CareersNG

i had a solid debate with a friend (and other friends) by email around April, so i decided to anonymize it and pull it out to the web cus i think is worth sharing.





Adeyemi Fowe
to Friend1

Psychologist Donald Hebb is said to have once answered a journalist's question of "which, nature or nurture, contributes more to personality?" by asking in response, "which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

Your own argument is that nature doesnt even contribute atall! its all nuture... i ve never heard such argument before!


Enjoyy


'Friend1 Friend1
to me
show details Apr 29


Did you really read this article because it just made my point. Read the IQ quotient part.

It says that -Evidence suggests that family environmental factors may have an effect upon childhood IQ...

It further goes on to say the following..

Within the debates surrounding cloning, for example, is the far-fetched contention that a Jesus or a Hitler could be "re-created" through genetic cloning. Current thinking finds this largely inaccurate, and discounts the possibility that the clone of anyone would grow up to be the same individual due to environmental variation. For example, like clones, identical twins are genetically identical, and unlike the hypothetical clones share the same family environment, yet they are not identical in personality and other traits.


The article just made my point man.
Sincerely,
'Friend1



Reply



Adeyemi Fowe
to friend1, bcc:
show details Apr 29
Pls what is your point!??

My own point is that both environmental(nurture) and natural traits (nature) contributes to ability.
Your own point truout the phone was that nature does not contribute any!
And i am saying that it does contribute!
There are some things we brought to this world naturally (alias... abini-bi! ) .
i used the example of two 2yrs old ..one wld might like choosing lego always while the order prefers babi. just to make you know that atleast nature contributes!

But you kept saying there is no natural tendencies...everything is environmental and developmental right here.

and i dont think thats what that wikipedia article said.


Reply

'Friend1 Friend1
to me
show details Apr 30

If i remember clearly, your point is that one tends to have a natural tendency towards specific disciplines or talents and I said that i did not think so. Rather, I was of the opinion that environmental factors neccesitates such things that you end up seeing as "natural ability".

My position is that we all are born with natural ability but we end up developing some specific areas to the detriment of the other ones. case in point is the example you gave concerning someone good at talking and the other good at dancing. Environmental factors influence some of those abilities.

I think that is the whole point of the wiki article.-If an environment is changed fundamentally, then the heritability of a character changes, too.
meaning if 2 people are brought up in different ways then the traits of each person will definitely be different and they would exhibit bias towards what you consider natural tendencies.

Sincerely,
'Friend1


Reply


Adeyemi Fowe
to friend1, bcc: friend3, friend2
show details Apr 30
Well, i think we are at deadlock on this one again...its very similar to the
Talent vs Hard-work argument we had. that despite the fact that i shouted and shouted that i am not taking away the importance of training and hardwork, but the NATURAL TALENT itself still exists and ITS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR, but you keep downplaying natural abilities/talent, you think training and decision to focus at learning anything can take you as far as you want.
borrowing from that professor i quoted in wikipedia, ...its like saying that elongating the lenght of a rectangle alone without considering the width is enough to give you any desired area you want which is theoretically true but practically unresonable!
The idea of considering your natural talent (nature) is to identify those areas where you naturally have wider width first! ...then you now start stretching(nuturing/trainng) in that area...thats what i call strenghtening your strenght!
viewtopic.php?f=46&t=3997

I respect and accept the importantce of traning and nuturing, but the biggest challenge i have with you is that you think that is all that matters, infact you assume thats what produces what i call the nattural (innate) abilities! if nautural giftings is incited or produced by the environment then there is nothing natural about it again!
I believe everyone is a genius atleast in somthing (not everything!) that has insipred me to even create ideas like The Genius Triangle. etc.
Here is the link to a discussion on the Google 10^100 ideas i told you about:
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=4495

you wold see another Nigerian there talking about ideas to revolutionalize decision making which to me is a top class idea! Because Decision Making is a big issue! the real question is, what metrics would guide your decisions...if your natural ability is not one of the metrics..then you have a lot to re-think!

Looking to that wiki article again... the whole academic world ..the field of Psychology of Personality and the field of Genetics believe we came to this world with some natural tendencies, prefernces..inate abilities and natural giftings!
We all aknowledge the importance of both(nature &nuture), and we all know the one we can affect which is training (nuture) but we all want to atleast be aware of the ones we already have for free! which is NATURE!


