Comments | usedlaserbeam: 010 | Goldenrod City

usedlaserbeam

010 | Goldenrod City | Text

Oct 23, 2011 20:55

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 ( Read more... )

mad pokemon breeding science, always glorious always victorious, shut up hannibal no one cares, charming disarming and quite alarming, trying to catch me writing nerdy, let's get philosophical, there's an ulterior motive actually, i am fifteen and what is this, no really i'm the responsible one, ▶ goldenrod city, evolution revolution, oh look he found a psychology textbook, that boy is threat level red, my pokeymans let me show you them

Comments 237

usedmapquest October 24 2011, 02:45:05 UTC

I believe that environment is a large factor in a person's upbringing, especially in situations to the person's detriment, by which I mean that negative events in a person's upbringing weigh heavily on their overall nature, more so than I believe the nature holds up against it.

However I have no idea how that applies to Pokémon.

usedlaserbeam October 24 2011, 03:26:18 UTC

But not so strongly in situations to the person's benefit? I think I agree with you - punishment generally seems to be a stronger, faster method of shaping a person's behavior than reward.

And perhaps it would follow, then, that Pokemon raised to fear their trainer will show dramatically different personalities than those raised to love the one commanding them.

usedmapquest October 24 2011, 03:29:45 UTC

Unfortunately, although irrelevantly to this discussion, I have not been in a situation to observe kindness and nurturing in childrearing, and cannot speak as to their effects. However, despite the 'strength' of a harsh upbringing and the effects thereof, I do not believe it to entirely overwrite one's base personality, kindness… and suchlike! While the personality would be different, I do not believe that one raised in a cruel manner then becomes cruel!

usedlaserbeam October 24 2011, 03:43:04 UTC

...I beg your pardon - you've NEVER observed kindness and nurturing in childrearing?

Thread 33

[text] loseyoursenses October 24 2011, 04:50:18 UTC

I, personally, have always considered battling to be somewhat barbaric. Necessary, maybe, and many of the Pokemon enjoy it - but nevertheless barbaric. They are thinking beings after all.

My personal concern is how much of that desire to fight is natural, and how much is instilled from the training we all do.

[text] usedlaserbeam October 24 2011, 04:58:48 UTC

Purely for the sake of argument, Yukimura-kun, would your opinion on it change if the Pokemon perceived it as a healthy competition, rather than as a battle?

You do raise an interesting point, though. At least one member of my roster, for example, seems more interested in pursuing romantic relations with her fellow Pokemon, as opposed to adversarial ones.

[text] loseyoursenses October 25 2011, 08:04:38 UTC

Yes, I think it would. Unfortunately, few of the Pokemon are capable of communicating with us, so it's impossible to be sure.

I've bowed to necessity, of course, and I train mine as well as I can. But if any of them seemed opposed to battling, I wouldn't force them into it.

[text] usedlaserbeam October 25 2011, 20:10:43 UTC

...That's something worth considering, that with the way this world seems to work, raising a team of creatures IS a necessity. Particularly when, as far as we know, no one takes their team with them when they leave.

What happens, then, to all those skilled, trained, high-level creatures left without a master? Some are adopted by others, of course, but it still seems there ought to be a surplus of dangerously strong Pokemon around - and as far as I can tell, there isn't.

Thread 23

[text] backinthehole October 24 2011, 06:35:15 UTC

I've wondered about that question a fair bit myself--whether it's really right to make our Pokemon battle each other. The answer tends to be that they want to, that they enjoy it, and that certainly does seem to be the case from what I've seen, but it still doesn't always sit right with me. If they truly want to battle for us, why do we have to hunt and capture them first?

[text] usedlaserbeam October 24 2011, 16:49:35 UTC

I think that's an excellent question, and one worthy of asking. Purely for the sake of discussion, though, are you familiar with the concept of Stockholm Syndrome?

[text] backinthehole October 24 2011, 20:06:11 UTC

Ah--not really, I'm afraid.

[text] usedlaserbeam October 24 2011, 20:19:54 UTC

To put it simply, it's a phenomenon that occurs when hostages begin to sympathize with their captors, and often become emotionally attached to them. I'm not sure if it's worth applying to what we're encouraged to do with Pokemon here, but it's an interesting parallel to consider.

Thread 11

shellderkillder October 24 2011, 06:56:02 UTC

Neither nature nor nurture can stand alone. Even in Pokémon, this must be true.

usedlaserbeam October 24 2011, 16:51:20 UTC

Do you think that one controls more strongly than the other, though?

shellderkillder October 24 2011, 20:21:59 UTC

Nurture, perhaps.

usedlaserbeam October 24 2011, 20:33:04 UTC

I think most people would agree with you. Your nature might make you more predisposed toward a certain course of action than another person would be, but ultimately it's the environment that shapes whether or not you take it.

Thread 13

Text. hasearthbooks October 24 2011, 18:31:27 UTC

As a researcher in the field of genetics, I must sincerely thank you for this abundance of input that you provide ( ... )

Text. usedlaserbeam October 24 2011, 20:25:37 UTC

Ah, I'm far from an expert in the matter, so it might be wise to take my input with a grain of salt; I'm certainly not qualified to speak with the authority of a researcher, and particularly not one in your field of study. If anything, I should be the one grateful to you.

If you don't mind the inquiry, I'd be interested to hear more about your 'product of stories' model of the issue. Does that imply that individuals are ultimately just players in a greater predetermined scheme?

hasearthbooks October 24 2011, 21:39:55 UTC

Ah, no. Mine was far from being a metaphysical consideration (though now, of course, I have to ask you - is that what *you* think?). As a matter of fact, it's a very practical one. You see, stories have exactly the degree of depth and detail that is adequate to their purpose. The exact same story can be told in a simplified version that can fit into a single page if all the author wants is to convey a resume of it; or it could take up entire volumes if the author pursues a broader purpose.

Similarly, if our task is as ambitious as analyzing life in all of its complexity, then there is a whole multitude, if not an infinity of factors that become relevant and should be taken into consideration.

usedlaserbeam October 24 2011, 21:57:28 UTC

That's a remarkably innovative way of looking at the problem - one I admit I hadn't heard before. And to answer your question, I'm not fond of the idea that I'm not in control of my own actions and destiny, so predestination isn't a theory I generally subscribe to.

Predisposition, on the other hand, might be something of a murkier consideration.

Thread 10