# Do we shape our environment or does our environment shape us?



## CNikki

An age-old debate, but I really want to know others takes and be specific as to why you lean towards one side than the other, or even neutral.

Scientists range anywhere from the guess of 50/50 (environment/biology) to 25/75 (environment/biology) for when it comes to how we are shaped in life. I'm leaning more towards the fact that our biology makes up much of how we live, on a personal and greater level, that determines if we have what we consider as good or bad quality of life. I can also say that I'm walking proof of it and have various of stories for it, but I know that we can't give that type of bias based on our own experiences, as much as we really want to.

If you do think that the environment ultimately shapes much of who we are, how are you certain? I'd really love to hear this side of the argument if anyone here really has it. How does our environment mold itself in the first place in order for us to be kept, raised, and mimic what we have grown accustomed to? Could we ever truly be fluid with what our environment offers to us?


----------



## EmotionlessThug

If the environment shape us, then it means there's been changes to the layout of the environment to the point it gets remapped 24/7. 

Which means that the environment has been programmed to run though an interval that significantly reflects on are inner thoughts, desires, and emotions for specific areas in cities, towns, states, and countries. The human has to be reprogrammed to adapt to the environment that runs through an interval based on the alike inner thoughts, alike desires and alike emotions as an awareness. 


Could we ever truly be fluid with what our environment offers to us?

Realizing the state of this existence with humans as a software agent.


----------



## Solomoon

I think if biology shaped me I'd be more like my parents. My parents are generally functional and great with people. Not saying they have zero flaws but the apple fell pretty damn far from the tree when it comes to me.

Biology probably does play a part but I lean towards environment as the greater factor.


----------



## GeomTech

Hmm. It seems like it would be tethered. Like symbiosis. So we have environment (from nature it emerged; eventually), and the creature adapts to it; a kind of representation of what the environment was like, and it's cemented along a line given that certain environment (and changes within it too). And then, we're getting to the point of altering this environment stuffs; which, then, there's epi-genetic stuffs as well (looping effect back to condensed expression of environment i.e the creature).

Hard to say...

It's like nature => environment being an expression of a part of it => Being / creature X is an expression of the environment in a condensed way.

I'm not sure of the percentages; seems layered so idk. Just describing what I thought on this here. Could be wrong.



Solomoon said:


> I think if biology shaped me I'd be more like my parents. My parents are generally functional and great with people. Not saying they have zero flaws but the apple fell pretty damn far from the tree when it comes to me.
> 
> Biology probably does play a part but I lean towards environment as the greater factor.


Hmm. Uh, could it have been recessive gene pattern jumpage i.e transfer from someone further along the family branch? But then, it would combine with other factors as well.

Just throwing that out there. Seems interesting how these things function.


----------



## TwoMan

I don't think you can categorically say it is mostly one way or another for everyone. It is different for every individual. I know people who have overcome enormous "environmental" issues, i.e. a horrible upbringing and turned out just fine. Others have fallen to pieces under similar circumstances. Brothers and sisters can be polar opposites and have completely different outcomes in life which belies the biological argument.

My own SAD has been the single most influential factor affecting my personality and quality of life. I can't say with certainty, but I believe that it is biological in nature, meaning a "wiring" issue in my brain. I've had it all my life like many here. So for me, I would say it was mostly biology, for someone else, only they can say.


----------



## sad1231234

Both.


----------



## Blue Dino

Small environments, we shape them ourselves mostly. Bigger environments, they shape us mostly. Social environments, it goes either way, more or less depending on the people and situation.


----------



## SplendidBob

We also get to shape us, to a degree, via the decisions we make. I know that technically this falls under the other two, but I all about the internal locus of control atm so thought I should mention it even though it isn't quite true.

Re nature vs nurture, personally I don't find it very interesting to consider, I kinda see both of those as external forces I have control over, so its more a case to me of "how much can I change myself right now?". "How much do I have the capacity to change my immediate environment?"

Those are the productive questions (with the answers I usually don't want to hear).


----------



## Raies

Shouldn't this be obvious? We shape our environment and the environment shapes us.

Studies also suggest this transactionality; for example, intelligence is more affected by environment when the person is young, but the effect of genes increases by time.

This is because the person searches environments fitting with his genetic makeup -> it will dictate the results.

We also shape our immediate environments which affects how they affect us.

Culture etc, the bigger things, usually create the boundaries to your development.

