Preface:I began this essay earlier in the year out of personal interest, but had not finished it. I decided to finish this essay and use it for my third paper. In this argumentative essay I explain the nature vs nurture debate and reference two different articles about which one is dominant, nature or nurture. Essay Three Nature & Nurture: The Cause of Behavior
Many of us have heard of the historic nature and nurture debate, but probably do not even know how or why it started. These specific terms, “nature and nurture” have only been around since a man named Francis Galton used them in 1874, but the actual debate has been around much longer than that. A manuscript called, “Silence,” written by Heldriss of Cornwall, features the new terms as the names of two characters who debate with each other about which one of them has had more influence on the main character, Silence. This and many other writings have personified nature, but no other texts around this time did the same for nurture.
The modern purpose of this debate is not to say which one actually has an effect, but instead which one has the greater effect on human development. Why does it matter whether nature has more influence or not? What can be accomplished by this knowledge? If we knew, for example, that nurture has more of an effect on human development and personality than nature does, then we would be able to focus more on helping parents with their parenting skills and techniques. The importance in good parenting, especially if nurture is found to be dominant, is that there will be more good people in the world thus making the world a better place.
A more descriptive and precise way of phrasing the example would be that the society of the population of the earth functions better as a whole when each individual has a certain set of mannerisms and tendencies. Behaviors such as politeness, generosity, being respectful, and maintaining healthy habits are in the category of those which help us thrive as a species.
There is also a point to be made for the importance of knowing that nature is dominant. People want to know that if their children do not turn out the way they had hoped, that it is not their fault for the way they raised the children, which may be somewhat comforting. However, knowing that nature is dominant could possibly have negative repercussions, such as an increase in the maltreatment of children based on the evidence that the child will turn out a certain way no matter how they are raised.
There is some decent evidence to support each side, but there may be better evidence for one side than the other. My thesis is that nurture has more of an effect on human behavior than nature does. There are many experts who believe either side. I will present points represented in two different articles and objectively analyze each side.
In an article titled “The Almost Blank Slate”, Henry D. Schlinger makes arguments toward the nurture side of things as a response to “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature” by Steven Pinker. Henry’s opinion is that contrary to Pinker’s belief, there is actually a modern denial of nurture. Henry brings up many convincing points about nature and nurture, almost all supporting nurture, mainly the fact that learning fits into the category of nurture rather than nature and learning is an undeniably important part of human behavior.
In the first section of his article, Schlinger brings up three compelling points, which are that first of all, “Humans come into the world much closer to the blank slate end of the continuum than any other species.” Second, “Most of what humans know or know how to do is not present in any form at birth.” As well as that, “Many, if not most, of the important similarities and differences in behavior between individuals can parsimoniously be explained due to learning.” (Schlinger) Human behavior is much more variable and complex than that of animals because humans acquire more knowledge.
From birth to death human beings are constantly learning. Almost everything about our personality and behavior is the way it is because of what we have learned over the course of our lives. We differ from animals in this way. “All other species rely more upon reflexes or fixed-action patterns that, although not insensitive to learning experiences, are relatively stable. Examples include aggressive displays, courtship and mating, migration, imprinting, and care of young. Human behavior, on the other hand, is noteworthy for its variability”. (Schlinger)
Humans do not rely upon instincts as animals do because humans are capable of functioning on more meaningful levels than that of other species. However, it would be difficult even for a human to function in a useful way if it was not for our learning capabilities and the nurturing we receive throughout our first experiences of life. Schlinger does not deny that genes influence behavior, but questions how they do. He recognizes that it is because of the human nervous system that we have such an ability to learn, but argues that the actual learning depends on our environment.
Many psychologists and neuroscientists use functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging scans to see the brain while the person is engaged in activities. Schlinger states that this method is not any kind of proof for either argument because, “Simply identifying structures in the brain that seem to relate to behavior does not in and of itself implicate either evolution or learning as the ultimate cause.” (Schlinger)
Schlinger mentions a few studies of certain influences learning has on the human brain. In one study, behavioral methods were used to improve the dyslexia in children, which not only enhanced their reading performance but also increased brain activity in corresponding areas. Another study showed metabolic brain changes in associated areas in patients who had major depression and were treated with interpersonal psychotherapy and medication. A third, separate study demonstrates that successfully modifying behavior of obsessive compulsive disorder causes changes in the function of the caudate nucleus in the brain. However, as stated by Pinker, “Neural plasticity is just another name for learning and development, described at a different level of analysis.” (Schlinger)
In his article Schlinger says that learning is typically defined as specific behavior changes caused by certain kinds of experiences. There are two types of learning called classical and operant. Classical learning is when a neutral stimulus can elicit a response that would not normally occur as a result of that specific stimulus. Operant learning either strengthens or weakens behaviors depending on their consequences. Operant learning is implemented by reinforcement and punishment. Classical conditioning has been shown to influence many phenomena including phobias, physical dependence on drugs, and anxiety. Operant conditioning causes various behaviors such as actions involving skeletal muscle activity.
As for language learning, Pinker believes that children will speak even without their parents intentionally teaching them how. However there is evidence to support the opposite idea, which is that children learn by their parents reinforcing imitation of language. Babbling is an example of how humans first begin to imitate vocal sounds. When young children begin to babble, their parents will act very excited and make a big deal out of the effort, whether it is a recognizable sound or not, thus reinforcing it. The parents do not intentionally condition them to make specific sounds though; we learn them simply by listening, memorizing, and repeating. Sounds that are familiar to the child will be continued in use because of their familiarity alone.
