Nature versus Nurture

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