[canadiancapitalist]

When asking which is the most important of the two - nature and nurture - for determining characteristics, personality or behaviours it seems like the concept of Free Will is left out of this discussion. Is sociology inherently fatalistic? Is this even a question of sociology or is it a question of psychology? Or even anthropology? Regardless, my question is, is the nature-nurture debate inherently fatalistic or does it simply ignore that because it fits in the realm of metaphysics and not science? Or is it not ignored at all?

[Cheesecake_Marmalade]

Free will is a human concept, not really a natural law. A lot of people don't even have the intellectual capacity for free will.

[Abood]

What exactly are you talking about, cc? Can you give a solid example?

[millie_(A)TCK]

A lot of people don't even have the intellectual capacity for free will.

Whats your factual basis for this?


CC: There is always a degree of choice, nothing is predetermined however natural factors such as genes and environment and social factors such as culture and peer pressure greatly influence how people turn out.

[canadiancapitalist]

What exactly are you talking about, cc? Can you give a solid example?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

The nature versus nurture debates concern the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature", i.e. nativism, or innatism) versus personal experiences ("nurture", i.e. empiricism or behaviorism) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits.


Any behavioral trait should serve as an example. Why does this debate neglect free will?

[Abood]

I know what the nature vs. nurture debate is, cc. What I'm asking is, do you have a solid example where free will should be included?

[Order]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

The nature versus nurture debates concern the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature", i.e. nativism, or innatism) versus personal experiences ("nurture", i.e. empiricism or behaviorism) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits.


Any behavioral trait should serve as an example. Why does this debate neglect free will?

Sociology is not inherently fatalistic but certainly has a structural-determinist bias. In that sense nature vs. nurture is a typically sociological debate. Especially proponents of the nature side certainly have a tendency to be deterministic.
But I don't think it necessarily neglects free will. It could be seen as trying to determine what forms the basis on which free will is exercised. Free will is always a choice between options and these options must come from somewhere, they are certainly not produced by the individual out of thin air.

[Zyx]

I read that sometimes behavior can be determined by biology, but I did not see an example pointing to as much.

I can imagine an example where behavior would be 'natural' but even this natural example is highly nurtured. For instance, there are genomes which increase susceptibility for breast cancer named BRCA1 and BRCA2. If a person got breast cancer, their behavior would likely be altered after becoming aware of the breast cancer. Their behavior would likely be like those behaviors portrayed on the media which they have access to: a sense of defeat or a strong will to overcome breast cancer. In this sense, their biology determined their personality. Yet, it's clear that nurture is heavily involved in this, since the person's behavior is mostly relevant to the images they have received in the past that they could associate with their affliction.

[canadiancapitalist]

I read that sometimes behavior can be determined by biology, but I did not see an example pointing to as much.

There are certainly those who claim otherwise. This is the idea of tableau rousseau - that we are nothing at birth and shaped entirely by nurture. It doesn't seem credible to me. If someone has high levels of testosterone they are more likely to exhibit aggressive behaviour. Nature, rather than nurture.

[Order]

There are certainly those who claim otherwise. This is the idea of tableau rousseau - that we are nothing at birth and shaped entirely by nurture. It doesn't seem credible to me. If someone has high levels of testosterone they are more likely to exhibit aggressive behaviour. Nature, rather than nurture.

Not surprisingly, neither of the two sides is completely right. However, I still cannot really see the connection to free will. As I lined out above it is not really dependent on the outcome of the discussion and therefore can be discussed as a seperate issue.

[reddeath26]

Is there even such a thing as free will? I lean more towards there being no such thing. Any choice a person makes will be limited by their culture.

[canadiancapitalist]

Of course there is no free will - the idea is absurd.