Introduction
The field of psychology, based on the use of flexible theories and practical frameworks for assessing behavioral, cultural, intellectual, and other functions, has long studied the question of relevant impacts on different skills. The ongoing debate regarding the opposition of genetics and environment as the factors that determine the respective traits of character and attainments involves distinctive positions. In this regard, the theme of nature vs. nurture, or genetic features vs. the environment of upbringing, is essential in modern psychology, where the focus is on the study of prerequisites rather than consequences. Distinctive views on both phenomena exist, but their intersection is also a confirmed fact. Nature vs. nurture is a psychological issue that has long been studied; therefore, the intersection and potential dominance of one phenomenon over the other remains a controversial topic.
Intersections and Differences
Distinctive views on the interaction between the phenomena under consideration are due to different positions regarding the impact of relevant factors on psychological development. For instance, according to Barlow (2019), the genetic nature of a person, which corresponds to the concept of nature, influences the process of upbringing in the same way as nurture. In other words, the researcher does not single out one of the two concepts and does not put one above the other (Barlow, 2019). This is explained by the fact that, while having a certain set of genetic information, a person cannot acquire useful or professional skills in an environment where little attention is paid to this process. To the same extent, even if a person has good education and lives in a favorable environment, bad heredity can be a deterrent to normal development, including intellectual or other abilities. Such a position confirms the intersection between nature and nurture and indicates that normal development is equally dependent on both factors.
At the same time, some studies demonstrate the dominance of one phenomenon over the other. For instance, in their article, Hambrick et al. (2018) analyze the impact of hereditary or acquired skills from the perspective of learning music from an early age. To maintain the validity of their work, the researchers involve twins as their target participants (Hambrick et al., 2018). Following the findings, the variable of genetic predisposition to learning music, which corresponds to nature, can be measurable and is approximately 20%, as measured (Hambrick et al., 2018, p. 292). Acquired skills, or nurture, in turn, cannot be classified in terms of mathematical proportions since the magnitudes are always different (Hambrick et al., 2018). Therefore, one can assume that in the nature vs. nurture confrontation, the former criterion dominates the latter due to the evidence base confirming the clear influence of heredity on the development of relevant skills. This result in favor of one of the two phenomena can be seen as the confirmation of the existing imbalance between them.
Findings in the field of criminal psychology deserve particular attention because the terms nature and nurture are actively used in this sphere to identify prerequisites for deviant behavior. As Fox (2017) states, within social learning theory, both phenomena are applied and analyzed equally. This is because both hereditary factors and the environment of upbringing are recognized criteria that are utilized to identify relevant deviations and behavioral traits. The biosocial perspective confirms that a person who has relatives with criminal tendencies in one’s family history does not have to be a criminal in the case of a good upbringing, and vice versa (Fox, 2017). Thus, along with the differences in the views on the distinctions between both concepts and the dominance of one over the other, there are confirmations of their intersections.
Dominance and Major Views
There are three positions regarding the concepts under consideration: nature dominates nurture; nurture dominates nature; both phenomena equally affect the development of personality. This is difficult to suggest a single correct position or indicate the point of view that most people hold because views vary depending on a particular angle of analysis. For instance, according to Cherry (2020), the nativist approach, pioneered by Plato and Descartes, assumes a complete dependence of a set of behavioral characteristics on innate qualities. Empiricists, on the other hand, believe otherwise; in their opinion, any personal properties are the result of learning, and an individual can train in any skill (Cherry, 2020). In the former case, the theory of evolution is presented as an argument in favor of heredity as the main factor shaping personal development. In the latter case, the concept of behaviorism is the main theoretical justification, which proves that people develop among other people who influence them. The ongoing debate suggests that there is no clear answer as to which approach is stronger.
Conclusion
The nature vs. nurture issue is a topic that is directly related to psychology, and the debate about the potential dominance of one phenomenon over the other is ongoing. The presented examples demonstrate distinctive views that confirm that inclinations and personality traits can have both hereditary and acquired roots. Evolution and behaviorism are the concepts supporting nature and nurture, respectively, but as a rule, in psychology, the phenomena intersect, which allows for speaking about the importance of each of them.
References
Barlow, F. K. (2019). Nature vs. nurture is nonsense: On the necessity of an integrated genetic, social, developmental, and personality psychology. Australian Journal of Psychology, 71(1), 68-79.
Cherry, K. (2020). The age old debate of nature vs. nurture. Verywell Mind.
Fox, B. (2017). It’s nature and nurture: Integrating biology and genetics into the social learning theory of criminal behavior. Journal of Criminal Justice, 49, 22-31.
Hambrick, D. Z., Burgoyne, A. P., Macnamara, B. N., & Ullén, F. (2018). Toward a multifactorial model of expertise: Beyond born versus made. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1423(1), 284-295.