Talk:Nature versus nurture

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

"Nature (genes) nurture (environment)"

I propose the body and introduction require some modification. At present, it suggests that "nurture" = "environment", however this is somewhat misleading. "Environment" also includes things that might be considered 'nature'. For example, handedness is a trait that is not completely genetic (it has environmental influence), however the environment in this case appears to be prenatal, and thus the trait is due to 'nature'

From Rutter (2014): "Our understanding of the environment has undergone a similarly great transformation. First, there has come a realization that because a feature describes an environment, that does not mean that the risks are environmentally mediated. A wide range of “natural experiments” have been devised to test environmental mediation hypotheses. Second, environments do not just involve socialization experiences, as implied by the word “nurture.” Environments involve prenatal, as well as postnatal, effects (as illustrated, e.g., by fetal alcohol influences); and they involve physical, as well as psychosocial, features (as shown by the importance of cannabis effects)"

There are a number of other sources that also discuss this.

Of course, it is necessary to discuss this in the body prior to making changes to the intro. What section is it best to discuss, or should a new section be made? Zenomonoz (talk) 05:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that this or other sources actually indicate that there is any fundamental problem with the way we currently phrase things. Of course inexact concepts like "nature" and "nurture" will break down when examined closely enough, and philosophical questions will emerge around limit cases like in-utero environment, where the distinction between nature and nurture appears to break down. We can certainly discuss this if we can identify sources which do so, but the existence of such limit cases in no way invalidates the macro-level appropriateness of "nature = genetics / nurture = environment", which is how most sources have historically described this topic. Generalrelative (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, for example transgender identity is largely 'environmental', but that would not prove that it is a case of nurture (non-social mechanisms exist). While it's certainly true that mistaken social scientists have often written 'environment = nurture', most of the behavior genetics literature (where this all stems from) are quite clear that environment ≠ nurture, it is a lot broader than that. Nurture, most accurately is probably described as the postnatal and social environment. Zenomonoz (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your premise is correct. But it seems rather irrelevant, since we don't write articles based on our own original analysis. What you would need to be persuasive here is reliable, secondary sources which state what you are trying to say clearly and definitively. If you can provide such sources I would be more than happy to revise the language. It's also probably worth mentioning that we have no a priori reason to privilege behavioral genetics literature over social science. As you may know, behavioral genetics is an emerging field with some serious critics. Generalrelative (talk) 23:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's in notable sources. I very clearly implied in my original comment that sources for these changes would be needed. Second, "behavioral genetics is an emerging field with some serious critics" is a bit weak given 'nature versus nurture' was coined by Francis Galton, so the definitions from genetics are relevant (especially since it literally states "nature (genes)" in the opening which is blatantly false). You are also missing that regular geneticists (not behavioral geneticists) also use the terms genes and environment as I have (i.e. non social environment is part of the environment). Zenomonoz (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that mainstream geneticists use the terms "nature" and "nurture" as you do. Of course environment extends beyond the social. Who would argue otherwise? That has nothing to do with whether we can say that the prenatal environment falls outside the realm of "nurture", which would imply some pretty silly things, e.g. that while childhood nutrition is obviously "nurture", prenatal nutrition is somehow "nature". For more on this I'd suggest reading the SEP article on "The Distinction Between Innate and Acquired Characteristics". As the authors conclude:

Arguably, one reason that people continue to have confidence in the distinction is that they believe there are scientific experts who are capable of definitively classifying traits as innate or acquired. But as we have shown in this entry, such classifications are in reality highly problematic and there is little agreement either about whether they have scientific value or about how they should be drawn.

If some "behavioral" geneticists have agreed to draw a firm distinction the way you do (I'll take your word for it for the sake of argument), that is a conventional definition. But it is far from universal, or even mainstream. Most scientists who study this stuff (and the philosophers who study what those scientists are saying) understand that gene/environment interactions obtain all the way down, and that the nature/nurture distinction is at best an everyday-language shorthand for these interactions. Your second point strikes me as a non-sequitur. At this point I feel like we're talking past one another so we should probably leave it to others to weigh in. Generalrelative (talk) 06:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I am wondering why you have started a long winded argument. Where did I say prenatal nutrition would be considered 'nature'? I didn't! However, prenatal fluctuations of hormones which occur naturally would be nature. Many environmental components happen without outside influence. That is the distinction. Another example: a lot of the 'environment' can be down to genetic variation and stochasticism (simply chance in how an organism begins to grow, e.g. a zig or a zag of a cell), which is captured in 'environment', but can be entirely 'nature'. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I mean, my "long winded" argument was a good faith effort to engage with you. But I'll stop that now. As I said, we appear to be talking past one another, with neither of us understanding the other. You also seem to be claiming not to have said things you clearly did say, which is quite frustrating (e.g. Nurture, most accurately is probably described as the postnatal and social environment –– I point out that prenatal factors like nutrition are also forms of "nurture" and your response is I didn't say that.) Happy to let others take over from here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Generalrelative (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

RANDOMNESS SHOULD BE INCLUDED

Hi, randomness is everywhere (or almost so) in biology. And it does contribute to phenotype. See here, for example : https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg25534050-900-nature-nurture-luck-why-you-are-more-than-just-genes-and-upbringing/

You can't do an article about two contributors of a phenomena and omit the third. Also, part of why I used capitals is because I have made such a submission here, which was not only ignored but even disappeared.