Just an example of a theory handling this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_systems_theory


----------



## Solomoon

GeomTech said:


> Hmm. Uh, could it have been recessive gene pattern jumpage i.e transfer from someone further along the family branch? But then, it would combine with other factors as well.
> 
> Just throwing that out there. Seems interesting how these things function.


There is a saying that the medium is the message. The message of the arcade was that you could go somewhere to have fun with other people. Someone could play by themselves but even if they did they'd be in a social area while doing so. A home console was very different. You didn't have to be around other people to enjoy it. The mediums have continued to evolve (movies at a theater to movies at home, the home computer, etc.) to where you could have more and more experiences without other people's direct involvement or physical presence. The experiences themselves also became more complicated and richer such as early Mario games to Final Fantasy 7 where your more and more engaged.

The message of my parents divorce was to not trust relationships. You can actually see the difference in my mom and dad as well. My dad's parents stayed together and he's been with someone other than my mom for two decades. My mom's parents divorced and her mom had some good marriages where the person died and another bad marriage. So the message to my mom was it'll probably be bad or it'll be good but they'll get sick. My mom never remarried after my dad and has been single for a while. The messages or environments we're given aren't an ironclad destiny but they do shift the odds. Especially when things compound such as social difficulties, being a child of divorce, technology there to escape into, etc.


----------



## Tuan Jie

This debate has changed a lot since epigenetics.

Moshe Szyf - How early life experience is written into DNA


----------



## Red October

I don't think I could give a meaningful % guess for how much the environment or biology influences us, since their effects depend on one another.


If a person is genetically predisposed to be adventurous and lives in a high risk environment, they're more likely to have lots of brushes with danger and learn new behaviours from those experiences. Do you say that's caused by the genetics or the environment? It takes both to produce a certain result.


Another analogy: I breathe in order to live. what % of that is caused by my lungs expanding and contracting, and what % is caused by my environment being filled with air?


----------



## WillYouStopDave

Well, if you fart in an elevator, you will certainly make it an unpleasant place to be.


----------



## Alex4You

It's definitely a combination of the two. There's no one answer to what degree each of them affect a person's life because everyone is different. A lot of how you turn out in life depends on your genes. Some people get lucky and look attractive and are healthy. Other times people end up with serious conditions that make life harder for them. If we could understand everything about genes and what each of them do, we could change a person's DNA to remove undesired traits. Obviously there's a lot of debate on the ethics of doing stuff like that, but I see some sort of DNA-manipulation in the future for better or worse. Overall I think biology determines much of the characteristics of someone.

However, I do think environment has an affect, but maybe to a lesser extent. Your environment won't change the fact that you were born without legs, but it can make things easier or harder to live with the condition. A loving home can't cure cancer, but it will totally benefit that person's attitude and outlook in life. On the other hand, a terrible childhood can make someone depressed or affect how that person treats others. There are so many factors that go into determining a person's life that it's unlikely that there is a certain amount that genetics and environment influence somebody's life.

This question really doesn't have a specific answer in my opinion. It's not one way or the other, it's a complicated mixture of both. Your environment can make a huge impact on your life if it's extreme enough, or it can only make small, subtle changes. My official answer is that genetics mainly shape how people are, but the environment someone lives in can have massive effects on one's personality and even physically affect a person. 

It's a very interesting questions for sure. It definitely gave me an excuse to ramble about nurture vs nature lol.


----------



## Persephone The Dread

Well both, and not just considering how the individual is effected as an individual but because individual's psychology changes in group environments.

Weird stuff like this too:

https://www.livescience.com/8384-couples-start.html

And then the environment probably shapes genetics too:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24677-fear-of-a-smell-can-be-passed-down-several-generations/


----------



## Creationist Cat

Essentially none of it is biology. That's just a common belief because it makes it easier to justify oppression and hierarchies when "it's not my fault nature made X group (that I belong to) superior."
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Milco

Creationist Cat said:


> Essentially none of it is biology. That's just a common belief because it makes it easier to justify oppression and hierarchies when "it's not my fault nature made X group (that I belong to) superior."
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Biology is important and ignoring it can easily lead to unfairness and people not getting the help and support they need.


----------



## 629753

WillYouStopDave said:


> Well, if you fart in an elevator, you will certainly make it an unpleasant place to be.


 But who created the elevator?

