Both sides make good points and don't seem to disagree all that much. But they both have problems, which makes the result understandable. The pro side admits that the studies on which they rely are not that good and don't explain everything. The against side agrees that genetics plays a role, but then go too far to suggest that we shouldn't focus on genetics because recognizing genetic difference will have deleterious effects on families. My non-scientific position is that the answer is probably that parenting is overrated among upper middle class, liberals, mommy-bloggers, and so-called parenting experts, and everyone else gives parenting about the right amount of emphasis.
Here's a perspective to consider. The DNA you receive through the mixing of your parents' genes for how your brain will respond to all stimuli in the womb and onward. Unless traumatised, alterations in that initial neural structure and its development is not significant, otherwise we would not be able to maintain a sense of self. However, small adjustments, some of them epigenetic, induced by your environment certainly have effects on how an individual will respond to various stimuli. What does this all boil down to? Our genes give us our foundation, and outside of extreme circumstances, that foundation remains fairly intact over our lifetime. However, filters of memory can have an overriding effect on genetic expression, which parents employ to guide your genes in the most beneficial direction. For example, a child who is predisposed towards aggression can be stimulated to develop control over the aggression. That does not mean that the aggression disappears, but that a filter has been setup in the brain to counter the base impulse response. The stronger the genetic predisposition, the more difficult it is to create the filter, and vice versa.
Do they suggest that "we shouldn't focus on genetics." Paige Harden is writing a book about why DNA matters for social inequality. Their arguments are about specific DNA predictions available now, which tend to fare poorly on predicting individual outcomes.
Overall a very enjoyable debate. As an engineer who works with a number of PhD mathematicians, and I can always tell when I'm listening to someone who understands proper design of experiments and data analysis. They are always so careful with the language they use. For example, at around the 31:46 mark, Jon attempts to ask whether genes are predictive or deterministic and he is corrected by Nancy that genes are probabilistic. A question that didn't come up but would have been interesting is that of single-parent homes vs. two-parent homes.
I think it was unfair for the last speaker in her closing remarks to say that we shouldn't believe that genetics are highly predictive of who we become because it could lead to social services being cut. First of all that's quite a leap. For another whether or not people may use information in ways we do or don't like has nothing to do with whether or not that information is true.
@admiraliggz WTF are you talking about? Frankly in regard to the question of whether it is true that nature tends to trump nurture (which at its core was what this debate was about) social services possibly being cut is completely irrelevant. That was just an appeal to emotion as well as an appeal to consequences. It had nothing to with whether the resolution was true.
@@FreshwaterSquid77 Well no because social programs are part of 'nurture', so it ties back to her core environment point. So cutting social programs for instance, would make it falsely appear that genetics have a bigger role in determining personality traits/iq. It's a circular feedback loop. So It's not irrelevant.
@@moncef2466 Cutting social programs wouldn't make it seem like genetics has a bigger influence on personality and iq than it actually has, but rather it would reveal the complete extent to which genetics influences these outcomes. By definition social programs are aimed at reducing the difference in outcomes so that people who perform poorly are closer in their actual results to the ones that perform well. This is achieved by attempting to abate the effects of genetics, while at the same time modifying the environment in a way that the influence of the environment on poor performers is more positive and more emphasized, and the influence of the environment on high performers is more negative. Social programs therefore are charged with a moralistic assumption that we have some sort of responsibility to elevate the state of poor performers, because high performers have so much to sacrifice, and therefore they are ought to.
"The great joy people get from parenting" is overwhelmingly contradicted by couples' happiness studies. Having children is often the first big break in a relationship and, often, one that ends the relationship. Just look at the u-shaped curves of couples' happiness and you'll see an indirect connection between parental involvement in their children's lives and their happiness. Likewise, children exhibit an independence of their parents' training, styles, values, and goals that indicates (to me) that "just keep them alive till they are 18" is about all a parent can do.
It is overrated if you aren't already the person you aspire your child to be. Cause if you are already morally and ethically good person then your child will usually pick these up without said "parenting". However it isn't useless, how is investing for the around 50% influence underrated?
