The quedtion I have is this:"So the foundation of who are is determined by our genetics, (I have no problem with this conclusion), if this is true, just how pliable are these particular genes to external stimuli?" Can external stumuli ( Culture) interupt the original genetic message and how the individual responds to this stimuli?

So it is nature not nurture after all? That's been the accepted belief for some time, at least for those who keep up with science.

That author makes some unsupported statements.

"those on the left have tended to see the environment as the critical factor", my experience is the opposite.

"those on the right have leaned towards a more Darwinian conception" Come on, it's those on the right who are trying to teach creationism in our public schools.

Generally, when I read things that I know aren't true, I don't believe the other things that the author has to say. I do agree that it is mostly nature. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have social and educational programs to help.

My own perspective on this. I married at 19. My (now ex) wife was 17 (and 364 days - needed her parents permission to marry because it was 1 day before her birthday). She had a son at 15 and was again pregnant when I met her. She had pretty much resigned her parental duties to her parents for the son. And because of this they had taken her to court for parental rights before we met. Also when she became pregnant, they were not going to support another child, so an open adoption was arranged for the second child.

So her parents moved away not long after we were married and the son went with them. We only got to see him about once per month. He did end up rejoining us when he was 13 (pretty much coincided with when we divorced). The second child (a daughter) went to live with the adoptive parents. Even though it was an open adoption, we lost touch after she was about 4 years old. Around the same time, we had a daughter. So my ex-wife has had 3 children and each of them were essentially raised in different environments.

Right before the second child turned 18, we reconnected with her. At the time, all of us got together for the first time. It was incredible. They were SO alike in mannerisms, tastes, activities, etc. It was down right scary. Yes they all have their own personalities, but they were so damn alike that they could have been raised together.

Anyway, my two cents.

I have always thought it was mostly, if not all, nature. I tend to believe there is no true free will. That's a lengthy discussion though.

I know this isn't proof, but there are people who grow up in loving homes and get great educations and still wind up in a life of crime etc. So how do you know it's not just their nature?

Studies have shown that while it is true that both nature and nurture are significant in raising children it is roughly 75% nature.

I think it's possible that the percentage could depend on how you were raised and how much you were allowed to be yourself.

Ever see time-lapse photography of Trees? Even plant life is in inexorable competition for space, light, air.

I may have to read this book. The Guardian's title for this review is upsetting, though. Click bait that doesn't really hint at anything.

There is no Nature vs Nurture debate. It's a sliding scale.

Nature V Nuture was debunked long ago.

We don't live in closed systems, and we are more then the sum of our parts.

Anecdotal but very personal nevertheless. My daughter and I did not have contact for about the 1st 10 -11 years of her life. Just before her 11th birthday we met for the 1st time since she was 6 months old. We now see each other quite regularly. She shares so many of my characteristics, she is stubborn, funny, slightly lazy and everyone who knows us says how alike we are. As we got to know each other it has been like the nature/nurture debate in real life. Her mum is a wonderful parent. She has been brought up in a loving home. Of course this may have been different had she had harder times but I think much of who she is is me without any input.

It's both. It's nature AND its nurture. There is a heck of a lot about us that is hard-wired, heredetary, instinctive. And there is also our capacity to set our own course, based on our learning; the sum of our experiences. Call it executive function. The two are inextricably entangled. It's how we evolved.

It is all three. Free will, nature and nurture.

Oh, one book say it’s nature over nurture? I guess that settles it.

Nurture is certainly a component, but I've always been strong on nature. It's science, it's in the genes. Of course, sociology is also a science.

it is both. it always has been both.

g