Abstract
Nature and nurture have sparked an unending debate among scientists on which influences human behavior. Researchers have conducted studies and established that genetics impact the development of human traits. Studies conducted on nurture also substantiate people’s experiences and relationships’ impact on human development. As there is no clear winner, the current research has focused on the collaboration of nature and nurture to determine which factor significantly influences trait development.
Introduction
Nature and nurture in English literature are closely related words with similar sounds, and their pronunciation involves stressing the same vowels. However, the perfectly rhyming words constitute an unending and heated debate in science dating back to the 19th century. Psychologists describe nature as the natural or genetic influence on people’s personalities. It comprises the genes people are born with and other hereditary elements that can influence the formation of personality and the process of human development from childhood through adulthood.
Nurture refers to the environmental or external influence on the development of human character and includes people’s experiences and relationships. The scientific contestation between nature and nurture is centered on which factors between nature and nurture predominantly influence human behavior. The argument has ended up creating two groups of nativists and empiricists, with each holding extreme views. Nativists strongly argue that human behavior is shaped, learned, and acquired genetically, while empiricists state that the environment influences human conduct. Each side is supported by solid evidence, but there is no clear indication of the level to which genes or external factors exactly shape human traits.
The Influence of Nature and Nurture on Personality Development
Juxtaposing Nature Versus Nurture
Nature provides humanity with specific attributes that are innate and transpire inherently, notwithstanding environmental influences. Barlow (73) indicates that this position is supported by some highly recognized philosophers, including Descartes and Plato, who consider human traits and behavior a factor of evolution. According to Barlow (73), nativists suggest that nearly all human features and behaviors are derived from inheritance, and the traits are handed over from parents to their children. Genetics then influence personal differences, which make each individual different and unique. The view has been supported in biopsychology through empirical research.
For example, Hart et al. (5) point to research conducted to examine the role of neurotransmitters in influencing human behavior in support of the role of nature. Hart et al. (5) state that Galton conducted studies to explore why people have different levels of intelligence, showing that it is due to inheritance. Wright (5) indicates that Jenson conducted a similar study in 1969 and suggested that people inherit up to 80 percent of their intelligence. As a result, it was held that society should encourage intelligent people to marry one another and have as many children as possible.
Empiricists contradict the position taken by nativists and state that external influences determine all or most behaviors and human traits. The argument is supported by celebrated thinkers like John Locke, who believe people are born with a blank mind (Hope et al. 892154). John B. Watson is a renowned theorist who believes people can be taught to do and become anything, irrespective of their genetic makeup (Hope et al. 892154).
Wright (5) indicates that the thinkers believe individual experiences and relationships shape human development and behavior. The view is also supported by proponents of behaviorism, who sincerely feel that human conduct and actions develop out of environmental conditioning. Social psychologists further assess the value of nurture by examining the influence external factors, such as social media and peer pressure, have on people’s behaviors.
Despite the long-standing contestation, the debate does not end, leading to the acceptance that both influence different facets of human life. For instance, behavioral and psychodynamic theorists argue that nature and nurture influence people’s personalities. On the one hand, the theorists state that human personality is shaped by inheritance and still believe that people develop their personality due to interactions with external factors.
In child development, Chomsky, a nativist, developed the concept of a language acquisition device (LAD), which suggests that every child is born with an intuitive mental prowess such that they can learn and produce language (Hambrick and Alexander 104). Albert Bandura, an empiricist, developed the social learning theory, which posits that people learn by watching the conduct of others. This was empirically tested through his famous Bobo doll experiment (Wright 5). The experiment established that children could memorize negative behaviors by observing aggressive actions perpetrated by another person.
Furthermore, mental health practitioners accept the influence of both nature and nurture in developing mental illnesses. As regards nature, Hope et al. (892154) state that it has been established that some of the causes of mental illness are inborn and primarily connected to imbalances or changes to chemicals in the brain. Barlow (69) further argues that genetics can contribute to the development of mental diseases, which increases somebody’s risk of developing a particular disorder.