7:49: Parent can and should make a difference. Parenting doesn't make significant difference in population average, but they can make chage on individual level, with enough time and effort.
The first woman there nearly railroaded an interesting discussion. Luckily the second woman brought it back on track. The first woman should be ashamed. "Being super poor creates different kids"... no shit - we already know that. The age-old cheap social justice railroading bullshit that creates a kind of authoritarian audience fear which is what makes it cheap. Then the shame about "you better vote for my motion otherwise you don't care about black poor kids". There are times to talk about poverty - this was not it. Then to make herself truly despicable, she tries to shame people (and simultaneously rising herself over everyone) for thinking within their tribe - like all tribes do but whites do the least (look it up). Now back to the interesting discussion about whether you can change your child's brain with nurture...
I found the first woman (Paige) very compelling and didn't at all take her as shaming anyone. If being poor or growing up in a different culture can create very different kids, doesn't that support her position that the parents matter by creating the child's culture and economic conditions?
@@martman123456 That wasn't the debate though. The debate wasn't whether being poor/rich or jewish would help, it was about parenting techniques. Her comments about white people etc were bizarre at best and manipulative at worst.
I don't recall anyone debating any parenting techniques. The debate was whether parenting (regardless of technique) or genetics played a larger role in development. I went in thinking I would agree that it was mostly genetics, but Page actually swayed me with that point about poverty and culture. The pro side even agreed with her on that point. Their studies showed that genetics plays a larger role among families from a similar socioeconomic background. But within a similar group, you're probably not going to see huge differences in parenting. Parenting is going to be very different among different classes and cultures.
@@martman123456 The pro side had the caveat from the beginning that extreme poverty made a difference. The whole debate was about the kinds of families that would have low enough levels of environmental chaos to sit down and read the plethora of parenting books out there. Most of those families will be middle class and up. There are poor families that have structured clean homes, but those are vanishingly few these days sadly. It isn't the 1950s anymore. Most poor families are now are chaotic violent places - probably because of the retreat of religion. This wasn't an argument about which religion/ culture was the best - and for very good reason. You can't just change your culture or religious beliefs on a dime. You also can't really "decide" to change your wealth. We already know extreme poverty has a bad effect on almost everything - so thats not interesting. We also know certain cultures are geared for academic/economic success - and while that would be another interesting discussion, that wasn't the place for that. It was clear (I thought) that this was about whether whether choosing the right parenting technique will have a measurable affect on the child - the answer appears to be no. I guess other people saw it in different ways. I get frustrated when there's a chance to really grow in knowledge and people keep stepping in and muddying the waters.
Why'd you change your name mid convo? Anyway, you're going into a ton of assumptions I can't agree with and aren't related to the debate. Just for one example, almost every red state in the U.S. is poor, predominantly white, and very religious. But if you were to visit, they're pretty friendly. They're raising their kids differently than rich, white, non-religious liberals in the cities, which are more racially and ethnically diverse and have a different culture. I may be wrong about this, but I don't tend to see anyone discussing parenting techniques who doesn't look like Paige. It's something that tends to worry upper middle class white moms and very few other people.
@admiraliggz He never stated that they didn't make good points. It is, in fact, true that arguing from policy implication rather than the truth of the matter is troubling to many people. What's more, his comment made no external claims. It is impossible for his comment to be wrong because he only stated "I was troubled by X", as opposed to "X is troubling". I think it also happens to be true that X is troubling.
@admiraliggz That sounds like a straw man (depends what you mean). The problem is not that they argued from a "policy implications _perspective"_ (they didn't), but that they brought up implications at all. The debate should be about the facts. Implications be damned. They certainly talked about implications throughout. I scanned through the video and found an example for you. She essentially said "we agree on this point, but it's a slippery slope to ignoring your child's needs" 44:48
@admiraliggz, seems like you're predisposed towards aggression with such over-the-top responses to calm discourse. Not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone's position here, just an observation.
