Are Humans Born with Identity or Is It Constructed - Essay Example

Are humans born with a set identity or is it constructed through life's experiences It has been discussed for a long time if the personality, talentsand character are inherited or obtained with the upbringing and education. It is evident that the physical qualities are determined by the genes, but as far as the behaviour, character, intellect are concerned, the matter is not so clear. According to the opinion of many scientists, this old fight between the two arguments hasn't been already won by one of them, and it is still unclear if the major part of our identity is influenced by the DNA or our environment. But there are some authors considering that the balance between the two has already been found. It is customary to use the word "nature" for the set of physical factors, influencing the traits that are inherited, and "nurture" for the environment, learning and experience. There are the theories that are connected to these notions. The nature theory is based upon the information that the traits peculiar to the physical conditions of the human being, such as colour of the hair or eyes, are defined by the specific genes, which are included into the human cell. This theory goes further and supposes that the features of the identity, such as intellect or character are also encoded in the genes. The nurture theory doesn't reduce the meaning of the genotype, but attaches importance to the role of the environment. The scientists that support this theory assume that the models of people's actions are determined by the learning, experience and family. (4) Numerous examinations of human genome led to the conclusion that both theories are partially right. The nature gives us certain inborn capacities and characteristics; environment uses these inherited features and designs them in the process of brining up and getting experience. But as long as the meaning of these two components in the process of forming the identity is not clearly set, the debates over nature and nurture still go on. The main question that is to be solved is as follows: are the models of our behaviour inculcated in us before our birth or moderated by our learning and experience The scientists of the both sides agree that the relations between a genotype and behaviour are not defined by a cause-and-effect relation. A definite gene can increase the probability that a person will act in a particular way, but it cannot compel a human to do in this or that way. This means that it still depends upon a human to choose this or that model of behaviour. The results of the IQ tests are contradictory - the twins that have been separated just after the birth have similar IQ level, thus letting us assume that the nurture doesn't play a significant role. But the same IQ tests that are delivered from time to time prove that each generation gets higher scores compared to the older ones. This result seems to demonstrate that the education and experience influence us. This paradox was discovered in 1987 by J. Flynn, and now it is called "the Flynn effect". (2) But this paradox may stop its existence. Flynn and his colleague W. Dickens wrote a Psychological Review article, saying that it is not the influence of one of these factors that defines or identity, but both these elements. To put it differently, both genotype and nurture determine our cognitive capacities, and the meanings of these factors are interrelated. Genotype may provide a person with definite benefits, but these benefits are enlarged by the learning and experience. For example, if the person is born with an IQ level that is a little higher than average statistical level, he is probably to like learning, reading and mental activity in general. As a result, this person would devote much time to these activities, thus adding much to the capacities that were given to him by nature. Then the process goes on, and due to the cognitive benefits this person devotes more and more time to mental activities, find people of higher level of education to communicate with, and all this will also add to his IQ. The result is as follows: the small advantage that was inherited by the person is greatly enlarged. We also may observe an inverse process in case the person is born with disadvantage in his IQ level. He may not be interested in getting new knowledge, and engaging in mental activities, so he wouldn't change his IQ level. As for the question of the different IQ that is presented by different generations, there is a theory of "social multiplier". This theory means that "as people's cognitive ability and performance level rises, the group average increases, which motivates more people to try to improve their ability and performance. So, even small gains in people's IQs can become large social forces in a fairly short period of time". (2) The authors do not specify what the motives of the increase in IQ level are, but they suggest some alternatives. General increase in IQ level may be modified by a growing complexity of the jobs that are suggested by the industrialized society, extra time that is devoted to the activities that enlarge human intellectual capacities, technological development that requires the use of mentality or families with less number of children, thus allowing parents to devote more attention and time to their children. Each of these elements seems to have a little influence upon increasing IQ, but taken in total they may have a significant influence. Moreover, when all people around are modified by definite factors, the person would probably be influenced as well. The question of the confrontation between the nature and nurture is studied in the field of developmental psychology. This science observes the relations between various kinds of development, and the differences in development, that refer to both deviant and normal types. Developmental psychology studies the childhood the life of a person in general, focusing especially on three factors that are indicated as the most influential - growth, maturation and learning(1). The problem of what is more important in the process of development - nature or nurture - is one of the oldest questions that were observed by the psychologists. The discussion was begun by philosophers. For instance, John Locke, an outstanding British philosopher, suggested a theory that a person is born being a "tabula rasa", with his behaviour an actions moderated by his education and experience. The conception of maturation was worked out by Arnold Gesell, the