It’s the age-old question, oft debated by eccentric millionaires in Philadelphia as they “trade the places” of employees to see whether the ability to rule the frozen concentrated orange juice market is learned or innate. The answer? If one is looking good, one is feeling good, which is to say: nurture.

Return to Big Questions: http://www.wired.com/42

Have you ever come across the stimulus rich/stimulus poor environment experiments conducted some decades back on animals? Simply put, some animalsfadf were raised in extremely neutral, dull environments and others were raised in environments full of colors, textures, toys etc. The latter individuals ended up doing better in later life - more active, more curious, better at problem solving and at parenting (Hymovitch 1952, Thompson and Melzack 1956). These experiments strongly suggest that nurture plays a significant role in modifying underlying genetic disposition. (And, natch, that a coordinated approach to home decor can get you into college.)

contributed by Guest User on Jan 24 7:27am

I have personal experience with this. I was adopted at birth, and grew up on the west coast. 4 years later, my biological parents had another child, which they kept, and she stayed on the east coast. We are two totally different people, based on where we grew up and the families we lived with. We have NOTHING in common, our beliefs, morals, likes and dislikes, are all totally different. But our nature was the exact same, same blood. In my opinion of the debate, Nurture has everything to do with it. I'd be curious if this would be the same for twins.

contributed by Guest User on Jan 24 12:21pm

That has everything to do with the individual. One is born with a huge load of programming, from addiction tendencies to cancer susceptibility. However, one is also able to rewrite most of that programming . . . IF one is willing to do the work. Since most humans are not willing to do the work, nature tends to dominate.

contributed by Daniel Davis on Feb 5 2:17pm