External influences have also been found to play a part in developing mental disorders, such as exposure to environmental toxins like alcohol and drugs. There are experiences that people encounter that may cause them to develop mental illness. Examples include countering a traumatic occasion that may cause a person to develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
Connecting Nature with Nurture
As people embrace the importance of nature and nurture, a new contestation emerges on which is stronger between the two. According to Hope et al. (892154), research has established that the best alternative is to connect nature with nurture instead of insistence on nature versus nurture. On the one hand, heredity offers humanity the essential elements people use to harness their skills meaningfully through nurture.
Nurture helps build up the skills by watching others and learning from them, teaching kids to walk and speak. Nurture also helps to teach and develop essential skills, such as teaching and reinforcement of kindness. The cooperation between nature and nurture has led to the birth of a new field of study called epigenetics, through which people can learn more about the interaction between genetics and environmental factors. The goal is to enlighten people on how their experiences and relationships can influence how genes are expressed.
A perfect way to express this is through the evaluation of heritability and the impact of the environment on traits. According to Barlow (71), heritability entails the fraction of people’s variants in a trait due to people’s genetic variation. This process has largely been facilitated by experimentation involving the study of twins, who provide a perfect prototype for a natural experiment and allow researchers to appraise human traits’ natural transfer.
If nature alone applies, it is expected that identical twins would share close to 100 percent of their parents’ genetic material (Barlow 75). Similarly, non-identical twins would share about 50 percent of the genes (Barlow 75). Therefore, if it is true that people inherit traits, the identical twins would show a perfect match in their character in a shared environment, whereas the non-identical twins would match up to half of their traits.
However, this is not the actual case, as twins have been found to have different characters, which shows that individual experiences and relationships also influence human development. For example, one of the twins could be injured through an accident or suffer emotional harm due to exposure to a traumatic environment. The twins also interact differently with others, such as peers, parents, and teachers, who influence their character development.
Even as the different environments lead to varying encounters and relations, the twins also share some traits, which shows that the environment alone does not impact human development (Hambrick and Alexander 104). The experiment has not established whether genes or the environment significantly influence trait development. The only substantiated reality is that the lack of similarity in the experiences results in a variation in character development.
In several other instances, traits are influenced by genetics and the environment. An example is a person’s height, which is determined by the genes and the environment. Even though a person may be born with genes for becoming tall, they may be exposed to an impoverished environment where they may lack proper nourishment and will not be able to attain the height they would have if they grew up in a healthier environment. Another example is the power to notice the pitch if someone has the genes for a perfect pitch and would not have to refer anywhere. According to Hambrick and Alexander (104), a few families are blessed with this gift ingrained in their genes. However, having the gene alone is only adequate if a person is exposed to training in music early enough, then the gift may never be discovered.
Conclusion
The debate about putting nature against nurture has been held for a long time. People have accepted that both genes and the environment influence human development. People can be born with the genes for a particular trait, while other traits can be acquired through experiences and social relationships. The current focus has shifted to how genetics and external factors can be used to explain human behavior collaboratively. Research has helped to show that the environment influences the development of specific traits that may be transferred through genetics.
Works Cited
Barlow, Fiona Kate. “Nature vs. Nurture Is Nonsense: On the Necessity of an Integrated Genetic, Social, Developmental, and Personality Psychology.” Australian Journal of Psychology, vol. 71, no. 1. 2019, pp. 68–79. Web.
Hambrick, David Z., and Alexander P. Burgoyne. “Beyond Nature vs. Nurture in Expertise Research – Comment on Baker & Wattie.” Current Issues in Sport Science (CISS), vol. 4, 2019, pp. 104. Web.
Hart, Sara A., et al. “Nurture Might Be Nature: Cautionary Tales and Proposed Solutions.” NPI Science of Learning, vol. 6, no. 1. 2021, pp. 1–12. Web.
Hope, Sydney F., et al. “Nature vs. Nurture: Disentangling the Influence of Inheritance, Incubation Temperature, and Post-Natal Care on Offspring Heart Rate and Metabolism in Zebra Finches.” Frontiers in Physiology, vol. 13, 2022, pp. 892154. Web.
Wright, Robert O. “Nature vs Nurture- on the Origins of a Specious Argument.” Exposome, vol. 2, no. 1. 2022, PP. 5. Web.