#25: Nature vs Nurture

Our 25th prompt comes from Fangirl. She asks:

Nature or Nurture?

*

Fangirl,

Ah, the seemingly never-ending debate among scientists has made it to my blog. I am honoured. For those who are new to it, it goes like this: Is human development influenced by genes (nature) or by the environment (nurture)? Or is it influenced by both? Since the 16th Century, humanity has found this debate a worthwhile pre-occupation.

On the one hand, we have biological determinists – people who believe that one’s behaviour and development is largely, if not wholly, determined by one’s genes. This is at the expense of the influence of the environment. It is worth noting that biological determinism has been at the heart of very many harmful schools of thought. For example, eugenics, which argues that we should improve the human race/society by encouraging reproduction by people with “desirable” traits (“positive” eugenics) and discouraging reproduction by people with “undesirable” qualities (“negative” eugenics). The question is, according to whom? Is there a universal scale that we all agreed to? Of course, such thinking ultimately leads to genocide.

Another product of biological determinism is scientific racism. You know, pseudo-scientific thoughts and techniques that aim to prove that whiteness is superior to blackness/brownness. Scientific racists are the people who measure crania and used these measurements to categorize and divide people into races, and to justify dehumanization of black and brown people (based on the idea that they had smaller brains) due to these rubbish categories. Yet another product of biological determinism is gender roles, or the idea that men and women are born with predispositions for certain behaviours, which then makes them suitable for certain roles. This, of course, has been used to oppress women for hundreds of years.

Certainly, our genes play a huge role in who we are. They determine our height, skin colour, eye colour, hair colour, the shape and size of our noses, and so on. They also affect our health and predisposition to certain illnesses, both mental and physical. However, can they be said to be the key/sole determinant of intelligence, personality, sexual orientation and so on? We can’t say for sure, which is why we dedicate a lot of time and money to behavioural studies.

On the other hand, we have the people who say that while nature may dictate our traits, this is in response to nurture. That environmental factors are the origins of our behaviour. This is known as blank-slatism, or tabula rasa. It is the idea that human beings are born with blank slate minds, and that all their knowledge comes from their experiences/perceptions of their environment. Blank slatists argue that all human beings are, at their core, the same. I’m happy to share that this side of the debate has not been responsible for dehumanization and scandal, at least not as much as their opponents.

However, I believe that this is a forced binary, and I wondering why we have to choose whether nature or nurture prevails when determining who we are and how we live. The interaction between our genes and the environment is indisputable – this is the foundation of evolution. To me, human development is an infinite feedback loop between nature and nurture, between the person and her environment. We are geared for survival. We live in a universe/on a planet that is indifferent to our existence. So what do we do? We register this information (through our senses) and we adapt. We have been doing this since we originated, and we have to continue to do this, or we will die.

The genes are not important in and of themselves, they are important because of what they do. And what they do is influenced by the environment. I wish that as a species, we would focus more time and energy on studying this interconnected-ness, and understanding how it impacts our capacity/capabilities; how it affects our modes of knowing, thinking and feeling. How we can interpret our past through this lens to ensure a better future. But that clearly does not sound as entertaining to us as this debate.

*

This post is part of a daily writing experiment that I’m running for a year. I’d love it if you took part! ?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *