-think and re-word this caption such that this page isn't tacitly endorsing Plomin's inherently limited attempts to reduce things like intelligence to genes.

Also, let's be clear here. This framing: "Yes parents matter, they feed us and get people to school on time, and they can provide opportunities that others don't get, and abuse could certainly derail your ability to do well in life. But in terms of "rearing" influence on children and psychological traits, the relationship is not so strong" tremendously downplays the role that families have in passing things onto their children, like cultural capital. Students who go into their first year of university, for example, from wealthier families and more privileged secondary school systems, outperform those from poorer families and under-resourced schools. That's just a fact. Plomin is saying if everyone went to the same school, and had the same resources, etc., we would be forced to leave the remaining variation to genetics. Fine. But that's now how things work right now, so I fail to see how we can draw educational or any other conclusions from this work. Annette Lareau has done years of fieldwork examining the specific parenting techniques, with all of their tiny additive techniques, that shape the way children navigate institutions, come to challenge authority, acquire anxiety triggers, and generally understand the world around them. This is a matter of phenomenology, not only genetics, and those like Plomin unfortunately don't have familiarity with this realm of concepts, instead hand-waving "everything else" that aren't genetic influences. Purple Ombudsman (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello Purple Ombudsman, I'm happy to include some arguments from the sociologists where appropriate, however they don't provide great evidence (and make sweeping claims which are topsy turvy and contradictory). Plomin is politically left wing and is not a "bell curve enthusiast". I think you may have misunderstood nature versus nurture; the term itself is actually incredibly problematic, because "environment/nurture" is usually referring to anything non-genetic, i.e. chance of prenatal wiring. It's important to know that twin studies are measuring psychometric traits. The fact that Anne Lareu claims that "tiny additive techniques" shape and make children is disappointing because all of the evidence suggests otherwise. That sounds like mother blaming to me. You write that "Plomin unfortunately don't have familiarity with this realm of concepts" - really? He's probably the most respected psychometrician in the world who was educated in the time that psychologists blamed schizophrenia on parental rearing. It's fair to say he knows these unjustified theories quite well. In light of the finding that most social science papers are entirely false, it's only been the behavioural genetics research that has actually replicated. The only two things showing reliable shared environmental influence are political and religious views (and it's only about 20%, because propensity to these is highly heritable). Stochastic environmental randomness was suggested as the major explanation for 'nurture' in the 1800's, and it's looking more like this is correct every day. You can refer to a book like "Innate" by neuroscientist Kevin Mitchell, a progressive, who carefully outlines a lot of this. He has a brief blog post here, outlining that it's unlikely unshared environmental effects are related to social interactions, but prenatal wiring and stochastic chance. Or you could read this article (academic reviews are filled with opaque language). It's entirely appropriate to have both sides of "the debate" included, but in parental rearing shaping personalities or traits – we see little to no effect. People have their own interests, personalities and tendencies which stem from a genetic propensity - evolution made it so – and that is okay. Sxologist (talk) 11:27, 30 October 2020‎ (UTC)

Hi there Sxologist--I think you're misunderstanding where folks like Lareau (and many other sociologists of inequality and the family) are coming from--and there seems to be a broader misunderstanding of her point and of the sociological imagination writ large. She is not saying that kids who are low-SES are there because of the fault of their mothers. She is saying that child-rearing practices develop within specific cultural, institutional and socio-political contexts which have been formed, partially by design, partially not, to preserve the status quo. It is distinctly unsociological to argue that people are poor by their own merits. I'm also a bit confused by what you mean when you say "most social science papers are entirely false"--sorry, but after a decade in the discipline, I'm inclined to disagree. When they try to replicate the natural sciences, social sciences are not perfect, no. But often this is not the case. There are entire other paradigms out there beyond genetics research on how to conceptualize traits, and behaviour. But what folks like Lareau do is get a detailed, processual look at exactly how things like child-rearing form many of "interests, personalities and tendencies" you're speaking of. I should also note that Lareau is not some weirdo off on her own thing. She comes from a rich, decades-long tradition of using qualitative and mixed methodologies to examine the ways that people inherit and act out the sorts of cultural capital to which they have access. People born into poverty do not simply get to "pick and choose" their interests (even *if* they are naturally inclined to one or another, which I would also debate), because they often don't have the cultural capital (https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-cultural-capital-do-i-have-it-3026374) to access them--whether this be academics, or art, science, what-have-you. What I tried to get across in that above post is that whatever models Plomin are coming up with is necessarily incomplete, because they, and he, do not take into consideration (nor do I blame them for doing so) these sorts of variables. Breaking down the environmental side of the coin is just not something that geneticists show any proficiency in doing beyond the most reductionist operationalizations. Society plays a key role in shaping us according to gender, race, SES, etc., and this is empirical fact. In other words, it's great that you know everybody at one camp in the campground, but there are many other fires out there to explore. And to be clear, I'm not denying the influence that genetics plays neither on personality traits, nor the holistic outcomes of individual. I respect that side of the science, and it is good science. But I do believe that folks like Plomin are overstepping their epistemological boundaries when they begin monopolizing explanations for human behaviour. Purple Ombudsman (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Purple Ombudsman, it sounds like you are commenting on the fact that many people are successfully reared to be a certain way? You're also speaking of how society shapes certain attitudes, such as sexism?

