Nature vs. Nurture (vs. the Soul)

One of the ginormous arguments in Psychology is the theory of nature vs. nurture. Basically: are the people we become determent before we’re born or by how we’re raised?

For more background:
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture.htm">http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticge ... urture.htm</a><!-- m -->
or if you prefer wiki info”
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture</a><!-- m -->

Now, It has been proven that both are influential, but now the main disagreement has fallen on which is the more predominant one. But from we I was sitting, I considered another possible side to chess board. In classes I keep quite, but here I’ll post it loud and proudly that I believe it’s not just a race between two candidates. I feel that the soul can also be considered a factor.

Though sadly it’s a bit harder to work with something as intangible and that we’re unsure of when up against what facts like DNA and recorded parental patterns can provide. But psychology is a soft science anyhow, so they can shove it.

So yeah, I personally have always been more of a nature arguer, but I also feel the soul can contribute to how a person develops along with genetics and experiences. Thoughts?

This is an impossible argument. You might as well ask whether the flavorings or the water are more important in a bowl of broth. Straight and honest fact: without either, it's not broth.

The way I see it is like this... You have a soul, X, which is born into a body Y, and takes with it the experiences of the past as interpreted by the current serlf Z, and the experiences of the current life V.
Each person is X + Y + Z + V at any given moment.
There's no matter how big a part X is, or how big a part Z is, you wouldn't be you if you weren't the sum of all parts.

The way I see it, soul is the product of life - not the other way around.

As such, "soul memories" or whatever are simply nurture from before birth.

I agree that it is largely something that can't be proved or dealt with one way or another as things currently are, but I do have my theories.

You ask about Nature vs Nurture vs the Soul...yet, I don't know if I agree with the distinction.

One of the things that bothers me most about my Self, my identity, is that sources appear both past and present. I find specific attributes in my personality that I can say "Oh, that's due to my family's view on women" or whatever, but when I do past life work, or Higher Soul work, I come across the same attributes. So is my view because of my family this time, or was I made that way, or was it conditioned into me twelve centuries ago? I'd be willing to say it's due to family stuff this time around, and that my memories are fabrications based upon my internal makeup, but the trouble is, what few past life memories I do collect, I put a lot of effort into validating (or debunking), trying to prove/disprove knowledge, languages, facts etc. So what do I say when I find stuff that I can confirm, and it echoes my conditioning this life? That is just it...echoes.

My current take, is to some degree our Souls pick parents and conditions that will echo, or reinforce patterns of the Soul. So, if my Soul is programmed to operate in a Matriarchy, then once I finish my Bardo-rough-and-tumble, my Soul seeks out a family that has a Matriarchy in place, so that the new me will have that aspect supported.

Why would this happen? My guess is there are just things we need to work on, and/or work with, and our Lower Self is far less of the Self than most people like to consider it seems, heh.

So 'Nature vs Nurture' vs the Soul, in my book the Soul sets up much of the conditioning for Nature vs Nurture.

I think the biggest factors are your Soul itself, and the memories associated with that, and things that happen now in this life, as well as things that happened in your past. Trust me, they stack.

I have to go along with what Archer is saying(I think) that the soul is just nurture before birth. In my journey learning and seeing psychology I have seen more cases relating to nurture than to nature. However this has a weird occurrence in that the way the fetus is raised in the womb and the mothers emotional state and things generally considered of a nurture classification cause physical, or nature changes. The thing I don't like about the nature side of things is it allows no room for change. Now going back (I realize I was going off topic), in a large amount of the past life regression therapies (ones recorded and cited at least) a past life was discovered to be linked to a problem which may have physically and/or mentally have an effect on the person. One common problem found has been a link to past lives of starvation and having an eating disorder now. This was a nurture issue that became a nature issue. Of course this argument is only really valid if you believe or at least believe in the possibility of past lives and you believe the account of the person (they may have made up the life as an excuse) but regardless it did lead to the patient overcoming the disorder (which in one case was link to a supposed thyroid disorder, which they overcame without medication or surgery).

Gesigewigus Wrote:My current take, is to some degree our Souls pick parents and conditions that will echo, or reinforce patterns of the Soul. So, if my Soul is programmed to operate in a Matriarchy, then once I finish my Bardo-rough-and-tumble, my Soul seeks out a family that has a Matriarchy in place, so that the new me will have that aspect supported.

This I agree with to an extent. That like attracts alike as is possible and/or needed.

But what about opposites attracting? :O

Xanthus Wrote:But what about opposites attracting? :O

The "líkur sækir líkann heim" is more logical to me.