The Contribution of Nature and Nurture in Human Development

Introduction

One of the greatest questions in humanity is what makes us, us? What determines and influences human development? There are innumerous theories trying to explain this complex question, however the oldest and most famous approach to the explanation of human development is the debate of nature versus nurture. Nurture, is the theory that it is our surroundings that make us us – and our behaviour can only be explained by external factors. On the other hand, Nature is the theory that it is our genetic makeup that determines one’s approach to life. Although usually separated, nature and nurture work together in human development. The combination of both, our genetic and environmental influences are necessary in understanding the origin of our personality, character and behaviour.

The History of ‘Nature vs. Nurture’

The debate of nature versus nurture has existed for thousands of years. It originated from the diverse beliefs of the two ancient philosophers Plato and Aristotle. Plato believed we inherit most of our characteristics and intelligence from our parents. While Aristotle argued that the mind is a blank slate at birth and that our personality and character is natured. These two viewpoints lasted centuries without much development until the resurgence of the argument during the Enlightenment.

The initial use of the Nature vs. Nurture Theory was credited to psychologist Sir Francis Galton in 1869 (Bynum, 2002). He argued that intelligence and character traits came from hereditary factors, favouring nature over nurture. His theory, however, was superseded by the behaviourist school thought in the mid-20th century which argued that all human behaviours were acquired through conditioning. Behaviourism founder John Watson famously claimed that:

We no longer believe in inherited capacities, talent, temperament, mental constitution, and characteristics. Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, merchant chief and yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of the talents penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and race of his ancestors. (Watson,1925). 

Both idea’s however, have since been criticized for ignoring one another’s factors. For example, empiricists (nurture theorists) ignored important genetic factors entirely, whilst naturalists ignored important social factors entirely. Due to this, many psychologists shifted away from treating nature and nurture as two independent terms, but rather combined them together and acknowledged the importance of both in determining human behaviour. When psychologist Donald Hebb was asked which contribute more to personality, nature or nurture, he answered, “Which contributed more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?”. It wasn’t ‘nature VERSUS nurture’ anymore; it was ‘nature AND nurture’ – implying that both domains are hopelessly interwoven with one another.

Physical development

The first main form of development in human’s is that of physical development. Physical development relates to physical characteristics and appearance. It is how one physically changes over time. It is true that nature plays an important role in determining our physical appearance and traits. After all, it is our genes that make up our hair colour, eye colour, height, gender, etc. However, we can’t ignore the fact that the way in which we are nurtured can alter the way in which these genes are expressed. For example, somebody could be born with the gene of normal height, but be malnourished in childhood, resulting in a stunted growth. Thus, nature is responsible (through genetic coding) for one’s psychical development, whilst nurture can be used to alter these characteristics positively or negatively. This is a clear example of how the nature and nurture work together in human development. However, it’s not always that simple. Sometimes, nature could dominate nurture, and visa verse. A clear example of this is in ‘The David Reimer Experiment’.

The David Reimer Experiment was conducted by John Money a psychologist. David, who originally was named Bruce, has an unfortunate circumcision as a child. Money suggested that Bruce had a sex chance as plastic surgery was not advanced enough. This suggestion was highly influenced by his theory – that any boy could be raised a girl (Money & Ehrhardt, 1972). Bruce’s parents took the advice of money, and eventually Bruce was raised by the name Brenda. However, at the age of 13, without any prior knowledge to her original gender, Brenda began to look and act masculine. The conclusion drawn up from this experiment, was that gender roles are biologically innate, with Nature overriding Nurture.  it could be concluded from the findings that gender roles are biologically innate, with Nature outstanding Nurture.

Character and Personality

One question that has been and still is extremely important for the study of human development, is to which extent is personality a result of nature or nurture. Surely, there has to be a reason as to why children display similar characteristic’s to their parents, right? But what about those who portray a character that is entirely different to their environment? Just like physical development, personality development is a product of both nature and nurture, and it’s extremely important to include both when trying to explain the process of development.

IQ studies on twin’s and adoptee’s  have suggested that traits such as intelligence can actually be inherited. According to studies, monozygotic twins (which have similar genes) raised apart are highly similar in IQ (0.74), more so than dizygotic twins (which have different genes) raised together (0.6). On the other hand, further research on humans suggests that intelligence can also be highly influenced by one’s environment. For example the right nutrition, education and parenting can raise IQ scores up to an average of 16 points. These studies show that traits such as intelligence are not entirely fixed, and can change based on environmental factors.