If you are also saying that we shouldn't be applying twin study material broadly, I agree. Twin studies are twin studies. They provide insight, but they are not about the general population. And this is partly what my initial post above is stating. There, you can see that I cited a source criticizing twin and adoption studies. Also, shared environment, which, again, is mainly about siblings (and hardly about child-parent relationships specifically or directly), is obviously not the same thing as the non-shared/individual environment.

I also don't know what Sxologist means by "most social science papers are entirely false." If he means "in general", then I disagree.

Bad parenting is absolutely a thing. It can, for example, affect whether or not someone has good or bad manners. Or how entitled a person feels, which may be due to growing up with rich parents (who never took the time to educate their children on humility and not feeling superior because of their wealth) vs. poor parents. Psychologists and psychiatrists have known for a long time that, as made clear by this 2016 source from National Academies Press, parenting matters with regard to how a person develops mentally. Parenting plays a significant role in child development and adolescent development.

That stated, did parenting play any significant role in Jeffrey Dahmer being a serial killer? Very likely not. Yes, his upbringing wasn't ideal, but there is no indication that he was physically and/or sexually abused. Or that he suffered significant emotional abuse. And yet...he still turned out to be a horrific serial killer. He does contrast Aileen Wuornos, though, who psychologists, sociologists, and criminologists believe to be partly a product of her upbringing and early life experiences. Dahmer was male and Wuornos was female, and both had different motives for killing...which aligned with what is typical for serial killers of either sex. Well, except for things like Dahmer eating people and trying to reanimate corpses, and Wuornos having engaged in a few behaviors that make her an exception with regard to female serial killers. But, regardless, male and female serial killers are different, and there seems to be more of a biological basis for males than females being serial killers, which very likely also explains why there are significantly more male than female serial killers. We know that there are sex differences with regard to psychopathy. As noted by some research, 75% of the variance in severe callous and unemotional traits was attributable to environmental factors for girls, and just 0% of the variance was attributable to genetic factors. In boys, the link was reversed.

Please don't WP:Ping me if you repy. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:58, 1 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that does more accurate reflect what I am trying to say, Frozen. Lareau talks about "concerted cultivation" versus "natural accomplishment of growth." The former includes putting kids in things like Latin, dance, music, having tutors, teaching them to speak to their physicians/teachers directly and confidently, etc. This is all very valuable cultural capital that benefits these kids once they grow up. In the latter, kids are largely left to their own devices, and parents see themselves as providers of shelter, food, etc., but are much more laissez-faire in how they raise their children. This begets a different kind of cultural capital that plays a critical gatekeeping function: these children are more anxious approaching authority figures (because they tend to only talk to them when in trouble or something needs to be "fixed"), they have a harder time keeping a schedule when one is imposed or needed, etc. In the second edition of her book, Lareau goes back and looks at those kids as adults--and sees that those differences endure well into adulthood. Cultural capital operates over and above one's genetic makeup--yes, genetics may play some role in how people use and interact with those values, norms, tools, beliefs, and so on, but behavioural geneticists have not (and cannot, because they are simply not trained to think about these things in a holistic or sophisticated way).

