Nature Nurture Puns

Killua war nurtured to be a cold blooded killer but in his core - his nature - he was a good, friendly/ sociable person.

Gon, on the other hand, was raised to be good, friendly and kind - but he was naturally selfish and only wanted to things which benefitted himslef or those close to him. If Gon were in Killua's position, I fully believed he would have become Zoldyck heir that Killua's family wanted him to be. Whereas, if Killua was raised by Mito, I think he would have grown up to be just a regular kid .

I've been thinking about who has pit bulls and why, and I think I've narrowed it down to two main types, and a third less common type. 1. People drawn to the dangerous reputation of pit bulls, 2. People who see themselves as saviors of a 'stigmatized' breed, and 3. The naive/uninformed novice owner.

Men who are drawn to the pit bull for its dangerous reputation are generally full of machismo and see their dangerous dog as an extension of their masculinity (note how many of them are insistent that their dog stay intact). Cutting off his dog's balls would emasculate both him and the dog. Women drawn to the pit bull for its dangerous reputation seem more likely to see the dog as something that can keep her safe, acting as a deterrent or guard dog, or they're the girlfriend of Mr. Macho and are drawn to the 'tough guy/tough dog' package.

Then we have the savior type. Regardless of gender, these folks typically love dogs or animals in general (but it may a very toxic kind of love). Because of their interest in dogs or animals in general, they are more likely to encounter pit bull propaganda. It's basically impossible to avoid pit bull propaganda if you look at any animal related media. This propaganda emotionally manipulates them into adopting a pit bull, and feel like they have to protect them from the breed stigma as well as rehabilitate the poor dog in a 'loving' home.

Both of these types are often shitty owners that exacerbate the inherent danger of the breed. The first type for obvious reasons, as they will often encourage the dog to be aggressive. The savior type is often shitty because they are routinely in denial about warning signs from their dog, cover up their dog's aggressive behavior, make excuses for the dog's aggression, and will almost never opt for behavioral euthanasia because it makes them feel like they've failed to save this dog with their love. This permissiveness, blame-shifting, and denial allows the dog to escalate and/or become a repeat offender.

Ironically, the first type is often the producer of pit bulls for the second type. The first type is the one who typically refuses to spay or neuter their pits, who engages in dog fighting and backyard breeding, and who ultimately have their dogs seized or they dump the unwanted dogs because pit bulls have huge litters and not enough people actually want them. These dogs then go to the shelter, get sterilized, have a sob story written up for them designed to pull in the savior type, and th

I see everywhere people irritated with the Dina reveal in 139 that Eren spared Bertoldt's life and therefore interfered with events that led Carla to be eaten by Dina. While I don't begrudge anyone their different opinions (you certainly don't have to like it or think it was executed well), it serves a very explicit story purpose.

Ultimately, the Dina twist was to highlight Eren's main motivations for the Rumbling and the core of his character, which sharply contrasts from other major characters.

Why the Rumbling?

The twist was foreshadowed, but foreshadowing doesn't really mean it has a point. However, the Dina twist has an explicit and crucial purpose in the text. That's not to say it's well-executed or anything, but I can see the necessity of including it in 139 given what Isayama was trying to say about Eren.

In 139, the conversation with Armin is used to tie up loose ends to clarify Eren's POV, why he did the actions we had seen characters speculate about but not know everything going on is Eren's head. While we had gotten a lot from Eren already in chapters like 130 and 131, we didn't know how everything fit together.

By that, I mean that Eren had many motivations and supposed reasonings, but we didn't know what exactly was driving him.

Major Suggested Reasonings for the Rumbling:

1. To protect Paradis
2. For his friends, to make them heroes with long lives
3. Ending the titan curse
4. Freedom from walls (the dream of the ocean and the full world blocked by walls), aka the practical version of the "freedom" Eren seeks rather than an ideal of no limitations
5. Carla's death/his trauma

All of these are things Eren considers and to some degree cared about. None of these are the explicit reason why he did the Rumbling.

