Ah, nature versus nurture; genetic composition versus the environment’s influence.
For centuries, the age old phrase has raised questions and sparked conversations about whether nature takes all of the credit for a person’s way of life, or if that credit is due to nurturing. The history of this debate dates back to the years around 350 BC, which saw Plato and Aristotle make theories regarding their own perspectives on nature vs. nurture. Aristotle believed that humans were born with a blank slate and were influenced by gathered experience. The studies and debate were also going strong in 1869, when Francis Galton penned the phrase. Among his extensive list of professional titles, he was a eugenicist. He actually founded the science; which is based on race improvement. After reading Charles Darwin’s publication of “On the Origin of Species,” Francis became curious about the nature vs. nurture debate. He believed that intelligence was largely due to inheritance, hence siding with nature in that area. He even published his own work in 1889, “Natural Inheritance,” in which influence of former generations in the heredity of humans is shown. John Locke, on the other hand, favored nurture over nature; believing that people were born with their mind in a blank state, like Aristotle had believed. The debate, for as long as humans have questioned such topics of thought, has existed.
Additionally, an experiment that seemed to be proving one stance correct, but in turn proved the other correct, was done by John Money. He attempted to show his own theory that “gender was a product of early conditioning” by raising a male child, who underwent circumcision as a girl. The experiment later failed, displaying that the child could not behave solely based on his environment and experiences, but rather with the mentality he was born with. However, recent studies show that the probability for a person to develop an illness is largely due in part to the nurturing aspect. For instance, a person may be born with genes that make it possible or easier for the person to develop a given illness, yet, depending on how they are raised or how they approach it, the possibility can increase or decrease. The current overall stance when it comes to nature vs nurture, however, seems to be 50/50, or at the least: relatively close. Studies have progressed very much since Galton’s time, which has evidently lead to more information supporting both sides, hence raising more questions.
Furthermore, the cases of nature vs. nurture are the following: nature (genetics): what a person carries in their blood. This is the number one factor that drives them to act however they will act, or achieve whatever they presently or will achieve.
Nurture (the influence of environment, education, experience, etc) molds a person, ultimately, into who they are and will be. They have lived among their surroundings, of course, and these surroundings affect them for better or for worse. They carry this, and it shines through within every decision they make.
To further elaborate, in the aspect of religion, scholars raise an interesting stance: nature and nurture. They explain that while, understandably, the debate remains alive and well, the concept of nature working alongside nurture is also possible and perhaps proven. Modern science, for once, seems to be on a similar path to that of religion. Scientists are adamant about finding the root of it all, but they do acknowledge that the collaboration of nature and nurture can and does work, as well as the fact that the study of genetics can become quite gray, quite rapidly. Common characteristics of nature are intelligence patterns similar to that of one’s parent(s) such as: skills and types of learning. Personality wise, characteristics could be those that are similar to, once again, those of one’s parent(s).
Nurture characteristics are intelligence patterns that are adopted by an individual, not pertaining to their genetic composition, such as: skills picked up at school, etc. In the aspect of personality, certain tendencies are picked up, like shyness, if neither parent is shy.
Consequently, an arguably “behavioral characteristic” that is making waves, especially in the science world, is homosexuality; a controversial topic in itself. Certain people believe that homosexuality is a choice, others believe that is biologically embedded into homosexual individuals. This is especially interesting since homosexuality has an enter other world of study to it’s name. One primary question about it is if it can be found in a person’s dna. This would surely take homosexuality nature vs. nurture on an enhanced and more science-backed route. However, twin studies seem to have more answers. Twin studies, while demonstrating a wide range of information, seem to also demonstrate patterns similar to what other studies have contributed. For instance, two twins raised apart from one another reunited in their middle age. They found that they both suffered from the same type of headache, were prone to the same habit, drove the same type of car, and also chose the same beach to vacation in.
"We were surprised by certain behaviors that showed a genetic influence, such as religiosity [and] social attitudes," said Nancy Segal, an evolutionary psychologist at California State University, Fullerton, who was part of the study for nine years. "Those surprised us, because we thought those certainly must come from the family [environment]," Segal told Live Science. Segal described the groundbreaking research on Aug. 7 here at a meeting of the American Psychological Association.-
Researchers at the University of Minnesota, led by Thomas Bouchard, launched the landmark study in 1979. Over the course of 20 years, they studied 137 pairs of twins — 81 pairs of identical twins (twins who developed from one egg that split in two), and 56 pairs of fraternal twins (twins who developed from two eggs fertilized by two different sperm).- Another study of four pairs of twins found that genetics had a stronger influence on sexual orientation in male twins than in female twins. A recent study in Sweden of 4,000 pairs of twins has replicated these findings, Segal said.”
The information above, heavily sides with genes, hence siding with nature.
I even conducted my own experiment recently, on a much smaller and simpler scale. I took a few sheets of paper; one for every person that I would have participate in the experiment with me, and drew a line down the middle of each one, making two columns. I sat down with a friend, and two family members, individually. I instructed them to write down qualities they feel they inherited from either one or both of their parents, even any grandparents, aunts or uncles in one column on either side. Their next task was to write on the opposite column, which qualities or characteristics they feel they have developed due to their experiences or education. When that was concluded, I then took each sheet of paper and examined the results. My goal was to know which characteristics seem to usually stem from nature and which seem to usually stem from nurture. What I found was moderately split findings. While I was not sure how to perceive that, as I had only chosen two participants, I am determined to continue conducting the experiments. I even jotted down my own list of qualities and characteristics I felt fit for the columns of nature vs. nurture. My perspective on the debate remains split into both stances, as I agree that both nature and nurture influence an individual. As science progresses, more findings rise, and more questions are raised I am not sure that it will ever be solved. However, as daunting as the uncertainty of finding a conclusive answer to nature vs. nurture sounds, it undoubtedly leaves us more room for to explore our own personalities and genes, perhaps opening the door for other areas of study.