DADA: Nature V. Nurture Discussion

[mrdavismd.livejournal.com]

Hello DADA-ers!

I hope that you have gotten a lot of rest since our obstacle course and are ready for you next Challenge!

This challenge is fairly simple, all you have to do is express your opinion this may be hard for my fellow Slytherins just kidding!

Points:
This is a long debate, therefore there will be 10 pts awarded for first comment. 2pts for each additional comment. Initial comments must be 3-4 sentences and contribute to the on-topic conversation for credit. Follow up comments must consist of at least 2 sentences.

Deadline:
February 21, 2009 at 11:59 pm EST



Details:
Was Tom Riddle born evil or did he grow to be evil? Was Harry Potter innately good or could he have turned out bad? We heard some ideas from Dumbledore and Sirius when talking to Harry but what do you think?

Are people born being who they are or do they become who they are? Why are people good or evil? If Harry grew up like Tom Riddle would he have become Voldemort?

Participants will discuss and debate the idea of nature v. nurture and how one become good or evil. There are no sides for this discussion.

This suggestion was from thesamanthahope so extra 5 points if you participates.

Bonus Points
In your first comment please tell me if you own any of the following books:
#019 The Dark Arts Outsmarted
#024 Defensive Magical Theory
#031 The Dark Forces: A Guide To Self Protection
#032 The Rise And Fall Of The Dark Arts
#047 Practical Defensive Magic And Its Use Against The Dark Arts

Owners will get 2 points per book!


You have to be a member to participate so
Join Us

Comments

[sunflower-pixie.livejournal.com]

I feel as though I have a pretty unique view of this topic. I'm an adoptee and about 13 years ago i met my birthmother. We've since become quite close, and I actually live with her right now. I used to really believe that nuture was everything. After all, it was all I'd experienced.

And certainly in a lot of ways I am a product of my environment. All the learned behaviors and conditioned responses that mark much of my personality are the direct results of how I was raised and the environment I was raised in. However, I was always a stranger in a strange land, a part of the landscape, but not of the landscape.

Having met my birthmother, I now see why. We not only look alike, but we share so many of the same personality traits, gestures, views of and ways of dealing with the world that it's almost uncanny sometimes.

So, I'd have to say that I think nature is like the frame of a house, and that nuture is what gives the house a particular look. Nature edges out nurture, but I don't think by a huge margin.

In the case of Harry and Tom, I'd say that they were very similar at their core, but that their experiences and how they were equipped to deal with their experiences were what put them on opposite sites of the good/evil binary.

Staci//Ravenclaw

[silveredaccents.livejournal.com]

I'm a stepmom, and while my son's father is in his life, his mother and I fight daily to combat the inherent laziness and apathy that is there. It's possible, but he will always have tendencies. Sometimes I think that it also depends on how strong certain genetic factors are. We comment regularly about how "weak" his father's genes are (always out of earshot of course), but some things are easier to counter and some aren't.

I completely agree that nature and nurture are very very close in what they can do, and maybe it is the learned behaviors that make the difference. After all, when pressed, Harry's first response is to push everyone away, leaving him exposed, not unlike Tom.

Kimberly / Slytherin

PS I'm glad you have two loving families as it were. ;-)

[ex-http://alight.livejournal.com/839]

The split is almost even between the two. Nature gives you certain genes/traits/abilities, and the environment turns them on/off. I'd say it's 55-45, favoring Nature.

I don't think Harry could have been evil, even if he was raised like Tom Riddle. He could have turned out more like Snape or Draco, because none of them have what nature gave Tom Riddle: the brain structure of a sociopath. Lots of kids grow up in orphanages without turning into kleptomaniacs or killing small animals and terrorizing other kids. His brain was flawed. Growing up in a home where he was showered with affection 24/7 wouldn't have made any difference at all, unless he was adopted almost IMMEDIATELY and was given a chance to form secure attachments with people who would love him. Harry got that opportunity, so he was pretty much safe from the beginning. He had 15 months of love. Tom didn't, and it left its mark on his brain.

