Nature versus nurture: why the debate persists

Nature vs. Nurture

In an attempt at understanding which between nature and nurture is responsible for the human mind and society, Steven Pinker (2002) responds to three "reasonable beliefs" offered by radical moderates. The first states that the mind begins as a black slate. The second states that the human personality is determined or influenced partly by nature and partly by nurture. And the third states that nature and nurture should not be disentangled. About the first "reasonable belief," many contend that a person's make-up is largely influenced by his parenting. Considerate, respecting and loving parents bring up confident, strong and upright children. Selfish, harsh, or overprotective parents produce insecure and unfit children. It is largely the parents' fault if children do not turn into productive and fulfilled adults. But Pinker argues that parents not only nurture children but also supply them with their genes. The belief that good parenting produces good children only explains the same genes only incline children to be similar to their parents. This has not been proven in the case of adopted children. Existing evidence even dispels the assumption that stepparents are necessarily caring less for a child just because they do not have the same genes (Pinker).

Pinker (2002) thinks that "reasonable belief number 2" is a mere compromise and a false one. Learning a language is completely environmental, as demonstrated by immigrants. Disorders like autism and schizophrenia, on the other hand, are highly inheritable but environmental factors are also responsible.

He also disagrees to "reasonable belief number 3 (2002)." The connection should not be abandoned but rethought considerably. Parents can transmit skills and contribute to the happiness or unhappiness of their children. Children will remember how they were treated at home for a lifetime. Yet parents do not determine their children's intellect, personalities and overall happiness for the rest of their lives (Pinker).

Pinker (2000), instead believes that a still-unrecognized developmental process is at work in what he calls "chance events." The individual's uniqueness determines his responses to these events and shapes his personality and destiny (Pinker).

A school of thought proposes that some human behaviors are easily changeable because they are learned (de Waal 1999). But behaviors, which are biologically fixed, will resist change. The rigors of Communism and Nazism demonstrate these. The oppressed and the suppressed will argue against the limitations set against them by nature or biology. Biological determinism, the denial of basic human needs and idealism are all worthy of blame. Present-day academics remain unflinching in the belief that biology influences human behavior. The general public has come to accept the sway of almighty genes in the human personality and destiny (De Waal).

Studies of the behaviors of chimpanzees and bonobos illustrate striking similarities to human behaviors and suggest evolution and kinship (De Waal 1999). These range from politics, child rearing to violence and morality. There is no place for a blank slate. Human beings are naturally selfish and aggressive or they have evolved into cooperative and loving creatures. At the same time, the resemblance rejects genetic or biological determinism. Genes are merely biological inputs into the personality, powerless to dictate the course of its development. And the environment contributes passing stimulations, which eventually fade out. Oncoming researches promise to integrate developmental, genetic, cultural and evolutionary approaches into one integrated perspective. These developments will incline students and advocates of animal behavior towards environmental effects on human behavior, as in the case of primates and marine animals. These suggest that information and habits are culturally transmitted from them to human beings. These developments may erase the boundary between the extremes of nature and nurture and introduce a new understanding of human behavior in their merger (De Waal).

Comparison

The two authors agree that the human mind does not begin as a tabular rasa or a black slate. Nature is a given. Parents and other ancestors provide the genes and cultural enhancements. Neither nature nor nurture determines everything in the development of human personality or society. In many cases, parents are not to be blamed at all (Pinker 2002). How the individual responds to a particular stimulus is determined by his own uniqueness, spurred by chance events. A still-unrecognized development process, inherent in human nature, is at work in that uniqueness. It is neither nature nor nurture.