Is the male or female more of a creature of nature, are they equal or not?

Who is more of a creature of nature males or females? Males act on natural instinct,just as females do, but sociologically speaking who is further way from their roots? Who is further away from their basic and honest animal nurture and instincts? Male or female?

Can it be determined which one is more of a creature of nature, rather than acting on embedded behaviors, embedded ideas/ philosophies?

Is the concept of man or woman further away from the simple nature of which they were brought up from, from the beginning of sex in race?


Who's more in control and in touch with their honesty of nature, and who is more influenced by "invention"?

Who is more of a slave of inventions and the superficial world that rests on our shoulders.

Gender is a social construction.

I refuse to do your homework for you.

We’re all slave to our nature, although many don’t like to admit it. This very thread is because of your inhibitions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clo

Gender is a social construction.

---

but sex is natural, rite?

I like to believe that my "in ur kitchen makin ur sammiches" is very much instinctual, because it's about the desire to nurture, which is in the female instinct line. And you know what? I like it that way. And I want a mate who desires to protect me and provide for me and our future family <3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rubah

but sex is natural, rite?

---

Oh man, is it natural. :smug:

Not, I hear, the things that rubah gets up to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rubah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clo

Gender is a social construction.

---

but sex is natural, rite?

---

Sex as the act of intercourse? Or sex as the biological disposition?

Ooooh a sociological debate! My favourite. :excited:

The idea of women having a "Motherly" instinct is completely socially constructed; the way boys and girls are socialized (ie. blue for boy, pink for girl, soldier for boy, play kitchen for girl etc etc) is what leads to these stereotypes of "women should be in the kitchen" etc. So we don't do ourselves any favours and then we wonder why it's OUR job to cook the meal when, ironically, most of the top chefs are men.

I don't know if that's at all relevant, but I feel clever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~*~Celes~*~

I like to believe that my "in ur kitchen makin ur sammiches" is very much instinctual, because it's about the desire to nurture, which is in the female instinct line. And you know what? I like it that way. And I want a mate who desires to protect me and provide for me and our future family <3

---

This is completely (and stereotypically) socially constructed. Biologically, there is no "female instinct" or "desire to nurture". There's no reason why a woman can't be the breadwinner - why must the woman always take the expressive role?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeldy

Ooooh a sociological debate! My favourite. :excited:

The idea of women having a "Motherly" instinct is completely socially constructed; the way boys and girls are socialized (ie. blue for boy, pink for girl, soldier for boy, play kitchen for girl etc etc) is what leads to these stereotypes of "women should be in the kitchen" etc. So we don't do ourselves any favours and then we wonder why it's OUR job to cook the meal when, ironically, most of the top chefs are men.

I don't know if that's at all relevant, but I feel clever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~*~Celes~*~

I like to believe that my "in ur kitchen makin ur sammiches" is very much instinctual, because it's about the desire to nurture, which is in the female instinct line. And you know what? I like it that way. And I want a mate who desires to protect me and provide for me and our future family <3

---

This is completely (and stereotypically) socially constructed. Biologically, there is no "female instinct" or "desire to nurture". There's no reason why a woman can't be the breadwinner - why must the woman always take the expressive role?

---

because it's hardwired into your genes and that of most female mammals, but I guess that's just a "social construct" as well.

even the toughest feminist CEO career-bitch will become a soft caring mommy when she gets a baby. Well most of them at least. Some just never care, in which case it just means they suck forever.

Both genders have common and specific inherit instincts... I feel like taking a nap so I'll elaborate later... *snoozes*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rubah

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clo

Gender is a social construction.

---

but sex is natural, rite?

---

Sex is natural, sex is good. Not everybody does it, but everybody should.

Because Men are superior to women we are more rational and less guided by flighty emotions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clo

Gender is a social construction.

---

Aye.

When it comes to gender arguments on EoFF, there are two types of men. You'll have the "har har misogyny!" crowd, which work together to hi-five each other and feel superior to people. Then you have the "Women are great! What would we do without them?! You guys are SEXIST!" suck ups who just want to worm their way into the women's pants (hint: it won't work)

I just wait to see how the thread pans out and then I make fun of the side which is the most annoying. :shobon:

You forgot type 3, Psy. The ones who point out the other types in an attempt to look clever and score some irony-loving pussy. ;)

Women don't understand irony so the point is irrelevant.

oops guess I'm type 1 now

*HI FIVE!*

What happens if I say that women are great and better than men because they have nicer tits?

