Human Psychological Functioning - Essay Example

 The relative contribution of nature and nurture to human psychological functioning Introduction. For many decades now, there has been an ongoing conjunctive effort to clearly distinguish between the roles of nature and nurture in human development, and this has eventually led to some of the most provocative discoveries and psychological advances in the twentieth century. In his book, Stephen Pinker noted that “for many decades psychologists have looked for the causes of individual differences in cognitive ability and in personality. The conventional wisdom has been that such traits are strongly influenced by parenting practices and role models.” Pinker, S. (2004). This belief that cognitive ability and in personality is a direct effect of a person’s upbringing is flawed, because it is based on correlational studies that investigate the effects parental care and the environment on children, but does not allow for the natural factor of genetic relatedness. The nature–nurture debate has been a particularly problematic one in the field of developmental psychology. In order to ascertain the extent to which human psychology is influenced by genes and biological make-up, as compared to the environment and culture, it is necessary to be able to distinguish the effects of nature from those of nurture. Some scientists are of the opinion that individual human genetics are wholly responsible for human behaviour, and that “people behave as they do according to genetic predispositions or even ‘animal instincts’." from http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture.htm. This theory is known as the "nature" theory of human behaviour. Others believe that the environment and the experiences a person has in life, determine the outcome of his psychology and behavioural pattern. This is called the "nurture" theory of human behavior. Nature versus nurture debates can be viewed as a series of efforts to incorporate new scientific ideas and developments into the older classical formalist ideas, because nature and nurture debates sprung from problems concerned with accommodating the formalist ideas of classical theory with modern theories and new scientific data. These debates describe the controversy that arises as a result of trying to ascertain the relative importance of hereditary biological make-up (nature) as compared to the influence of the environment (nurture) in the causation of human intelligence and behaviour. Both of these factors can cause a noticeable change among various individuals but only those variations that are caused by nature are said to be inherited, and these inherited factors are the basis of the subject of quantitative genetics. Some, like Dr. William Sheldon go as far as saying that all human beings are invariably born with individual personality attributes or characteristics that determine whether a person will be introverted, sociable, nervy, or physically active. This might not be entirely true, as “starting on a particular path does not absolutely guarantee that you will arrive at a particular destination, it just makes it more probable, and the further down a specific path you go, the greater this probability becomes.” Cooper, T. and Roth, I. (2002). Only in some rare circumstances is it completely acceptable to state that a trait is completely as a result of heredity or nature. For example, In the case of some diseases that are have been identified as genetic diseases, like Huntington's disease, in which there is an almost 100 percent chance of having the disease if one has the identified gene, and vice versa. It is common knowledge that a person’s physical traits, like his hair color or eye color are determined his genes (nature), but the nature theory stipulates that other abstract human traits like sexual orientation, personality, and intelligence are also determined by the DNA constituents of an individual’s genes. The view that human psychology is a direct result of the effects of a person’s environment and culture (nurture) is known as tabula rasa ("blank slate"). This theory that the mind is a blank slate was reinforced by the view that the differences that exist between people of various classes and ethnic groups, and which were previously thought to reflect innate disparities in temperament and talent, could disappear when people migrate to a different environment, or through social mobility and cultural change. There are also some political and moral reasons for this theory. It is thought that “if nothing in the mind is innate, then differences among races, sexes, and classes can never be innate, making the blank slate the ultimate safeguard against racism, sexism, and class prejudice.” Pinker, S. (2004). This theory postulates that negative human traits like aggression, prejudice and greed are a function of human nature, and therefore, social progress is not limited in humans In this way, the ‘blank slate’ theory supports the view that human psychology is a direct result of the effects of a person’s environment and culture (nurture). In some cases, it can be said that the environment in which a person finds himself can completely determine a characteristic or trait, like a person’s native language, which is entirely determined by his environment. It has been discovered that a child is capable of learning any human language with equal facility. Judith Harris, author of The Nurture Assumption argues that children are more influenced by their peer groups than their parents, as has always been assumed, and that peer groups are the major factor in ascertaining how a child grows up. This conclusion has led to a lot of debate and controversy, but there are theories, which suggest that the vertical relationships, in which a person finds himself during childhood, do have equally significant effect on how that person develops. An example of one such theory is the attachment theory, which states that every child has a drive to feel secure through the formation of emotional bonds