Nature vs Nurture

It is a topic that has been debated for many years by a host of different disciplines. Darwin researched this with natural selection to kind of prove that environment shaped a creature’s biology and habits - though, did the strong survive only because of their biology? At the same time, so many disorders and illnesses seem to be genetic (yet we haven’t really targeted specific genes as the cause) and can cause a lot of maladaptive personality traits.

Steven Pinker, who is a psychologist among other things, wrote a lot of books discussing dogmas which society has challenged. Among them is the blank slate, or that we all start off with no real innate traits – shaped by environment. The noble savage, which is that we are all innately good yet are corrupted by society. And thirdly, the ghost in the machine, or this idea that we have a soul which acts freely when making decisions that are not influenced by biology.

So, what are your thoughts? Are we slaves to our biology? Is every decision we make already preprogrammed to aid us in our interaction with our environment?

~M

Excuse any typos, I am on my phone.

Ignoring the philosophical question inherent in the subject matter (which always cycles down to "I think, therefore I am" anyway) the scientific perspective is generally that it's a mix of both. The extent to which we are nature (ex: "Fight or Flight?") or nurture (ex: "Be kind because mother taught you") is the real question. A question for which there is no singular theory to answer--it is still being worked upon to this day.

Ergo, the following answer is ultimately personal--not a scientific certainty. Take it with a grain of salt.

We are influenced by nature, which creates trends that can be visibly perceived in society, and which throughout history have consistently repeated themselves. (Ex: "Men are warriors, women are house makers.") Ultimately, however, we are a self-aware, conscious species. We are not only aware of our nature, we are capable of understanding it, manipulating it, and even ignoring it in most cases. What we are--the circumstances of our birth, the sexuality we have, et cetera--cannot be changed. Who we are, however, is ever mutable, and can overcome whatever predilections might otherwise determine our behaviours.

What happens to you is outside of your control. Who you are, however, is entirely within your control--if you wish it to be.

According to Science, it's both.

We have some things written into us from the start thanks to genes, hormones etc, and some things that are taught to us. Other things are from gene's, but gene's that only have trigger under certain environments where if without said environment the gene would be left "off".

Plus your biology isn't just something forever static, the environment had always played a role in what animals lived long enough to breed and pass on their gene's. So they intermingle a lot, often to the point that one doesn't even work without the other.

Really, I like to think that we're shaped more by nurture than nature.
Of course scientific evidence has proven that there are specific genes and parts of your genetic make-up that can influence your personality - off the top of my head, there's the influence of extra x/y chromosome in behaviour and the apparent existence of a niceness gene (citation needed for this one tho my dude) - and then of course there's Darwin's evolution theory so I'm not completely convinced about Locke's "Tabula Rasa" philosophy; however, there have been lots of examples in history exercising their free will and breaking out of that deterministic little box (Skinner's Box ref. lol) that the nature argument likes to put people in. And if that assumed "stimuli leads to this response" belief were completely true, then a lot of inspiring people and breakthroughs wouldn't exist.
But maybe that's just me being biased.

Personally I think that nature is the beginning force that we see. As children there is strictly nature. If parents were not there to watch over them, they would do great damage to one another and themselves just being nasty little beasties. Nurturing is what makes us refined citizens and tries to shave the sharp edges off our nature. However, there will always be that little nature side that is wanting to do what is only good for me. At its base I would say that nature is a stronger force than nurturing since when it comes right down to it we will choose our nature over nurture if it is life and death situation, the majority of the time anyway.

Two twins who are exactly the same genetically can have completely different personalities. A dog who was cloned ended up having a completely different temperament than its previous genetic equivalent. Have you ever thought about how one thing changed the course of your life? Genetics cannot determine everything, but if you look at the pasts of some people you will see definite patterns of how they can to be. And, as a closing note, imagine this. Computers were invented in the past few years. Therefore, it would be inpossible to have genes that would draw a person to work with computers. Yet, I have long been fascinated by computers, and I am commuted to work as a programmer. Was it my genes or my experiences with my first toy computer (which I used to teach myself how to read), my parents buying me different technology related things, and me watching videos on the amazing things of technology? I'm not saying that genetics doesn't have anything to do with it, if my sister wasn't genetically inclined to be a fast runner, she wouldn't have enjoyed track as much, but our upbringing shapes us more, my sister tried many other sports which she was not great at before trying out track. And, goodnight.

I am thinking it's a mix. Some fields are very nature driven while others are solely fueled by nurture.

I feel like nuture teaches us the world. Because without parents how would we make it. We just roam the earth helplessy wondering what to do next. Honestly you would be way less skillful. Becuase your parents teach you life skills like tying your shoes and much more.

I feel like nuture teaches us the world. Because without parents how would we make it. We just roam the earth helplessy wondering what to do next. Honestly you would be way less skillful. Becuase your parents teach you life skills like tying your shoes and much more.