My husband is going to cook me delicious food :3

I don't think either men or women are worth the trouble. Goats are natural. I go for goats.

Sexual Dimorphism is really interesting. Depending on the gender at birth, a young Nidoran will have a different evolution, which in turn leads to different stats and movesets. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Summoner of Leviathan

Sex as the act of intercourse? Or sex as the biological disposition?

---

the post was typed with the assumption that everyone would assume the former, but you can go ahead and type a post assuming the latter!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~*~Celes~*~

I like to believe that my "in ur kitchen makin ur sammiches" is very much instinctual, because it's about the desire to nurture, which is in the female instinct line. And you know what? I like it that way. And I want a mate who desires to protect me and provide for me and our future family <3

---

Psh, yeah right. If someone told me to make them a sammich I'd tell them where the bread was so they can make it themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quin

What happens if I say that women are great and better than men because they have nicer tits?

---

Then we'd know you're a liar cos you've blatently got the nicest tits in the land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeldy

This is completely (and stereotypically) socially constructed. Biologically, there is no "female instinct" or "desire to nurture". There's no reason why a woman can't be the breadwinner - why must the woman always take the expressive role?

---

You're getting into the whole nature vs nurture thing. While we do construct something other things come naturally. The Nature v. nurture thing is still a hot topic so saying "It's because of this exactly nurture wise" isn't fact because half of the sociological/psychological community will say you're wrong :p

Biologically we have hormones that drive us to want to do more motherly things. :p

Take my neice for example. My sister and her husband didn't want to know what they were having so they bought up all the green and yellow things. So everything was the neutral colors. When they had her "Oh it's a girl!" She had this most of her infancy. As she grew she naturally liked flowers and what not. She would pick the flowers and bring them to us. So you have the nature thing about liking flowers.

Just the whole nature v. nurture thing gets tiring xP While we are drawn to do things that is more of our nature, the way we were raised makes a lot of our personality. It's not which gender is more nature oriented, it's which person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotora

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeldy

Ooooh a sociological debate! My favourite. :excited:

The idea of women having a "Motherly" instinct is completely socially constructed; the way boys and girls are socialized (ie. blue for boy, pink for girl, soldier for boy, play kitchen for girl etc etc) is what leads to these stereotypes of "women should be in the kitchen" etc. So we don't do ourselves any favours and then we wonder why it's OUR job to cook the meal when, ironically, most of the top chefs are men.

I don't know if that's at all relevant, but I feel clever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~*~Celes~*~

I like to believe that my "in ur kitchen makin ur sammiches" is very much instinctual, because it's about the desire to nurture, which is in the female instinct line. And you know what? I like it that way. And I want a mate who desires to protect me and provide for me and our future family <3

---

This is completely (and stereotypically) socially constructed. Biologically, there is no "female instinct" or "desire to nurture". There's no reason why a woman can't be the breadwinner - why must the woman always take the expressive role?

---

because it's hardwired into your genes and that of most female mammals, but I guess that's just a "social construct" as well.

even the toughest feminist CEO career-bitch will become a soft caring mommy when she gets a baby. Well most of them at least. Some just never care, in which case it just means they suck forever.

---

The fact that you use "toughest feminist CEO career-bitch" reinforces the idea that women who do "men" role will somehow be a bitch, but a man doing the same thing is simply accepted if not applauded.

It is nearly impossible to say for 100% that something is natural because we don't know what our "natural" state is. We can look at different animal species, some of them more similar to us genetically but it cannot give us a firm grasp of what the human "natural" state is. In fact, from various cultural perspective an unsocialized human is not a human at all, or is somehow less than human. Humanity and human being-ness only arise from being in contact with other humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

Take my neice for example. My sister and her husband didn't want to know what they were having so they bought up all the green and yellow things. So everything was the neutral colors. When they had her "Oh it's a girl!" She had this most of her infancy. As she grew she naturally liked flowers and what not. She would pick the flowers and bring them to us. So you have the nature thing about liking flowers.

---

Are you saying it is natural that a girl will pick flowers, or you saying that the flower picking activity just depends on the person (regardless of gender)?

