Patrick Ahern- Informative

Nature vs. Nurture

Ill be honest with you- I have no idea how I got here. I dont mean that I went to bed last
night and suddenly am standing fully dressed in front of an audience- thatd just be strange.
What I mean is, I am completely baffled as to how my life took the path it did- why I enjoy
speaking enough to give up a weekend and drive a ridiculous number of miles across really
boring roads just for the chance to be here in front of you now. I bet that if you really think about
it carefully, you dont know either. In fact, nobody does- the debate of Nature versus Nurture is
currently one of the biggest hotbeds of academic discussion. ssentially, the debate boils down
to this! "re our actions, talents, and thoughts a result of our heredity, or are they developed by
influences from our environment#
$he debate began almost %&' years ago when the writings of (harles )arwin hit the
minds of academics like the proverbial ton of bricks. With his writings on the biological
adaptations of species to their environment, the idea that we were controlled not only by our
thoughts, but by our evolved nature as well shocked the reason-oriented thinkers of the time. $he
first theories of biological factors that convey traits from parents to offspring *what we now call
genes+ began to be researched around that same time. $he long-standing idea that our lives are
shaped solely by how we are raised had been challenged, and has been raging ever since.
$he e,treme proponents of the Nature side of the debate argue that our genes are the
primary basis for our actions- that our dispositions towards virtually everything in life stem from
traits that we inherit from our parents. $his includes our talents and abilities, our se,ual
orientation, our taste in music, our favorite foods, and even the way we think. -rom the moment
we are conceived, we develop according to a pre-set schema, with very little variation.
Patrick Ahern- Informative
Nature vs. Nurture
(onversely, the e,treme proponents of the Nurture side of the debate argue that our
inheritance influences only our physical bodies- that everything else is developed after our births.
$he environment in which we are raised determines our likes and dislikes, our career choices,
and our skills. It is only through our e,ternal environment that we grow and change.
.ositions on an argument are all well and good, but what about the science behind the
matter# $o the disappointment of both sides, there is significant evidence for both nature and
nurture arguments that have been discovered by the scientific community. -or the Nature side of
the debate, there is )N"! more uni/ue than even a fingerprint, completely differentiating each
person from the ne,t. $here are millions of strands of )N" in the human body, comprising
almost 0',''' chromosomes- the building blocks of our e,istence. $o this end, we have
immensely comple, instructions that our bodies follow as we grow, and it is this comple,ity that
the Nature proponents provide as evidence for their side. (onversely, research into the forming
of neurological pathways in the brain have shown that as we e,perience events, practice certain
skills, and even associate with certain people, physical synaptic pathways grow and strengthen
themselves. $his begins at birth as the branching out of these neurological pathways, and
changes after adolescence to the solidification and strengthening of often-used connections.
Nurture proponents cite this as a form of non-genetic environmental adaptation. $hus, there is
strong physical evidence for both sides of the debate.
With biology providing no clear answer, the proponents of both sides have looked to
psychologists to find an answer. 1nfortunately, the theories there are split as well. 2n one hand,
there are psychologists who believe in a cognitive method of human development- that our own
thoughts can control our behaviors and shape who we are. )escartes phrase, 3I think, therefore I
am4 essentially summari5es the cognitivist6s approach- whatever we think, we become. Nature
Patrick Ahern- Informative
Nature vs. Nurture
proponents argue that our thoughts are inherent to us- that our genetics directly control how we
think, and thus how we behave and e,ist. 2n the other hand, there are behaviorist psychologists
who believe that it is our actions that shape and develop who we are. $hese psychologists believe
that we are born tabula rasa- a blank slate- and that our responses to environmental influences
mold us into the people we are. "s this method of learning has been seen in animals *.avlovs
dog and its conditioned response is one e,ample+, it is believed by Nurture proponents that
humans behave in the same way. "gain, we have no clear answer to the debate.
7o with no clear winner on either side, why should we even care# "fter all, we do what
we do regardless of why we do it, right# $his might be the case if it werent for the fact that both
sides of the debate have been used as the basis of legislation- oftentimes legislation that is
discriminatory towards a certain group of individuals. $hroughout the late %8''s, scientists
across "merica used the Nature side of the debate to try and 3prove4 that non-whites were
biologically inferior to whites. Women were similarly discriminated against- it was theori5ed at
the time that womens smaller skulls meant smaller brains, and smaller amounts of brain power.
It took decades for scientists to prove that genetics between races show no more variation on
average than genetics between any two individuals, and even longer to prove that gender has
virtually no influence outside of the purely physical realm.
$he Nurture side of the debate has also had a major impact on "merican laws. $he
change of prisons being simply a place to keep criminals away from the public to being focused
on 3rehabilitation4 is a result of the idea that a change in environment and disciplinary influence
can change a person- that no one is a criminal 3by birth.4 (hild custody laws based on
environmental influence now allow children to be removed from unhealthy home situations and
placed into the care of other family members or foster parents. $he media especially has come
Patrick Ahern- Informative
Nature vs. Nurture
under fire from Nurture proponents stating that the influence of television is causing a strong
shift towards violence and disreputable behavior. "dditionally, anti-homose,uality legislation
has long relied on the idea that individuals 3choose4 which gender they are attracted to. $he
societal implications of the debate are still very much a part of "merican society.
It isnt just the big picture thats affected, either. 2ur individual personalities influence
what jobs were accepted to, what friends we make, and what we enjoy. 9nowing whether our
traits are immutable, inherited and permanent, or able to be influenced and changed by the
environments in which we place ourselves could be the difference between sticking with one
career our entire lives to ma,imi5e our inherent strengths, or being able to switch between jobs
and hobbies by immersing ourselves in different environments. It means the difference between
having only one personality our entire lives, or shifting between very different styles of behavior
and interaction. It also would provide philosophical closure- knowing whether the chicken or the
egg came first.
7o which is more prevalent, you ask# Is it nature or nurture that we should be assuming
as the basis of our behavior# 1nfortunately, the problem with the debate is that the lines become
more and more blurred as time passes. :esearch is being done to determine whether certain
environmental influences will actually alter )N", behavioral psychologists have begun to
acknowledge that not all responses can be e,plained by conditioning, and both sides are forced to
give more and more ground to the other over time. $he good thing is- while were not getting
any definitive answer on which side is more the basis for our e,istence, we can assume in the
meantime that its probably a combination of the two. Were here in this room today not as a
result of our genes, or how we were raised as children, but as a mi,ture of both.