@admiraliggz, maybe I am a moron, but I'm not the one who doesn't understand what the word "calm" means. calm - noun \ ˈkäm , ˈkälm , ˈkam, ˈkȯ(l)m \ Definition of calm (Entry 1 of 3) 1a: a period or condition of freedom from storms, high winds, or rough activity of water a sailing ship motionless in the calm b: complete absence of wind or presence of wind having a speed no greater than one mile (1.6 kilometers) per hour - see BEAUFORT SCALE TABLE 2: a state of tranquility At dusk a quiet calm settled over the town. calm - verb calmed; calming; calms intransitive verb : to become calm -usually used with down The mayor asked the protesters to calm down so he could speak. transitive verb : to make calm -often used with down calm him down; get him to be reasonable calm - adjective 1: marked by calm : STILL a calm sea 2: free from agitation, excitement, or disturbance
I think more research should be conducted when it comes to people with abnormal behaviors. In social science, we believe that deviant behaviors (anti-social, conduct disorder, aggressive disorder) are socially conducted. If genetics has its power in significantly influencing that, they need to provide more arguments and evidences that contradict the conclusions that made by social work, sociology and educational psychology as well.
As a parent, I can say that the concept of nature vs nurture is not a debate at all. Nature (DNA) plays its role in childrens natural despositions, inklings, likings, etc, as does Parental influences in which the child is raised under. Both Nature and Nurture are wholistic, there's not one one that we should discount over the other. DNA definitely has its influences on children. I've witnessed my son have a natural disposition towards cooking, and whenever I cook a meal, he usually wants to participate in the preparation and cooking of the food. I happen to be a Chef, and recognize this same pattern of behavior, as I would do the same to my parents when I was around his age. We also can easily turn on the news or televison or media and see stories of children who may have followed in their parents footsteps and have become business men or women, athletes, entertainers, Dr's, lawyers etc., And in the same specturm at opposite ends, we see how parental influence have turned children in to Gangbangers, Drug lords, prostitues, substance abusers etc. At the end of the day, while DNA definitely plays a very important factor and role in a childs disposition, parenting ultimately is the trump card, and can never be factored out.
wait a minute so the opera singer woman why did he stop her from talking? she had an interesting point is he stupid? what I think she was trying to say is that, both her biological father was a mathematician and her biological siblings but she turned out to be an opera singer which was totally different from the whole debate that she is supposed to be by her DNA a mathematician but it turned out she became a musician which is not really far from the debate subject honestly, I just think that the whole debate was too long that you guys got mentally tired and aren't really paying attention to the debate itself =]
Hessa Alenezi honestly surprised that no one else said anything about the mediator, he was starting to annoy me especially towards that question and the end😂 There were a few comments he made where I was like what? How does he not understand lolll
That’s the thing, there is no once clear precise answer because it’s mainly a mixture of both. I think it’s impossible to just be influenced by genetics or environment alone.
Here's a perspective to consider. The DNA you receive through the mixing of your parents' genes for how your brain will respond to all stimuli in the womb and onward. Unless traumatised, alterations in that initial neural structure and its development is not significant, otherwise we would not be able to maintain a sense of self. However, small adjustments, some of them epigenetic, induced by your environment certainly have effects on how an individual will respond to various stimuli. What does this all boil down to? Our genes give us our foundation, and outside of extreme circumstances, that foundation remains fairly intact over our lifetime. However, filters of memory can have an overriding effect on genetic expression, which parents employ to guide your genes in the most beneficial direction. For example, a child who is predisposed towards aggression can be stimulated to develop control over the aggression. That does not mean that the aggression disappears, but that a filter has been setup in the brain to counter the base impulse response. The stronger the genetic predisposition, the more difficult it is to create the filter, and vice versa.
