My first blog post topic I thought I would write about one of the most interesting debates that I have heard about this far in psychology. Previously to this class, I had only heard the term nature versus nurture, but I know now that an additional term for this conversation in the debate over nativism versus empiricism. The debate of nature and nativism includes the idea that our biological makeup genetics lend us to be born to have certain talents and abilities, and lead us to become a certain type of person. While this is certainly a scientific approach that to some extent can not be disputed, I do not believe this is the main factor in developing who and what we become. Obviously, the genetic makeup of a person will effect some of their skills. Some peoples biology lends them to a better build for athletics, which may make them a more sporty person.
However, I believe that nurture, or empiricism, has a greater role in who we become. I am good friends with a set of twins. When they were around 10 years old, their parents got divorced. Megan was close with her dad, and stayed in their suburban home with him. Chloe was closer with her mom, and moved into an urban Pittsburgh apartment with her. As identical twins, they have almost entirely the same DNA, and thus if nature played the number one role in development, they should be similar people. However, quite the opposite is true. Megan, spending so much time with her very sporty father, found her number one love in soccer. She is a very tomboy-ish nineteen year old, and a fantastic soccer player. She is spending her freshman year playing soccer at Lafeyette College. On the contrary, her sister Megan’s artsy side flourished in her urban environment with her free spirited mom. She is spending her freshman year working towards a fashion design major at Michigan State.
The debate of nature versus nurture is one that is unlikely to ever be completely resolved. However, I think that though science can not be disputed, the effects of biology pale in comparison to the strong influences of up-bringing.
I completely agree with you when it comes to the topic of nativism vs empiricism. The example that you provided about the twins growing up in different environments really made your point crystal clear. It reminded me of what I’m currently learning about in my biology class. We are studying genetics and how a persons phenotype (how their traits are expressed) can be influenced by not only genetics, but also by their environment. In fact, we looked at a couple experiments where plants of the exact same genetic makeup were taken to two different environments and grown. The results we expected to prove how much genes play a role in growth, and how much the environment plays a role. For example, if they both grew to the same size in the different environments, researchers would know that genes played the biggest role. But, if they grew to completely different sizes, it would be apparent that environment also has a large affect. Your two friends were a human version of that experiment, and it was interesting to read about how they turned out.
I agree with your position in the nature vs. nurture debate. Both nature and nurture, in my experience, can be attributed to psychological behaviors and other decisions. For example, an individual may be genetically predisposed to a certain psychological disorders or behaviors such as bipolar or alcohol addiction. Being predisposed genetically to a disorder, does not guarantee that the individual will develop or exhibit signs of the disorder. I think this is where approaches of psychology can be incorporated. As understood in psychodynamics, an individual with a traumatic childhood may exhibit certain abnormal behaviors as a consequence such as addiction. As understood in behaviorism, as a child the individual may have never formed a relationship between alcoholism and punishment (maybe they had a parent who was an alcoholic). We often hear the term an addictive personality.. I think the combination of certain genes along with the way we are raised, influences our mental processes and the behavior that we exhibit.
I really liked your post mainly because you were able to incorporate two approaches (nativism and empiricism) and show us how the two can be entwined.
I think this post has some really cool ideas embedded in it. I completely agree with the idea that nature provides us with a foundation of who we are (nature/Nativism), but that is not all that determines our personalities. We must build off of our given traits in order to become everything that we are as adults, which usually happens through our environment (nurture/Empiricism). This post gives a great example of how nurture can affect one’s nature; identical twins. Had the twins grown up in an identical environment, they may have grown up to be more similar people since they do have identical DNA. However, they grew up in very different environments, and they therefore split off into two completely different types of personalities as they got older. This clearly demonstrates that though nature does provide us with parts of who we are, it does not determine who we will be.