Regardless, it does not change the fact that in a Pavlovian manner gender-roles are enforced. If a biologically male child plays with Barbies, it will be frowned upon. He will be told that he should be playing with other, more "manly" things. Furthermore, the behaviour is reinforced by his male peers who were also taught the same thing thus he becomes subject to teasing for doing an activity associated with "girls" and femininity. Conversely, if a girl plays with trucks and cars, she will be told that maybe she should play with dolls or something similar. Let's not even start about intersexed children and what happen to them. The point is society at large is wholly concerned about gender-roles. Maybe some people have been fortunate enough not to have suffer greatly because of it for there is change occurring but by and large it still happens.

As for the cooking thing? Women's place is in the kitchen? Really? The restaurant industry is dominated by males. When you go out to a restaurant the fact is your food will most likely be prepared by a guy. It is the truth. As for cooking ability? Depends on the person and how they were raised and any innate skills they have. I know guys and girls who can't cook if they're life depended on it. Heck, traditionally baking is associated with females, but I am the better baker than one of my female friends. However, this same friend is a better savoury cook than me. We have different areas we excel at regardless of sex.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeldy

This is completely (and stereotypically) socially constructed. Biologically, there is no "female instinct" or "desire to nurture". There's no reason why a woman can't be the breadwinner - why must the woman always take the expressive role?

---

I'll agree that there is no reason that a woman can't be the breadwinner, but I think it's pretty damn ingrained biologically for women to have a desire to nurture. Considering woman have their offspring developing inside of them for nine months, and then have the physical facilities to keep it fed after birth, women's bodies are biologically built for nurturing.

That doesn't mean that a woman automatically has to take care of all of the people in their life, or that they must stay home and be house moms their whole lives. But you're kind of ignoring all of the biological factors that woman are pretty much built to nurture their offspring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Summoner of Leviathan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotora

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeldy

Ooooh a sociological debate! My favourite. :excited:

The idea of women having a "Motherly" instinct is completely socially constructed; the way boys and girls are socialized (ie. blue for boy, pink for girl, soldier for boy, play kitchen for girl etc etc) is what leads to these stereotypes of "women should be in the kitchen" etc. So we don't do ourselves any favours and then we wonder why it's OUR job to cook the meal when, ironically, most of the top chefs are men.

I don't know if that's at all relevant, but I feel clever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ~*~Celes~*~

I like to believe that my "in ur kitchen makin ur sammiches" is very much instinctual, because it's about the desire to nurture, which is in the female instinct line. And you know what? I like it that way. And I want a mate who desires to protect me and provide for me and our future family <3

---

This is completely (and stereotypically) socially constructed. Biologically, there is no "female instinct" or "desire to nurture". There's no reason why a woman can't be the breadwinner - why must the woman always take the expressive role?

---

because it's hardwired into your genes and that of most female mammals, but I guess that's just a "social construct" as well.

even the toughest feminist CEO career-bitch will become a soft caring mommy when she gets a baby. Well most of them at least. Some just never care, in which case it just means they suck forever.

---

The fact that you use "toughest feminist CEO career-bitch" reinforces the idea that women who do "men" role will somehow be a bitch, but a man doing the same thing is simply accepted if not applauded.

---

Well, duh. It's a cutthroat competitive world out there and for a woman to make it that far it would mean she'd have to be even tougher and meaner than the guys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shoeberto

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeldy

This is completely (and stereotypically) socially constructed. Biologically, there is no "female instinct" or "desire to nurture". There's no reason why a woman can't be the breadwinner - why must the woman always take the expressive role?

---

I'll agree that there is no reason that a woman can't be the breadwinner, but I think it's pretty damn ingrained biologically for women to have a desire to nurture. Considering woman have their offspring developing inside of them for nine months, and then have the physical facilities to keep it fed after birth, women's bodies are biologically built for nurturing.

That doesn't mean that a woman automatically has to take care of all of the people in their life, or that they must stay home and be house moms their whole lives. But you're kind of ignoring all of the biological factors that woman are pretty much built to nurture their offspring.

---

Aaaah yes actually you make a good point there, my sociology textbook doesn't include an answer for that - hm.

