010 | Goldenrod City | Text

[usedlaserbeam]

When posed the question, "which contributes more to personality - nature or nurture?", a psychologist once replied, "which contributes more to the area of a rectangle - its length or its width?" The simplistic answer, therefore, is that neither one contributes more to a creature's personality; rather, that it's some interdependent combination of

Comments

[explosivecombat]

You flatter me - you managed to bring up an interesting point, I merely expanded on it. However, you can consider the sentiment returned.

The debate of why we are the way we are is neverending, of course; if one really felt like being pedantic, one could question why any given sociopath chooses to follow societal norms in the first place, in contrast to those that simply don't care and act on impulse - why bother choosing to make moral decisions based on society's standards to begin with? Is it a natural inclination toward rationality, perhaps? Or was it something in the person's upbringing? We can debate this all day.

But at the end of the day, you have a person who made a decision that is, for all intents and purposes, a moral decision. To answer your question, that's exactly what I'm saying: what matters is whom we are, which is dictated by what we do. I find that the question of why is best reserved for study or personal curiosity - not that those aren't valid reasons for inquiry, as I'm no stranger to personal curiosity about others myself.

[usedlaserbeam]

Doesn't that present something of a circular argument, though? Who we are is dictated by what we do, but what we do must stem from some motivation - which, you could argue, is the why in question. But I think I see where you're coming from; it's the same logic by which one might say 'the ends justify the means', isn't it?

[explosivecombat]

Yes, that's exactly it.

[usedlaserbeam]

And that's a theory you subscribe to?

[explosivecombat]

One of many.

But yes.

[usedlaserbeam]

I'd imagine it's one that could be difficult to maintain, without the occasional exception.

[explosivecombat]

And what makes you say that, if I may?

[usedlaserbeam]

People tend to be notoriously good at finding hypothetical exceptions to universal rules. Without acknowledging that there might occasionally be cause for exception, making a statement like that is asking for someone to try to make you admit you're wrong.

[explosivecombat]

Oh, I'm well aware. Am I to assume that you have such a hypothetical exception in mind, or are you simply making an observation?

[usedlaserbeam]

After such a thought-provoking discussion on morality? It's only an observation. Particularly since most hypothetical exceptions tend to be appeals on moral grounds.

[explosivecombat]

Precisely why I subscribe to the theory I've brought to you, you realize.

Although as irrelevant as discussing the motivations behind one's actions tends to be, that doesn't mean that I'm never curious - for basic curiosity's sake, then, might I ask what prompted you to post this line of thought (and the entire nature vs. nurture topic) to begin with?

[usedlaserbeam]

And likewise why I thought I'd save us both some time and refrain from that sort of appeal in the first place.

Ah, it's something I've been considering for some time now. I was placed in the role of a breeder upon my arrival here in Johto, and when presented with the opportunity to experiment with different techniques in practice, why not take it?

[explosivecombat]

Ah, why not indeed - hopefully the results of said experiments will prove worthwhile for you.

[usedlaserbeam]

I'm afraid I'm no scientist, so I can hardly speak to the validity of my inquiries. But it's an interesting way of passing the time, nonetheless.

[explosivecombat]

I'd be interested to hear if anything comes of it.

[usedlaserbeam]

I don't mind obliging you in that, if you'll do me the courtesy of introducing yourself. In my enthusiasm for our discussion, I forgot to ask your name.