Important Announcement

The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More

Nature vs. Nurture

From Kimberly Powell,Your Guide to Genealogy.
Oct 9 2003

Are We Really Born That Way?

You got your green eyes from your mother, and your freckles from your father. But where did you get your thrill-seeking personality and talent for singing? Did you learn these from your parents or was it predetermined by your genes? While it's clear that physical characteristics are hereditary, the genetic waters get a bit more murky when it comes to an individual's behavior, intelligence, and personality. Ultimately, the old argument of nature vs. nurture has never really been won. We do not yet know how much of what we are is determined by our DNA and how much by our life experience. But we do know that both play a part.

What is Nature vs Nurture?
It has been reported that the use of the terms "nature" and "nurture" as a convenient catch-phrase for the roles of heredity and environment in human development can be traced back to 13th century France. Some scientists think that people behave as they do according to genetic predispositions or even "animal instincts." This is known as the "nature" theory of human behavior. Other scientists believe that people think and behave in certain ways because they are taught to do so. This is known as the "nurture" theory of human behavior.

Fast-growing understanding of the human genome has recently made it clear that both sides are partly right. Nature endows us with inborn abilities and traits; nurture takes these genetic tendencies and molds them as we learn and mature. End of story, right? Nope. The "nature vs nurture" debate still rages on, as scientist fight over how much of who we are is shaped by genes and how much by the environment.

The Nature Theory - Heredity
Scientists have known for years that traits such as eye color and hair color are determined by specific genes encoded in each human cell. The Nature Theory takes things a step further to say that more abstract traits such as intelligence, personality, aggression, and sexual orientation are also encoded in an individual's DNA.

The search for "behavioral" genes is the source of constant debate. Many fear that genetic arguments might be used to excuse criminal acts or justify divorce.
The most debated issue pertaining to the nature theory is the exsistence of a "gay gene," pointing to a genetic component to sexual orientation.
An April, 1998 article in LIFE Magazine, "Were You Born That Way" by George Howe Colt, claimed that "new studies show it's mostly in your genes."
If genetics didn't play a part, then fraternal twins, reared under the same conditions, would be alike, regardless of differences in their genes. But, while studies show they do more closely resemble each other than do non-twin brothers and sisters, they also show these same striking similarities when reared apart - as in similar studies done with identical twins.

Nurture Theory - It's Not All About Genes

The Nurture Theory - Environment
While not discounting that genetic tendencies may exist, supporters of the nurture theory believe they ultimately don't matter - that our behavioral aspects originate only from the environmental factors of our upbringing. Studies on infant and child temperament have revealed the most crucial evidence for nurture theories.

American psychologist John Watson, best known for his controversial experiments with a young orphan named Albert, demonstrated that the acquisition of a phobia could be explained by classical conditioning. A strong proponent of environmental learning, he said: 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...regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations and race of his ancestors.
Harvard psychologist B. F. Skinner's early experiments produced pigeons that could dance, do figure eights, and play tennis. Today known as the father of behavioral science, he eventually went on to prove that human behavior could be conditioned in much the same way as animals.
A study in New Scientist suggests that sense of humor is a learned trait, influenced by family and cultural environment, and not genetically determined.
If environment didn't play a part in determining an individual's traits and behaviors, then identical twins should, theoretically, be exactly the same in all respects, even if reared apart. But a number of studies show that they are never exactly alike, even though they are remarkably similar in most respects.

So, was the way we behave engrained in us before we were born? Or has it developed over time in response to our experiences? Researchers on all sides of the nature vs nurture debate agree that the link between a gene and a behavior is not the same as cause and effect. While a gene may increase the likelihood that you'll behave in a particular way, it does not make people do things. Which means that we still get to choose who we'll be when we grow up.

Imo the human body and psyche are products of physical and spiritual evolution. Each individual is karmically driven through physical , mental, and spiritual challenges as their mind/body matures and becomes a more focussed vehicle of expanded awareness.

In other words between nature and nurture I says it's all karma baby...

