Product of Environment

[konerko14]

I think humans are products of their environment up to a certain age. The age varies, it depends on when the person(usually during childhood) stops accepting everything as being true. To clarify, children accept the first way(or most common) presented to them to be the right way, and reject everything else that goes against that. But that changes when they figure out that they dont always have to believe the first side(or most common) of the argument portrayed to them. This will happen when the person is taught that he has freewill or figures it out himself. Thats why so many atheists accept their familys' religion when they are younger. I read that even Ayn Rand was religious during her childhood years before she finally rejected it.

The compelling evidence I want to bring attention to is about an interesting subject called 'Feral Children.' Specifically I am referring to children who are raised by animals, usually wolves. When these children are found, they often exhibit similar characteristics to the animal(s) that raised them.

A well documented case of two children named Kamala and Amala highlights the reason why I am considering there to be truth to the 'product of your environment' hypothesis. They were raised by wolves, and their behavior when found was very similar to a wolfs, such as: walking on all fours, waking only when the moon rose and howling to be let free, ate only raw meat, and would tear off any clothes put on them.

I think this is right in line with my hypothesis. The children acted like wolves because this was what their environment presented them with. This was the first(and most common) behavior they saw in their life. They did not resemble anything similar to normal human behavior.

To sum up everything here(this is all in referrents to childhood years): if you are raised by wolves you will act like a wolf, if you are raised by religious people you will be religious(unless you figure out freewill really early), if you are raised an Objectivist you will be an Objectivist(and in this case the child does learn freewill and will stop accepting automatically the first way shown to him to be the truth at this point).

A person becomes a product of their environment when they automatically accept the first side(or most common) of all arguments shown to him.

Kamala and Amala: http://www.feralchildren.com/en/showchild.php?ch=kamala

Google 'feral children' for a bunch of results.

[Spano]

I think you're misunderstanding the essence of the "product of your environment" theory, which is the denial of free will. As I understand it, the people who believe we are products of our environment discount the existence or importance of free will, i.e. of choice. In rejecting this theory, Objectivism is rejecting determinism and saying the human beings do in fact possess free will. Of course people will be likely to choose to act like wolves when all they've ever known is wolves. This doesn't mean they don't have free will, or that children don't have free will until they "realize it". Free will is more fundamental than the choice to act like a wolf or act like a human being -- it is the choice to focus on reality or not. Feral children make this choice equally as often as "normal children", i.e. every time they do anything.

[Time_Maker]

Are we a product of our environment? Sure we are, so long as you follow the philosophy called GIGO (Garbage In; Garbage Out). If one allows the philosophy (including what we are) to be dictated by whatever whim we come across, then us, we are a product of our environment.

However, we can choose what we believe in, and what we follow. In history, there are famous people who grew up improvised and who worked their way out of it because of their mind. I present to you Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Bill Clinton, Steve Jobs, Larry Elision, as evidence to this point (as well as myself).

Now, why are all of those people, including myself, not representative of the environment that they grew up in?

[konerko14]

Now, why are all of those people, including myself, not representative of the environment that they grew up in?

Because you and those other guys have accepted a rational morality to guide your actions.

What I cant figure out is why you and those other people have chosen this philosophy and others choose a certain mysticism to believe in instead, even when this rational philosophy has been presented to them too. You could show them the most rational conclusions of an argument and they still wouldnt change their mind whatsoever. And yet some need no convincing at all, it clicks in their brains right away and makes sense to them.

[Spano]

What I cant figure out is why you and those other people have chosen this philosophy and others choose a certain mysticism to believe in instead, even when this rational philosophy has been presented to them too. You could show them the most rational conclusions of an argument and they still wouldnt change their mind whatsoever. And yet some need no convincing at all, it clicks in their brains right away and makes sense to them.

I think one reason for this is that choosing a rational philosophy takes more effort than choosing mysticism. The nature of a rational philosophy is to scrupulously focus on reality and make identifications and integrations, and do this on a constant basis. Mysticism, on the other hand, is inherently easier in the sense that it rejects the need to focus on reality or integrate all of one's observations in a non-contradictory whole.

Why do some people have seemingly no trouble choosing to be rational? I'm not sure, but I'd guess such people are more acutely aware, whether implicitly or explicitly, that being rational is valuable and being irrational is harmful, and they seek the good even though it requires more mental effort.

[Whoisjohngalt]

I think it is based on a choice. Either one chooses to think for himself or to "follow the herd". That is what I have discovered. BTW, my father (whose father was a communist) keeps asking me what "changes in my environment" made me become an Objectivist. I don't know what to tell him.

[KendallJ]

konerko, I'm not sure what import you give the being a "product of your environment".

How do you then explain someone who was raised a Christian (such as myself), and converts to Objectivism?

When you present someone iwth only one option all their lives, they have no way to consider other options. But humans when presented with other options don't necessarily stick with the one they learned. This is part of the volition nature, don't you think?

The wolf can't convert to Christianity, but the children can become human, yes? That is a metaphysical difference don't you think. Technically everything is a product of it's "environment" i.e. of cause and effect. The issue is one of volition.

[Capitalism Forever]

Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, Bill Clinton, Steve Jobs, Larry Elision

I was about to say Bill Clinton was the odd one out, but after I looked more closely, I'm not sure, since I don't know who this Elision guy is.

[Shading Inc.]

Technically everything is a product of it's "environment" i.e. of cause and effect. The issue is one of volition.

You mean you consider yourself part of your environment?

[Maarten]

If a human being has control over the type of environment they are in then there is a large element of volition involved just because of that. That most people never think of changing their environment in radical ways (when that would be better for them) doesn't in any way make this less true, I think. The people you choose to surround yourself with, and for example the country or region you choose to live in does impact your available choices significantly, but in most cases you have direct control over these parameters.

[Shading Inc.]

If a human being has control over the type of environment they are in then there is a large element of volition involved just because of that.

That depends on what you take 'to have control over something' to mean.

I might say my computer's processor has control over what I see on my monitor, yet I wouldn't want to call my computer's processor volitional.

You'll probably want to object that my computer's processor doesn't control what I see on my monitor, but rather that it is merely one of the many factors determining what I see on my monitor. It doesn't have control, you'll want to object, because it doesn't have a choice but to do what is its fuction. It obeys it's nature.

The question then, is whether man is in control of his environment, or whether he is just following his nature too.