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

[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

[mrdavismd.livejournal.com]

END OF COMMENTS FOR POINTS