Hell yaaa... parenting is overrated... Like wt on earth parents keep saying that we are Lucky...alll.........our lives owe to them and then indirectly asking us to prove something to lift up family pride on the name of education, job, manners..i m hella confident they think about how our decisions project to outsider's first Rather then our happiness...,my dad recently asked me to get job quick so that's he can Marry me to some guy before society says i m aging beyond marriage nd my mom....she's Just a women learned how to control an another women's life ..she basically judge every women ...., And all i think is if the cost of them giving us life is my freedom then fuck with them i want my freedom
It's immoral & evil to create new life, because it brings always a harm to the new living thing. My questions to your breeders: #1: How do you know that you child come out emotional, mentally & physical healthy? You don't. #2 What about disease's? #3: What about the people who are dangerous like: Murders, rapists, thiefs, fire starters, pedophiles, narcistischs, sociopaths, psychopaths, slavery, human traficing. #4 What about a 9-5 job untill your 80's, nature disasters or war? Breeders reason to reproduce: #1: No purpose in life #2: No meaning in life ( the first 2 are traits of a co-dependent individual who is narcistic, can't life without a narcistic supply) #3: I was bored/ I have something to do #4: They wanna see a mini me #5: Because my children are going to take care of me on my older age ( disgusting) #6: My child is going to be special, like being a doctor who curse cancer #7: It where the hormons and I wanted to high #8: For "god" #9; I want a family (lol, ever heard of adoptions low IQ beings?) #10: They want unconditional love 11#: They wanted to feel needed ( adopt a child or pet) #12: " They want to form a bond" LOL #13: So their grandparents can have grandkids #14: They dont wanna feel alone All your breeders are disgusting narcistic beasts, you all have a narcistic full blown up primitive ego and you all should go to jail for that.
@@Qstandsforred I wrote that comment before I watched the video. They did mention that this debate does not apply to those who experienced extreme abuse.
@@Steven-ze2zk Nonetheless, it is an interesting question what an educated abuse victim might have to say. Additionally, contrasting parental abuse to non-parental abuse would be fascinating.
@@Qstandsforred The research is very clear, hence the dismissal of abuse victims from this debate. Child abuse inhibits brain development. Among the consequences of abuse are mental health issues, employment issues, homelessness and suicide.
@@Steven-ze2zk Indeed. The research is clear on that. However, I'm not aware of any abuse research controlling for things like loving relationships. I personally find it likely that lack of care is more significant than abuse. That said, abuse will lead to lack of care. Nevertheless, interventions leading to increased care might counteract the effects of abuse.
parenting is not overrated based on my personal experience it is highly important, because parenting is the way to reshape children into who they are and what they are in the future :)
It's immoral & evil to create new life, because it brings always a harm to the new living thing. My questions to your breeders: #1: How do you know that you child come out emotional, mentally & physical healthy? You don't. #2 What about disease's? #3: What about the people who are dangerous like: Murders, rapists, thiefs, fire starters, pedophiles, narcistischs, sociopaths, psychopaths, slavery, human traficing. #4 What about a 9-5 job untill your 80's, nature disasters or war? Breeders reason to reproduce: #1 No purpose in life #2 No meaning in life ( the first 2 are traits of a co-dependent individual who is narcistic, can't life without a narcistic supply) #3 I was bored/ I have something to do #4 They wanna see a mini me #5 Because my children are going to take care of me on my older age ( disgusting) #6 My child is going to be special, like being a doctor who curse cancer #7 It where the hormons and I wanted to high
@@u.m.rcentral868 Really ;) Thanks! Especially when I save millions on my bankaccont and knowing my children who never where born never will suffer lol. It's oke to be bitter best person ;)!
Both sides make good points and don't seem to disagree all that much. But they both have problems, which makes the result understandable. The pro side admits that the studies on which they rely are not that good and don't explain everything. The against side agrees that genetics plays a role, but then go too far to suggest that we shouldn't focus on genetics because recognizing genetic difference will have deleterious effects on families. My non-scientific position is that the answer is probably that parenting is overrated among upper middle class, liberals, mommy-bloggers, and so-called parenting experts, and everyone else gives parenting about the right amount of emphasis.
I 100% agree with your scientific position :)
Here's a perspective to consider. The DNA you receive through the mixing of your parents' genes for how your brain will respond to all stimuli in the womb and onward. Unless traumatised, alterations in that initial neural structure and its development is not significant, otherwise we would not be able to maintain a sense of self. However, small adjustments, some of them epigenetic, induced by your environment certainly have effects on how an individual will respond to various stimuli.
