Would Albert Einstein have come up with his theory of special relativity if he was born in a slum? Would Hitler have turned out to be a notorious dictator if he had grown up in a more wholesome family environment? Is it the genetic disposition of an individual that determines their actions or does their environment affect it more? These questions, while hypothetical, are all part of an unsolved discussion on whether a person’s nature holds more weight than their nurture. The different approaches to solving this puzzle, as well as the flaws in the different theories, are vital to gaining a better understanding of the human condition as a whole.
An important note is that the theories behind nature vs. nurture are based on a relative psychological scale. The biological approach of a patient is theorized as the most unwavering from their genes. Natural hair color, eye color, height, and voice structure are all unchangeable traits from one’s DNA. But how much more is determined by genetics? “These facts have led many to speculate as to whether psychological characteristics such as behavioral tendencies, personality attributes, and mental abilities are also “wired in” before we are even born.” This question opens up a whole other can of worms and alludes to the two different sides of the aisle on the nature vs. nurture argument.
“Nativists” is the term used to describe psychologists who take a strong stance for genetic disposition. The characteristics and actions of an individual are innate, and they would come about regardless of one’s environment. One interesting example of this is the use of language among children. Every civilized human society has come up with some form of language and used it for communication. Similarly, children adapt and learn language by around age 5, indicating that the tools needed to acquire linguistic skills are already in place and functioning when children are born. Nativism is criticized, however, for its vague approach to defining what is “innate” and failure to find out what genetic codes produce specific actions.
“Empiricism,” a more philosophical approach to the issue, suggests that all human knowledge stems from direct sensory experience. It’s also known as a “blank slate” theory meaning that all humans are born as a blank slate and they mold themselves based on what they encounter. Empiricism is named for its dependence on empirical evidence to showcase personality and psychological behavior. Empiricism is a much more historical branch of psychology, being theorized by Greek, Hindu, Islamic, and British scientific philosophers. Since it is based on abstract experience instead of concrete genetics, Empiricism cannot be proven or disproven.
Many psychologists align themselves somewhere in the middle of the two theories. Nature vs. nurture (or Nativism vs. Empiricism) is an unsolvable issue, one that will continue to baffle scientists and create breakthroughs in experimental psychology. Whatever the answer, the argument is a reminder of the uniqueness of the human mind and the beauty of the human experience.
References
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1996-97203-000 https://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html
Article written by Anna Cernich
Article edited by Zain Qureshi
Graphics by London San Luis
Group advised by Aashima Sagar