Harry, umm ... well, Harry managed to show almost NO signs of the neglect he suffered. He was resilient and strong and basically bounced back from every punch the Dursleys threw, which was in his NATURE. He could have been destroyed by it and become evil, but that's NOT in his nature. Yeah, he could have made the choice to be like that anyway, but it's not his "default setting". It would take effort.

So, really, Dumbledore is only right up to a certain point. Your choices determine who you are, but some options aren't available. You don't get to make some of the choices, or you may make the choice, but your nature won't allow you to carry it out. With a lot of effort and determination, you can overcome nature. But it's not easy. In fact it requires ... a strong-willed, determined nature!

Victoria ✫ Gryffindor

[whitestar.livejournal.com]

I really like your last paragraph. What you said really holds true for instance with say something like smoking (I'm not picking on smokers, just an example ^_^) Maybe there are two smokers and number one finds it easier to give up smoking just by deciding too and doesn't understand why someone else can't because they certainly could. The second smoker's body may be more programmed to addictions and they also may not have as much will-power to give it up. Whereas the one who gave it up has no comprehension how difficult it is for the second smoker to stop because it was so easy for them. That all goes with the body controlling a person's choices even though they may desperately want to do what they believe is best for themselves.

Whitestar//Ravenclaw

[silveredaccents.livejournal.com]

I have a question about your comment here. You talk about nature being more important, and Tom having the brain structure of a sociopath. Then you mention that the first 15 months of Harry's life made him structurally different than tom. Wouldn't that be a case of nurture affecting nature then?

I'm not arguing the brain structure, but rather are you discussing genetic factors or environmental factors in solidifying it?

Kimberly / Slytherin

[whitestar.livejournal.com]

I think probably genetics edge out nurture by just a smidge. I'm basing this on my two nephews. The eldest is extremely intelligent but also very sensitive, anything said to him is taken to heart. Even though he is active around his brother, he can sit and concentrate for long stretches of time whereas his brother is a hurricane. Anything said to the younger child is like water off a duck's back, nothing seems to bother him. So different in temperament but the same environment.

So I think that Harry wouldn't have ended up like Voldy even if raised in an orphanage, maybe he would have grown up more shy but I don't think he'd be a wacko like Voldemort. Like alight said, Tom Riddle had the brain of sociopath. There are kids that don't have, or ever develop, the needed conscience or empathy towards people or animals even when raised with the best of families.

Harry however did seem to be a bit too resilient and not really suffer any damage from his time with the Dursleys. I find it hard to believe that having loving parents for such a short time would make him practically immune to the Dursley's treatment, but it is make-believe after all.

Whitestar//Ravenclaw

[twistedpuppetog.livejournal.com]

It is really hard to determine whether Riddle was born that way or if he became that way over time. From HBP you get the sense that maybe he was born like that because he seemed to take pleasure in hurting others at an early age. Harry had an upbringing that was just as horrific if not worse than Riddle's. In light of the revelations of HBP, then I have to go with Riddle being practically born that way. His entire family was so inbred that they were nothing but brutes and snobs. Even his muggle father was not much different from this model.


Courtney//Hufflepuff

[corky-dork.livejournal.com]

I'm not even going for points with this, I just love to quote Eddie Izzard whenever inbreeding comes up.

"First rule of genetics: spread the genes apart!"

Kelley//Gryffindor

[ex-http://alight.livejournal.com/839]

The tabula rasa theory's been pretty soundly discredited by research. We're never blank slates - not even when we're in the womb.

What science accepts is the middle ground, and what I started my original comment with: we all have certain potential traits, and the environment determines which ones are activated. The difference between Hitler and Tom Riddle is that Hitler didn't torture and kill animals when he was a little kid. Hitler (probably) didn't steal from other kids (sociopaths like to collect trophies). Hitler was a vegetarian who loved animals and hated any form of animal cruelty, and Hitler was capable of love. No one has any idea what the hell went wrong with him, but the environment (lol being rejected from art school) flipped a switch ... and activated his potential for monstrous cruelty. There was something wrong with him, deep down, because he still had the potential to become evil, but, ultimately, he DID make the choice to do what he did. He was a normal person. He wasn't born evil.