Sincerely
Adeyemi Fowe

Reply


friend2
to me
show details May 1
' Chief Obafemi Awolowo the Ikene philosopher - once said the difference between me and my colleague is that while my colleagues are carvoting my in the dark alleys I'm in my LIBRARY working myself nineteen to the dozen!!! here is a practical exam he was an accredited genius by any standards even wowing the Oyinbos.
Now I respectfully disagree with my learned Fowe.... Nuture is much bigger than Nature.


its a common saying that we can become what we want to be.... as old as it is it is the true...but then there is the natural constraint that we probrably suprress our utmost best but then we can fight it..... here is what we do... i agree with the riposte of the earlier writer (tomi) environment to a larger extend will be number one major factor in determing our progress.... A supportive environment will greatly enhance the genius in you cos you have access to resources ( IBM housing bill gate - while researching) (Scholarships for the brilliant lucky ones- Obama was able to go to harvard to develop his career.

Now there is no denying a TALENT but if you do av talent you still have to develop it.... Tyson had a yet to be seen boxing skills after cassius clay (Ali- who is the only pugilist that will be footworking backward and still launching attacks to his opponent - a Prey turning to Predator - survival instinct).... the moment Tyson reduced he's hard work (Training) he lost to a very little Buster Douglas -1992

the lesson here is if you Train Hard you will Fight Easy!!!!!


Strong challenge is commonly connected with strong results. Sure you can get lucky every once in a while and find an easy path to success. But will you be able to maintain that success, or is it just a fluke? Will you be able to repeat it? Once other people learn how you did it, will you find yourself overloaded with competition?
When you discipline yourself to do what is hard, you gain access to a realm of results that are denied everyone else. The willingness to do what is difficult is like having a key to a special private treasure room.
The nice thing about hard work is that it’s universal. It doesn’t matter what industry you’re in — hard work can be used to achieve positive long-term results regardless of the specifics.

the two scenario is this if you got a natural talent - your required hard work could be 70% then you make hundred

2nd scenario no talent a common man - your required hard work is 110% the people will say you re more talented - you see the logic

I love practical examples..... English players don't have talent but they possess hard work (Lampard, Gerrard, Rooney, Terry) - they went to academy from very young age (2-3) when the mind is most receptive to external control ( at that age with the necessary environment and training its never late to become what ever you want to be ( a pilot, doctor, footballer (defencer or attacker....a Soldier) they obviously groomed themselve and now when you mention the natural talent in football you will be mistaken if you don't mention these guys because talent by this time is no longer abstract (qualitative) but quatitative that are empirically verifiable - in essence talent will now be measured by achievement.
same for a musician.... Mariah carey , Rod stewart and Micheal Jackson are recipient of the much coveted Diamond awards having sold over 100M copies so we say they are talented but we know they are probably not the best (all time) but then we can measure their success.

I can go on and on and on but I will close with some one whom I dislike, paradoxically she is a great achiever I can see her talent but she is talent because she is the most successful and one of the pioneer backers of Obama presidency may be I started to like her a bit then no to cut back my dislike for her ( reason for making a derogatory stmt to my dear Naija) no other person than ..........

The big secret in life is that there is no big secret. Whatever your goal, you can get there if you’re willing to work.
- Oprah Winfrey


......friend2


Reply



Adeyemi Fowe
to friend2
show details May 1
Baba niyen oooooooooooooooo! ;)
I Totally Agree with YOU!
Because you acknowledge both nature and nurture,..i dont care about which one is greater.
The only Alarming thing is if someone tells me nature(natural talent) doesnt have any contribution!
Then i wld ask someone to be more hardworking than M.Jackson if he would not need 80yrs training b4 he can dance like him:):)
Training and hardwork is definitely the universal key to success as you said...but imagine jackson at age 7 asked to choose between playing soccer and dancing. What should inform his choice?
so just like you said the talented guy does 70% work and gets 100% result, and the un-naturally talented does 110% and also get thesame result too.

So now the question is what would be your choice to get training on??
dont forget that as wonderful as hardwork is, its food is TIME! whereas natural talent doesnt collect any food it came with you! its just there!
So when you want to channel your hardwork or get trained ...where do u want to train in you , do you want to train your weakness and produce average result or you wana train your talent and become a worlds star like others!??

Thats the real question and thats why BOTH Training/hardwork and Natural Talent has to be taken into consideration when making descions in life.

Friend2 just imagine a short man (rara) dreaming to beat mickeal jordans record in basket ball all in the name of hardwork! whereas thesame short man has one of the best natural voices in his area (yet untrained).
Now tell me where is training/hardwork should be channeled into!

So the challenge i heard with Friend1 was that he his trying to reduce natural talent to zero effect all in the name of training/env and hardwork! and thats where i said impossible sir!
natural talent still has its own role...BOTH are very important!