American scientist. This theory is basic to developmental psychology, pointing out the significance of natural factors in person's development. (1) Gesell found out that the motor skills of a newborn child are developed independently of outside factors. The interrelation of nature and nurture was paid more attention in more recent studies, like those of Jean Piaget, a psychologist from Switzerland. He also insisted that the interplay of these two factors, but not the priority of one over another influence the development. His researches became a basis for further researches in the field of developmental psychology. The scientists tended to avoid an opposition, trying to compare the results of studies that dealt with the influence of nature and environment, observing family factors and studying twins. Contemporary studies in the fields of maturation observe the frames where each step of development is determined not only by inborn capacities, but also by susceptibility of environment and education. One of the contemporary scientists, Matt Ridley in his book "Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience and What Makes Us Human" is trying to put an end to the controversy of nature and nurture. His aim is to demonstrate that the terms of the discussion are unreal. Ridley doesn't support either the proponents of nature influence or those who insist on significance of learning and environment. He supposes the fact that we are modified by the transition between these two elements to be evident. He states that the factors that prove the influence of one side not necessary deny the influence of the other side. According to his point of view, the finding that show how genotype modifies human behaviour and is influenced back, change the terms of the discussion. "Genes, Mr Ridley argues, are not gods in the sky but cogs in the machine, not puppet-masters pulling the strings of behaviour but puppets at the mercy of behaviour." (3) To prove his point of view, Ridley observes the history of the conflict of nature and nurture form the angles of vision of sides, paying attention to such phenomena as schizophrenia, homosexuality, psychoanalysis, and parenting. (3) He continues with studying the effect that parenting has upon the identity of a child, and addresses to the experience of different parents. He describes the parents that are sure their child would be a model created by their upbringing. These parents often find themselves reduced to casual observers, while their child's behaviour is dictated by his genotype and environment. Here Ridley also adds numerous examples of errors that were produced by incorrect understanding of the theory of relations between nature and nurture. Understanding of the nature of relationship between nature and nurture appeared to be important for the medicine and psychology in studying such diseases as schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is one of the most widespread psychological diseases throughout the world. The statistics show that nearly 1% of the population on the Earth reveals the symptoms of this disease, with equal data for men and women. As long as the examination of the nature and causes that lead to this condition proceeds, the findings in the field of opposition of nature and nurture will become significant. For instance, according to the statistics, schizophrenia is more spread among the lowest social groups, but there are the authors that claim that the cases of schizophrenia are more evident in these groups than in more privileged layers of society. As it has been mentioned above, the reasons that cause schizophrenia are still examined. It is customary to regard them as the mixture of psychological conditions and environmental elements. The researches make evident that a hereditary element influence mental disorder that accompanies schizophrenia. The members of the family that has schizophrenics are ten times more susceptible to this disease, compared to average rates, and the twin pair of a schizophrenic reveals a 46% probability of having this disease. Relatives of schizophrenics often have slight mental disorders, having the symptoms inherent to schizophrenia, like, for instance, eccentric manners, problems with communication and jealousy.(5) After the World War II it was customary to regard bad parenting as the most probable cause of schizophrenia. But recently advanced researches delivered in the field of neurology, stressed the importance of psychological motives that lead to this disease. The experiments observing schizophrenics showed that their brains have common features, like a smaller volume of brain, weaker flow of blood in definite areas of brain and extension of the cavities that are situated at the center of the human brain.(5) During last time the scientists paid much attention to the relations between schizophrenia and the chemicals that transport impulses from one point of brain to another. One of these chemicals, dopamine, is considered as the most important among those that may cause schizophrenia. (5) The other researches study the circumstances that may provide the development of mental disorder. The scientists suppose that some of them develop during intrauterine life due to numerous reasons, like infections caused by viruses or injuries, undernourishment of a mother or a rhesus incompatibility that a child and his mother may have. The elements of environment that are supposed to influence schizophrenia are as follows: the intracranial birth injury or other types of birth trauma, the infections that are caused by viruses during childhood and traumas of brain that occur in early childhood. There are also the examples that prove that definite family conditions and environment add much to the probability of relapse in cases when a person who was observed by the doctors as the case of schizophrenia. Bibliography (1) Developmental psychology, article. Gale Encyclopedia of Psychology (2) Kaplan-Leiserson, Eva (2001) Why We're Smarter - role of nature and nurture according to Psychological Review article, New York University, Jones International University e-learning courses. Training & Development (3) Karwowski, Michael (2004) Nature v. Nurture: an end to the war - Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience and What Makes Us Human - Book Review. Contemporary Review (4) Powell, Kimberly (2003) Nature vs. Nurture: Are We Really Born That Way Genealogy. Parenting and Family. About (5) Schizophrenia, article. Gale Encyclopedia of Childhood and Adolescence Read More