Nonetheless, truly yours, Adrijani 2A01:CB04:BC:3200:4977:38D9:A2A2:A9FC (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

If you have sources, go ahead and add the content yourself. Before doing so, it may be helpful to review our guideline on reliable sources and our policy on due weight (hint: one article in a popular science magazine may not count for much when weighed against numerous scientific publications). If you're reverted, the next step would be to hash things out here. But we're all volunteers, so it's rarely effective to simply ask others to write content that you wish to see. Requesting minor changes on protected pages is the exception, but this page is open for anyone to edit. Generalrelative (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

indeed but actually, I am majoring in philosophy of sciences (and of knowledge and mind) (Master Degree) and I am not as knowledgeable in biology, developmental psychology or medicine as people holding degrees in these majors. So, I know that luck plays a role in a large array of biological phenomenons; e.g. we can read on NCBI Stochastic effects (ie, the accumulation of random mutations within specific cellular pathways) contribute significantly to cancer etiology, and it is well known that the accumulation of these mutations in the course of a lifetime contributes to the increased risk of developing cancer as we age. But I can't go through much depth, tell the state-of-the-art with much certainty or engage in technicalities, so I hoped someone or people more able to do so would find my point, give it credit and edit the page accordingly; adding to my reluctance, the nature-nurture debate is full of controversies and sociopolitical implications (even when these are in fact non-sequitur) and this is a page on the most visited version of the most visited encyclopedia in the world. So I was afraid to mislead in some way.

Nevertheless there are philosophers of biology who know well this topic, for example Francesca Merlin, from my former university, and with enough research and learning efforts from my part I should be able to overcome said factors of shyness.

Sincerely yours, Adrijani — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB04:BC:3200:4977:38D9:A2A2:A9FC (talk) 08:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, randomness and stochastic effects should obviously be included as a part of environment. But I'm a bit busy at the moment right now to hunt down sources that speak to this. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:04, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

nice!

But are stochastic effects to be seen as a part of the environment? Literally speaking, environment is what environs while random factors aren't components of the milieu (even if there is some causal effect of the milieu on random factors: e.g. environmental stress tends to increase the mutation rate). In addition, genetic factors are seen as nature-sided more than nurture-sided (in spite of epigenetics, epistasis, pleiotropy, prenatal exposure, which can induce de novo mutations et cætera) and there is some randomness at their basis, through the inheritance of the allele of one parent over other parent's, for example.

I think stochastic effects can be conceived as a third agent in this highly complex and still to be untangled, yet to be unraveled, interplay.

See for example:

https://academic.oup.com/evolut/article/77/11/2522/7252632

It is part of why I was reluctant to edit on my own at that point.

Sincerely yours,

Adrijani 2A01:CB04:BC:3200:4977:38D9:A2A2:A9FC (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

"But are stochastic effects to be seen as a part of the environment?", in terms of modelling which attributes a fraction of variance to genes or environment, yes "randomness" falls in the environment box. Example: genetic studies estimate a proportion of variance attributable to genes, and the rest is simply attributed to 'environment'. However, they cannot say what type of 'environment' it is. It is simply an unfortunate artefact of early naming conventions in genetics. 'Environment' should be named 'environment and everything else', but that isn't going to happen. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I plead for a pertinent inclusion of the seminal quote "genes load the gun, environment pulls the trigger"

Hi, actually I was even surprised that the quote doesn't appear in the article. A wide body of articles, having the nature-nurture interaction or some part thereof as their topic, use this synthetic and famous quote, sometimes even in their title.

Sincerely yours, Adrijani 2A01:CB04:BC:3200:6D89:3DE3:F9E0:17D7 (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I've taken care of that. Wiki Crazyman (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Lysenko or not

Should this article include a discussion of Lysenkoism? Wiki Crazyman (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

On the surface it would seem an appropriate topic for this article, but first we'd need reliable sources that explicitly connect Lysenko to "nature versus nurture". My guess is that such sources shouldn't be hard to find. Generalrelative (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2024 (UTC)