:wink2:


----------



## WillYouStopDave

impedido10 said:


> But who created the elevator?
> 
> :wink2:


 Some popcorn fart called "Otis"


----------



## CNikki

Solomoon said:


> I think if biology shaped me I'd be more like my parents. My parents are generally functional and great with people. Not saying they have zero flaws but the apple fell pretty damn far from the tree when it comes to me.
> 
> Biology probably does play a part but I lean towards environment as the greater factor.


As someone has said, maybe there is someone further back into your family that may have shown similar characteristics. Considering the culture, people weren't as outspoken (especially if they were a woman) so people often dismissed it as the person being submissive or shy. I can think of similar cases where I'd share similarities with my grandmother since she was never one to confront any issues at hand. The exceptions at some points I would say came from my mother. Could it be because I've been told and exposed of these said behaviors? Maybe. One does have to consider how characteristics are displayed when the person is young, which often indicates the traits they may have inherited and extensively display as time goes on.



m1111s said:


> I don't think you can categorically say it is mostly one way or another for everyone. It is different for every individual. I know people who have overcome enormous "environmental" issues, i.e. a horrible upbringing and turned out just fine. Others have fallen to pieces under similar circumstances. Brothers and sisters can be polar opposites and have completely different outcomes in life which belies the biological argument.
> 
> My own SAD has been the single most influential factor affecting my personality and quality of life. I can't say with certainty, but I believe that it is biological in nature, meaning a "wiring" issue in my brain. I've had it all my life like many here. So for me, I would say it was mostly biology, for someone else, only they can say.


That's where I would say that environment can play a part, but ultimately it takes a form of intelligence and awareness to work your way around on how you can 'overcome' certain styles of upbringing. You're right that it's not a one-size-fits-all answer, which I wouldn't dismiss that even if it were 25/75 since that the 25% can make a big deal. You would have to navigate in ways that can make that exception which indicates that you could have a higher IQ than what would be expected, since IQ range tends to become lower as generations go on.



Raies said:


> Shouldn't this be obvious? We shape our environment and the environment shapes us.
> 
> Studies also suggest this transactionality; for example, intelligence is more affected by environment when the person is young, but the effect of genes increases by time.
> 
> This is because the person searches environments fitting with his genetic makeup -> it will dictate the results.
> 
> We also shape our immediate environments which affects how they affect us.
> 
> Culture etc, the bigger things, usually create the boundaries to your development.
> 
> Just an example of a theory handling this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_systems_theory


Early childhood development is crucial as to what they are exposed to, which also can decrease over time since the mind shapes itself by the time the person is a young adult. Neuroplasticity helps to alter and change the brain to rewire itself, even if the person has suffered from minor brain injuries, but it also has limitations. Genetic expression also plays a part as to how the person will perform certain actions and which genes are 'activated' to help them thrive in it to their best in capabilities, which epigenetics can be involved. People tend to assume that epigenetics means that the person can do anything even outside of their range when really it's about how each parent's genes play a part on forming the child and how they will respond even in situations they aren't familiar with, making what appeared to be 'hidden' genes or characteristics activated.

If any of you received multiple notifications then sorry. I made some errors while pinning posts. I'm not really good at this quoting multiple posts thing.

I'll get to more responses later.


----------



## Creationist Cat

Milco said:


> Biology is important and ignoring it can easily lead to unfairness and people not getting the help and support they need.


I could also say horoscopes are important and ignoring that information from the stars can lead to people not getting the support they need.... If biology has no impact on personality and these supposed biological differences are just differences in development then you are hurting rather than helping by giving them importance.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Milco

Creationist Cat said:


> I could also say horoscopes are important and ignoring that information from the stars can lead to people not getting the support they need.... If biology has no impact on personality and these supposed biological differences are just differences in development then you are hurting rather than helping by giving them importance.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Except horoscopes have no significance, but we are biological beings and our personalities are determined by our brains which are biological organs.
Biology absolutely matters for personality.


----------



## Barakiel




----------



## Creationist Cat

Milco said:


> Except horoscopes have no significance, but we are biological beings and our personalities are determined by our brains which are biological organs.
> Biology absolutely matters for personality.


You can hold whatever baseless beliefs you want but I'd prefer figuring out what's true rather than trying to fit everything into a white male supremacist ideology which has dominated most of science, excluding the viewpoints of women and minorites.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Barakiel

Creationist Cat said:


> You can hold whatever baseless beliefs you want but I'd prefer figuring out what's true rather than trying to fit everything into a white male supremacist ideology which has dominated most of science, excluding the viewpoints of women and minorites.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I was gonna mention Marjorie Grene who has a completely naturalistic but non-reductive philosophy of the human person that takes our biology seriously without subscribing to anything like genetic determinism. (I can post excerpts from an article describing her views if anyone's interested). I can assure you that she and other like-minded folks have no intention of supporting a "white male supremacist ideology".