The point that TSoL made goes even deeper than simply what a boy in socially encouraged to play with and what a girl is. Even the speech patterns and games all reinforce the socially accepted gender norms. Boys are encouraged to play games where there is a clear winner and a loser. Girls play games that encourage a victory for everyone. A woman who expresses male speech patterns is called a bitch, while a man with female speech patterns is called a sissy. In reality though, someone who is able to use both a male and female speech pattern will be better adapted to succeed. Because in male speech pattern it is insulting to try and mirror a situation (eg if I was in that situation I would have done this and that) while that is what is expected in many situations with a female speech pattern.

To see if a specific gender is inclined to any specific habits, you need to take a few hundred children, isolate them from all contact with humanity, and present them with several random "boy", "girl", and "gender neutral" objects. This is also going to cause these children to be socially inept, and damage them beyond repair as a child needs contact with other humans to develop language skills from a very early age, or the ability to learn language will be lost. (This is referring to the child's first language) so the ethics of such an experiment make it impossible to actually do.

Freyas niece was most likely exposed to some message that conveys girls like flowers. Most likely through a visual exposure through TV, or watching her mother enjoying flowers.

either that or the first time she brought flowers, there was a positive reaction and that positive reaction taught her that flowers make Mommy happy, so I should bring more flowers to make Mommy even happier.

For those with attention deficiency disorders, here is a summarized snippet of the general ramblings for you to ponder over - Gender roles are ingrained everywhere in culture. You can only see if there are true gender differences in behavior by using experiments that will severly damage many children. Have a nice day :p

No the point of my example was that even though my niece was exposed to neutral or even male things she still liked the stereotypical female like of flowers.

Scott don't talk about my family as if you know them. My sister painted and designed her entire bathroom in a spiderman theme. If anything the girl should have been climbing walls not picking flowers. The point of my example wasn't "well she probably saw something on tv and was like that." No the point was she was exposed to neutral things yet she still showed a more feminine personality, NATURALLY.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zeldy

Aaaah yes actually you make a good point there, my sociology textbook doesn't include an answer for that - hm.

---

That's because the truth is sometimes too politically incorrect. People can get away with more BS in sociology and psychology than in hard science like biochemistry and genetics.

What happened the first time she brought someone flowers? If it resulted in a positive reaction the child will be inclined to repeat that action, and associate flowers as being a good thing, thus liking flowers. If a child sticks a fork in the electrical socket and gets shocked, you can bet they wont do it again anytime soon because they will associate the action with the pain, and then would avoid the action that causes the pain.

I just used a general example using an action noted previously, which happened to be that of your niece. Remove the words "Freya's" and replaced it with Jane Smith's and the example still holds.

Women are necessary to setup your mom jokes, but it's more fun to say these jokes to a male. This is what scientifically proves we are equal and robots are better than everything else. Still waiting for my book deal on this one.

Yes, a female toddler can liken to flower-picking without any influence, but a female toddler can also play with Transformer toys and roll in the dirt without any influence too.

People do what they want. And then they get older, and realize there are specific things greater society wants them to do.

There are some demonstrable biological differences between men and women. Men, on average, are taller, and there is a difference in distribution of mass (women aren't as top-heavy). There is some, albeit somewhat controversial, scientific evidence that men and women think differently (men better at math, women more right-brained, etc.). It is plausible that thousands and thousands of years of doing certain tasks resulted in our brains being evolutionary hard-wired a certain way depending on our sex, which justifies some differences, though those are largely superficial (even if men are on average better at math, that does not in any way suggest any given woman could not outperform most men in that area).

That being said, I'm not aware of any evidence against the basic premise that the vast majority of "gender roles" are entirely social constructs. Women liking the color pink, cooking, jewelry, taking care of kids, etc. -- that's all manufactured crap (most of it rather sickening).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raistlin

There are some demonstrable biological differences between men and women. Men, on average, are taller, and there is a difference in distribution of mass (women aren't as top-heavy). There is some, albeit somewhat controversial, scientific evidence that men and women think differently (men better at math, women more right-brained, etc.). It is plausible that thousands and thousands of years of doing certain tasks resulted in our brains being evolutionary hard-wired a certain way depending on our sex, which justifies some differences, though those are largely superficial (even if men are on average better at math, that does not in any way suggest any given woman could not outperform most men in that area).

