Nature Versus Nurture: The Great Debate
It is a debate that has plagued the great minds of psychology for years—nature versus nurture. It is, in a sense, a most basic of questions, yet the most complex debate. What makes a man a man? What makes a woman a woman? Of course there are very obvious biological features that contribute to the sexuality of men and women. But for a moment let us go deeper. Let’s look past the clear as day differences on the outside, and journey to the center of the mind. Here is where the great debate grows more complex. We already know how we grow physically as human beings, but how do we grow mentally? It doesn’t require a rocket scientist to understand that every single person on this rock we call home is different in some way or another. Each man, woman, and child thinks differently, and therefore acts unlike any other person. On the outside it may seem like two people are “the same person.” But in reality, they are far from it. Why? Why don’t children of the same parents have the similar beliefs? How can a mother give birth to a priest, and a serial killer? Enter the great debate. Nature versus nurture begs the question of what. What causes us to grow the way we do? Is it our environment, or is it hardwired deep into our cerebellum? Are we really more evolved, or are do we enter this life the exact same way was our primal ancestors? There is a line drawn down the middle and, both sides refuse to budge; but there are also those who are trying to meld them together.
Doctor Jane Sheldon is a psychology professor at the University of Michigan Dearborn. She grew up in Overland, Ohio and attended graduate school at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor. I had the opportunity to interview her on this incredibly heated issue. Dr. Sheldon believes that it is more than likely a combination of both nature and nurture, like I have previously mentioned, but if a side had to be taken, she would chose nurture. Why nurture? Dr. Sheldon expresses the concept quite well. There are so many different biological factors that we are exposed to on a day-to-day basis. There is always a constant stimulus in contact with our senses at some point even as early as when we are born. As soon as a child enters this world they are bombarded with stimuli. Boys are placed in a blue room, and girls are placed in a pink room. Children are taught to be tough and to love sports if a boy, and to be lady-like and to enjoy make-up if a girl. Whether that generalization is stereotypical or not, it’s true. We see it in the media. For example, when MacDonald’s introduces a new Happy Meal toy, they offer Hotwheels cars for the boys, and Barbie dolls for the girls. The media dazzles the eyes of children with images of toys that are gender specific. As a teenager the media overwhelms you with images of sex, scandal, and style. These are all stimuli that affect decision-making as an adolescent, like the types of people you associate with and the values you develop. The examples I presented are all obvious factors that shape and mold a person. But according to Dr. Sheldon there are those that are less noticeable. The environment contains scores of chemical stimuli, both man-made and natural. Toxins in the air can affect us negatively. It may not seem like a one, but it is an outside factor, ergo it is a stimulus. Dr. Sheldon also mentioned that nature gives off many different hormones that are released into the atmosphere. We breathe in the atmosphere, which means we take in these hormones, which are a biological stimulus.
Religion can also be considered a form of nurture. Whether there is a god or there isn’t is not the question. But the truth is that people build strong morals and values based on the religion they follow, and the god they worship as their own. A person is told how to view life and death—some are taught to fear it, and others, embrace it. It may be unconventional to think of religion as a stimulus, but one cannot deny that it often offers a guideline of how to live life. The definition of nurture is anything that affects how an individual thinks or acts—sounds like religion fits the bill.
With all of the overwhelming evidence that’s stacked in the favor of nurture, is there any reason not to dismiss nature completely? I personally say yes. Dr. Sheldon has enlightened me on issues I had never even considered applicable in the debate, but I still have a deeply rooted belief in nature being the primary factor in our development as men and women. Let me present my argument, and then you can make the decision for yourself.
