Authors Note: This is a topic that recently came up in a discussion between me and a couple of friends. The conversation was actually really interesting and because of that I decided to write this trust the gush piece. Fortunately for me this argument has tons of evidence and if you enjoy this topic then research it on your own because it is very interesting.
One of the most debated topics in our world at the present is whether nature or nurture plays a bigger role in human development. Both sides can easily be debated because of the insurmountable quantity of evidence that argues each side of the argument which makes deciding very hard. Personally I don’t have a strong opinion for any of the three sides but with research I’m sure that my stance will change.
Sadly, many people that I know don’t understand why this debate is important, or they don’t even understand what the debate is about. This is absolutely horrible and something that I plan on rectifying immediately. The nature vs nurture argument is about what part of us is determined by nature (our genes) and what part is determined by nurture (the environment we are raised in). This is huge because it contains implications that there could be biologically superior people or that there is a perfect way to raise children to optimize things like intelligence, behavior and athleticism.
This argument isn't just an intellectual debate between stuck up scientists though. Wars have literally been fought because of this. Remember the Holocaust and World War 2? Yeah, that little skirmish was fought because Hitler thought that Germans are biologically superior people. To prevent uninformed wars such as that one and to expedite the advancement of the human race we need to determine what the best way to raise children is and how much of a person is determined by their genes.
People that believe nurture plays the biggest role in human development look toward Bandura’s experiments to help prove their perspective on this debate. Bandura tested little 36 boys and 36 little girls in the Bobo Doll experiment in order to determine if other people’s behavior caused the children’s behavior to change. The experiment was successful at proving that children do imitate others around them. This means that -- for example -- if a child is raised around violent people then they too will become violent. The same holds true for benevolent people, athletic people and so on.
This experiment was a huge advancement for nurture because it provides raw data for defenders of this side of the debate to use. What this means that instead of basing their claims off of experience or theories, they can have actual numbers as the basis of the argument which, as everyone knows, is always better than anything even remotely subjective.
Like a coin, most arguments have two sides to them and this one is no different. A scientifically proven fact is that the genetic makeup of a person determines certain traits such as hair color, eye color, nose shape, etc. This is considered “nature” and is defended by just as many people as nurture. The main argument for nature is that a persons personality, IQ, likes and dislikes are determined when someone is born. People believe this because if someones physiology is determined by genes why wouldn't their brain functions be determined by genes as well.
Major evidence for nature includes topics such as divided twins and family characteristics that are passed even after adoption. In a now illegal study nicknamed Identical Strangers, identical twins were split up in the adoption agency and sent off to completely different families. One would expect that they would look similar but be completely different people with different tastes and personalities. This wasn't the case though, when they met each other thirty-five years later one of the twins said this “"It's not just our taste in music or books; it goes beyond that. In her, I see the same basic personality.” Also, while not scientifically proven it has been observed that most adopted children find that they are similar to their birth parents. Those two pieces of evidence prove that traits such as personality and inclination toward certain things like sports or fine arts are determined by genes because children raised in situations like that have completely different environments which takes nurture out of the picture.
Both sides of this gargantuan argument are equally well supported and because of this I’m going to maintain my stance on this subject, which is not picking either of them. Sure there’s the Bobo Doll experiment and probably a hundred others that nurture people will throw at me to try and sway me to there side. However nurture has twin studies and an equivalent amount of tests and studies that they could use to try and get me to vindicate their point of view on the subject. But my decision on this subject is irrelevant, what counts is how you view the subject from now on. So the question is, do you believe in nature or nurture?
Major evidence for nature includes topics such as divided twins and family characteristics that are passed even after adoption. In a now illegal study nicknamed Identical Strangers, identical twins were split up in the adoption agency and sent off to completely different families. One would expect that they would look similar but be completely different people with different tastes and personalities. This wasn't the case though, when they met each other thirty-five years later one of the twins said this “"It's not just our taste in music or books; it goes beyond that. In her, I see the same basic personality.” Also, while not scientifically proven it has been observed that most adopted children find that they are similar to their birth parents. Those two pieces of evidence prove that traits such as personality and inclination toward certain things like sports or fine arts are determined by genes because children raised in situations like that have completely different environments which takes nurture out of the picture.
Both sides of this gargantuan argument are equally well supported and because of this I’m going to maintain my stance on this subject, which is not picking either of them. Sure there’s the Bobo Doll experiment and probably a hundred others that nurture people will throw at me to try and sway me to there side. However nurture has twin studies and an equivalent amount of tests and studies that they could use to try and get me to vindicate their point of view on the subject. But my decision on this subject is irrelevant, what counts is how you view the subject from now on. So the question is, do you believe in nature or nurture?