Why is it that you think we humans are somehow outside of nature?


----------



## Solomoon

CNikki said:


> As someone has said, maybe there is someone further back into your family that may have shown similar characteristics. Considering the culture, people weren't as outspoken (especially if they were a woman) so people often dismissed it as the person being submissive or shy. I can think of similar cases where I'd share similarities with my grandmother since she was never one to confront any issues at hand. The exceptions at some points I would say came from my mother. Could it be because I've been told and exposed of these said behaviors? Maybe. One does have to consider how characteristics are displayed when the person is young, which often indicates the traits they may have inherited and extensively display as time goes on.


My grandma is like a dog with a bone when it comes to going after problems. She was raised with a lot of sisters and my mom was raised by herself. My mom would do a lot on her own, like go to a theater or read books, so I'm most like her of my immediate relatives. I think what I was told growing up affected me a lot. Hearing about how my mom and dad nearly killed themselves with alcohol made me more cautious, some might say too cautious.


----------



## Milco

Creationist Cat said:


> You can hold whatever baseless beliefs you want but I'd prefer figuring out what's true rather than trying to fit everything into a white male supremacist ideology which has dominated most of science, excluding the viewpoints of women and minorites.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It's not baseless, it's what science and biology tells us.
Science isn't about viewpoints. It's about doing research and learning about the world - something women and minorities are perfectly capable of, despite your views.


----------



## AllGlad

I think that the percentages if there are percentages differ from person to person. Some people have a higher variance for some aspects and lower for others.
Personally overall, I feel like most people are probably 50/50


----------



## Creationist Cat

Barakiel said:


> I was gonna mention Marjorie Grene who has a completely naturalistic but non-reductive philosophy of the human person that takes our biology seriously without subscribing to anything like genetic determinism. (I can post excerpts from an article describing her views if anyone's interested). I can assure you that she and other like-minded folks have no intention of supporting a "white male supremacist ideology".
> 
> Why is it that you think we humans are somehow outside of nature?


This has nothing to do with naturalism and I hold a naturalistic and atheist philosophy. I never claimed humans were outside of nature. What's wrong with you?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Creationist Cat

Milco said:


> It's not baseless, it's what science and biology tells us.
> Science isn't about viewpoints. It's about doing research and learning about the world - something women and minorities are perfectly capable of, despite your views.


Of course they claim their views are objective, most ideologues do. It's really no surprise that a field of study controlled by white men that others weren't even legally allowed to participate in for most of history comes to conclusions that promote white men. Until science becomes more egalitarian you need to treat these claims with a lot of skepticism.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Milco

Creationist Cat said:


> Of course they claim their views are objective, most ideologues do. It's really no surprise that a field of study controlled by white men that others weren't even legally allowed to participate in for most of history comes to conclusions that promote white men. Until science becomes more egalitarian you need to treat these claims with a lot of skepticism.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Yeah, let's disregard all the great female scientists and just claim it's all a grand conspiracy, why, because you say so without any kind of proof.
Your misguided political views do not dictate the physical reality we live in and by denying reality you're only harming your own cause.


----------



## CNikki

Barakiel said:


> I was gonna mention Marjorie Grene who has a completely naturalistic but non-reductive philosophy of the human person that takes our biology seriously without subscribing to anything like genetic determinism.


Interesting how there's not really much told about her and kind of digging through articles to know what she was about. I'll look into them.



Persephone The Dread said:


> Well both, and not just considering how the individual is effected as an individual but because individual's psychology changes in group environments.
> 
> Weird stuff like this too:
> 
> https://www.livescience.com/8384-couples-start.html
> 
> And then the environment probably shapes genetics too:
> 
> https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24677-fear-of-a-smell-can-be-passed-down-several-generations/


Fair points. There seems to be a tendency of people wanting to attract others who may remind them of their own parents (Freudian theory, but obviously not in its entirely), but does that mean their genetic make up of both have to have the potential SO who is a mixture that's closest to the pursuer's each parent? Considering we're 50/50 of each side.

It doesn't take a genius to know that the mind and body are fully connected, or how else are we conscious to sustain ourselves and have signals to have for basic functions? There should be just as much awareness or information about the brain as there is about biology itself when it's taught at basic level schooling.