Tom Riddle never had a choice; never made a choice. His genes/brain said, "We're going to make you incapable of connecting with other people and feeling remorse or empathy." And that was that. I was actually really annoyed by that, because it violated every single philosophical argument JK Rowling ever made. Suddenly, evil is born, not made. People can't change. Everything is determined by fate. I mean, it was realistic, because there really ARE people who are like that. It was still disappointing.

He was told that wrong meant Slytherin; he chose to go to Gryffindor because he wanted to do the right thing.
Which is part of the reason he belonged in Gryffindor in the first place. He chose "doing the right thing" over "you can be great". He wasn't tempted by promises of greatness. He just wanted to BE GOOD.

BLEH, FORGOT AGAIN: Victoria/Gryffindor

[chewyyyyyy.livejournal.com]

I think everyone is born to be innocent, pure, neutral. It's the environment they lived in and what they experienced throughout their lives that shaped the way they are now.

Take Tom Riddle and Harry Potter as an example, both are orphans, yet both led to different endings in the end. Evil vs Good. Most likely because Tom had never been showered affection before, Harry did, at least for one to two years, with his parents, and i'm sure the Dursleys didnt treated him that bad either, he had a place to call home, at least. Even when he went on to Hogwarts, there's Dumbledore, Hermione and Ron and tons of friends, to guide him along. Unlike him, I think that Tom had never a true taste of friendship before. He led a life of agony, plotted on keeping himself alive, attaining eternity.

If Harry was Tom, there still lies a possibility of turning bad, but in the series, we could see that choices made a part of life too. Tom Riddle made up the choice to be Lord, to be someone everyone feared, whereas Harry Potter, was determined to stay on the right track, to be good, and it began when he made the choice of going into Gryffindor instead of Slytherin.

Thus, I feel that the factors that probably shaped one's nature, are the environment they lived in, what they experienced throughout their lives and their choices and determination

Yiting//Hufflepuff

[miss-un-known.livejournal.com]

Your arguement is about the same as mine, just more elaborated. I loved how you compared Tom and Harry, two persons of seemingly different personalities, but had the same beginnings.

Rebecca//Hufflepuff

[pasta-and-pepsi.livejournal.com]

I disagree, I do not think that Voldemort was born 'evil'. I think that he adopted a set of behaviours that afforded him the attention he so badly craved, and then this grew to him becoming obsessed with power.

This could very easily have become Harry. So why wasn't Harry evil? As much as it might surprise you, I believe that it is because of the Dursleys. The Dursleys fawned over Dudley and allowed Dudley to become a bully; Harry craved to be loved by someone as much as the Durlseys loved their son, so he became increasingly jealous, this jealousy turned into disgust, and this disgust was directed at him being a bully and having little understanding of what was right and wrong; so Harry completely rejected this way of life and chose to become the opposite.

My argument sounds confused, but I hope you can unpick it a bit to know what I'm talking about!

Mindy // Gryffindor

[pretty-liquor.livejournal.com]

This very argument is why I hate the tag 'evil'. If we are given to assume that nature is the truth of it, then Voldemort was born with a set of factors that will determine his life (driving ambition, disregard for friendship, obsession with immortality). If we factor in the insinuated lines of incest going on, then I suppose it all could lead to a brain structure that is approrpriate for someone like Voldemort. So does this negate him of responsibilities in this area? Should he be scorned for an inability to love, anymore than someone with a genetic disorder should be scorned for their illness? I know that it's always said "it's the choices that count" but if Voldemort's brain forces him to behave this way, there is no choice.

On the other hand, if we're blaming his 'evil' on nuture, then the neglect of others is to blame. I find it a little difficult to believe 'lack of nuture breeds evil'. Lack of nuture could breed low self-esteem, but I don't think that Voldemort went on a take-over-the-world spree on account of being sensitive about his being.

I think that people who grow up to do things with society considers to be wrong, either: are disposed to do so, due to the make up of their mind. Or are forced/inclined to do so because of their environment. I mean, people with mental illness kill, and are still branded 'evil'. Equally, a man losing his job and killing his whole family is deemed to have done something 'evil'. It's just a catch all term for things we don't like, and I think it's a rather unfair one.

