The the psychological perspective of empiricism (the belief that your knowledge of the world is based on careful observation and not common sense or observation) fall relate more to the concept of "nature" or "nurture"?
I'm currently leaning more towards nurture because you're learning from past experience rather than what you would inherently known.
If it IS nurture, would that mean that determinism (your knowledge about the worlds is based on research, past speculation, cause-and-effect, etc.) would fall into the nature category?
http://drdavespsychologypage.homestead.com/Decision_Trap.pdf
The psychological perspective of empiricism is primarily concerned with the role of observation and experience in acquiring knowledge about the world. This perspective suggests that knowledge is gained through careful observation and systematic scientific inquiry, rather than relying solely on common sense or intuition.
In terms of the nature vs. nurture debate, the empirical perspective would be more closely aligned with the concept of nurture. This is because empiricists emphasize that knowledge is acquired through learning and experience, rather than being innate or predetermined.
The concept of determinism, which suggests that events and behaviors are determined by prior causes and external factors, can be viewed as falling under the nature category. It implies that our knowledge of the world is shaped by factors beyond our control, such as genetics or environmental influences. However, it's important to note that this is a broad generalization and different perspectives can offer nuanced views on the nature-nurture interaction.
To summarize, the psychological perspective of empiricism aligns more with the concept of nurture, as it emphasizes the role of learning and experience in acquiring knowledge. Determinism, on the other hand, can be seen as falling under the nature category, suggesting that our knowledge is influenced by factors outside of our direct control.