What does this all boil down to? Our genes give us our foundation, and outside of extreme circumstances, that foundation remains fairly intact over our lifetime. However, filters of memory can have an overriding effect on genetic expression, which parents employ to guide your genes in the most beneficial direction.
For example, a child who is predisposed towards aggression can be stimulated to develop control over the aggression. That does not mean that the aggression disappears, but that a filter has been setup in the brain to counter the base impulse response. The stronger the genetic predisposition, the more difficult it is to create the filter, and vice versa.
Do they suggest that "we shouldn't focus on genetics." Paige Harden is writing a book about why DNA matters for social inequality. Their arguments are about specific DNA predictions available now, which tend to fare poorly on predicting individual outcomes.
Overall a very enjoyable debate. As an engineer who works with a number of PhD mathematicians, and I can always tell when I'm listening to someone who understands proper design of experiments and data analysis. They are always so careful with the language they use. For example, at around the 31:46 mark, Jon attempts to ask whether genes are predictive or deterministic and he is corrected by Nancy that genes are probabilistic.
A question that didn't come up but would have been interesting is that of single-parent homes vs. two-parent homes.
I think it was unfair for the last speaker in her closing remarks to say that we shouldn't believe that genetics are highly predictive of who we become because it could lead to social services being cut. First of all that's quite a leap. For another whether or not people may use information in ways we do or don't like has nothing to do with whether or not that information is true.
@admiraliggz WTF are you talking about? Frankly in regard to the question of whether it is true that nature tends to trump nurture (which at its core was what this debate was about) social services possibly being cut is completely irrelevant. That was just an appeal to emotion as well as an appeal to consequences. It had nothing to with whether the resolution was true.
@@FreshwaterSquid77 Well no because social programs are part of 'nurture', so it ties back to her core environment point. So cutting social programs for instance, would make it falsely appear that genetics have a bigger role in determining personality traits/iq. It's a circular feedback loop.
So It's not irrelevant.
@@moncef2466 Cutting social programs wouldn't make it seem like genetics has a bigger influence on personality and iq than it actually has, but rather it would reveal the complete extent to which genetics influences these outcomes.
By definition social programs are aimed at reducing the difference in outcomes so that people who perform poorly are closer in their actual results to the ones that perform well. This is achieved by attempting to abate the effects of genetics, while at the same time modifying the environment in a way that the influence of the environment on poor performers is more positive and more emphasized, and the influence of the environment on high performers is more negative. Social programs therefore are charged with a moralistic assumption that we have some sort of responsibility to elevate the state of poor performers, because high performers have so much to sacrifice, and therefore they are ought to.
"The great joy people get from parenting" is overwhelmingly contradicted by couples' happiness studies. Having children is often the first big break in a relationship and, often, one that ends the relationship. Just look at the u-shaped curves of couples' happiness and you'll see an indirect connection between parental involvement in their children's lives and their happiness. Likewise, children exhibit an independence of their parents' training, styles, values, and goals that indicates (to me) that "just keep them alive till they are 18" is about all a parent can do.
Plomin/Segal win hands down imo
Confirmation bias.
It is overrated if you aren't already the person you aspire your child to be.
Cause if you are already morally and ethically good person then your child will usually pick these up without said "parenting".
However it isn't useless, how is investing for the around 50% influence underrated?
My grandma always told me: what a parent do has more affect on the child than what a parent say.
7:49: Parent can and should make a difference. Parenting doesn't make significant difference in population average, but they can make chage on individual level, with enough time and effort.
The first woman there nearly railroaded an interesting discussion. Luckily the second woman brought it back on track. The first woman should be ashamed. "Being super poor creates different kids"... no shit - we already know that. The age-old cheap social justice railroading bullshit that creates a kind of authoritarian audience fear which is what makes it cheap. Then the shame about "you better vote for my motion otherwise you don't care about black poor kids". There are times to talk about poverty - this was not it. Then to make herself truly despicable, she tries to shame people (and simultaneously rising herself over everyone) for thinking within their tribe - like all tribes do but whites do the least (look it up). Now back to the interesting discussion about whether you can change your child's brain with nurture...
