Nature versus nurture
Nature versus nurture is a debate concerning the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature," i.e. nativism, or innatism) versus personal experiences ("nurture," i.e. empiricism or behaviorism) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits.
- I had the advantage of a home where people talked about interesting things, and I had intelligent parents and I went to decent schools ... I was born at the right time and place. I won the ‘Ovarian Lottery.'
- Warren Buffett, The Snowball: Warren Buffett and the Business of Life by Alice Schroeder. Reported by Sue Halpern in Making It, in the New York Review of Books
- I believe that anyone can be successful in life, regardless of natural talent or the environment within which we live. This is not based on measuring success by human competitiveness for wealth, possessions, influence, and fame, but adhering to God's standards of truth, justice, humility, service, compassion, forgiveness, and love.
- Every human mind you've ever looked at … is a product not just of natural selection but of cultural redesign of enormous proportions.
- Daniel Dennett (1996), Kinds of Minds
- Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society.
- The Savage interrupted him. "But isn't it natural to feel there's a God?"
"You might as well ask if it's natural to do up one's trousers with zippers," said the Controller sarcastically. "You remind me of another of those old fellows called Bradley. He defined philosophy as the finding of bad reason for what one believes by instinct. As if one believed anything by instinct! One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them. Finding bad reasons for what one believes for other bad reasons–that's philosophy. People believe in God because they've been conditioned to.
"But all the same," insisted the Savage, "it is natural to believe in God when you're alone–quite alone, in the night, thinking about death …"
"But people never are alone now," said Mustapha Mond. "We make them hate solitude; and we arrange their lives so that it's almost impossible for them ever to have it."
- Variations in individual "educational attainment" (essentially, whether students complete high school or college) cannot be attributed to inherited genetic differences. That is the finding of a new study reported in Science magazine (Rietveld et al. 2013). According to this research, fully 98% of all variation in educational attainment is accounted for by factors other than a person’s simple genetic makeup.
- The appeal of biological determinism is that it offers plausible, scientific explanations for societal contradictions engendered by capitalism. If Type-II diabetes is reduced to the problem of genetics (which it surely is to some degree), then we don’t have to think about the rise of obesity and its underlying causes: the agro-business monopoly, income inequality, and class-based disparities in food quality. Combine this with the prevalence of drug-based solutions to disease pushed by the pharmaceutical industry and it is no surprise that we are left with the impression that complex social phenomena are reducible to simple scientific fact.
- Biological determinism, to paraphrase the great literary critic Roberto Schwarz, is a socially necessary illusion well-grounded in appearance. Much like art and literature, science "is historically shaped and … registers the social process to which it owes its existence." Scientists inherit the prejudices of the societies in which they live and work. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the modern incarnation of biological determinism with its decidedly neoliberal assumptions about humans and societies.
- The history of biology is littered with horrifying examples of the misuse of genetics (and evolutionary theory) to justify power and inequality: evolutionary justifications for slavery and colonialism, scientific explanations for rape and patriarchy, and genetic explanations for the inherent superiority of the ruling elite.
- The social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much the kind of person a human is as the kind of situation in which he/ she finds themselves that determines how they will act.
- "To the [New York Times] Editor: Re My Genome, Myself: Seeking Clues in DNA (“The DNA Age” series, front page, Nov. 17, 2007): Wanting to know more about ourselves is both a strength and a hazard. The lure of genetic data can be compelling but misleading, for no list of tiny variants in one’s genetic code can reliably predict one’s future regarding cancer, heart attacks or diabetes, let alone I.Q., addiction or gullibility. Amy Harmon’s humorous account of her own genome search may still leave many readers willing to send off a little saliva — and a big check — to a genome company. Those companies are selling only a fragment of your identity. Knowing that you have this or that disease-associated SNP in your genes tells you very little or helps only with rare diseases. What causes the SNP (single nucleotide polymorphism) to be expressed, to spring into action or to remain dormant? Why can identical twins, with genomes alike down to the last SNP, develop different diseases? What if you smoke, toil for years in a high-stress job or live in a polluted neighborhood? Predispositions are just the beginning. Your future depends on much more than your genetic code. Ms. Harmon would have done better to spend her money on a good gym, and The Times would serve us better by emphasizing the limits of genetic knowledge.