So far on our journey we’ve examined how factors affect man and woman, but let us now enter the animal kingdom. A lion is a strong, powerful beast that has a natural hunger for flesh. Many people think that it is cute to have a lion cub as a pet. Cubs grow up though, and cubs become full-sized lions. You can take a lion out of the wild, but you can’t take the wild out of the lion—not exactly the expression but the point still stands. No matter where the lion is it has natural instincts. When people are attacked by their “pets” they wonder why, but the truth is, it’s an animal no matter how you raise it. Not necessarily the best example in the world, but let me try and present another situation, one that is quite the issue today—homosexuality. I firmly believe that a person does not simply wake up one day and decide to be homosexual. It isn’t something you can choose. Yes it is true that you can have sexual relations with a member of the same sex as your own, and yes that is a choice, but I believe a great number of people simply do it for some sort of a rush, or for some sort of attention. In the grand scheme of things, you’re born either heterosexual or homosexual. When you see an individual that you find stunning, or somebody that just stands out from the crowd, why do you feel like that? Naturally we can all be somewhat shallow and minimalistic in our thinking and simply go off of obvious physical features, but deeper than that, don’t you feel some sort of inner attraction? Your mind may begin to spin around in your head jumping from scenario to scenario. Your heart may begin to beat more rapidly and your pulse may quicken. It’s a biological response that we cannot always explain. Pay close attention to the word I just used—biological. Biology is an inner factor, an inner factor being anything not influenced by the outside world, and that is the definition of nature. Nature is when our bodies take over and make the decisions for us based on the hardwiring that we were born with. The same phenomenon happens in homosexual individuals. They are human like you and I, and so they are subject to all of the same biological feelings that you and I are. The only difference is they are just attracted to members of the same sex. They can’t explain it, it’s something within—something biological. Yes I do believe this metaphysical hardwiring can be “rewired” as time goes on because of extrinsic factors, but when it comes down to it, I still firmly believe that major changes were meant to happen your whole life. People change. We all know it, and we’ve all seen it happen. Sometimes that change can’t really be explained, almost as if one day they just started to feel differently. Almost as if something within them rerouted itself. Remember that inside feelings means biology which is the root of Nature.
I’ve presented you with a taste of what both sides have to offer. Let me briefly describe three studies so that you may further make the decision for yourself.
In the first study researchers took infants from their parents (with consent) to see whether they would be more responsive to individuals of the same race, or of another race. In other words, will a Caucasian baby reach out more to a Caucasian individual, or an African-American one? The studies, though somewhat inconclusive found that babies preferred their own race (Bar-Haim 159-63).
The second study took twins, both fraternal and maternal, from an orphanage to see if they would be the same as their parents that raised them. The study found that the twins developed similar tendencies, but not necessarily those of the family to which they had been adopted. Also twins showed similar intellectual levels to one another (Ronald 664-84).
The third study is more of an explanation that tries to explain why men are by nature more promiscuous than women. The reasoning behind the male sex-drive is that primitive men were more likely to pass on their genetic DNA and have children that survived if they impregnated multiple women. The more babies, the more chances to pass on the gene. Therefore, nature favored more promiscuous males (Baldwin 181-210).
You’ve gotten a generous serving of the facts and of the information available. I’ve presented you with an interview, my own personal beliefs, and three studies that I found rather interesting. The only thing that’s left to do is to make the decision for yourself. Are we so easily influenced by the outside world that we have no control over how we will act given that we are exposed to particular stimuli? Is there something much deeper going on that cannot be seen with the naked eye? Are we predestined to grow in a certain mold for our entire lives, never straying from the well-defined path? The answers may even lie somewhere in between. That’s the thing with a great debate such as nature versus nurture; the debate will always go on.
Works Cited
Baldwin, John D. "Gender Difference in Sexual Interest." Archives of Sexual Behavior 26.2 (1997): 181-210. Print.
Bar-Haim, Yair. "Research Article: Nature and Nurture in Own-Race Face Processing." Psychological Science 17.2 (2006): 159-63. Web.
Ronald, Angelica. "Nice and Nasty Theory of Mind in Preschool Children: Nature and Nurture." Social Development 14.4 (2005): 664-84. Print.