Sam//Slytherin

[silveredaccents.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, the tags "evil" and "good" are extremes and the gray area is so very wide.

It is said that those who lack the ability to feel guilt (feeling bad when one does something to harm or hurt others) are sociopathic. However, shame is something that can be taught and used to curb sociopathic behavior (shame being feeling bad because what you did will push away the ones you love).

I like how you bring up the mental illness argument as well as how complex this whole argument really is when you're discussing something this grand.

Kimberly / Slytherin

[miss-un-known.livejournal.com]

Tom Riddle definitely grew to be evil. Let's use a random example now, since I'm about to go to sleep.

A tree grows on top of a mountain. The conditions there are harsh, with wild winds and cold temperatures. But the tree stand firmly to the ground, and prospers.

A simlar tree stand on the bottom of the mountain. Conditions here are much more favourable. The tree is weak, and never got to experience "hardships".

Environment is something that affects our thinking and the way we turn out. Tom Riddle, feeling unloved, never understood what love was all about, and then turned evil.

Rebecca//Hufflepuff//Going to sleep.

[valkyrie-lisa.livejournal.com]

I'm going to ignore fictional characters in my argument because an author can make them do anything.

I think nature and nurture play equally important roles. But I think there's a factor that's overlooked: self determination. Let me give you an example.

I know a young woman who has lousy parents. One is schizophrenic and the other has borderline personality disorder. It's not necessarily their fault that they're lousy parents, but they are lousy nonetheless. This young woman was removed from the home when she was very young. She was thrown from one foster home to the next for perhaps a dozen years. In that time, she suffered some horrible treatment including being raped by a foster mother's boyfriend.

That young woman is now a mother and an EMT. She and her fiance have a healthy, loving relationship. She overcame both her nature (some potentially crippling mental problems) and her nurture (being treated as an object for most of her life). I admire her more than anyone I know.

Lisa//Slytherin

[silveredaccents.livejournal.com]

I have to say, I love your bringing that aspect into this. There are people who overcome fantastic odds, and those who have everything they could ever want and never amount to anything. Ambition and drive are certainly factors, but they are an internal nature/nurture thing. Are you a victim or a survivor? I know of no genetic or family component that decides that, and yet, it changes how someone reacts to their circumstances.

Kimberly / Slytherin

*thinks she needs to really think about this debate more! thanks!*

[lady-violaceous.livejournal.com]

I think it's worth emphasising here what valkyrie_lisa said: that Harry Potter and Tom Riddle, fascinating characters as they are, are NOT real and are not necessarily realistic portrayals of children with difficult childhoods. So, to answer the second debate question, I think we need to steer away from the characters for a moment.

I think the ratios of nature vs. nurture are different for every single person, and I don't think it's fair or correct to say that "oh, everyone's a blank slate". Perhaps some people are: perhaps there are people whose nature has had almost no effect on them, due to having largely unremarkable genes. And maybe there are some people who are mostly what they're born with and have managed to shrug off their circumstances, like Harry.

I find the latter less likely, I have to say, and I'm inclined to weigh in more for nurture over nature.

PERSONAL EXAMPLE TIME: There's no history of depression in my family and both of my parents are immensely strong, courageous people. Hell, my parents could BE James and Lily Potter. Yet because of an absolutely ruinous childhood at the hands of my other, emotionally-abusive caregivers (it was quite Harry-esque actually), I suffer badly from depression and anxiety. This is why I always found it difficult to believe that Harry got out of the Dursleys' mistreatment with only a bad temper; it only just stops short of making me a little angry at JK in a rather "I suffered, why doesn't he??" kind of way. XD

I will say this, though: from what we learn of the young Tom Riddle, he sounds remarkably like a sociopath, and sociopathy (correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a psychologist) is almost impossible to overcome: sociopaths don't see WHY they should overcome it. So I'd feel comfortable in saying that yes, Voldy was in a sense born evil.

