What Make Us Who We Are Nature vs. Nurture Debate - Essay Example

What make us who we are What make us who we are how far are human behaviours, ideas, and feelings, innate, and how far are they all learned These issues are at the focal point of that continuing debate that is often known as the nature versus nurture debate or controversy (Nature nurture vs., n.d.). Whilst it is known that physical characteristics are hereditary, the genetics' role is still unclear when it comes to an individual's behaviour, intelligence, and personality. Ultimately, the old argument of nature vs. nurture has never really been won. We do not yet know how much of what we are is determined by our DNA and how much by our life experience. However, one thing is sure, both nature and nurture play a part in making us who we are today (Powell, 2003). Nature vs. nurture debate Nature versus nurture is a shorthand expression for debates about the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature") versus personal experiences ("nurture") in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits (Nature vs. nurture, 2006). The use of the terms "nature" and "nurture" as a suitable catch-phrase for the roles of heredity and environment in human development can be traced back to 13th century France. Some scientists think that people behave as they do according to genetic predispositions or even "animal instincts." This is known as the "nature" theory of human behaviour. Other scientists believe that people think and behave in certain ways because they are taught to do so. This is known as the "nurture" theory of human behaviour (Powell, 2003). Although "nurture" may have historically referred mainly to the care given to children by their parents, any environmental (not genetic) factor also would count as "nurture" in a contemporary nature versus nurture debate, including one's childhood friends, one's early experiences with television, and one's experience in the womb. Indeed, a substantial source of environmental influence to human nature may come from stochastic variations in prenatal development. Moreover, although childhood experience (especially early childhood experience) is often regarded as more influential in who one becomes than post-childhood experience, a liberal interpretation of "nurture" might count all life experience as "nurture (Nature vs. nurture, 2006)." The nature vs. nurture debate is one of the most enduring in the field of psychology. In the 17th century the French philosopher Ren Descartes set out views which held that people possess certain inborn ideas that enduringly underpin people's approach to the world. The British philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, on the other hand, took a more empirical approach emphasising the role of experience as fully contributing to behavioral development (Nature nurture vs., n.d.). Since the days of Descartes, Hobbes, and Locke, the empirical "nuture" approach has possibly tended to have the best of the argument but the debate is far from being settled (Nature nurture vs., n.d.). The Nature Theory - Heredity Scientists have known for years that physical characteristics such as eye color and hair color are dictated by specific genes encoded in each human cell. The Nature Theory takes things a step further to say those more abstract traits such as intelligence; personality, aggression, and homosexuality are also encoded in an individual's DNA (Powell, 2003). The Nurture Theory - Environment Whilst not discounting that genetic tendencies may exist, supporters of the nurture theory believe they ultimately don't matter - that our behavioural aspects originate only from the environmental factors of our upbringing. Studies on infant and child temperament have revealed the most crucial evidence for nurture theories (Powell, 2003) Researchers on all sides of the nature vs. nurture debate agree that the link between a gene and behaviour is not the same as cause and effect. Whilst a gene may increase the likelihood that a person behave in a particular manner, it does not make people do things, which means that a person still get to choose who he will be when we grow up (Powell, 2003). Furthermore, fast-growing human knowledge of the human genome has lately made it clear that both nature and nurture theories are partially correct. Nature gives us with inborn abilities and traits; nurture takes these genetic tendencies and moulds them as we learn and mature. However, the "nature vs. nurture" debate still rages on, as scientist fight over how much of whom we are is shaped by genes and how much by the environment (Powell, 2003). Human intelligence By far the most bitter of the debates has been that over the role of genetics in observed IQ differences, which led to Hans Jrgen Eysenck (March 4, 1916 - September 4, 1997), a notable psychologist, famously being punched on the nose during a talk at the London School of Economics (Hans Eysenck, 2006). Most of the animosty directed at Eysenck came about because of the supposed consequences of his IQ research, which was widely interpreted as suggesting that certain "racial" groupings (e.g. African-Americans) were allegedly genetically less intelligent than other (i.e. "white") races. Focal to this controversy was Eysenck's dependence on the results of IQ tests conducted on