We exist before we are birthed... whether you believe the soul enters the body at birth or conception it doesn't much matter because the soul still pre-exists the form.

Its my current opinion that the soul choses a genetic or cultural framework to experience a lifetime in (nature). They may even gravitate to certain families or groups (creating pockets of collective consciousness and bondings)However... from birth onward I feel that the core personality is subject to its environment and choices are considerably reduced. For instance ... lets speculate that the soul carries defining experiences and memories, this entity is now relearning to communicate and interact with this new life ... happiness and hurts form us as we study and assimilate our environment (which is formed by our nuturer's choices and intentions)....the first 9-12 years, maybe?

The road from childhood to adult is an intense one frought with events capable of altering our personality and physiology in a variety of ways. Who we are is chiseled and shaped by our environment, its who we are when we enter adulthood and have grown into our independance and maturing strengths.

Again... all these accumalitive experiences shape human nature as maturity, security and power sails us through lifes waters, we exist in the security of our own existance and our lives. As we age we can look upon the lessons learned or the pains born and perhaps take something from life ...Each stage of our life shapes our nature, and our soul's evolution

When we become elders, its a time of harvest and preparation, we have lived and learned, our goal being to pass on our experiences ... a time of memory and knowledge. All that life, time and experience has nurtured us with has become our nature, the one we will pass from this existance with... perhaps it will be powerful enough to carry onward into future incarnations.

So although our nature is the lens we interact through, our environment that has a equally defining impact on us.

The nature vs. nurture debate reminds me of something I've observed in the offspring of well trained dogs, and I suspect it applies to all higher life. I've noticed that the pups from consecutively well trained dog lines almost seem to be pre-trained sometimes from birth. I suspect that important new knowledge triggers somesort recording mechinism in our DNA, especially when it relates to changes in the enviroment which call for new behaviors to cope with the change. Perhaps intense stress produces chemicals that sets up the stage for genetic change, and then the sudden easement of the new stress triggers the recording of all available information that relates to the easment of the recorded stress causing conditions. If the stress is frequent and powerful enough perhaps this mechinism reinforces the instinctual DNA passed down to the next generation. Perhaps evolution isn't as accidental as many believe.

>> The nature vs. nurture debate reminds me of something I've observed in the

>> offspring of well trained dogs...

I would be careful claiming this unless you have some good records and more than anecdotal evidence to back it up. I have not seen any evidence that leaning can affect the DNA of a creature in such a way that they somehow "pass" the learning down to their offspring, biologically. There are anecdotes about this, but I've never seen a study that shows it, and believe me, people have tried.

There was once a study done on dogs. There was an ancient belief that docking the tail of a female dog would result in any litters she had after the operation would have deformed tails. Much to the astonishment of many, even in the scientific community, it was experimentally shown that cutting off the mother's tail did not, in any way, affect the tail growth of her pups.

Now, it can be the case that a trait that a trait that is learned by a species effects the environment in such a way that having that trait specified innately would make members of the species more fit. In this case, natural selection would lead toward that trait becoming innately specified so that the members of the species wouldn't have to learn it.

This is known as the "Baldwin Effect", here is a link to a site about it:

Now, the important thing to keep in mind here, is that the Baldwin Effect can, indeed, speed up the evolution of some particular innately specified trait, BUT, it's not going to happen in the course of a single generation, resulting in well-trained dogs have innately smart puppies.

Now, having said that, your theory about stress causing chemical changes that effect DNA might be possible, but I would be severely skeptical of it unless someone provided some evidence. Also, considering that females are born with all the eggs they'll ever have through life, I think such a "stress-induced chemical/biological evolution" would probably have to take place by changing male gametes...though changes in female mitochondria could have some effect, as well...an interesting theory that I would definitely like to see further explored experimentally.

Important Announcement The MSN Groups service will close in February 2009. You can move your group to Multiply, MSN’s partner for online groups. Learn More
Betwixt the Sea and Sky	[email protected]