I will be making some empirically-justified changes to this page in the future to reflect a more balanced approach to this issue; going through it a few more times, it is clearly biased towards geneticist approaches. Like it or not, there are multiple valid approaches to human behaviour that involve more than reductionist operationalizations of environmental influences. If anyone has an issue with these changes, I'm happy to engage in the dispute resolution process. Purple Ombudsman (talk) 00:41, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we shouldn't just rely on behavioural genetics or evolutionary psychology sources. And as seen by the "Criticisms and controversies" section in the Behavioural genetics article, and by looking at the Criticism of evolutionary psychology article, both of these fields are controversial. We should also be looking at other psychology sources (ones that aren't evolutionary psychology-based), psychiatric, sociology, and criminology sources for this topic. I know that this talk page is currently tagged with WP:WikiProject Philosophy in addition to the psychology and sociology WikiProjects, but I would only use philosophy sources for a "Philosophy" section. Otherwise, I think you should avoid those.

When it comes to looking for sources for this topic, do keep what WP:SCHOLARSHIP states in mind. For reasons it states, try to avoid using primary sources. Try to stick to secondary and tertiary sources. And make sure that the sources are on-topic and that you aren't engaging in synthesis; see WP:Synthesis. In some cases, WP:MEDRS-compliant sources will be best; also see what WP:MEDPOP and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Other sources state. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:52, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

____

References

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Halliemaceachern. Peer reviewers: Heyemmab, Jmrollins, Snpatrick.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn’t this a false dichotomy?

Surely if this page were to exist at all it should be titled Nature AND nurture, or equivalent.

Just because these ideas are commonly presented in fallacious form does not mean the page has to be titled likewise. MichaelYZ (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelYZ (talk • contribs) 22:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from, but we have to go by WP:COMMONNAME. It really is based on which phrase sources most often use. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:08, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It most assuredly is a false dichotomy. An inherently meaningless phrase, not least because:

1. There are few, if any, aspects of life not manifestly influenced by both to some degree, in some way, shape or form;

2. Contrary to the implication of the phrase, plainly they are not the only determinants of 'fate', merely two of very many, and two chosen quite arbitrarily because they are near-homophones, and then only in English;

3. Environment [dubiously analogous to 'nurture'] is indeed 'heritable' [dubiously analogous to 'nature'] inasmuch as humans have a strong bias toward raising children in the manner they themselves were raised.

How many millions of human-life-years [and counting] have been wasted on contemplating this non-controversy? This intellectual beat-up? Fake news! 122.151.210.84 (talk) 18:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't luck be included as a third factor having interactions with the two others?

I think it is already suggested by, or taken in account in, many works. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25534050-900-nature-nurture-luck-why-you-are-more-than-just-genes-and-upbringing/ Randomness is a complex topic in biology, but I believe it is supplementary reason for the luck to be included, as more keys of apprehension of the initial subject would ultimately result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:BC:3200:4977:38D9:A2A2:A9FC (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at University of Western Ontario supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}} on 14:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Personality Theory

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 12 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jeppi2023, Adwf2 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Adwf2 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

doesn't make sense

"The role parental genetic hereditability on offspring personality is negligible. Moreover, no single gene is specific to a certain trait but rather combination of genes that collectively influence someone's personality trait. Molecular genetic techniques have been able to guess what genes do what for the most part but it is mainly about guessing averages rather than precise data. Alternatively, we can see that "genetic factors can be amplified or diminished due to environmental conditions or constraints". Genetic code is passed on to offspring however personality is not directly and relies heavily on surrounding conditions of an individual's life."

This paragraph is incorrectly worded, and, as far as I can understand it, factually seems to contradict what is said above it. I propose to delete it, and will do so if no objections come. Backep1 (talk) 12:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Backep1 It's very poorly worded, support deletion or adjustment to match the source. Zenomonoz (talk) 12:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Zenomonoz for the confirmation. I've now deleted the paragraph. Backep1 (talk) 07:35, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Revert and deletion

Generalrelative, why have you made your recent changes? Can you explain why you don't think the additions are WP:DUE?

Specifically, I am referring to these reverts:

[1] [2]

In the twentieth century, studies of twins separated at birth helped provide better insight into the debate about nature versus nurture. Like identical twins who were raised together, identical twins who were reared apart from birth tend to be similar in behavioral and psychological traits.

Surely, the photo is relevant, and Robert Plomin and MIT Press are reliable, notable sources. And a discussion of Trofim Lysenko is also certainly relevant.

For those who want to know, the photo and caption (pictured at right) were deleted, along with a sentence about Lysenko as well as a brief discussion about the political dimensions of the debate.

