Talk:Nature versus nurture/Archive 4

outlived its usefulness
I imposed some tightening on the lead section, which seemed to have accreted some redundancy, especially concerning the concerned "outdatedness" of the "distinction".

In fact, the phrasing I found was
 * "the familiar distinction between nature and nurture has outlived its usefulness, and should be retired."

What this means, I assume, is that the purist view of "pure nativism" vs. "pure blank-slatism" is outdated, and not "the familiar distinction". Interestingly, the expression "nature and nurture" arises not as two opposing concepts, early use almost always concerns "nature and nurture", not "nature vs. nurture", i.e. the recognition of two aspects that conspire to produce the observed result. It is the dichotomy that is outdated, not the "familiar distinction". This is a roundabout way of admitting that for some decades, there was an almost comically exaggerated "blank-slatist" view widespread in academia, irresponsibly denying the interplay of the two factors which were the very thing intended by the phrase as originally coined. It seems that this ideologised view of the question was prevalent during the 1960s to 1980s; he tipping point probably came in the 1990s, but due to ideological entrenchment it took another decade or so for the reality to sink in. Now, realizing that the establishment had been caught in ideological blank-slatism for 30 years or more there is of course a danger of over-compensating. Indeed it would be a mistake to assume the answer to pure blank-slatism is pure nativism, but I do not think anyone holds such a view, it is important to distinguish positions that are actually held from strawmen views attributed uncharitably. --dab (𒁳) 13:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Back in the mid-70s, my supervisor, with some scorn, told me that the whole nature versus nurture debate was a strawman debate and that the question had been answered long ago. No nature without nurture and the other way around. There's an interesting recent book by Aaron Panovsky (or Panofski, not sure) called Misbehaving Science that at length discusses why human behavior genetics got stuck (and to a large extent still is) in the nature or nurture mindset. --Randykitty (talk) 19:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)an interesting article appeared in an observer sunday supplement approx 60 years ago concerning a family of i think 6 children boys and girls...the children were all born in the same small remote northern village..hardly any television then. Their father interviewed said that athough they had all attended the same small school though perhaps at different times but often with the same teachers and within the same small circle of friends and neighbours they aall eventually began seeking very different styles of living and ended with jobs none even remotely similar to any of their siblins.... Much for the argument that nature is the dominant factorEddybrad (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2017 (UTC)Sayings which have stood the test of time such as chip off the old block and like father like son all appear to add to this argument whereas hes just like his dad and emma takes after me and then young bill is like his uncle jim we must have all of us heard from time to timeEddybrad (talk) 16:41, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Reference 14: Nature from Nurture
Reference 14: Normile, Dennis (February 2016). "Nature From Nurture". Science 351 (6276): 908–910 is about farmland in Japan. I don't think it belongs here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.252.229 (talk) 10:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

What is your position, and what factors or experiences in your life led you to this conclusion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.96.87.68 (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nature versus nurture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061001133708/http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article2.asp?id=6008 to http://www.metanexus.net/metanexus_online/show_article2.asp?ID=6008
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110510091413/http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/tbs/index.html to http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/books/tbs/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051103134456/http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/papers/nature_nurture.pdf to http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/papers/nature_nurture.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nature versus nurture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141226054452/http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0616S.pdf to http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ff0616s.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:50, 14 February 2018 (UTC)