We’ve all been taught to think certain things, become accustom to others, and act a certain way, but why? This has to do with the on-going debate of nature vs. nurture. For those of you who don’t know the nature vs. nurture debate is centered on the question of whether our behavior is influenced by genetic or environmental influences. In other words, is our personality essentially the result of traits that we were born with or has it been shaped over time due to the things that we have experienced in life. In some ways this is a hard question to answer because it may be a mix of both, however it continues to carry on as a strong debate in today’s world.
According to psychology.about.com, when this question first arose it was debated by many philosophers such as Plato, Descartes, and thinkers such as John Locke. This source talks about how Plato and Descartes believed that certain characteristics and things were inborn or rather that they just naturally occurred without the help of environmental influences. This is one side of the argument that some people tend to agree with. The other side is more on the side of John Locke. According to the website, he believed that the mind begins as a blank slate, otherwise known as tabula rasa. In this case, everything that we are is all due to the things that we have gained through experience and the things that we have learned over time due to these moments. Personally, I’m a little stuck in the middle.
Psychology.about.com goes on to give a couple examples of nature vs. nurture. One of the examples that they give is a person who experiences a lot of academic success. The question that is posed is whether the person is already genetically predisposed to be successful (nature), or if they have been surrounded in such an environment that helps them strive in their academics and therefore help them perform better (nurture). Another example they give is a man who abuses his wife. The question is whether he was born with violent tendencies and does this because he cannot resist his urges, or if he has learned to do so because of how his own parents acted when he was younger. It’s an interesting argument and one that is constantly analyzed and debated.
In an article that I was able to find on The New York Times website, there was an interesting find discussing twins who were reared apart rather than reared together. This is to say that they were separated rather than growing up alongside each other. Many psychologists have tried to do studies similar to these to see whether or not environmental as opposed to biological characteristics could really alter a person’s IQ, height, weight, etc. One of the studies that really stood out to me was one done by Dr. Juel-Nielsen. In the New York Times article it discusses how he did a 12 pair study of twins who had been reared apart and his results were interesting. He found that there was a very high correlation in twins having the same height which was apparently not affected by their separation. However, he found quite the opposite when he analyzed the differences in weight. The article goes on to say that he, “attributes this lowered value to environmental influences, arguing that weight is more susceptible than height to external influences.”
So today it’s said that the majority of experts think that both behavior and development are influenced by both nature and nurture, and I entirely agree considering I don’t think that someone can be entirely made up of one or the other. Of course there are a few examples of biologically determined characteristics such as certain genetic diseases, eye, hair, and skin color, but a lot of who we are comes from a million other places.
Sources:
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/03/01/books/nature-vs-nurture-a-natural-experiment.html?pagewanted=2
Mary, the nature versus nurture debate has always interested me as an education major. When I look at the debate, I see it through the lens of educational psychology. On the micro-level, what makes some kids smarter than others? On a larger scale, what makes some schools smarter than others? I really recommend checking out this article on Education.com ; it gives a decent overview of the debate. Genetics plays a substantial role in IQ, but “nature” has its influence as well. The amount of nourishment in childhood, the home environment, and the attendance of early school (Pre-K and Elementary School) can all impact IQ. One thing that I noticed, the N vs. N debate in education often focuses on IQ, because it’s a universal, quantifiable measurement. But IQ is not the gold standard of intelligence or even academic achievement. From my personal experience as a student teacher last semester in Philadelphia, I have noticed that the quality of school facilities, the amount of school funding, the number of qualified teachers, and many other factors can have a large impact on the development of kids and young adults. There certainly isn’t an inherent intellectual superiority in suburban schools or an inferiority in urban/rural schools. Environment (and mostly by that I mean the financial environment) of the area determines the success of a school and its students.