#1 To Protect Paradis

We had already learned in many ways that this wasn't/couldn't be Eren's main motivation. We know this going into 139 because, among other reasons:

• Enacting the Rumbling on the scale he did had killed many in Paradis, something Isayama draws attention to because it splits civilian POV on Eren's actions

https://preview.redd.it/hpl1gn2o5e481.png?width=1066&format=png&auto=webp&s=2cd338828af3d9bd6c016da2361c9acddf01a28c

• Many Paradis people are titanized and then killed or killed by the titans and Eren, who is using the Founder's power, doesn't do anything about this- something explicitly called out

https://preview.redd.it/5du7zaxv5e481.png?width=1066&format=png&a

Our baby is an absolute angel. First child so I don't have much to compare against and have limited experience. However, it was clear from day 1 how shitty a caretaker my MIL is. She's panicky, dumb, overreactive, and considers herself the boss of the world.

How does this manifest into her role as a grandmother? Most common example is the baby is crying and I'm trying to figure out why. Hungry? Sleepy? Bored? Overstimulated? I have a pretty systematic process to figure out what's going on and I think I've been pretty successful despite being a first time dad.

If my MIL is nearby though? The second the baby makes a sound she swoops in and goes OH NO SORRY SORRY SORRY ITS OK BABY!! SORRY SORRY SORRY!!!!! And picks her up and aggressively rocks her until the baby stops crying.

It's the parents job to help the baby learn to calm itself. Dumbfuck MIL sees it as her job to get the baby to stop crying ASAP.

I tried explaining this to my wife but her attitude is how dare you criticize my MIL! So I shut up for months.

Now? The baby is 1 years old. She's an angel around me, my wife, and my mom. However, as soon as she sees my MIL (who thank the merciful heavens lives in another city), she will start crying like crazy until my MIL picks her up. If my MIL tries to put her down or hand her off, she'll start crying like crazy. Well done you stupid fucking pile of horseshit, you've conditioned her into become panicky and needy every time she's around you.

Now I'm not saying that if you have a baby like this, you're not a good parent. I know kids that were born with more difficult temperaments (my nephew is one). Some kids will develop very strong attachments to their mom, or to their primary caregiver.

My MIL has no excuse though. My mom is the primary caregiver. She sees my MIL much less. However, because of my MIL's panicky overreactive method to caretaking from early on in my baby's life, she becomes super difficult every time my MIL visits and stays that was for a few days after my MIL leaves.

I really fear the day her behavior becomes permanent.

This is by far the least offensive thing my MIL does. See previous threads for more. Fuck my stupid ignorant cunt of a MIL.

don’t follow dust bunnies down the rabbit hole

or you may find a lazy lizard waiting under the full moon

and a greener grass

you may find a four-leaf clover

or an amused ant

who just learned not to stare straight into the sun

you may find an empty snail shell

or in the deep end, a finicky fish

who sings the best whale songs

you may find a lime green inchworm

who will insist he’s a rattlesnake

if you call his bluff, he might just give you some silk string.

Now, this may seem an odd question, but as a psychology student it's been on my mind since I started rewatching rwby vol 4 about a month ago.

In the attack of the centaur grimm on their home town, Ren grabs Nora and his semblance seemingly awakens, hiding the pair's emotions from the grimm around them, and Nora describes hers activating when she was hit by lightning. But then there's semblances that are hereditary e.g Shnee glyphs.

So, what do you guys think about this?

We've all heard it before: "It's about how they were raised, not about genetics." This argument is thrown around whenever anyone suggests that pitbulls have a genetic predisposition towards attacking.

However, have you ever noticed that dog nutters are willing to make exceptions for that argument when it comes to other breeds? For example, take the border collie. It's well understood that border collies are herder dogs. They have lots of energy, and they need lots of space to run around. They naturally exhibit herding behavior, too, like nipping at the heels of other mammals. It's almost as if herding is baked into their collective memory. When border collies exhibit this sort of behavior, we all just say "yeah, that's what border collies do." Nobody jumps in and says "actually, it's about the way they were raised, not about their genetics."

So, why the double standard? Why is it that people are willing to admit that herding is a genetic predisposition for border collies, but not that attacking is a genetic predisposition for pitbulls? Attacking is a part of what makes a pitbull a pitbull. It's in the name of the breed, it's baked into their collective memory. It's literally why we bred them in the first place: to attack.

