The Greatest Impact on Our Potential Intelligence - Coursework Example

Nature vs. Nurture How do we develop our personalities? What has the greatest impact on our potentialintelligence? These are questions that have puzzled philosophers and scientists for millennia with no conclusive solutions obtained. The earliest traces of the debate can be found in an old Greek legend regarding the beginning of man (Ali Ateel, 2005). According to this legend, when the gods first made man, they gave him powers of divinity, but man began challenging the gods which frightened them. However, once given, the trait could not be completely taken away again. To protect themselves, the gods decided to hide man’s divinity from him but had difficulty finding an appropriate place. Finally, the gods realized the best place to hide divinity was inside the man himself. How this divinity comes to be, what causes it to develop into the individual person it becomes and the source of this divinity are all questions that have continued to baffle researchers. There are two broadly defined schools of thought on the issue. One posits that it is inborn, given to us directly by God fully formed and only awaiting self-discovery. The other theory indicates that we are the products of our environment, how we are raised and the major events that occur during our lifetimes. The handy catch-phrase for this debate has been refined down to nature versus nurture. While evidence exists that suggest nurturing environments will produce more intelligent children, there is equally irrefutable evidence that at least some children are born with a sharp limitation upon intellectual ability. Is a child’s intelligence determined at birth, a genetic capacity that will never shrink nor grow larger? Or is it instead a potential that, with the proper nurture and care, can be exercised and expanded to an indeterminate degree? By examining each side of the nature/nurture debate, it will be discovered that while genetics plays a role in determining intelligence, how well the child will be able to use these abilities will depend to a large extent upon their environment. First, one must be clear about what is being referred to when using the terms ‘nature’ and ‘nurture.’ When one speaks of nature, they are referring to heredity, the genetic structure of an individual passed down to them by their parents. A few examples of inherited traits or nature include a person’s IQ, height/weight, behavioral patterns, general appearance and disposition, all of which significantly impact a child’s development. This would include any genetic predisposition for intelligence level should a link be found as well as any genetic mutations that might limit intelligence or intellectual expression, such as Down’s Syndrome or lack of brain development. The environment or nurturing influences that a child experiences while growing up also significantly impacts their development. How much outside stimulus can affect or counteract genetic predispositions continues to be studied and varies at least to some extent in each individual. Some fundamental nurturing dynamics, nutrition for example, have been revealed to play an integral role in determining a child’s development. Other external factors such as fears experienced by a child can become ingrained and manifest into any one of many maladies surfacing throughout that child’s lifetime. Nurturing activities such as behavioral techniques taught by disciplinary measures and observations is an important aspect of child development as well. Proper behavior will not develop if not learned as a child. Behavior has been proven to be dependant more so on nurture than nature (Blanz, 1991 pp. 939–950). It is possible that intelligence is only brought to the surface when nurtured through an enriched and understanding environment, thus removing distractions such as hunger, fatigue or fear. To better understand the extent nature or genetics has on the development of children, researchers have conducted many studies involving twins who were raised in differing environments, by different types of parents. One study involved the ‘Jim twins’ a set of identical twins who were raised apart. Though they had never met, the brothers and researchers discovered many similarities between the now 40 year olds. The conclusion that no credible explanation existed for the similarities except nature plays an important role in child development. “The Minnesota twin study concluded that on multiple measures of personality and temperament, occupational and leisure-time interests and social attitudes, mono-zygotic twins reared apart are about as similar as are mono-zygotic twins reared together” (Flanagan, 2002). Through this study, the twins were found to have a very similar intelligence as evidenced in the shared interests, hobbies and lifestyles they lived. Researchers have also examined adopted siblings within the same family, in other words children who share nurturing circumstances but are not related biologically to their parents or siblings.  A study conducted by the Texas Adoption Project concluded that there was “little similarity between adopted children and their siblings, and greater similarity between adopted children and their biological parents” (Flanagan, 2002). This again suggests that despite the environment in which a child is raised, their intelligence levels will be more similar to birth parents than to those who have adopted them. This study showed that nature indeed plays a pivotal role in how a child will develop; therefore predictions can be made as to how to best accommodate positive outcomes. This evidence opens the door for a symbiosis of nature and nurture. By recognizing that biological children are more likely to develop the same learning disabilities encountered by their parents (intelligence is defined by nature), steps can be taken early on in their educational career to address the problem thereby encouraging greater intellectual success (intelligence as it is shaped by nurture) (Rowe, p. 55). Genetics have been proven to play a crucial role in child development concerns but no one disputes that parenting also plays a significant part too. A meeting of the nature/nurture debate has already been suggested, but there are also plenty of examples in which parenting styles make a great impact in determining a child’s behavioral and intellectual welfare. “Individual differences in complex traits are due at least as much to environmental influences as they are to genetic influences” (Nature versus Nurture, 2000). In the case of poverty’s effect on children, it has been shown that poor parents who stimulate their child’s interest in outside activities such as family trips to the museum, the zoo, the park, entertainment venues, etc. promotes the child’s resilience to their impoverished conditions. “Research suggests factors like emotionally warm parenting, educational opportunities and a child’s own temperament can protect against a poor socioeconomic environment” (Ham, 2004). The fact that environment, nurture, significantly influences a child’s behavior is commonly acknowledged among experts yet the question of how much this actually affects intelligence has yet