Paradigm Shift: 'Nature vs Nurture' Ousted by 'Nature and Nurture'

I'd like for us to shift our focus into juxtaposing two differing ideas that have influenced educational practices as well as neuroscientific and psychological approaches.

The theory of nature vs nurture is one that has been ongoing for centuries, dating back to the good-old Hippocrates. This theory is a rather scientific, sociological, and philosophical topic surrounding one simple question: Is human behavior determined by environmental upbringing or by genetic-prenatal factors? In other words, is intelligence, reactive and non reactive behavior determined by a person's experiences and ways of life? Or by innate genetic inheritance?

This question is sure one that early thinkers, researchers, behaviorists, and scholars have gone around supporting and neglecting. In the process, new theories have also surfaced. Got to love the constant cognitive dissonance!

My goal today is to pose this idea as a theory of an ever-transforming and evolutionary debate. The conversation about this topic will forever be disputed, and people arguing about influential dominance from either side will continue to exist. However, it is my hope that not too far away now, this polarization will be dissolved and these ideas will emerge into becoming one for the other in the eyes of all.

Let the questions begin!

Can successes and failures be attributed to the environment we are surrounded by or by our parent's biological predispositions? What are the determining factors of our strengths and weaknesses?

The topic of nature vs nurture essentially pertains to a theoretical correlation to human's ability to learn. Early thinkers such as Plato and Descartes supported the nature approach; neglecting environmental factors and sticking with inborn abilities. These beliefs go hand in hand with Darwin's survival of the fittest, of course. Interestingly enough, John Locke was not shy to challenge these believes and create his own. He argued that people are born as blank slates (tubula rasa) and that we are developed by our own personal influences, supporting the nurture approach. (Psychology Encyclopedia, 2017; Duschinsky, 2012; Nesterak, 2015)

Even though this topic has transcended through times, it is not until now that the nature side of this theory has been further supported. There is now scientific evidence showing a relationship between genes and a specific behavior.

It would be misleading to solely focus on the genetic makeup of a person, however. As psychologist David S. Moore explains in The Developing Genome, its not entirely about your genetic composition but really about what this genetic material is doing to you at a molecular, cellular, and most specifically- neurological level. It is then of no surprise that how your genes are behaving comes from the external factors you are exposed to on the daily. This is hopeful when it comes to our human ability to improve cognition. We understand that gene performance is directly influenced by their respective environment, which includes the changing biochemical procedures at the molecular level.

In a way, we are homologous to genes aren't we?

Nurture and Nature Intertwined

We can take a look at the domestication of many species and attribute their behaviors to conditioning- the nurturing of them. We then can proceed to see how animals that are domesticated are also capable of assimilating such behaviors in a way that they become part of their nature as they procreate (Bouchard, 1994). Next time you take a look at your pet, think "Nature and Nurture!" You welcome.

It's not only the nurturing that deserves all the praise or disillusion. Nature also makes important contributions to nurture. Compellingly enough, it has been proved that when a genetic variant sees the risk of developing a mental illness, this data can be used to provoke positive nurturing behavior in such way that this condition may be controlled. This shows that nature can spontaneously mess up, look for a correction, and appeal to nurture to solve the problem. Sounds like a two factor relationship. Simply magical!

Furthermore, in a study conducted by Meaney and Szyf, the scientists observed that in specific brain cells of newly born rats, there were certain genes getting activated when nurtured through licking and grooming. It was also found that the activation of those genes resulted in protein formation that later helps moderate stress responses into adulthood. This study delineated the long-term nurturing effect of genetic procedures, as well as corroborated the belief of a positive correlation between nature and nurture.

So can neurological disbalance be adjusted by good nurturing? Or can bad nurturing also cause this neurological disbalance? Yes and yes. To a certain extent.

Take addiction, for instance. Addiction is not necessarily genetic and one could argue that it is the environmental aspects that contribute to the addiction. Just as stress, nutrition, and exposure to toxins all take part in determining how genes are expressed or suppressed- this bad nurturing can have negative effects at the neurological level.

Learning to make the best of both of them

I'd like to propose that as educators, we aim to foster nurture. And that as scientists, we focus on understanding and examining nature. Today we understand that environmental factors affect whether or not your inherited health problems are expressed genetically. It has been proven that gene expression can be altered- hence the love for exercise and diet as a way of avoiding diabetes and heart disease.

As humans we are exposed to a certain external stimuli and our mind and body reacts to it. There are people that still believe intelligence comes from one area of nature or nurture. The truth is, however, that we never stop learning and our intelligence is malleable. We live in a world of continuous feedback loops; taking in information and relaying some more. For this reason, I'm excited to continue to see how nurture can affect our nature and vise versa.

The codependency

We can conclude that the nature vs nurture theory is a more of a nuanced middle path in contrast to being entirely separate topic entities. Nature and nurture are inseparable. The true pinnacles of insight are not fully concentrated on one area of nature of nurture. There has always been a kind of contest between genes and experiences, but neither is independent of the other.

By understanding the nature of the different abilities learners possess, educators and scientists will be able to nurture them accordingly. We all know the expression "Nature vs Nurture" but it is our job to transform it into a demanding "Nurture and Nature".

---

I hope you enjoyed this post. I wrote it with curiosity and wonder in mind. As always, let's foster our learning. Not hang in the nature vs nurture approach. Step out and challenge.

Because as the bright philosopher and mathematician Bertrand Russel once said,

"In all affairs it's a healthy thing now and then to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted".

Place your question marks. Challenge the answers. Continue the periods.

See you all next week Wonderers!

Sources

MedicineNet. (2019, December 17). Nature vs. Nurture: Effects on Genes, Mental & Physical Health. MedicineNet. https://www.medicinenet.com/nature_vs_nurture_theory_genes_or_environment/article.htm.

Nature vs. Nurture Debate. GoodTherapy.org Therapy Blog. (n.d.). https://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/nature-versus-nurture.

Nesterak, E., & Nesterak, E. (2017, May 21). The End of Nature Versus Nurture. Behavioral Scientist. https://behavioralscientist.org/the-end-of-nature-versus-nurture/.

Sussex Publishers. (n.d.). Nature vs. Nurture. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/nature-vs-nurture.