Wiki Crazyman (talk) 19:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes why is material on Lysenko being deleted? It's absolutely relevant. This is blatant POV pushing. Restoring after six days of silence.Robert Watermeyer (talk) 06:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC) Obvious WP:BLOCKEVASION is obvious. Generalrelative (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

WP:ONEWAY. This is an article about a controversy within science, and there is no need to drag nutcases in.

And the illustration illustrates nothing relevant. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Robert Watermeyer is someone else. If you don't believe me, feel free to check our IP's. Wiki Crazyman (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Why are you telling me that? Are you imagining, for some unfathomable reason, that I suspected him to be your sockpuppet? Weird. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I'll tell you exactly why user:generalrelative removed a completely uncontroversial photo that had been in the article for more than 10 years, without disucssing it in any way. The same reason other users removed photos by the same photographer. You see user:Abbedabb, one of the most prolific and talented photographers on Wikipedia, dared to photograph Conchita Wurst at a Eurovisiom event. This is enough to make them an enemy of the anti-trans contigent. It's happening all over Wikipedia by the way. Unfortunately, what Generalrelative did was completely within policy, although it was certainly inconsiderate. If I am wrong I apologize, but there is no other reason to remove a longstanding, apolitical, benign image from an article, with zero discussion as to why or waiting for discussion first. Especially an image that adds necessary context to the article itself (twins are basically the first image peopeople think of when discussing nature and nurture). 66.74.137.76 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, it could be that it really doesn't add anything to the article. We don't use images for decoration. Not everything is a conspiracy. MrOllie (talk) 21:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to belive that Mr. Ollie, but that doesn't explain removing such a longstanding image - one that is completely unobjectionable- without some kind of prior discussion. It's just simple manners. Again if I am wrong I feel terrible, but there really isn't any other explanation. ETA if you were to try to add the article back I guarantee you it would be removed immediately - BECAUSE of who the photographer is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.137.76 (talk • contribs)

WP:AGF, and please stop casting aspersions at other editors. There is no evidence that anyone has a problem with the photographer. There is a problem with showing a random set of twins - who were not part of any study and who were raised together, to make some kind of point in the image caption about studies of similarities between twins who are raised apart. It never should have been on this article in the first place. - MrOllie (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks MrOllie. For the record I had never heard of the photographer nor the controversy mentioned by the IP. I removed the image for the reason MrOllie suggests and would only add that this particular image of twins (along with its caption) didn't seem appropriately neutral for a lead image, as though it were seeking to prime the reader toward the "nature" rather than the "nurture" side of the debate. That's what I was getting at in my edit summary. Generalrelative (talk) 10:59, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t think I’ve seen this article in a long time, and looking at page history I’m surprised that photo and caption had been up for so long. Like I said elsewhere the twins in that photo do not seem to be twins separated at birth and were not part of a study, making that photo and similarly the caption irrelevant to the article. Additionally, similar information to that caption is touched upon in the article. Also, see WP:BRD regarding the discussion bit. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

As an editor who is just coming back to this article now: the image and caption should be kept in the article, at the very least, in a section with twin studies. Saying that it "prime the reader toward" nature rather than nurture seems unjustified like POV pushing, given the bulk of reliable psychological sources concede that nature does outweigh nurture on most psychological traits, and most of the environmental influence is less "nurture", and more random noise in development. I would ultimately support restoring it to the top of the article given that twins raised apart were one of the only true causal tests of nature vs. nurture which got away from the purely correlation claims of nurturism. I don't think there is reasonable consensus to remove the image and caption. Zenomonoz (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

This is an article that touches on twin studies, but an image of a pair of twins that were not a part of a study and are not associated with the article subject in any meaningful way does not belong here. MrOllie (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Identical twins, including twins separated at birth, helped provide better insight into the debate about nature versus nurture.

I think you are splitting hairs. This is an article about nature versus nurture, and twin studies were among the first methods to truly test nature versus nurture. If I change the caption to "Identical twins, including twins separated at birth, helped provide better insight into the debate about nature versus nurture", I have immediately fixed the issue and make no reference to studies. Zenomonoz (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The image would still be irrelevant to the article. This is like putting a photograph of a random person in public on Sociology. MrOllie (talk) 23:21, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Well argued, but I am still not convinced. MrOllie (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes it would. The twins in that photo do not seem to be twins separated at birth and were not part of a study, making that photo and similarly the caption irrelevant to the article. Additionally, similar information to that caption is touched upon in the article. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 04:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Lysenko somehow got ignored here. I experimentally deleted him again; he had been reinserted by a sitebanned user. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

References