For a while, I was hesitant to say anything about pitbulls, specifically. I think every dog is capable of attacking and, while I still believe that's true, I fully believe at this point that there is no breed of dog out there more deserving of the title "attack dog" than the pitbull.

Was Bell BORN a Hero or are Zeus' teachings the reason he remains pure-hearted?

Since, after death and before reincarnation, every soul is cleansed of the darkness and color it has amassed while the person was alive, thus turning them pure, is the environment the individual was raised in responsible for how they turn out?

My parents were, well, not the best parents. My brothers are both on opposite ends of the autism spectrum, and secretly I’ve always thought I might have Aspergers even though my parents have never had me tested since they thought only boys could have autism. I do have sever social anxiety, selective mutism, oral/verbal apraxia, and have difficulties understanding social cues and knowing what to say. I find myself wondering if maybe I have Autism too, or if I am just the way I am because of my upbringing, or if it is purely genetics. My sister also has anxiety but not quite the same as me, and she thrives socially.

Hello Fellow Naruto enthusiast.

I was wondering if any of you could help me finding a type of fic.

Ok here it goes.

I am looking for a fic where Events keep tackling Naruto and how it changed him.

Not where Naruto for some reason is born and able to control chakra at a high level, read books in the library learn jutsu with no risk like Chakra failure leading to injury pernament or life changing, or just a sudden 180 in his personality that had lottle to no build up then a simple ‘he was born like this aight’

Just some realism you know.

Eg. Naruto deciding if the Will of the Fire is enough, if it’s really worth it all, from the abuse to the neglect. Questioning himself and when he finally comes up with a response that doesn’t aline with the Will of the fire, the current Hokage stops him, something simple like not wanting to be a ninja or wanting to move away, doesn’t align with the hidden village and their need to have a strong biju container.

Basically Naruto changing because of events placed by the author not writing down that Naruto was born really smart and observant. A chaotic Slow burn if you will.

Flip a coin Fic did it really well, just simply being able to smell the anbu lead to a distrust which lead to the final turning point after a series of other events.

As someone who was been into studying true crime for awhile- and since this is a community of similar people- I was wondering what others thought about this. In many true crime cases it seems like many murderers are raised in abusive households and then many are raised in average everyday homes. As a speculative person myself I doubt those who are parents or family of the criminals who claim they were perfectly normal growing up, especially when it comes to serial killers and school shooters. How could a monster just manifest out of nowhere? True crime side of Reddit, what do you think? And if there are any cases that lean towards the nature side of the debate, please share, I’d love to see both sides of this argument.

the nature part of the nature-nurture debate and the individual part of the individual-situational debate seems to be the same.

nurture and situational also seem similar, but I can distinguish that nurture can include your entirety of experiences up until said moment, when situational just seems to consider one particular event that is taking place.

I'm trying to understand the difference between these two debates, can someone explain? Or are they supposed to be the same thing?

I'm doing a 5000 word essay on whether ASPD is due to nature or nurture and wanted insight on what you guys think. As someone who doesn't have ASPD I wanted a chance for those diagnosed to give their opinion on what they think is the root cause. I've done some research and personally believe its both. Opinions and descriptions on childhood and reasoning would be very appreciated :)

Morbid is my favorite true crime podcast. I love the banter and how they cover cases but I have had it with hearing “nature versus nurture.” I feel like they try to speak too much to the psychology of these individuals, which is a slippery slope when you aren’t a mental health professional. Also can Ash please just do some research on astrology. Other people seemingly get upset about pronunciation but it’s the “oh middle of March is that a Leo” for me. And I want to personally inform them that the effects of Mercury retrograde are very noticeable the week before and after. Just need to clear that up.

Hubris? Mental illness?

Do you feel your position on the matter is natural or do you feel influenced by your surroundings/upbringing somehow?

We’re in our mid-30’s now but 95% of the individuals in my adolescent social groups are also childfree. This is leading me down this thought path of whether we all influenced one another in someway, somehow towards the benefits of childfree life or if by some stroke of luck a bunch of natural CF friends happened to grow-up together same place at the same time.

Disclaimer I feel is necessary: I’m not so much a hater of children as much as I am of the kind of bad parenting that creates bad children. I resolved to be childfree after learning I was infertile, and didn’t want to adopt and subject a child to my own psychoemotional issues stemming from my own bad parents.