I do, however, think that Harry could easily have turned out bad, and tbh I find it unrealistic that he was such a good kid from the start, because in my experience the goodness and emotional strength of your parents, if you weren't raised by them, doesn't have an effect to that extent on who you are. Maybe some of the adoptees would like to dispute this? :)

I also think that his choice of Gryffindor over SLytherin was purely because he'd heard Slytherin denounced by Hagrid before, and because he'd already met an extremely unpleasant Slytherin candidate, not because of any innate goodness. :) I can say that aged eleven, I would have chosen Slytherin; hell, I probably would have liked Draco. But I AM a Slytherin, so take that as you like. ;)

Stephanie//Slytherin//holy long comment batman!

[pretty-liquor.livejournal.com]

I agree with you about the character business. If every child who was deprived of love and mistreated turned out to be an evil overlord-wannabe in real life, we'd be swimming in them. There are examples of people in our society who have been horribly abused and neglected, yet have grown to become 'morally decent' people.

And I also agree with you about Slytheirn. Harry chose differently because of the paths he'd heard Slytherin could take him, from people he trusts. I wouldn't have chosen Slytherin in Harry's situation - even if purely because I now had people who cared about me, and didn't want to see me go there.

If Tom Riddle were a sociopath, then the whole thing with Harry seeing doomed-baby-Voldemort who is beyond help, is rather sick.

Sam//Slytherin

[malfoymercy.livejournal.com]

Everyone, everyone starts from a blank slate no matter who they are, how or where they are born, or to which race/family/gender they are born to. It is how one is raised, how they are nurtured that defines and shapes what one will become. However, inherited nature from out parents certainly does contribute to our actions and beliefs as children will most likely grow up watching and learning from those around them...whether that be their parents or the siblings and other relatives.

The same can be said for the second part of the discussion. People are NOT born being who they are. They become who they are through their experiences. For we are shaped by what goes on around us, what we see, hear, smell, and feel. All of these things have both a subtle and brutal effect on us. We can both learn and react to things in a good way and in bad way. This is the nature part of a being. We as human beings are predisposed by our biology to react certain ways.

Ultimately it is a fine line between nature and nurture in which effects one more. It is here that the key experiences one has in their life defines who they will become, what they will believe in, and what they will do.

In the case of Tom Riddle and Harry Potter...the same answer can be applied to both. Tom and Harry were raised in pretty much the same manner...by those adopting him or at a adoption center...without much love and care. Both of them have faced being the one always in the peoples eye, always the leader. They have faced predisposed reactions from others because of who they were born as...thus consequently who them became was effected by this. One only becomes evil if they themselves define themselves as 'evil'. For how can one truly define evil if they haven't been evil or experienced it in their own lives? ...

Becky//Slytherin

[pretty-liquor.livejournal.com]

I'm a little confused by your last point.

One only becomes evil if they themselves define themselves as 'evil'.

Do you mean that you only become evil, if you consciously decide to become so? Or, if your actions are evil, which leads you to becoming evil by definition?

Sam//Slytherin

[saiyako.livejournal.com]

I don't really believe in the "Nature or Nurture" debate in general. We know now that both are important, the real questions are about how each interact, and how far one can negate the other's influence, and how they conflict with and reinforce each other.

I mean - take Harry. There are a LOT of things he got from his parents - his basic temperament seems to have come mostly from Lily, with some of James' recklessness and sense of adventure added in, and we know his talent for flying comes from James. But he also has a crapload of trust/abandonment issues stemming from the fact that he grew up in a cupboard, was neglected, emotionally abused and lied to by his uncle and aunt, and never had any friends until he was eleven. That's given him a massive "I have to stand by myself" attitude, which means he can't trust adults with his problems (except for depressed and unstable Sirius). I'm honestly surprised he didn't turn out a lot more like Voldemort than he did... if he'd grown up in an orphanage, like Tom, I think he'd actually have gotten more care and attention, and come out less of an arse than he is in the books.

Tom, on the other hand, is a sociopath. Which is a copout by JKR, IMO - after playing up all the similarities between Tom and Harry, she then goes, "Oh, Tom was born evil", and it's like - well, what's the point, then? And Harry, after all he went through, and all the reasons he's grown up to hate Muggles, turns out to be their champion? Um, no.