I found the first woman (Paige) very compelling and didn't at all take her as shaming anyone. If being poor or growing up in a different culture can create very different kids, doesn't that support her position that the parents matter by creating the child's culture and economic conditions?
@@martman123456 That wasn't the debate though. The debate wasn't whether being poor/rich or jewish would help, it was about parenting techniques. Her comments about white people etc were bizarre at best and manipulative at worst.
I don't recall anyone debating any parenting techniques. The debate was whether parenting (regardless of technique) or genetics played a larger role in development. I went in thinking I would agree that it was mostly genetics, but Page actually swayed me with that point about poverty and culture. The pro side even agreed with her on that point. Their studies showed that genetics plays a larger role among families from a similar socioeconomic background. But within a similar group, you're probably not going to see huge differences in parenting. Parenting is going to be very different among different classes and cultures.
@@martman123456 The pro side had the caveat from the beginning that extreme poverty made a difference. The whole debate was about the kinds of families that would have low enough levels of environmental chaos to sit down and read the plethora of parenting books out there. Most of those families will be middle class and up. There are poor families that have structured clean homes, but those are vanishingly few these days sadly. It isn't the 1950s anymore. Most poor families are now are chaotic violent places - probably because of the retreat of religion. This wasn't an argument about which religion/ culture was the best - and for very good reason. You can't just change your culture or religious beliefs on a dime. You also can't really "decide" to change your wealth. We already know extreme poverty has a bad effect on almost everything - so thats not interesting. We also know certain cultures are geared for academic/economic success - and while that would be another interesting discussion, that wasn't the place for that. It was clear (I thought) that this was about whether whether choosing the right parenting technique will have a measurable affect on the child - the answer appears to be no. I guess other people saw it in different ways. I get frustrated when there's a chance to really grow in knowledge and people keep stepping in and muddying the waters.
Why'd you change your name mid convo? Anyway, you're going into a ton of assumptions I can't agree with and aren't related to the debate. Just for one example, almost every red state in the U.S. is poor, predominantly white, and very religious. But if you were to visit, they're pretty friendly. They're raising their kids differently than rich, white, non-religious liberals in the cities, which are more racially and ethnically diverse and have a different culture. I may be wrong about this, but I don't tend to see anyone discussing parenting techniques who doesn't look like Paige. It's something that tends to worry upper middle class white moms and very few other people.
If you argue against a side because you fear the truth of it and not against whether it is true, you’ve conceded.
I was troubled by the argument from the against team that was based on policy implications rather than pursuit of the truth.
@admiraliggz He never stated that they didn't make good points. It is, in fact, true that arguing from policy implication rather than the truth of the matter is troubling to many people. What's more, his comment made no external claims. It is impossible for his comment to be wrong because he only stated "I was troubled by X", as opposed to "X is troubling". I think it also happens to be true that X is troubling.
@admiraliggz That sounds like a straw man (depends what you mean). The problem is not that they argued from a "policy implications _perspective"_ (they didn't), but that they brought up implications at all. The debate should be about the facts. Implications be damned.
They certainly talked about implications throughout. I scanned through the video and found an example for you. She essentially said "we agree on this point, but it's a slippery slope to ignoring your child's needs" 44:48
@admiraliggz, seems like you're predisposed towards aggression with such over-the-top responses to calm discourse. Not agreeing or disagreeing with anyone's position here, just an observation.
@admiraliggz, maybe I am a moron, but I'm not the one who doesn't understand what the word "calm" means.
calm - noun
\ ˈkäm , ˈkälm , ˈkam, ˈkȯ(l)m \
Definition of calm (Entry 1 of 3)
1a: a period or condition of freedom from storms, high winds, or rough activity of water
a sailing ship motionless in the calm
b: complete absence of wind or presence of wind having a speed no greater than one mile (1.6 kilometers) per hour
- see BEAUFORT SCALE TABLE
2: a state of tranquility
At dusk a quiet calm settled over the town.
calm - verb
calmed; calming; calms
intransitive verb
: to become calm -usually used with down
The mayor asked the protesters to calm down so he could speak.
transitive verb
: to make calm -often used with down
calm him down; get him to be reasonable
calm - adjective
1: marked by calm : STILL
a calm sea
2: free from agitation, excitement, or disturbance
I think more research should be conducted when it comes to people with abnormal behaviors. In social science, we believe that deviant behaviors (anti-social, conduct disorder, aggressive disorder) are socially conducted. If genetics has its power in significantly influencing that, they need to provide more arguments and evidences that contradict the conclusions that made by social work, sociology and educational psychology as well.