Mental Development

In modern science, the topic of mental health has increased drastically. One in four people are/were or will be affected by mental health at some point in their lives. One of the major questions psychologists have been concerned with, is if mental illness is genetically inherited or a product of one’s environment. With science evolving and the introduction of genetic studies, it has been confirmed that mental illness’ such as depression, can be inherited. This is seen in the way in which mental health disorders ted to ruin in families. For example, it is more likely that you will experience depression if you mother has. However, epigenetics has suggested that a person’s environment and experience can directly change the level at which certain genes are expressed. As an example, consider the developmental pathway a 12-year-old-girl may have taken to going to a psychologist for aggressive behaviour. She may have inherited a gene related to being aggressive. Through expressing that gene, she evokes negative responses in her parents, who themselves struggle with coping with anger. Through these interactions, she may develop mental health disorders. However, if her parents had been patient and provided her with proper help, this gene may have been expressed at a low intensity.

Cognitive Development

Cognitive development focuses on a child’s development in terms on information processing, language learning and learned behaviour. Understanding how humans learn is extremely important in understanding human development.

The idea that behaviour is learned through means of nurture rather than nature has been prominent throughout psychology for many years now. Many psychologists believe that behaviour can be learned through conditioning. This idea was proven by Ivan Pavlov who introduced the famous ‘Pavlov’s Dog Experiment’. Through his experiment, he realized that he could condition a dog to salivate by introducing an external stimulus. His theory suggested that people, just like dogs, could learn behaviour from environmental stimuli.

However, a more recent study, represented that behaviour can’t be entirely environmentally learned and that genetics play a major factor in learning. This is seen in the experiment of ‘Fruit Flies’. In this experiment, a number of fruit flies were put in an open flask with a pad in it that they could sit on. They then were introduced an order, which then electrically shocked them. After a while, the fruit flies were conditioned to recognize that when they smell odor, they would get shocked. However, there were a few fruit flies, who after getting shocked multiple times, still went back to that same flask. Scientists, later found that these fruit lies lacked at least one learning gene, also known as a CREB gene. From this, they deduced that learning in an organism can only take place is all learning genes are present. The learning can only be accomplished if the genetic basis to accept the learning is there.

From this study, scientist’s concluded that it is compulsory to incorporate both nature and nurture in the process of human development. The learning can only be accomplished if the genetic basis to accept the learning is there.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I believe that the theories of nature and nurture are hopelessly interwoven. Nature has a big influence on nurture and nurture has a big influence on nature. It is only right that we accept the fact that both are extremely critical in understanding human development.

References

• https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-psychology/chapter/infancy-and-childhood/
• https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/abcs-child-psychiatry/201710/nature-versus-nurture-where-we-are-in-2017
• Bee, H., & Boyd, D. (2013). The Developing Child (13th ed.). New York: Pearson Education
• Francher, R. (1996). Pioneers of Psychology (3rd rev. ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
• Nature, nurture and human disease ; 421, pages412–414 (23 January 2003)

One of the greatest questions in humanity is what makes us, us? What determines and influences human development? There are in numerous theories trying to explain this complex question, however the oldest and most famous approach to the explanation of human development is the debate of nature versus nurture. Nurture, is the theory that it is our surroundings that make us us – and our behaviour can only be explained by external factors. On the other hand, Nature is the theory that it is our genetic makeup that determines one’s approach to life. Although usually separated, nature and nurture work together in human development. The combination of both, our genetic and environmental influences are necessary in understanding the origin of our personality, character and behaviour.

The History of ‘Nature vs. Nurture’

One of the greatest questions in humanity is what makes us, us? What determines and influences human development? There are innumerous theories trying to explain this complex question, however the oldest and most famous approach to the explanation of human development is the debate of nature versus nurture. Nurture, is the theory that it is our surroundings that make us us – and our behaviour can only be explained by external factors. On the other hand, Nature is the theory that it is our genetic makeup that determines one’s approach to life. Although usually separated, nature and nurture work together in human development. The combination of both, our genetic and environmental influences are necessary in understanding the origin of our personality, character and behaviour.

The History of ‘Nature vs. Nurture’