Simon Roig

Simon Roig The question of nature vs. nurture has been one that to this day lacks a definitive answer. Speculation and subjective opinion have dominated this issue until the 19th and 20th centuries when intellectuals began refuting the thought that race was the primary sculptor of people’s identities. Since then, however, a concrete answer has not been established by a collective and thus the matter is open for interpretation and, often, error. The Nazis exhibited this by fueling their empire with the notion that the Aryan race was superior to others. Conversely, Marxist Communists attributed human identity to its relation to social structures. In the light of scientific research, we are now able to conclude that both environmental factors and genetic makeup influence a person’s identity. What is still to be determined is where the line can be drawn between nature and nurture and just how much influence does each of the two have on the individual. Phil Donahue’s video on Nature vs. Nurture: the Human Animal presents good cases for both sides. According to the video, innate behavior such as infant mammals having the ability to nurse without having been taught so indicates that such behavior is dictated not by the environment but by the genetic code. Experts claim that enough data proves that genetics are (at least partly) responsible for traits such as schizophrenia, alcoholism, dyslexia, overeating, stuttering, and even some aspects of temperament and personality. A study at the University of Minnesota was done involving 68 sets of identical twins in which their anatomical traits were evaluated and the results showed an identity in all traits including brain waves, pulse rates, chest x-rays, and excluding only fingerprints. Some twins who were kept away from each other until maturity were then reunited and, despite the difference in environments, showed identities in areas ranging from the name of their spouses to the brand name of toothpaste and shaving cream used. Coincidence or not, it seemed to be enough to convince the twins that their genetic material is responsible for a large majority of their being. An expert in the video claims that an enzyme called monoamine oxidase, or MAO, is responsible for how prone an individual may be to risk-taking. Low levels of MAO result in thrill-seeking, risky behavior while high levels induce a more calm and cautious personality. Having looked up MAO on Wikipedia left me unable to support or discredit the man’s claims, but the sensible conclusion that one can arrive to is that

while genetically determined chemicals may play a part in our behavior, they are certainly not the lone motivation for our actions. There is an overt balance and an ongoing relationship between both sides of the nature vs. nurture coin. Human brains double in size in the first 6 months of life, and from birth until the age of five is when the brain is most receptive and the most learning occurs. During this time is when we establish our first emotional connections and studies have shown that this period is responsible for most of our personality. Harry Harlow’s study with rhesus monkeys shows how separating an infant monkey from its mother will cause it to be fearful in the presence of other monkeys. While this study implies that nurture might prevail in shaping an individual, the video presents another study that is interpreted differently. A Harvard study was conducted in which 2 year olds were put in the same room while researchers observed their interaction. Two of them were inquisitive and outgoing, while one was shy and apprehensive. Previous research showed that the two playful children had been so since birth, and one professor leading the study went on to say they have the general view that there is a small percentage of people (10-15%) that are given a push by nature to be more introverted or extroverted. The narrator of the video annotates that the shy kid did not learn this behavior, but rather was born this way. Given that the two playful children were raised by a certain set of family members until that age, the argument that this personality trait had been consistent since birth and is therefore attributable to genetic makeup falls short of convincing. In some cases, it is clear that nature and Venter, president of one of the teams that cracked the human genome, argues that some colon cancer patients have this mutated gene in nurture are mutually responsible for certain characteristics. Craig all their cells, and colon cancer is only activated when certain toxins are released by bacteria in the gut. While the mutated genes may be present in some people, only exposure to certain environments will result in the emergence of colon cancer. The Nova article where this information is presented further supports the nurture side by citing a study done by researchers in Scandinavia involving 45,000 pairs of twins. The study led to the conclusion that cancer is largely caused by environmental factors rather than inherited ones. Attributing our identities exclusively to either genes or environmental factors is unsettling to me because it disregards the concept of free will. Our behavior and personality cannot be summed up to the natural tools we are given by default and/or the input of our surroundings. I believe the output, our actions, and the choices that we make are integral parts of who we are,

and in my opinion may be more powerful than either nature or nurture.

Works Cited 1. Phil Donahue Nature vs. Nurture: the human animal 1987. 2. “Nature vs. Nurture” Wikipedia