Jump right on in here! Don't be shy!
> but it seems fairly reasonable to assume that much
>human behavior is "learned." however, the whole "nature vs. nurture"
issue
>appears to oversimplify things.
It definitely does, but being precise here will generate hundred-page
posts.
>i think it is may be more productive to
>look at animal behavior (including human) as an interaction between
genetic
>hard-wiring, genetic "soft-wiring" (i.e., the genes allow for certain
>events to occur within preset limits, but don't rigidly prescribe these
>activities), and environmental inputs (i.e., "learning"). following this
>view (or a modification, thereof), it is still possible to conceptualize
>individual deviant behavior as a result of circumstances, extreme or
>otherwise. this is obviously a deterministic position, which may not be
>acceptable to some people, but i think that it can have some utility.
>thanks for your time.<
Uhh...that was a mouthful. Did I get it right, as in:
1) Genetic hard-wiring - you will have some 206 bones in set shape/order,
like it or not;
2) Genetic soft-wiring - you will go through puberty, although it may
last anywhere from six to sixty years, and start as early as 8 or so and
as late as 20;
3) Learning - all human culture and customs, collectively "civilization"