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

[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

[lady-violaceous.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree: in Harry's situation, I wouldn't have gone for Slytherin. Having been derpived of love for that long and then meeting Hagrid, who knew his parents and actually cared about him, who was his only source of info about the wizarding world, he was of course going to abide by what Hagrid said and I can't say I'd have done differently. But me aged eleven, in the situation I was in then... if I'd known anything about the houses I would have chosen Slytherin.

And... I never really thought of doomed-baby-Voldemort in the context of sociopath!Tom. Mind you, sociopathy is a product of both nature and nurture, and most scientists seem to believe that the nature is necessary, the capacity to become a sociopath; nature is what activates it. So maybe the baby-Voldy is what's left of the Tom who could have been raised by a loving family and given the individual care and attention needed to turn him from his path. Which is... really creepy AND sad.

Stephanie//Slytherin

[fizz-buzz.livejournal.com]

SAFE SPACE #21

De-code the password to enter the safe space: DQLTKJKWKDXW

[silveredaccents.livejournal.com]

But if we define Tom as a sociopath and argue that sociopathy is almost impossible to overcome (due to a lack of interest in overcoming it) then we need to define what makes a sociopath.

If it is merely lack of innate guilt, then there are a great many, myself included, who would be considered sociopaths. If it is a lack of internal morality (i.e. amoral people) then again, many people who are not sociopaths would qualify. It is the choice to act on those impulses and thoughts. There has to be more, in which case we go back to nurture being a large part.

Incidentally, I completely agree with your comment regarding why Harry chose Slytherin. He was also told that Slytherins killed his parents, a very compelling reason not to join said house.

Kimberly / Slytherin

[lady-violaceous.livejournal.com]

I believe though that sociopathy is also defined by an inability to feel any kind of sympathy for any other being. There may be many people with no morals or lacking guilt, but to have these traits and also completely lack any sympathy for any other being would make a sociopath. Sociopaths are the kind of people who can watch a kitten being tortured because hey, it's not happening to them. They have trouble seeing other people as people like them.

Sounds like Voldy to me. :)

Sociopathy is believed by researchers to be a combination of nature and nurture, but afaik the nature has to be present. Could be wrong, not a psychologist.

Stephanie//Slytherin

[silveredaccents.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm not arguing the presence of the nature, but it requires both, I believe, and so yes, I think very rarely are you presented with the combination so clearly.

What I'm not clear on is this, and it's not your point, it's JKR's, I also thought (though I could be wrong) that sociopaths don't feel any form of empathy and are completely unable to connect with anyone around them. This includes feeling hatred toward someone, which Voldy is completely able to do.

And yes, psychology isn't my forte either. But ethics and morality fascinate me.

Kimberly / Slytherin

[lady-violaceous.livejournal.com]

See, when I consider Voldy's anger and hate it's more of a personal frustration that he's been thwarted, and sociopaths are extremely prone to frustration with society, with "unfair" things they believe have happened to them. It's not a personal anger: he doesn't hate Harry because of who Harry is as a person, he hates Harry because of who Harry-the-object is: the baby that thwarted him and caused his downfall. He hates Harry because Harry messed his shit up, basically: Harry could be Neville or Draco or anyone, really.

Stephanie//Slytherin

[pretty-liquor.livejournal.com]

Well, not being able to feel empathy is featured in more than sociopathy (which is now normally described as an anti-social disorder). It's also a feature of Autism. My brother, for example, finds expressions of pain quite amusing. Not because he's sadistic, but because he understands it only as a reaction, not as the same situation would feel to him. There's no filter there of 'oh, I won't laugh, because I would be offended if someone laughed if I had just put my hand on a hot pan'. Just thought I'd throw that in there.

I don't think you can hate someone if you can't feel anything but indifference about them. I agree with Stephanie. People who don't feel empathy don't really care who's in their way, it's the problem that they care about.

Sociopathy is basically a collection of traits that lead towards you being regarded a poor member of society. Poor behavioural/impulse control, severely blunted emotion, not acknowledging the existence of consequences (or the ability to switch this on and off).

I still have in my head your comment earlier, about using shame to correct someone's behaviour. In fact, the whole idea of having a mental disorder which equates to you opting out of society and gets you branded 'evil' scares me a bit. And now I feel we ought to have a debate about whether evil is about choice or is inherent xD Or exists.

I wonder if anyone could have made Voldemort feel shame. I don't reckon so personally. I think JK built him too determined to his purpose.

Sam//Slytherin

[mrdavismd.livejournal.com]

END OF COMMENTS FOR POINTS