to be adequately determined. Intelligent parents understand this process all too well. A child’s experiences shape their behavior along with the way they view themselves and the world around them. By encouraging intellectual growth to the best of one’s abilities, in a nurturing and enriched environment in which the child is made to feel learning is possible and fulfilling, parents are able to increase the degree to which children are able to put their intelligence to use. Skillful parenting offers the best chance for happy, well-adjusted children regardless of their genetic make-up (Vince, 2005). While it seems clear through twin studies that children are probably born with a predetermined capacity for intelligence, it also seems clear that the greater element determining both the intellectual gifts they will develop and their ability to utilize these gifts will be determined primarily by their environment. According to the nurture theory, an infant is born with a mind like a blank slate, also known by its Latin translation tabula rasa. According to John Locke, who was the first to actually name the idea though not the first to have it, “we acquire knowledge … from the information about the objects in the world that our senses bring to us. We begin with simple ideas and then combine them into more complex ones” (Clark, 1999). Much of how we develop our personalities is thus shaped by the way in which we are treated by our parents and caregivers and affected by the education we receive, the culture we are raised in and the social adherence to these cultural norms we encounter. The things that happen to us throughout our lives also affect the way our personalities develop. Major events such as a death in the family, a significant move, changes in the family order (through divorce, remarriage, new births, etc) or large-scale world events can often have a deep impact upon a person’s personality, particularly if it occurs while the individual is still in a vulnerable age group, old enough to feel the changes and young enough not to have a firm conception of self yet. Within this theory, then, there is enormous potential for harm as careless individuals intentionally and maliciously raise children with specific ideas as to how to shape their personality as well as significant potential for change as the individual seizes control of their development and laboriously shifts it to a more amenable path as to what they want to be. However, this, too, requires behavioral adjustment and thus also falls under the nurture theories. Testing the hypotheses between strictly nature or strictly nurture proves nearly impossible as it is immoral and unethical to attempt to separate two identical twins and then have them raised in individual bubbles in which they are raised in the exact same but different environment to determine whether they would develop identical personalities. In addition, two children, raised by the same parents in the same location with the same education and cultural influences, even if they are twins, invariably develop individual personalities that cannot be explained by either genetics or environment. Why does one child enjoy reading until midnight while the other child prefers listening to music after getting up early in the morning? These constant anomalies suggest there is something else at play, perhaps in the reactions of others to these children, but then, what causes people to react to one child one way and the other in a different way, particularly when working in twin studies? Unanswered questions regarding personality differences in both the nature and the nurture sides of the debate have given rise to a third group of scientists who now focus their attention on studies of how nature and nurture work together to form individual personalities. Acknowledging that some of our personality is inherent within us from birth and that our environments are affected, at least to some degree, by those elements of ourselves that are obviously genetically linked (eye and hair color, level of attractiveness, etc.), there nevertheless seems too much evidence to support the nurture theories to discount them altogether. By the same token, acknowledgment of the fact that a neglectful childhood will have an adverse affect upon a child’s personality as opposed to a nurturing environment does nothing to refute claims that genetics plays a role in our development, particularly as personality disorders begin to be traced along genetic lines. In combining the two theories, scientists are now attempting to determine where the boundary line lies – where nature stops and nurture takes over or where nurture plays a role in the strengthening or bringing out of latent natural tendencies. Studies in the field have concluded that nature and nurture interact together as important elements in a child’s development. Those who suggest either nature or nurture plays the most significant role present much evidence for their argument. Research has found genetics is a central aspect in the similar development of twins brought-up in separate households. Research has also demonstrated that parental involvement and other external circumstances is a significant factor in cognitive progression. Recent technology and intensive studies have allowed scientists and child development experts to better understand the genetic aspects of child development. These advancements have served to increase interest in the nurturing aspects as well. What has been learned is that both nature and nurture play a great role in child development but the exact extent will continue to be debated. What gives the nurture argument more weight is the degree to which environment continues to play such a large role in the unfolding of an individual life. Intelligence can be affected both positively and negatively by the environment in which a child is placed and these influences can be changed at any time to begin bringing about different effects as they are modified and adjusted to reconcile with previous experience. While the argument that genetics plays a significant role in the development of an individual’s potential intelligence, it seems clear that a nurturing environment can play a much greater role in establishing the tools and skills the child will need to function within their particular society. Works Cited Ali Ateel, Saqib. “Nature vs. Nurture – Theories of Personality in the 21st Century.” Ezine Articles. (August 29, 2005). August 6, 2008 Blanz B, Schmidt MH, Esser G. “Familial adversities and child psychiatric disorders.” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1991. Clark, Donald. “John Locke.” (December 1, 1999). August 6, 2008 Flanagan, C. “Nature and nurture: why are siblings so different?” Psychology Review. Vol. 8, N. 3, (2002): 23. Ham, Becky “Is it nature or nurture? Maybe it is a bit of both” Health Behavior News Service, May 28, 2004. “Nature versus Nurture” BBC News. (May 30, 2000) August 6, 2008 Rowe, David C. The Limits of Family Influence: Genes, Experience, and Behavior. The Guilford Press, (August 2, 1995) Vince, Gaia “Early experience, not genes, shapes child abusers” NewScientist.com news service. (June 27, 2005) August 6, 2008 Read More