Do you think entrepreneurs are born or made? here is what Jennifer Bouani had to say, what's your take?
http://boujepublishing.wordpress.com/2006/08/30/the-making-of-an-entrepreneur-nature-vs-nurture/
Teaching Kids Capitalism, Free Market Economics, Entrepreneurship and Business
If "made" refers to nurture, as in conditioning a child to become something, then the answer is clear: entrepreneurs are born, and NOT made. Why? Because the field of Behavioral Genetics has pretty much put an end to the nature vs nurture debate with decades of studies with identical twins, fraternal twins, adoptees, and regular siblings. The results are always the same: The shared environment (as in parenting for example) contributes about 0 to who we become when we grow up. See the chapter "Children" in "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker.
If "made" refers to nurture, as in conditioning a child to become something, then the answer is clear: entrepreneurs are born, and NOT made.
Why? Because the field of Behavioral Genetics has pretty much put an end to the nature vs nurture debate with decades of studies with identical twins, fraternal twins, adoptees, and regular siblings. The results are always the same: The shared environment (as in parenting for example) contributes about 0 to who we become when we grow up.
See the chapter "Children" in "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker.
Sean, please don't spam our forum for your client Jennifer Bouani. It's not welcome, and it makes your client look bad.
For anyone wondering, when someone joins the community, sets up a profile loaded with backlinks flogging a commercial product/service, then posts a really very humdrum blog post (considering the author of the blog post is supposedly an author) , tagging it with as many tags as possible, even irrelevant and malformed ones, then doesn't stay online to read the responses... that is spamming.
I believe we should discourage people from using Mises org as a launching ground for their web promotion.
Liberty Student. By no means I meant the post to push an agenda, my aim was to create a dialog around a question that has been asked for many decades. I hesitated between copying the text which is long for a forum post or just put in the link and I opted for the latter. I apologize if you think my intentions are misguiding.
Sean: I apologize if you think my intentions are misguiding.
Thank you for cleaning up the tags on the OP. You're welcome to participate in the community and earn some traffic. But that's probably not cost-efficient unless you already had an interest in discussion here.
Btw, the answer is nature. No amount of nurture can make up for a lack of instinct and capability.
One can't go without the other. I don't think this is a real issue of argument. But I might be surprised.
DD5: f "made" refers to nurture, as in conditioning a child to become something, then the answer is clear: entrepreneurs are born, and NOT made. Why? Because the field of Behavioral Genetics has pretty much put an end to the nature vs nurture debate with decades of studies with identical twins, fraternal twins, adoptees, and regular siblings. The results are always the same: The shared environment (as in parenting for example) contributes about 0 to who we become when we grow up. See the chapter "Children" in "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker.
f "made" refers to nurture, as in conditioning a child to become something, then the answer is clear: entrepreneurs are born, and NOT made.
Relative to genetics, the effects of the unique environment, the experiences unique to each individual, have an equal or greater influence on who we become. (From the same chapter)
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Sean: Do you think entrepreneurs are born or made? here is what Jennifer Bouani had to say, what's your take? http://boujepublishing.wordpress.com/2006/08/30/the-making-of-an-entrepreneur-nature-vs-nurture/
You are asking about the whole nature vs nurture debate, the word "entrepreneur" is irrelevant to the discussion.
JackCuyler: DD5: f "made" refers to nurture, as in conditioning a child to become something, then the answer is clear: entrepreneurs are born, and NOT made. Why? Because the field of Behavioral Genetics has pretty much put an end to the nature vs nurture debate with decades of studies with identical twins, fraternal twins, adoptees, and regular siblings. The results are always the same: The shared environment (as in parenting for example) contributes about 0 to who we become when we grow up. See the chapter "Children" in "The Blank Slate" by Steven Pinker. Relative to genetics, the effects of the unique environment, the experiences unique to each individual, have an equal or greater influence on who we become. (From the same chapter)
Yes but the question asks "born or made?". "made", if not defined, I think would be understood by nearly everyone as the "shared environment". What I mean is that the "nurture" component is not what is commonly understood. The personality is not "made" by some purposeful planned environment. You are right though, there is another mysterious component interacting with our genes, perhaps chance, but certainly not any intentional conditioning by others.
I say born and made, because much of the basic features which are biological (empathy via mirror neurons and the basic capacity of the brain to process data) don't come builtin with the nuances of experience. The Nature/Nuture debate is much like the debate of whether a car is a car because of its parts or because of its design. The answer, of course, is that both define the nature of the car (design and the parts). Similarly, the 'design' (experiences, goals, thoughts...) and the 'parts' (genes) make it possible to define the person; entrepreneur or not.
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
It's actually nonsense to suggest that any characteristic can be attributed to either nature or nurture, to any degree. Any appearence thereof is mostly just a consequence of misinterpreting statistics. A characteristic, like entrepreneurial skill, emerges like meaning emerges from the co-incidence of a sentence with an interpretation. It would be utter folly to suggest that some part of the meaning could be attributed more or less to some combination of letters, or to a particular interpretation, despite the fact that some statistical correlations would occur. Much is the same for debates which pit nature against nurture: utter nonsense, a complete misapprehension of the process at hand, duped by statistical patterns.