16:00 that woman in white is like "what is happening right now!?"
Ah haha! It's like she just teleported there but it's not the place she was expecting.
3:54 explains the confusing title. I wish the moderator would have done that at the outset.
Yeah me too :/
As a parent, I can say that the concept of nature vs nurture is not a debate at all. Nature (DNA) plays its role in childrens natural despositions, inklings, likings, etc, as does Parental influences in which the child is raised under.
Both Nature and Nurture are wholistic, there's not one one that we should discount over the other. DNA definitely has its influences on children. I've witnessed my son have a natural disposition towards cooking, and whenever I cook a meal, he usually wants to participate in the preparation and cooking of the food. I happen to be a Chef, and recognize this same pattern of behavior, as I would do the same to my parents when I was around his age.
We also can easily turn on the news or televison or media and see stories of children who may have followed in their parents footsteps and have become business men or women, athletes, entertainers, Dr's, lawyers etc., And in the same specturm at opposite ends, we see how parental influence have turned children in to Gangbangers, Drug lords, prostitues, substance abusers etc.
At the end of the day, while DNA definitely plays a very important factor and role in a childs disposition, parenting ultimately is the trump card, and can never be factored out.
incredibly fascinating and very close debate, only 2% squeaker!
I think what the supporting team is really saying is that "the genes are underrated", not that "parenting is overrated".
I agree with you. I also think they mostly spoke past each other.
Thanks a lot mom!
religions are created by people and people are created by genetics
wait a minute so the opera singer woman why did he stop her from talking? she had an interesting point is he stupid? what I think she was trying to say is that, both her biological father was a mathematician and her biological siblings but she turned out to be an opera singer which was totally different from the whole debate that she is supposed to be by her DNA a mathematician but it turned out she became a musician which is not really far from the debate subject honestly, I just think that the whole debate was too long that you guys got mentally tired and aren't really paying attention to the debate itself =]
Hessa Alenezi honestly surprised that no one else said anything about the mediator, he was starting to annoy me especially towards that question and the end😂 There were a few comments he made where I was like what? How does he not understand lolll
Anyway wts the answer? Nature or nurture
That’s the thing, there is no once clear precise answer because it’s mainly a mixture of both. I think it’s impossible to just be influenced by genetics or environment alone.
Would’ve loved to see Robert Sapolsky on the against side.
Here's a perspective to consider. The DNA you receive through the mixing of your parents' genes for how your brain will respond to all stimuli in the womb and onward. Unless traumatised, alterations in that initial neural structure and its development is not significant, otherwise we would not be able to maintain a sense of self. However, small adjustments, some of them epigenetic, induced by your environment certainly have effects on how an individual will respond to various stimuli.
What does this all boil down to? Our genes give us our foundation, and outside of extreme circumstances, that foundation remains fairly intact over our lifetime. However, filters of memory can have an overriding effect on genetic expression, which parents employ to guide your genes in the most beneficial direction.
For example, a child who is predisposed towards aggression can be stimulated to develop control over the aggression. That does not mean that the aggression disappears, but that a filter has been setup in the brain to counter the base impulse response. The stronger the genetic predisposition, the more difficult it is to create the filter, and vice versa.
Hell yaaa... parenting is overrated...
Like wt on earth parents keep saying that we are Lucky...alll.........our lives owe to them and then indirectly asking us to prove something to lift up family pride on the name of education, job, manners..i m hella confident they think about how our decisions project to outsider's first Rather then our happiness...,my dad recently asked me to get job quick so that's he can Marry me to some guy before society says i m aging beyond marriage nd my mom....she's Just a women learned how to control an another women's life ..she basically judge every women ...., And all i think is if the cost of them giving us life is my freedom then fuck with them i want my freedom
It's immoral & evil to create new life, because it brings always a harm to the new living thing.
