In this blog post, we’ll explore whether human nature is determined by genetics or shaped by environment and nurture through a variety of examples and studies.
Before we get into the discussion, let’s first consider what we mean by nature and nurture. The discussion of nature versus nurture has long been debated from philosophical, psychological, and biological perspectives. It asks the fundamental question of whether human traits and behaviors are innate or shaped by our upbringing. This debate plays an important role in understanding human identity, morality, and social behavior.
First, when we think about human nature, the word “innate” is one that centers on human nature. It means “to be born with certain qualities or abilities.” It’s unclear whether this refers to birth or to the genetic process of fertilization when a sperm and egg meet. For the purposes of this article, we’ll think of human nature as the genetic fertilization of an egg and sperm, where the genes determine the characteristics of a human being. This view is also linked to biological determinism, which includes the claim that all human traits are already determined by genes. For example, some people are born with artistic talent, and some people are born with exceptional physical abilities. This view is often found in people who believe that personal achievement is largely determined by genetics.
Nurture, on the other hand, is acquired rather than innate, which means that human traits are not determined by genes but are shaped by the environment around us. This includes family, education, culture, and social experiences. Psychologists have long studied how these environmental factors shape our personality, intelligence, and behavioral patterns. For example, twins with the same genetic background can have very different personalities and abilities if they are raised in different environments.
Genetic determinists argue that the genome genetically determines not only our physical features, but also our behavioral traits. In fact, there are times when the news and stories around us make us think that genetic traits may be determining a person’s characteristics. In the Olympics, most of the medal winners in track and field are black, and it’s hard to find a yellow or white person. This could be interpreted as a sign that certain races have a genetic predisposition to excel in certain sports. On the other hand, the dominance of China and South Korea in the International Mathematical Olympiad leads us to believe that genes play a role in determining human traits.
However, if you look at human behavior and research, you’ll find that these ideas and claims are wrong. One example is childbirth. If a person’s traits and personality are determined by their genetic makeup, then the moment a sperm meets an egg and fertilizes it, it should determine who that person is. Most people don’t have any influence on the zygote, which has already been genetically determined, so they’re essentially doing nothing. However, it’s not hard to find studies that show the effects of prenatal care on the fetus. A study from the University of Pittsburgh in the U.S. found that IQ is largely determined by the environment in the womb rather than genetics. It’s also been shown to affect the emotions of the fetus. As you can see, the development of the fetus depends not only on genes, but also on environmental factors during pregnancy.
The book “Intelligence and How to Get It” by Richard E. Nisbett shows that the environment has a significant impact on people even after birth. This book shows through statistics that intelligence, one of the most important human traits, has very little genetic influence and most of it is environmental. Through years of experiments and statistics, the author argues that there is very little genetic influence on intelligence. The book argues that the academic successes of today’s society must take into account the differences in upbringing and stereotypes of different races in existing societies. In other words, before we can conclude that genetics is the sole cause of the skewed distribution of one type of group in society, we must also consider the social and environmental factors that contribute to this phenomenon.
Of course, the above arguments and studies cannot be considered as representative of all human traits, as human traits cannot be limited to intelligence or personality alone. Also, it is not possible to assume that all human characteristics are caused by environmental factors. However, based on the experiments mentioned above, we can conclude that environmental factors are more important than genetic factors. This is especially true in social contexts, where people are unknowingly influenced by their social groups and cultural backgrounds, which have a profound impact on their beliefs, values, and behaviors.
These findings have many implications for people. It shows how wrong the Nazis’ emphasis on the genetic superiority of Aryans in World War II was. It also shows us how important environmental factors are for people who want to change themselves. In Intelligence and How to Get It, Richard E. Nisbett writes: “If you recognize the possibility of change and strive for it, you will be able to achieve it. “It makes a big difference between recognizing the possibility of change and striving for it, and working under the stereotype that change is not possible.” Those who want to change themselves should not blame their genetics alone, but by changing their mindset, they will be able to bring about change. This offers hope not only for personal change, but also for the possibility of change in society as a whole. Social progress is possible depending on how each individual utilizes the environment around them and uses it as a tool for change.