---

One of the biggest differences between men and women is the amount of testosterone in their bodies. This hormone is basically the biggest drive behind 'typical male behaviour' - ie the will to dominate others, violence, ambition, jerkass behavior, it makes muscles grow, etc etc. Men with little amount of testosterone are more similar to women, physically and in their behavior. It works to other way around if women have more testosterone too. There's no single "social construct" theory that can deny this.

Quote:

---

She would pick the flowers and bring them to us. So you have the nature thing about liking flowers.

---

I think picking flowers is fine for boys or girls. My middle nephew picks me flowers all the time because he has a gentle, artistic soul<3

anyway. Let's talk about babies.

Growing up, I didn't care for babies. I never interacted with any until my first nephew was born, and then I had no idea what to do with one. I really was much more comfortable when they all grew up a bit.

However, I have been assured from many sectors over the last few months that the maternal bond that forms when one carries a child is incredibly strong and true. I never really thought about "a mother's love" before, mostly considered it sentimental hogwash. But maybe there is something there.

But I don't believe it's there from birth. I remember having a baby doll, but I was more interested in the ways its eyes would open and shut than pretending to feed it or change its diaper.

Young girls are often encouraged to form such bonds with children long before childbearing age by given them dolls, or making them (or incentivizing them to) babysit. I think qwerty and TSoL have a valid point about the validation of such approved behaviors.

but, as you all know, I am an engineer, not a psychologist, or even sociologist. My only tool is observation and logical thought

I think like most things, it's a mix between instinct and societal pressure and influence.

Actually there seems to be no conclusive evidence on whether gender-based preferences are inbuilt or social constructions: Even 9-Month-Olds Choose 'Gender-Specific' Toys - BusinessWeek

Anyway I thought the consensus on nature vs. nurture was "A little from column A, a little from column B"? And that regardless of broad trends there are always exceptions for a multitude of reasons?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Anyway I thought the consensus on nature vs. nurture was "A little from column A, a little from column B"? And that regardless of broad trends there are always exceptions for a multitude of reasons?

---

People are missing out on the fact that "nurture" is a direct result of "nature". Society and culture just didn't drop out of outer space, they're the result of human interactions caused by our biology.

It's commonly thought that males are the creatures of habbit.

"Give a man health and a course to steer, and he'll never stop to trouble about whether he's happy or not."

Inventions are natural

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kotora

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Anyway I thought the consensus on nature vs. nurture was "A little from column A, a little from column B"? And that regardless of broad trends there are always exceptions for a multitude of reasons?

---

People are missing out on the fact that "nurture" is a direct result of "nature". Society and culture just didn't drop out of outer space, they're the result of human interactions caused by our biology.

---

That isn't reductionist to the point of uselessness at all :roll2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

No the point of my example was that even though my niece was exposed to neutral or even male things she still liked the stereotypical female like of flowers.

Scott don't talk about my family as if you know them. My sister painted and designed her entire bathroom in a spiderman theme. If anything the girl should have been climbing walls not picking flowers. The point of my example wasn't "well she probably saw something on tv and was like that." No the point was she was exposed to neutral things yet she still showed a more feminine personality, NATURALLY.

---

The activity of picking flowers is not inherently feminine. The feminine value given to the activity is arbitrary and based on gender roles and ideals, not inherent to the female sex. What we value as feminine is completely based on social values. In other words, the activity in and of itself is not feminine, you are merely saying it is feminine and giving it feminine values.

Like rubah said her nephew likes picking flowers too. So did I as a kid. Guys can like picking flowers, it is just not viewed as a "masculine" thing, depending on social context.

I have dealt with a LOT of little kids. More often than not a little girl will pick them and say "pretty?" than a boy pick them and say "pretty?". Hence why I would say it's a more girlish thing to do. FROM MY EXPERIENCES it's a girly thing to do. Social construct my ass, it just happens. Girls do it more often than boys.

However, all your experience amounts to only anecdotes and possibly a correlation. To be able to get anywhere close to a definitive idea, one would have to conduct some sort of experiment a la qwerty's suggestion. Now don't go getting defensive because I'm agreeing with him :p It's just that however large your sample size, you have no control group, so you can't test for "natural with no pre-formed notions" versus "natural, but with pre-formed notions". Your experience with your niece is a step in the right direction, but unfortunately is statistically worthless. It could just be that she naturally favored a lot of things that are girlish. It could be that a girl in the next town with identical experiences just naturally favored many things that are boyish. Unless we have a larger sample size, we can't tell the outliers from the patterns.