The Gerard/lampard has now used the whole of their life training hard on soccer...yet others like ronaldo-da lima/ ronaldinho and romairo dey put little effort, dey flenjor their life and them dey carry worlds best playing yafun-yafun!

In summary the question of whats my natural talent comes in when you want to decide on the direction to channel your training and hardwork!
And thats why i said you Strenghten Your Strenght!

Regards:):)

Reply



friend3 friend3
to me, friend1,

Hi Guys!

This is a very interesting discussion.

I would advice us to approach the temple of knowledge with caution of thought

and the open-mindedness of learning.

This singular discussion and the accuracy of it is one of the major
reasons people

may die poor and poverty is ravaging Africa.

Furthermore,In my opinion, It might be Humanity's easiest and most
Cost Effective means

to eradicate poverty and create the Egalitarian society we strive for.

In Knowledge Management,there the concept of Superior Reasoning or Information.

The amount of information per time determines our decision

and many times the success/failure-the superiority/inferiority of the
decision/line of thought.

i suggest we all dig deeper into the discussion by research,then
compare facts and figures,

separate facts, fables and fiction.

In my opinion, based on empirical available research, backed by
international authorities,

Both NATURE AND NURTURE CONTRIBUTE TO THE BOTTOM LINE OF AN
INDIVIDUAL"S PERFORMANCE.

Prof keirsey did a lot of Empirical work on the Nature/temperament axis.

While some other sociology & performance researchers have worked
extensively on the nurture axis.

Both schools of thought agree on one fact;

(As a colleague of mine who went to Harvard on a HR senior Management

Course a couple of months back said - the research among

the faculty in Harvard based on PROVEN EMPIRICAL RESEARCH is

THAT THERE ARE INBORN TALENTS AND GIFTEDNESS,BUT AREN'T ENOUGH IN THEMSELVES,

NURTURE/ENVIRONMENT MUST ALSO BE APPLIED TO MAKE IT BEST.

IN FACT, IT WAS SAID THAT ONCE AN INDIVIDUAL DOESN'T START OFF IN THE
TERRAIN OF THEIR STRENGTH,

THEY HAVE INDIRECTLY LIMITED THE DISTANCE OF THEIR PERFORMANCE
COMPARED TO IF THEY FOLLOWED

THE DIRECTION OF THEIR STRENGTH.

Furthermore, In depth Research has shown that there are 9 types of
intelligences and No 1 human being can have all 9.

YES,Some people have more than 1,but certainly not the 9 together.

I THINK I DISAGREE WITH THE LINE OF THOUGHT ALL MEN WERE BORN WITH ALL
THE 9 INSIDE THEM.

I TEND TO LEAN IN MY OPINION, STRONGLY TOWARDS THE SIDE THAT BOTH
NATURE AND NURTURE WORK

TOGETHER,HOWEVER,NATURE BESTOWS ABILITIES/TALENTS WITH VARIATION.

VARIATION

THIS DOESN'T MEAN INEQUALITY.THE GIFTS/TALENTS IF PROPERLY CHANNELED

AND DEVELOPED ARE EQUAL IN POTENTIAL MAGNITUDE.

WORK,ENVIRONMENT AND EXTERNAL FACTORS NOW CONTRIBUTE TO THAT EXTERNAL
MANIFESTATION.

I ENCOURAGE ALL OF US TO GO BACK TO STUDY, OBSERVE,THINK AND PONDER MORE.

NONE OF US OUGHT TO LAY CLAIM TO THE PATENT OF KNOWLEDGE,

AS NO SUCH THING EXISTS IN HUMANITY.

I shall take some more time to take a closer look, It might be that I
might have missed something...........

I encourage us all to do same........
Friend3 Friend3 (PMP)
Project Management Consultant
friend3friend3@yahoo.com

Reply
Reply

Adeyemi Fowe
to friend2
show details May 4
FYI
Reply

Reply


Reply


Reply


'Friend1 Friend1
to me, friend2
show details May 4


I think friend2 captures my thoughts based on the following assumptions:

-Ability is a given that we all have in huge quantities.
-The abilities are influenced by the environment/circumstances around us. -The environment either improves or makes the ability passive.
- the environmental factors could be hard work, availability of infrastructure, etc

With hard work and proper nurturing we can nurture the passive ability to a level that is significant where the society regards the individual as a genius.

And if i recall correctly, your point is that individuals have specific abilities... e.g a man that has an ability in art might not be good with numbers no matter the amount of work he puts in to improve his quantitative ability. Despite me explaining that the man might have a bias for art because the environment around him makes art learning conducive for him. The environment in this case could be art teacher, availability of art work in around him etc.