Nature versus Nurture
It is a debate that has plagued the great minds of psychology for years—nature versus nurture. It is, in a sense, a most basic of questions. What makes a man a man? What makes a woman a woman? Of course there are very obvious biological features that contribute to the sexuality of men and women. But for a moment let us go deeper. Let’s look past the clear as day differences on the outside, and journey to the center of the mind. Here is where the great debate grows more complex. We already know how we grow physically, but how do we grow mentally? It doesn’t require a rocket scientist to understand that every single person on this rock is different in some way or another. Each and each man, woman, and child thinks differently, and therefore acts unlike any other person. On the outside it may seem like two people are “the same person.” But in reality, they are far from it. Why? Why don’t children of the same parents have the same beliefs? How can a mother give birth to a priest, and a serial killer? Enter the great debate. Nature versus nurture begs the question of what. What causes us to grow the way we do? Is it our environment, or is it hardwired deep into our cerebellum? I had the opportunity to read several articles on the subject. Let me first of all say that there is a line drawn down the middle and, both sides refuse to budge; and there are those who are trying to meld them together. From the reading I have done, these articles interest me the most.
I mentioned that two children can be born of the same parents, and yet grow up to be quite different. The first article deals with twins, and adopted children. Naturally one would be tempted to think that a set of twins would grow up to be the same. Discarding any outside stimuli such as disease or accidents, they should be generally the same right? According to the study, wrong. It was found that the two children of the parents grow up with similar intelligence, religious beliefs, and political views as the parents, but it stops there. There is just a certain innate sense of identity that shapes the child’s life. Nature prevails. The example is more easily explained through adopted children. Even if adopted at infancy, before the child has any predispositions, the parenting does not truly effect the overall development. Two different orphans that are adopted by the same family will not have the same views. It may be easy to say, well naturally people are going to be self-sufficient and be individuals one day. Let me talk about a different study that more clearly demonstrates the phenomena of nature’s dominance in development.
This study was performed even earlier in a child’s life, so far as to being a few weeks old. It involves face recognition. Scientist took several Caucasian and several African babies. They exposed the children to both Caucasian and African adults. The Caucasian babies were more likely to reach out towards the Caucasian adult, and vice versa. The question is, do babies have certain pretences when born? Perhaps. The infants did have an easier time identifying the face of their own race. The study also went a bit farther and tested grade school children to see if they could recognize men and women of their own race. The study found that Caucasian children had a harder time identifying African individuals, but African children could easily identify any race. This is different than the infants. This is definitely nurture playing some role. Scientists believe that minorities are exposed to the majority more often, and thus have an easier time identifying them, as well as other races. The study was inconclusive in integrated school systems though, where everybody easily identified each race.
The most interesting study in my opinion though involves sexuality of men and women. The old says goes “women are from Venus and men are from Mars.” Men and women are just different, especially sexually. Men tend to desire sex solely for physical feeling; whereas women hold sex to a higher standard of emotional connection. Sociologists believe that this is something that has evolved from early man. Which would make sexual desire a trait of nature. Men are able to produce hundreds of children in their lifetime without really investing anything at all but sperm. The more children a man had, the greater the chance for his gene to be passed on. Promiscuous men had a greater chance of completing life’s goal—passing on genetic traits. Therefore, natural selection favored promiscuity. Sociologists believe that over time this trait, this desire grew so that the race could survive. Survival of the fittest is the way things work after all. Women on the other hand have to invest a great deal more into a child. Nine months of pregnancy, many months of breastfeeding, then years of care until the child can survive on it’s own. Early woman did not have to be promiscuous; she merely had to accept whichever man she chose. This is why men chase women, and have more of a physical sex drive; and women seek sex for more intimate reasons.
In the great debate of nature versus nurture it’s not clear who’s really right. But what is clear is that we are all different, and we are all unique. The reasons can be due to a million stimuli that we face in a lifetime, or simply one stimulus written into our DNA at birth. No matter what you believe, the debate goes