I hang around with a lot of South Asian people, mostly Bangladeshi, and it was my privilege to spend a season in Bangladesh a couple years ago.

I stayed with the kind of typical joint family common to that part of the world. There was my guardian and his parents, two brothers and their wives, and another sister in law whose husband works abroad. One of the couples has two young kids, the youngest of whom was 7 at the time. I’ll admit I was nervous AF at the thought of being with a young child in close proximity for an extended period.

I was very much in the wrong though, because this was the most well behaved kid I’ve met in my life before or since. And indeed, there was not a spoiled, entitled brat to be found in all my tour of the country, that I could see. They actually obeyed their parents, and the parents actually disciplined their kids.

Part of the reason I had trouble adjusting to being back in the States was that I came home to loud, arrogant little monsters in every shop and public bus I entered, and the parents not only seemed to tolerate it but encourage it with a “discipline will stunt his creative and emotional growth” attitude.

So my sincere question is, are children obnoxious by nature, or by indulgent and negligent parenting?

The empire, genetically identical but behave so differently throughout the ages, is this Asimov's jab at nature vs nurture? Genetic vs Environment?

Nature bonk Nurture and becomes one and the same?

I have been thinking about my own experience with social anxiety. Both of my parents seem to have some level of social anxiety, and other mental health concerns that impact social interactions. Growing up I think I was influence by the family tendency to not be super outgoing, and being more reserved in feelings. My best friend from childhood on the other hand had a very outgoing talkative family and is much more outgoing and social than I am. I think it raises an interesting question in looking at the beginnings/ causes of some peoples personal social anxiety.

I am very lucky to have generally amazing parents and know the worked to not let their own issues impact my childhood and would not change anything, but I do question if my social anxiety could be impacted by the nature of my family.

Sorry for my bad English in advance.

I can’t stop thinking about how INFPs are INFPs because they had a very easy life growing up. Yes, I had a very easy life but that doesn’t mean it’s easy now and it won’t be worse.

My mom didn’t work before, she was always home. That’s why I am really clumsy and have zero experience in everything. My mom said when I was really little I used to play alone a lot while she was working (she had a job back then). I never never in my life had to go outside and play with others, though my mom always told me I should. Those are the reasons why I’m constantly daydreaming, and daydreaming even when I’m outside, not being aware of my surroundings. I have a strong feeling my high school classmates thought I was spoiled and they were jealous because of my easy life back then. Because of my INFP nature I always used to be treated like an idiot, or how else I can say that. Teacher was very harsh at me. But later my mom told me that maybe my teacher actually wanted good for me but she didn’t know how to behave because she didn’t have kids. My parents also often made me fell like an idiot. My mom always always compared me with others like: “look how she behaves she is much more energetic much quicker, you have to be quick you have to be lively blah blah”. Maybe that’s why I’m often criticizing myself and thinking I act dumb. I have accepted myself as I am pretty much, but still.

Only after high school I was able to realize how my classmates were actually nice, but they all wanted to fit in so that’s why they behaved certain way towards me, aside from the fact that they were probably a little jealous as I mentioned before. Two years had passed and I still think about how I could’ve done something differently. How I could’ve been a little more stubborn to fit in, or I should’ve looked for help from anyone (a professor or someone). My mom told me I shouldn’t talk to professor because what if someone finds out it would be a shame. So I didn’t do it as much as needed. I’m so mad at how some people just don’t understand how socializing and being not shy isn’t as easy as for them, because it is painful not only before we say something but also after we say that and even after some time. Yes, I went from talking about nature vs nurture to something else but I have to say this. I’m really mad at how my classmates were jealous instead of just helping me be more comfortable with them. Yes I am clumsy and stuff and I don’t know how to d

I've read in this sub that People are born with their MBTI type. If that's the case how does it work? Did the people with the rarer types just get said type out of luck or is there something that contributes to what type someone is born?

if not, then what does shape someone's mbti type?

View Poll

Let's say, Joe was raised by his mum and he didn't have a terrible past and Love didn't have such toxic parents, do you think they'd still end up doing the things they did?

Is it nature or nurture?