How do you define girlish and boyish? What intrinsic characteristics of flowers, colors, baby dolls, action figures define these gendered qualities? Are flowers delicate, beautiful, and gentle? The first two, perhaps, but plants are engaged in a deadly struggle to stay alive. One might not want to refer to them as gentle. As others have pointed out, although now I can't recall whether it was in this thread or on another site, boys need to learn to be dads just as much as girls need to learn to be mothers. Girls also come in all sorts of testosterone levels, and boys with all sorts of estrogen levels. What about children born with too many or malformed sex chromosomes?

It's far too complicated to be able to reduce it to pat arguments, really

I hate the nature v. nurture bs arguments. Which is all what this whole thread is about. A lot posters in this thread seem to be pro-nurture without even recognizing the nature side of things. This is me bowing out cause I don't want to argue the bs more. It's an argument that can just keep going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imperfectionist

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Quin

What happens if I say that women are great and better than men because they have nicer tits?

---

Then we'd know you're a liar cos you've blatently got the nicest tits in the land.

---

Doink doink doink. :quina:

I find it very hard to believe that these sorts of things are hard-grained into our DNA, kaycee. And that is what is required for this all to be born from our human natures. That would be the purpose of some sort of test or experiment, to be able to see distinctly and without bias whether there is a nature side of things. Until there is, and while things can be very well explained with a cause-effect relationship, that is what I will humor myself in believing. I don't know why you think it is BS, and I'm sorry that you seem to think I and others are close-minded, but you should acknowledge that your own position suffers from being close-minded as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Freya

I have dealt with a LOT of little kids. More often than not a little girl will pick them and say "pretty?" than a boy pick them and say "pretty?". Hence why I would say it's a more girlish thing to do. FROM MY EXPERIENCES it's a girly thing to do. Social construct my ass, it just happens. Girls do it more often than boys.

---

In a society that deems it good for girls to do it and bad for boys. The data you have collected through your living experience has what is known as Bias. The data you have collected most likely is biased to lead to more girls having positive reactions to flowers than boys. Because all the girls and boys are from the same culture and are subject to the same expectation from society to like or dislike certain things. :p

Thanks guys. :)

http://www.snowy-day.net/pictures/things/lolasmug.jpg

I think boys and grls are both inferior to cats!!!!

IMMA CAT mrrrewr

Illiterate Withdrawal » Nature vs. nurture: Identical Twins Raised Apart
Just some examples of how powerful the "nature" part of it can be. I've heard a couple of these from a more reliable source, so I think they are legit. I think should your nurturing contradict your nature strongly enough it won't really show itself much, but for the most part it's a bit of both.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessweeee♪

Illiterate Withdrawal » Nature vs. nurture: Identical Twins Raised Apart
Just some examples of how powerful the "nature" part of it can be. I've heard a couple of these from a more reliable source, so I think they are legit. I think should your nurturing contradict your nature strongly enough it won't really show itself much, but for the most part it's a bit of both.

---

A given pair of identical twins has a 50% chance of liking aviator glasses? :confused:

But I agree 'cause I linked to something making a similar point. I know we have this deep aversion to being told anything is deterministic about us - I know that better than anyone seeing as Dr. Aum turned me into a blibbering wreck when he convinced me determinism was true for a week or two - but whether people like it or not nature exists.

Determinists are bastards. xD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jessweeee♪

Illiterate Withdrawal » Nature vs. nurture: Identical Twins Raised Apart
Just some examples of how powerful the "nature" part of it can be. I've heard a couple of these from a more reliable source, so I think they are legit. I think should your nurturing contradict your nature strongly enough it won't really show itself much, but for the most part it's a bit of both.

---

Anecdotal evidence = worthless.

I'm not saying nature is not powerful; as I said, tens of thousands of years human development with weaker tribes dying off and certain tribes living undoubtedly instilled certain behavior into people simply due to natural selection. Where I am skeptical is when people go further beyond the general to claiming specific tastes are biologically determined, (e.g., that two twins separated from birth both wearing aviators is anything remotely significant).

twins having similar tastes I can deal with. Predicting tastes because of their gender is something I can't, at least right now.