Click to expand...

Thats assuming you had decent parents. If you had folks like mine... wel, lets just say I'm very glad I grown up early/fast.

Aniway, I'd go vith Nature. Theres nothing parents can teach you about the world, that life expirience also can not teach you, just as wel. In some cases even beter, since life expirience is always honest, it dont sugar-coat or sour-up things, it prezents them as they are. If/when I decide to have kids, I wil make sure not to do either for them, but let them draw there own judgements. Reality is the best teacher, I'l just be around to smooth-out the rough patches if needed.

As a teacher, I would definitely go with both. I have seen children who live in the worst parental situations be some of the sweetest and hard-working children, and I have seen kids who have the most wonderful parents and have everything they could ever want be the cruelest, laziest, and unhappiest of people. And that can go vice versa for both, too. I think it depends on who you are as a person, and how you as that person handle problems that arise. It's our choices as humans that shape us the most. Just my two cents.

As far as I've read, it's very much a mix of factors. One such example is the diathesis-stress model, which is a model used to explain depression. The diathesis-stress model suggests that in order to develop depression, you do need to have a genetic predisposition to it, but this doesn't mean that you will develop the disorder. To develop the disorder, you need to have been exposed to an environmental stressor. Depending on the extent of your genetic disposition, an environmental stressor like keeping up with schoolwork could trigger depression. Someone whose genetic disposition is less substantial might develop depression in response to dealing with death in the family. This is one interactive approach.

Additionally, the effect of the interactionist approach can also be seen in physical disorders. One such example is Phenylketonuria, which is a genetic metabolic disorder wherein the kidneys can't metabolise certain enzymes. This leads to brain damage and - eventually - death. However, management of this disorder involves cutting foods with those enzymes out of the diet, which is an environmental approach to treatment that has saved lives. In this way, the environment stops a genetic disorder from taking hold. The same can also be seen in the management of diabetes before scientific advances were able to produce insulin: by putting people on a low-sugar diet, the lifespan could be extended by a year or so.

From a more philosophical standpoint, you have Locke and Hume, who believe only in nurture. Locke and Hume believe that the human mind is a 'tabula rasa' (or blank slate) at birth. As such, we learn everything we know from experience: we don't touch fire because at some point when we were growing up, someone went "careful, you'll hurt yourself" or you touched fire and did indeed hurt yourself. Locke and Hume therefore also do not believe in a priori knowledge or traits. Obvious criticisms would be research into the MAOA gene in aggression: adoption studies have seen some individuals with a particular form of the gene develop aggressive behaviours in a non-aggressive environment.

I personally share the general consensus here, that it is a combination of both. I strongly feel that nature is an ingrained element to every single person, but that those elements can be influenced through nurturing.

An individual may be born with a predisposition for being short-tempered due to their genetic and chemical makeup. But that doesn't mean they can't learn to control and shape that into appropriate behaviors and outlets. They just may have to work harder at it than someone who lacks that predisposition.

Children raised in identical situations turn out different, suggesting there's more at play than JUST nurture that resulted in different paths being taken. Otherwise children raised in the same nurturing environments and same parenting would come out largely the same. It also would mean that children wouldn't inherit behavioral similarities to parents that they have never met or been exposed to. For example, an adopted child raised in the same family as an adopted sibling, presenting with severe anxiety disorders that are not otherwise present in the adopted family, but very common in the biological family. However this does happen quite often, and signs of these genetic predispositions can start presenting within a baby's first months of life.

However the opposite is true as well. As noted with the aforementioned cloning and identical twins, environmental and life-experience factors can result in the same genetic makeup taking different paths over the years. Some life events and experiences may have occurred for one but not the other, resulting in certain genetics remaining dormant (this divergence can occur as early as in the womb, as studies have shown that identical twins are not 100% identical). Others may have been exposed to better learning mechanisms early in life that influenced ingrained traits so that they didn't present in the same way.

If it was purely genetics, differences wouldn't occur regardless of external influence. If it was purely nurture, differences wouldn't occur between children raised the same way in the same environments. That variation happens in BOTH situations, suggests more than one variable is at play.

Just speaking personally, ADHD has run rampant in my family for three generations (with the exception of one brother who didn't present with ADHD). If it was purely nurture causing it rather than a genetic predisposition for it, then it should have presented in all of us rather than skipping my one brother who was raised in the same household. For those of us that did present with ADHD, it has effected all of us on a nature level. Does this mean that those of us with ADHD couldn't learn self-control? No. It just meant we had to work harder at it than children who didn't struggle with impulse control. Thus nature effected us, but nurture guided us through nature. That's where nurture comes in. It offers the life skills and experiences to make the most of our strengths, and to learn to overcome our inborn weaknesses.