Introduction
This is an age-old debate that concerns the relative contribution of nature i.e. the inborn characteristics and experiences on the development of man’s behavior. The debate dates back thousands of years back with famous philosophers like Plato and even Descartes, suggesting that part of human development depend on inherent characteristics.
In the 17th century, scientists like John Galton and Charles Darwin were still discussing whether personality is natural or nurtured. To this date, scientists continue to argue on the comparative effects of both biology and experience on personality (Friedman and Schustack 150). The debate ranges on
The Nature Assumption
Supporters of the nature assumption presume that nature plays the biggest role in the development of human personality. John Galton and Darwin are pivotal in the study of the effects of nature on personality. In 1859, Sir Charles Darwin put forth his now famous theory on Natural selection in which he proposed that individuals tend to pass on certain characteristics to their off springs and that these characteristics if good enable the offspring to survive.
In this way, characteristics are passed on from one generation to another, while bad characteristics perish. Darwin’s theory touched on the function of these factors in helping an individual to survive. His theory led to the proposal that human personality could be styled up by natural forces like his other body parts.
Studies carried out on temperament point out genes are involved. It has been shown that at birth, some newborns are active while others are docile. These temperamental behaviors continue up to maturity (Pinker (a) 2). Infants are also able to recognize certain faces and even objects right away. Neurological studies have proved that people respond differently to similar stimuli and that there is a possibility that certain behaviors are inheritable. Picker has further shown that human’s language is inherent.
He goes ahead and demonstrates that if people of different languages are put together, they can effortlessly come up with what he called a pidgin. Infants can develop a true language out of this pidgin. From these observations, it is normal to conclude that we share a common grammar. Human personality also depends on the active part of the brain hemispheres. Activation of any of the two parts evokes a contrasting emotion. The left anterior hemisphere causes a negative emotion while the right evokes a positive temperament.
The biological feature of personality is best studied using the twin researches. In the twin research, identical twins who share the same genetic makeup and fraternal twins who are not exactly similar genetically are used. Identical twins share most if not all of their characteristics; emotions, intelligence, and physical appearance.
Identical twins are thus more similar than fraternal twins (Bouchard and McGue 8). The Minnesota twin study was done to remove any doubt of environmental influence. These twins though separated at infancy, and brought up in different environments, exhibited similar characteristics, including an angry temperament.
Schizophrenia has been put up as yet another supporting point for the influence of nature on personality. People suffering from schizophrenia have an altered reality, uncommon temperament, and are delusional. A study using fraternal twins confirmed that this complexity is indeed inherent. Brain MRI tests show brain retardation in the fraternal twin who does not develop the disease. Similar studies with the manic-depression disorder have shown identical results.
Sexual orientation, especially in homosexuals, is natural. Homosexuals are attracted to their gender before sexual intimacy sets in. Societal stigmatization seems to do little to dissuade these people from engaging in homosexuality. Homosexuality is common in some families with identical twins showing similar sexual orientation. The part of the hypothalamus that regulates sexual behavior is reduced in size in the homosexuals. The hypothalamus also responds differently to smells from a gay and a heterosexual man.
Criticisms against nature’s influence on personality
- It is impossible to prove any worldwide behavior in an evolutional approach.
- There are no genes directly related to any behavior.
- Although Darwin proposes that we are very close relatives with the apes, our behaviors do not match.
- No two individuals behave exactly the same.
- Personality has no evolutionary history.
Nurture and Personality
Proponents of nurture presume that humans are born blank and that it is the environment that plays a role in shaping their personality. It is believed that children are molded into who they become by people around them. The first evident put forward is the comparison of human behavior to that of the animals; Human behavior change over time unlike that of animals. The anthropological evidence aims at showing that human behavior is shaped by the environment because if it were not so, then all human’s would behave in a similar manner.
A research carried out by a Psychologist John Watson proved that it was possible to condition infants to behave in a certain manner. The type of food taken by the infants influences their abilities considerably. The environment has been known to influence criminal behavior; children brought up in an environment that support criminal activities tend to engage in crime at adult life. The case of feral children who are left to grow in the wild attests to the fact that the environment cannot be separated from behavior development.
Nurture also affects the sense of humor in young children. (Viegas par2) Environmental toxins affect behavior development. Children exposed to heavy metal like mercury have a retarded mental development and may develop antisocial behavior. Anything that affects the functioning of the brain e.g. disease and drugs influence personality. The story of feral and isolated children is the greatest evidence that nurtures supporters may put forward.
The case of Genie who was kept in isolation and failed to develop and other many similar cases strongly supports this assumption. These stories confirm the importance of learning in order to become humans, unlike other animals which don’t need any training.
Man is always very poorly equipped at birth and it’s through learning that most of his coordination is achieved, e.g. a child has to be taught how to walk, eat, laugh, play, drive and so on to become fully developed. However, parents remain an all-important aspect in a child’s development as they determine who their children interact with and therefore help in shaping their children’s future (Haris 7).
Conclusion
It is clear that the nature vs. nurture debate won’t end soon as supported by the evidence put forward by both sides. Recent advances in science and technology, especially study in genes and evolution has failed to put up a strong case to support either side (Pinker (b) 2). Although nature and nurture are not substitutes, experience alone cannot make one an adult, it must be complimented by inborn characteristics.
Works Cited
Bouchard J. Thomas and McGue, Matt. Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, 2003.
Friedman S. Howard and Schustack W. Miriam. Personality: classic theories and modern research. New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2009.
Harris J. Rich. The Nurture Assumption, 1999. Web.
Pinker, Steven (a). The language instinct, 2004. Web.
Pinker, Steven (b). Why nature and nature won’t go away. 2004. Web.
Viegas, Jennifer. Nurture, Not Nature: Study Says Environment, Not Genetics, Defines Sense of Humor, 2000. Web.
Annotated Bibliography
Bouchard J. Thomas and McGue, Matt. Genetic and environmental influences on human psychological differences. Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455, 2003.
Bouchard and McGue exhaustively discuss the field of research on human differences and clearly demonstrate how finding should be interpreted. Their work, although not directly related to the topic of study prove to be very essential especially in understanding the identical twin study.
Friedman S. Howard and Schustack W. Miriam. Personality: classic theories and modern research. New York: Allyn & Bacon, 2009.
Fried and schustack’s work has proved pivotal in supporting the theory of nature; the book puts up several examples to drive the point home. Friedman and Schustack have vividly showed that nature is part and parcel of the human personality. They have gone ahead to discuss the impact Nurture has on personality development and in so doing, they have showed that the nature and nurture debate will continue. Their work has contributed much to this paper particularly on schizophrenia.
Harris J. Rich. The Nurture Assumption, 1999.
The nurture assumption strongly supports the notion that parents and peers play a role in the development of a child’s behavior. Her work has proved relevant in the preparation of this paper especially in the conclusion
Pinker, Steven. The language instinct, 2004.
Pinker strongly defends the human race against accusations that their language is no more than the apes. He goes ahead to demonstrate that human grammar is in fact universal and is innate. His arguments have been used in supporting the theory of nature and personality.
Pinker, Steven. Why nature and nature won’t go away. 2004.
This is Pinker’s second work that is used in this paper. This work tries to show why the nature and nurture debate is here to stay. He puts up strong supports for both the two sides of the debate.