----------



## Trevbro15

The way I see it is we are mostly brought up a certain way by our predecessors. That is basically the scientific meaning of life, for each generation to pass on new information to the succeeding generation. However I have no doubt that we can develop our own concepts through life. At some point we have to grow up and focus on how to bring our next generation up in our own way because we know we now have different ways to develop the next generation. So that is pretty much a constant in my eyes. Also everybody is always wanting to try new things and gain new experiences so they will let new environments develop what they have not experienced. Really both sides of the argument are the same thing to me. They are both happening either at the same time or at alternating times in a life.


----------



## Omni-slash

I've never understood this question as it seems largely dependent on what you're measuring. Obviously, our biology determines most categorical things about us. Our eyes, voice, instincts etc. But that's the thing, how is the "us" defined in the question? Is it strictly your personality, your behavior, or the entire physiology that makes you human? How can you put a number on something that isn't clearly defined by all parties?

Well, accepting the fact that "you" is a subjective term in this context, behaviorally, I think the environment has more significant impact, meaning impact I perceive matters, which I base on an analysis of history. But again, I am defining the "you" in terms of behavior. You could make a case that clubbing someone to death with a stick and screwing someone over financially is not that different psychologically, meaning our self is only cloaked in social code and remains constant to a greater degree throughout history.


----------



## naes

It is a little bit of both, i think... 
Honestly, this is more of a philosophical than scientific question.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

The debate is not about whether we shape our environment or it shapes us. The debate is about why anyone would ask the question in the first place. What are they trying to accomplish?


----------



## Superfrank

Our minds shape everything.


----------



## JerryAndSports

This is a tough question.... honestly it can go both ways. When are species first started the envirement shaped us, but now that we're so advanced we're shaping the envirement with global warming and pollution.


----------



## blue2

I'd say our enviroment shapes us up till about 10yrs old then we gradually start to shape it, each time around family values & disciplin and respect gets a little bit more watered down as the overall population increases, humanity used to be quality over quantity but now its probably the other way round.


----------



## WillYouStopDave

Well, I stink up my room a few times a day for sure.


----------



## Micronian

There's definitely a duality (I call it more like an endless loop), but I tend to side with the notion that the environment shapes us. As humans are the ultimate social species, we cannot survive without a complex social environment to live in--which means the construction of rules, language, history--so the environment is vital in all the behaviour and values that we acquire, which we then build upon towards the future. However, nature/evolution/God has given humans that ability to begin with, so...


In more practical terms, it really depends on what generation and what period of history you're born into (there are 4, which makes up a cycle that repeats every 100 years or so). each generation will tend to build the world as that generation sees fit, in predictable ways. Only four generations are ever alive at any point in history, so when the oldest generation (plus its collective values) dies off, its replacement generation is just born which tends to have the same values as its counterpart generation which just died off. It makes the pattern in which we build our world very natural, actually.


----------



## CNikki

Micronian said:


> There's definitely a duality (I call it more like an endless loop), but I tend to side with the notion that the environment shapes us. As humans are the ultimate social species, we cannot survive without a complex social environment to live in--which means the construction of rules, language, history--so the environment is vital in all the behaviour and values that we acquire, which we then build upon towards the future. However, nature/evolution/God has given humans that ability to begin with, so...
> 
> In more practical terms, it really depends on what generation and what period of history you're born into (there are 4, which makes up a cycle that repeats every 100 years or so). each generation will tend to build the world as that generation sees fit, in predictable ways. Only four generations are ever alive at any point in history, so when the oldest generation (plus its collective values) dies off, its replacement generation is just born which tends to have the same values as its counterpart generation which just died off. It makes the pattern in which we build our world very natural, actually.


To a greater or less extent I think this can sum up my views. Partially why I gave the arguments I have was to play devil's advocate and see how people would respond as counterarguments from much of Rousseau's theories; unfortunately, the other half is bringing in truth that may be due to generational effects. If you're talking about experiencing with what, say, your grandparents have shown you and in some cases great-grandparents, then of course it'll impact as to how you view the world around you since there's going to be differing views which you will have to side with. I never really had that opportunity, but based off of the events that have happened in my life and what I've learned later on about the deceased relatives, I don't think it's mere coincidence. Essentially, we're just stuck in our own inevitable bubbles that tend to be the foundation as to who we are in the beginning. It takes one hell of an epiphany to 'break' from it and it's not something that will happen completely within one generation.


----------