Realistically, Harry should have much more of a dark side, but the trouble is, JK seems to believe Nature trumps Nurture, and so we do have an Inherently Good Harry to put up against Sociopathic Tom, and Percy whose defection doesn't stick, and Sirius who seems to be so Naturally Good that he overcomes both genetics and upbringing to be immediately dissing Slytherin on the train...

In the real world, becoming good or evil is initially set by nurture, I'd say, though - it's about the things you're taught to prioritise, the way those things are presented, the beliefs you're given as "facts"... your inborn temperament can make these things easier or harder to accept, but in the end it's about what you're taught first, and then how you react to that. (Sociopathy and psychopathy are exceptions, of course.) In JKR's world, it appears to be just your inherent nature.


Sai // Ravenclaw

[ex-http://alight.livejournal.com/839]

if he'd grown up in an orphanage, like Tom, I think he'd actually have gotten more care and attention, and come out less of an arse than he is in the books.

Yeah, people seem to forget that Tom grew up in an ORPHANAGE run by a stern old woman, not a CONCENTRATION CAMP. He may not have gotten a lot of attention, and the other kids may have been afraid of him and bullied him, but Harry spent ten years of his life being treated like a roach the Dursleys wished would just crawl into a corner and die. Mrs. Cole didn't refuse to feed Riddle, or lock him in a closet for days on end, or watch indulgently while other kids beat the crap out of him. Even Snape had it worse than Tom. Tom never had a family, but at least he never had to suffer through having a family that hated him. I'm surprised Harry's concepts of family and safety weren't MORE damaged by that. Of course, in children's literature, orphanages are usually dens of absolute evil ... but JKR didn't even write Tom's orphanage like that. Nurture can't completely explain Voldemort, because his environment just wasn't that bad.

And, yeah, Harry definitely should have been more damaged by his childhood. There's a really interesting essay about that in The Psychology of Harry Potter, and it ended with the author predicting that Harry would be doomed to a life of loneliness and restlessness because he wouldn't be able to really trust or stay with someone. He wouldn't be able to, say, get married and have kids because he can't stop himself from trying to push everyone away. That's psychologically sound, but Harry was magically saved from that fate because he needed a happy ending.

Victoria/Gryffindor

[fikuz.livejournal.com]

I think that Nature vs. Nurture debate in general is rather pointless. It's difficult (if not impossible) to distinguish one from another. Yet, evilness adds its own side to this discussion because it answers the question: who is to blame for?

There is a certain appeal in blaming nature; it takes off the responsibility from society’s shoulders, and especially so, if an “evil” person is considered to be faulty: there is nothing wrong with our morals or laws, he is ill, he is just a freak of nature. And of course, it’s easier to think that people like Hitler suffered from personality disorders or were in any other ways mentally unwell (with no regard to if they were actually damaged or not) . Because if we admit that a completely sane and perfectly healthy person can justify murdering thousands and thousands of people, than this becomes a pretty scary world to live in.

However, blaming society can be very convenient, too. There is an episode in "A Bit of Fry and Laurie", where a man kills his in-laws and then tells his wife that he is not the one to blame – the system made him do it. If someone has alcohol-addicted parents, it’s only logical to expect that he will develop some sort of addiction too. But the thing is, logic is not the most reliable source when it comes to human nature. There are a lot of people who were raised by abusive parents or grew up in the orphanage, but somehow managed to stay kind and healthy. And there twice as many people who were loved and cherished by their families, but ended up committing something horrible. Of course, exceptions only prove the rule, but in this case every exception is somebody’s life.

What I am trying to say is that despite Nature and Nurture being equally responsible for person’s behavior, people choose one of them either to blame for their misdeeds or to praise for their virtues. It’s a matter of convenience. Or we can suggest that nothing but random circumstances determine our destiny by allowing us to develop our natural instincts or our up-brought traits. Personally, I like the last one better, chaos is always fun.

