"Ed Pawlowski" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 15:28:11 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
nestork wrote:

ChloeP;3005525 Wrote:
They need to take responsibility for the kids upbringing, that's the
thing that affects whether or not they turn into a killer when they're
older.

I've got to disagree on that.

I'm a skeptic on the whole Nature vs. Nurture debate. A dog born to two
chihuahuas is going to grow up to be another chihuahua, not a great dane
no matter how much it's nurtured during it's formative years.

But that is what it looks like, not how it acts. Whole different ball
of behavioral wax.


What is your experience that leads you to your conclusion?

As a parent of two adopted children (now in their 40's) and having
friends with both adopted and natural children, nature is a much
stronger force in the end result than nurture.

My wife and I have certainly had some influence, but they still follow
many of the traits of their natural parents that they did not know
when growing up. Even my son's occupation that is very strong in his
birth family.

Nature has more to do with skill sets but much less with social skills. Our
extended family is foresters to adopt and we've been down both paths with
50+ foster grand kids over the years.

Most telling are the kids that come to the family with bad a**ed attitudes
and leave as functional individuals headed for a decent adulthood.