My questions to your breeders:
#1: How do you know that you child come out emotional, mentally & physical healthy? You don't.
#2 What about disease's?
#3: What about the people who are dangerous like: Murders, rapists, thiefs, fire starters, pedophiles, narcistischs, sociopaths, psychopaths, slavery, human traficing.
#4 What about a 9-5 job untill your 80's, nature disasters or war?
Breeders reason to reproduce:
#1: No purpose in life
#2: No meaning in life ( the first 2 are traits of a co-dependent individual who is narcistic, can't life without a narcistic supply)
#3: I was bored/ I have something to do
#4: They wanna see a mini me
#5: Because my children are going to take care of me on my older age ( disgusting)
#6: My child is going to be special, like being a doctor who curse cancer
#7: It where the hormons and I wanted to high
#8: For "god"
#9; I want a family (lol, ever heard of adoptions low IQ beings?)
#10: They want unconditional love
11#: They wanted to feel needed ( adopt a child or pet)
#12: " They want to form a bond" LOL
#13: So their grandparents can have grandkids
#14: They dont wanna feel alone
All your breeders are disgusting narcistic beasts, you all have a narcistic full blown up primitive ego and you all should go to jail for that.
Are you an atheist?
@@leonardu6094 I believe in nothingness.
@@erikdekker1 Not an answer
@@leonardu6094 Of course it is.
@@erikdekker1 I don't have time for this. Are you an atheist?
the guy in the middle is biased honestly
I wonder what child abuse victims would have to say about this?
That depends on their genetics. ;)
@@Qstandsforred I wrote that comment before I watched the video. They did mention that this debate does not apply to those who experienced extreme abuse.
@@Steven-ze2zk Nonetheless, it is an interesting question what an educated abuse victim might have to say. Additionally, contrasting parental abuse to non-parental abuse would be fascinating.
@@Qstandsforred The research is very clear, hence the dismissal of abuse victims from this debate. Child abuse inhibits brain development. Among the consequences of abuse are mental health issues, employment issues, homelessness and suicide.
@@Steven-ze2zk Indeed. The research is clear on that. However, I'm not aware of any abuse research controlling for things like loving relationships. I personally find it likely that lack of care is more significant than abuse. That said, abuse will lead to lack of care. Nevertheless, interventions leading to increased care might counteract the effects of abuse.
enjoyable and informative...but dislike the emphasis on binary aspects...i'm also curious due to the absence of the effects of epigenectics
If they didn't discuss epigenetics, I wonder if there is any gleanable up-to-date value.
parenting is not overrated based on my personal experience it is highly important, because parenting is the way to reshape children into who they are and what they are in the future :)
Ok, boomers
Oh hell no, still Jon Donvan as host? The worst host in history. I'll watch something else.
Due to his interruptions and insistence on time limits?
It's immoral & evil to create new life, because it brings always a harm to the new living thing.
My questions to your breeders:
#1: How do you know that you child come out emotional, mentally & physical healthy? You don't.
#2 What about disease's?
#3: What about the people who are dangerous like: Murders, rapists, thiefs, fire starters, pedophiles, narcistischs, sociopaths, psychopaths, slavery, human traficing.
#4 What about a 9-5 job untill your 80's, nature disasters or war?
Breeders reason to reproduce:
#1 No purpose in life
#2 No meaning in life ( the first 2 are traits of a co-dependent individual who is narcistic, can't life without a narcistic supply)
#3 I was bored/ I have something to do
#4 They wanna see a mini me
#5 Because my children are going to take care of me on my older age ( disgusting)
#6 My child is going to be special, like being a doctor who curse cancer
#7 It where the hormons and I wanted to high
unloved
@@u.m.rcentral868 Really ;) Thanks! Especially when I save millions on my bankaccont and knowing my children who never where born never will suffer lol. It's oke to be bitter best person ;)!