Monday, February 9, 2009

Nature versus Nurture?

How much of who we are is determined by our genes or biology? How much of who we are is determined by our environment, including where and how we live and how we interact with those around us? While the question of nature versus nurture is unanswerable in many respects, it strongly influences how we see ourselves and others. It helps us explain traits and behaviors, which has consequences for how we treat each other.

Science does allow us to determine the extent to which we inherit certain traits and behaviors using twin studies. Since twins who are raised together often have fully shared genetic material and highly shared environments and experiences, it would still be difficult to attribute similarities among twins to either nature or nurture. But, when twins are reared apart, this provides an ideal way of studying whether nature or nurture matters more.

Traits like eye color and blood type are predominantly genetic, while language (what language one speaks) and culture are predominantly environmental. While we tend to think of traits like height and weight as genetically determined, the full expression of how tall we are and how much we weight as adults depends also on our diet, physical activity, and other variables we experience throughout childhood and adulthood.

The questions about whether certain behaviors are biological or environmentally determined raises lots of other interesting questions. For example, if perpetrating violence were found to be genetic, what would this imply that we should do about people who are biologically more likely to commit violent acts? On the other hand, if perpetrating violence were found to be a socialized behavior, how might we change the way we socialize children and adults to prevent violence? How would we respond to people committing violent acts- would we imprison them to be punished, enroll them in therapy, or teach them about anger management?

This question becomes more salient when we consider the roles of mental health and mental illness in crime. When someone commits a really terrible act of violence, we often say that they are ‘bad’ people and they can’t be helped. We might also want them completely removed out of society. This implies that they can’t be ‘fixed,’ and that their permanent state is to be immoral or violent. Many mental health challenges that may lead to violent acts (bipolar disorder, for example) are caused by neural imbalances (biological) combined with early trauma or abuse. Treatments that address the biological causes (medication) and the environmental causes (therapy) can be very successful, which implies that perhaps we can help alleviate the negative impact of such disorders. Certainly, the vast majority of people who do have mental health problems or trauma experience do not commit violent crimes. So, are people who commit violent acts products of unfortunate circumstances instead of inherently bad people? Thinking about how our society treats criminals and people with mental health problems, which side of the nature/nurture debate do we seem to believe more in regard to violent crime?

The nature/nurture question is also being utilized by those for and against gay rights. Those who oppose gay rights say being gay is a choice. Those who are for gay rights say that gays and lesbians are born that way. How do these two attributions help support their respective views? Will finding out whether being gay is biological or environmental end the debate over gay rights? If ‘they’re born that way,’ should gay marriage be legal? If ‘it’s a choice,’ should it be illegal?

This debate also raises questions about how much support parents need to successfully raise children and how much of a role communities and societies should play in rearing children. How much of our behavior do we believe is dictated by biology/genetics, social influences, and free will? In class, we will talk about the moral and ethical problems associated with ‘biological determinism,’ the idea that biology determines our behavior.

Which behaviors do you think are biologically-based? Which ones are learned? How do you think a person who lacked human interaction during early years of life would be as an adult?

3 comments:

  1. Your argument is very valid and is very debatable i guess depending on what theory one wishes to pursue. i think ones behavior is determined by both nature and nurture. Nature due to heredity cannot be altered. Of cause in some extreme cases, people tend to go overboard and alter their physical appearance due to what society dictates that they should look like. The barbie doll for instance is a depiction of a perfect woman. 90% of women in the world if asked, will give the same response of what a perfect woman should be. The same applies to men. Even though many settle for what they turn out to look like, there is still the stigma of a hercules kind of man attached to their gender's viewpoint of what a perfect man is physically before considering IQ.
    As far as nurture is concerned, in my point of view, wh we become as individuals is determined alot by our enviroment. If a parent decides he will raise his or her child for instance to be a doctor, pressure will be imposed on that child if say the parents were not college graduates. For a child who's parent on the other hand is a doctor for instance, they idolize their parents if they are unexposed to outside influences and will more likely to become a doctor willingly.
    Basically, both nature and nurture come hand in hand to determine behavior...

    ReplyDelete
  2. Trait life eyes color and blood type are consider predomenant because we inherit it from our parents. The language that we speak are learned from our parents, society and environment during early childhood. We are not born with it. Every enviroment has it's own cultural way of life. The society can help in some ways impact our social and cultural life during growth. I think that the enviroment in which we are rear can have a greater impact on our socializing. Our parents can impact us, but buck of that is learned from the people we affiliate with and hang around.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, I love the nature versus nurture argument! It's fun since proving one side of the argument only opens more questions on the other side. I've heard that some people think that there is a bit of homosexuality in everyone, since it's almost like the ability to appreciate your own body through others. In that light, it would not be considered a choice but instead something in your brain. I agree with this theory since I once knew an Egyptian Muslim man who was homosexual, but was miserably married to a woman. His society and religion basically viewed homosexuality as whether or not it was a choice to be gay, it is still a choice to act upon homosexual impulses. Perhaps if his family and society had seen it as a way to be happy like everyone wants to be, it would not have mattered.

    On the other hand, the gay image is pretty much all society. The language used is all learned through media and society. No one comes out of the womb saying "hey, girlfriend!" (and thankfully people rarely say that anyway). I think most behavior, gay or not, black, yellow, or green, is learned. One views other and decides that's how they want to look and act since it gives them a certain feeling and image. Well, I've written too much already, so that's it.

    ReplyDelete