with their basic care givers. Even though all through history, nurture has been seen as the care given to children and adolescents by their parents, it is now seen by many to include any environmental non-hereditary factor that influences the debate on the effects of nature and nurture on human psychological development. Children are born with some innate patterns of behaviour, including the tendency to grip with their palm, and sucking and these are their first ways of understanding their environment. They continue to take in new experiences and more knowledge that conforms to their already existing behaviours. Eventually, they will start exhibiting new behaviours in response to their environment, and develop more complex behavioural patterns and routines, as they come into contact with more components of their environment. Later, they develop the ability to represent their behaviours internally, by way of language and mental imagery. Also, nurture can be more generally seen to include all experiences in life, even though early childhood experience is most times, regarded to be a very influential factor in the issue of who a person becomes later in life. Although nurture studies alone cannot completely define or explain the variation of traits like IQ and other personality traits, peer groups and random environmental factors play a more vital role than family upbringing and socio-economic status, in human psychological functioning. In their book Challenging Psychological Issues, Troy Cooper and Ilona Roth observed that “Many lifespan psychologists find it helpful to think of development as a transaction between the individual and their environment, with each influencing the other and in turn affecting the developmental path followed.” Cooper, T. and Roth, I. (2002). The term nurture has therefore been enlarged to include the effects of prenatal, parental, extended family, and peer experiences on development. Judith Rich Harris is also of the opinion that “Parents do not influence their children in the way that has always culturally been assumed and it is peer groups that are the major influence in determining how children will grow up.” Harris, J. R. (1999). Thus the appeal of the theory that vertical relationships during childhood do have a significant impact on human development. According to Troy Cooper and Ilona Roth, One only needs to think about how differently one might react to a crying and to a smiling baby to realise the power that a person has to affect what happens to them. This highlights the role that people can play in determining their own environments. This is one reason why the so-called nature–nurture distinction is a particularly problematic one in developmental psychology. Cooper, T. and Roth, I. (2002). There is also a school of thought that supports the theory that human behavior is the result of a complex interplay between nature and nurture. It is believed that human behavior is an outcome of a combination of the cumulative effects of nature or nurture. “In some areas of psychological development it appears that there may be certain developmental pathways along which individuals are likely to travel. The key word here is ‘likely’. Such an approach is therefore not deterministic but rather, probabilistic” Cooper, T. and Roth, I. (2002). Troy Cooper and Ilona Roth also observed that It is clearly very difficult to separate these different factors as they work so closely together. As we learn more about genetics, physiology and psychology it is becoming increasingly clear that a simple dichotomy between nature and nurture is not tenable. Cooper, T. and Roth, I. (2002). Nature and heredity are important factors in determining psychological function, but nurture also plays a critical role in human psychology, no matter a person’s individual traits. Some concrete behavioral traits, which depend on nurture, like a person’s language, political party or religion, cannot be inherited, but other traits that reflect his underlying talents, such as how proficient he is with language or how religious he is, can be partially inherited. Human traits are shaped both by an individual’s genetic tendencies and the environment in which he develops. Therefore, nature may determine a person’s our capabilities or abilities, but the nurture the person gets in life still determines what he will do with those abilities. Environmental input has been shown to affect the expression of a person’s genes. This interaction of an individual’s genes with his environment, which is called the gene-environment interaction, is another component of the nature-nurture debate that can indicate if individuals with a certain genotype will be more likely to seek out, or find themselves in certain environments. This is because a person’s genotype might lead him to engage in active selection of particular type of environment. For example, when a child is growing up, there comes a stage when the child will choose its toys, hobbies, friends and school subjects. Thus, it appears that the child’s genes can be responsible for shaping the creation or selection of his environment. All things considered, it is very difficult to convincingly determine the specific relative contribution of genes (nature) and the environment (nurture) on psychological development, and there are various ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ factors that, when combined with one other, can help to explain human development and psychological functioning. References. Cooper, T. and Roth, I. (2002). Challenging Psychological Issues. The Open University. Degler, C. N. (1991). In Search of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of Darwinism in American Social Thought. New York: Oxford University Press. Harris, J. R. (1999) The Nurture Assumption, London, Bloomsbury. Pinker, S. (2004). Why nature & nurture won’t go away. Kimberly Powell. From http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture.htm http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture.htm Read More