African-Americans which, his critics argued, were a basically imperfect as a means of testing intelligence, especially since many of the IQ tests undertaken by (poor) black Americans were basically written in formal English, which (the critics argue) consequently put the subjects at a disadvantage (Hans Eysenck, 2006). "Nurture" Is More Influential Than "Nature" Experiences are written onto the mind of a person, which is fundamentally a blank slate. Man has information of the world because he learns from experiences. Prior to experience, the human mind is a 'white paper', void of all characters, without any ideas. Each aspect of behaviour is acquired from the environment (Jones, 1996; Csongradi, n.d.). The philosopher Hume believes that the mind is a blank slate (tabula rasa) on which experience could be written. Hume was preceded by another philosopher, John Lock who was also a contemporary of Isaac Newton. They belonged to a school of thought known as Empiricism which states that knowledge is derived from experiment and observation and were joined by science contemporaries, Sir Francis Bacon and Robert Boyle (Grayling, 1996; Csongradi, n.d.). Locke thought all knowledge of the world was gathered through sensory experience. This information could be processed into more complex ideas by reflection and reasoning. He saw the mind as having innate powers of surveillance, but not of ideas which were to be constructed from sensory input. Hume, arguing the extreme of skepticism, felt nothing was objective, everything was chaotic, connections between impressions were imagined (Csongradi, n.d.). Today's belief in biology is against the notion that genes alone can determine a characteristic because genes are never enough in isolation. At the molecular level, DNA behaves in complex ways with signals from other genes and from the environment. At the level of individuals, particular genes influence the development of a characteristic in relation to a particular environment. Therefore, measurements of the degree to which a trait is influenced by genes versus environment will depend on the certain environment and genes examined. In most cases, it has been found that genes may have a substantial contribution, including psychological traits such as intelligence and personality. Yet, these traits may be principally influenced by environment in other circumstances, such as environmental deprivation (Nature vs. nurture, 2006). For example, within the debates surrounding cloning, is the far-fetched argument that a Jesus or a Hitler could be "re-created" through genetic cloning. Today's beliefs finds this principally ridiculous, and disagrees with the possibility that the clone of anyone would grow up to be the same individual due to environmental difference. For example, like clones, identical twins are genetically identical, and unlike the hypothetical clones share the same family environment, yet they are not identical in personality and other traits (Nature vs. nurture, 2006). The parallel development phenomenon is why do identical twins that are raised together grow to behave differently A number of social issues exist, especially in education and in law with regards to culpability (Nature vs. nurture, 2006). Another well-known psychologist, B.F. Skinner, also believed to have taken the view that behavioural development is determined largely by previous experiences. If behaviour was previously rewarded, the behaviour recurs; if the behaviour was previously punished, it is unlikely to recur (Nature nurture vs., n.d.). More dramatically, Dr. William Sheldon goes so far as to suggest that we, all of us, are unavoidably born with human personality traits that govern whether we will individually tend towards being sociable, or physically active, or nervy and introverted (Nature nurture vs., n.d.). It is now clear from a social point of view, that human minds and their workings are of really vast influence in events. The workings of our Human minds may well tend to reflect nature (natural, instinctual, existential promptings) as well as nurture (education and cultural indoctrination). Therefore, it is better to be aware of the existence of such disquieting tendencies discovered by the Social Psychologists than not (Nature nurture vs., n.d.). Reference List Csongradi, Carolyn. (n.d.). "Nurture" Is More Influential Than "Nature" Available from :< http://www.accessexcellence.org/LC/SER/BE/whatb.html> [20 Dec. 2006]. Grayling, A.C. (1996). "Epistemeology", in The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, Nicholas Bunnin and E.P. Tsui-James, Editors, Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Hans Eysenck. (2006). Wikimedia Foundation Inc. Available from: [20 Dec. 2006]. Jones, Peter. (1996). "Hume", in The Blackwell Companion to Philosophy, Nicholas Bunnin and E. P. Tsui-James, Editors, Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Nature nurture vs. debate or controversy. (n.d.) Available from :< http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/psychology/nature_nurture.html> [20 Dec. 2006]. Nature versus nurture. (2006). Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Available from :< http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture> [20 Dec. 2006]. Powell, Kimberly. (2003). Are We Really Born That Way Available from: [20 Dec. 2006]. Read More