Sincerely,
'Friend1



Reply

Adeyemi Fowe
to friend1, friend2, friend3
show details May 4
if Friend2 captures your argument, then i am happy with your opinion, because he atleast acknowledge there is something called nature.


"e.g a man that has an ability in art might not be good with numbers no matter the amount of work he puts in to improve his quantitative ability."
wrong statement quoted above! i ve never said that before in this argument!
I only said that applying thesame training efforts, he would achieve bigger results in arts than in numbers! That is a simple fact! you can train to become anything, the question is in which area do you have the highest mechanical advantage,...asing little efforts bigger results.
that your example would achieve this in arts more than numbers..since nature tends towards arts! And this is the primary reason why nature is important, so that we can know what to train!

Regards

Reply


'Friend1 Friend1
to me, friend2, friend3
show details May 6


Bobo,

Please read the below link. it should illuminate your thoughts better.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/opini ... ks.html?em


Sincerely,
'Friend1


Reply

Adeyemi Fowe
to friend1, friend2, friend3
show details May 6
Nice one very solid link!
i would get back to you after my thesis defense tomorrow.
the new hot cake book called the talent code has dissected the ideas very well...
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/features/ ... alent-code
my present research is if this group of scientists give all to training and zero to innate abilities!
i still doubt it!...but i would make my conclusions after more findings after tomorrow!

Regards

Reply


friend3 friend3
to friend1, me, friend2
show details May 7
hi friend1,

i just went through the article.

did you see the last paragraph?

i quote it here....

"Coyle and Colvin describe dozens of experiments fleshing out this
process. This research takes some of the magic out of great
achievement. But it underlines a fact that is often neglected. Public
discussion is smitten by genetics and what we’re “hard-wired” to do.
And it’s true that genes place a leash on our capacities. But the
brain is also phenomenally plastic. We construct ourselves through
behavior. As Coyle observes, it’s not who you are, it’s what you do."

check this line out: "And it’s true that genes place a leash on our
capacities"

Did you read the comments that trailed the article?

Please read it through.

I have gone through all the comments/responses............i think you
should too.

I earlier said let us enter the temple of knowledge with caution......

This author is very intelligent and so are his references...i advise
us not to argue for its own sake,

but for corporate advancement of humanity.

NATURE AND NURTURE PLAY TOGETHER TO PRODUCE ACHIEVEMENT.

2 individuals(twins) born in same circumstance,to same parents,under
the same nurture and environment,

respond separately and differently to the external environment.

To go with this author's line of thought is to say WE ARE ALL SAME!

And science has shown that we aren't all same.

At the cell level,DNA research says we are different!

No 2 human beings out of 6billion people on the earth have the same
set of fingerprints!

We are equal but not same and that diversity is a function of

our NATURE(DNA & fingerprints) and NURTURE(environment and external hard-work).

This author has a compelling argument,

In my opinion it is ONE-WAY and unidirectional.

Again in the last paragraph, he makes a 1-line reference to scientific

proven facts that already exist in the opposite direction of his
arguments(and his sources)

IN MY OPINION,to argue in this Author's direction is to simplify God's
investment into humanity...

to mere hocus pocus,and to reduce the works of the creator into
simplified statistics.
- Show quoted text -
Reply



Adeyemi Fowe
to friend3
show details May 7
papi deeeeeeeeeeeeee!
he is too muchhhhhhhhhhhhh:):)
- Show quoted text -
Reply


Adeyemi Fowe
to friend3, friend1, friend2,
show details May 7
In case we all need a link to the comments friend3 talked about... here is it:
http://community.nytimes.com/article/co ... rooks.html

Enjoyy
"



thats it oooo

_________________
Fowe.
Choices make or mar Chances ... add extra care to your choices today.

Aha! Interesting.

I see you quoting Donald Hebb. What happened to the belief in destiny, prevalent in Africa, especially in times past? Are some people just destined to be great, while others, not so great and yet some others, to be peasants? I know there isn't any empirical evidence of the type required to proove a theory but is there really anything like destiny? If so, which is more important - Nature, Nurture or Destiny.

By the way, on the Nature vs Nuture argument, I am with you and Friend2.

_________________
More twisted than dreadlocks

I guess we should agree with the length and breadth argument. I see both of them contributing seemingly equally and can differ in impact based on the fact that exposures to each can be varied in degree over a life cycle of learn-ability. Some guys get wiser by receiving the blow to the head(nature) others by being educated(nurture), whichever way you are tailored, just get wiser!

_________________
Ideabroker(c)- Ideas that fuel positive change come from the Most High God.
Ibroker(c)