As for Tom Riddle, well... Look at it this way: yes, he had a very, very evil heritage, but his nurture wasn’t something to be jealous of either. This is exactly the same way with Sirius: evil, evil family tree and insane unloving mother. But he turned out all right (well, as all right as anyone can possibly be after spending ten years in Azkban). See? Completely random.

Now , Harry. He is not a particularly good person. He is a normal person. He wants to stop (well, kill) Voldemort because he killed his parents, his parent’s best friends, his favorite teacher and pretty much everyone Harry cares about. He doesn’t want to kill the Dark Lord in order to restore some imaginary balance to the world. He doesn’t care that much about muggles. It’s only in the last book when Harry becomes a true, text-book hero. Save the humanity and all that.

If Harry grew up like Tom Riddle would he have become Voldemort?
I don’t think he would, Harry’s life with Dursley’s didn’t contrast too much with Tom’s life in orphanage to make any significant difference. But I think that Dumbledore believed that any family is better than no family at all. Why else would he leave Harry to live with Dursleys?

Maria//Slytherin

[silveredaccents.livejournal.com]

Before I read other comments, allow me to give mine. I think there is a combination of nurture and nature involved. History, not to mention fiction, is full of cases where circumstances helped make the man as it were. Without getting into cosmology too deeply, the debate can be looked at as free will or predestination.

I think had Tom Riddle grown up more like Harry, he may not have done some of the things he had. To separate out Harry's nurture from nature regarding his choices is an almost impossible task. He didn't know about his magical abilities, nor had the wherewithall to control them before the Trace was put on him. He had no chance to become what Tom did.

Certainly, Harry wouldn't have become Voldemort. Voldemort was the culmination of a unique set of circumstances not only in nurture, but also time and space.

Kimberly / Slytherin

[fikuz.livejournal.com]

Voldemort was the culmination of a unique set of circumstances not only in nurture, but also time and space.

You managed to put all my thoughts on the subject in one sentence!

[caketime.livejournal.com]

I think Tom Riddle was born evil, but could've grown up to be nice, except he chose not to. I think that Nature and Nurture both are important to determine the end result "person"; however I also think people have the choice. It's not all nature or nurture, it's not all about what genes one has or where one grew up in, but just the choice of acting out what one wants to act out. Like, if Helga Hufflepuff had grown up in a house filled with sadness I think she would be able to rise and shine and be even more empathic towards people who come from broken homes. That's because she already had a heart of gold. Growing up around sad people would not change this fact.

So Harry and Voldemort were similar, in a way that Voldemort gave a bit of himself to Harry- but in fact, their genes aren't similar at all. Harry came from a family of intelligent, hot-headed people, whereas Voldemort came from a family of close-minded, hot-headed, power-hungry people.
The nurture part is more similar in that they were estranged from their family so I'll disregard the nurture part and focus more on the nature part:
basically Voldie is already more inclined to pick indulging himself and his whimsical fantasies of Killing All due to his genes.
Harry is just normal.

So I come to choice:
I don't think that Harry chose to be good. In my mind, he's actually quite neutral. He chose to be against Voldie, because Voldie made himself an enemy of Harry by killing his parents. It was just convenient that Voldie was a bad guy, so that automatically pushed Harry in the Good Guy camp.
Voldie, on the other hand, chose to be bad, though, because it was easier for him, just like some people find it easier to become alcoholics.

Mia of Ravenclaw
p.s. I've got all the books.

[tigerpetals.livejournal.com]

I think it's a mixture of nature and nurture. There's truth in that genes affect your brain structure, and the way you see the world, and there's also truth in that being taught affects the way you see the world. There's no sharp divide between good and evil though, it's mostly what you're taught to believe is right or wrong at first, and how you react to that.

Gabriela of Ravenclaw

[the-gubette.livejournal.com]

Harry's capacity to love is the amazing force throughout the story. Regardless of his childhood, or maybe even in spite of it, Harry found friends who were loyal to him and he held on to them throughout his life. He always amazed me with his ability not to be bitter about how he grew up. I don't think I could have managed that.

[mrdavismd.livejournal.com]

END OF COMMENTS FOR POINTS