can someone please edit this reflection?

[tofu]

i was reading over my reflection

any problems with this sentence??..does it sound confusing?

Nature limits nurture, in that nurture can never go beyond the potential that nature provides for nurture

[Tdol]

It sounds OK to me.

[RonBee]

how can i reword this setence then??

If we naturally are hyperactive, and are subjected to

situations that illicit hyperactivity we will of course become hyperactive

First, let me mention that the word should be elicit. When you elicit something you bring it out. Something that is illicit is illegal.

As for the sentence in question, I am not sure what you are trying to say. A person who is hyperactive is overactive. That's what hyperactive means: overactive. Perhaps there are certain things that can cause a person who is naturally hyperactive to become more hyperactive than usual. (Drinking too much coffee, perhaps?) The sentence in question seems to be saying that hyperactivity causes hyperactivity. I would drop it like a hot potato.

:)

[RonBee]

The theory that behavior is based on nuture is a wrong assumption and is in fact an example of a post hoc fallacy. A post hoc fallacy is the assumption that the first event is the cause of the second event.


That explains what a post hoc fallacy is, but it doesn't explain why the "nurture" theory is a post hoc fallacy. It also doesn't explain why the genetics theory is not a post hoc fallacy.

can i write

The rationalizations for behavior based on nurture are after-the-fact justifications. Our inner eye responds in different ways to different environments, but no two people respond the same way in the same situation, due to the distribution of traits across society. We only retain or seek out experiences (nurture) which resonate with our genes (nature). For example, parents can try to force their daughters to play with fire trucks and baseball bats, but girls will usually reject them, and return to playing with the dolls they love.

does this expalin what post hoc fallacy is?

I don't think so. That explanation is the second sentence in blue.

You will need to explain to the reader what an inner eye is. We don't retain experiences, but we do retain memories. What is meant by "resonate with our genes"?

Does nurture play no role in human development?

:)

[RonBee]

i was reading over my reflection

any problems with this sentence??..does it sound confusing?

Nature limits nurture, in that nurture can never go beyond the potential that nature provides for nurture

Superfically, it looks good. But it isn't nurture that has potential. It is the human being that has potential. You might say something like nature sets the limits. Our genes provide us with the blueprint. Humans can only do what humans can do, just as birds can only do what birds can do.

:)

[RonBee]

Thanks, Tdol! Thanks, Red!

(I think I am a better rewriter than a writer.)

:D