Learning real words involves reinforcement by way of excited response and repeating the word that was spoken by the child. This reinforcement continues as the child comes up with new words. This is also used to teach new words. Children learn how to use the words based on the responses of their parents and others around them. Studies have shown that aspects such as grammar can be learned through operant learning. In a study about language interactions between American children, from birth to age two and a half, and their families, not only did the children talk the same amount as their parents but a high percentage (about 86-98%) of the children’s vocabulary included the same words their parents use. Children may not imitate everything adults say or do, but when they are reinforced for imitating a behavior they will continue to exhibit that behavior, and so will adults.
The conclusion of Schlinger’s article recognizes that evolution and inheritance are indeed important, but that human learning is also very important. He believes that getting to the root of human problems lies in learning rather than genetics. Using learning principles as well as behavior, analysis has already shown improvement in autistic children and those with other disabilities or behavior problems. Focusing on learning also helps otherwise normal people in many ways. Schlinger includes a quote by B.F. Skinner, “After almost a century and a half, evolution is still not widely understood. It is vigorously opposed by defenders of a creator… The role of variation and selection [learning] in the behavior of the individual suffers from the same opposition.” (Schlinger) Overall, there is no doubt that Schlinger believes that learning, or nurture, is the dominant cause of human behavior.
The other article I will mention is called “Contemporary Research on Parenting: The Case for Nature and Nurture” by five authors, Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, and Bornstein. The position in this essay is equally for nature and nurture. One of the first topics discussed is temperament and parenting. In this article it is stated that temperament is genetic; for example a child could be at genetic risk for antisocial behavior. As for parenting, it is not only affected by a child’s natural temperament but can also have an effect on the child’s temperament and behavior.
Interestingly, they found that adopted children with at least one schizophrenic biological parent would more commonly end up with a range of psychiatric disorders than adopted children who did not have such biological parents, but this is only if the genetically at risk child is adopted into a dysfunctional family. This shows a sort of partnership between nature and nurture being that the bad nature of a child will come out only if there is insufficient nurturing of the child.
Both of these articles have compelling points and interesting facts about some different aspects of the nature versus nurture debate. Schlinger argues the importance of learning for humans. He emphasizes learning because it supports the idea of nurture, which is the side he believes is the more important, dominant part of the influence of human behavior. Undoubtedly humans learn more than any other known species on Earth. Humans are also capable of more things than other species, and exhibit much more complex behaviors. In the second article, the authors report many examples of studies and experiments about parenting and genetic influence. The majority of these studies show that there is a fair balance between nature and nurture. I believe it is fair to say that all sides, nature, nurture, as well as both equally, have many good points and evidence to support them. Although genetics may have a significant effect on nurture, I would still agree that nurture is the more important of the two, even if only slightly.
Bibliography
Collins, W. Andrew, et al. "Contemporary Research on Parenting: The Case for Nature and Nurture." American Psychologist 55.2 (2000): 218-232.
Essay Three
Nature & Nurture: The Cause of Behavior
Many of us have heard of the historic nature and nurture debate, but probably do not even know how or why it started. These specific terms, “nature and nurture” have only been around since a man named Francis Galton used them in 1874, but the actual debate has been around much longer than that. A manuscript called, “Silence,” written by Heldriss of Cornwall, features the new terms as the names of two characters who debate with each other about which one of them has had more influence on the main character, Silence. This and many other writings have personified nature, but no other texts around this time did the same for nurture.
The modern purpose of this debate is not to say which one actually has an effect, but instead which one has the greater effect on human development. Why does it matter whether nature has more influence or not? What can be accomplished by this knowledge? If we knew, for example, that nurture has more of an effect on human development and personality than nature does, then we would be able to focus more on helping parents with their parenting skills and techniques. The importance in good parenting, especially if nurture is found to be dominant, is that there will be more good people in the world thus making the world a better place.
A more descriptive and precise way of phrasing the example would be that the society of the population of the earth functions better as a whole when each individual has a certain set of mannerisms and tendencies. Behaviors such as politeness, generosity, being respectful, and maintaining healthy habits are in the category of those which help us thrive as a species.
There is also a point to be made for the importance of knowing that nature is dominant. People want to know that if their children do not turn out the way they had hoped, that it is not their fault for the way they raised the children, which may be somewhat comforting. However, knowing that nature is dominant could possibly have negative repercussions, such as an increase in the maltreatment of children based on the evidence that the child will turn out a certain way no matter how they are raised.
There is some decent evidence to support each side, but there may be better evidence for one side than the other. My thesis is that nurture has more of an effect on human behavior than nature does. There are many experts who believe either side. I will present points represented in two different articles and objectively analyze each side.
In an article titled “The Almost Blank Slate”, Henry D. Schlinger makes arguments toward the nurture side of things as a response to “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature” by Steven Pinker. Henry’s opinion is that contrary to Pinker’s belief, there is actually a modern denial of nurture. Henry brings up many convincing points about nature and nurture, almost all supporting nurture, mainly the fact that learning fits into the category of nurture rather than nature and learning is an undeniably important part of human behavior.
In the first section of his article, Schlinger brings up three compelling points, which are that first of all, “Humans come into the world much closer to the blank slate end of the continuum than any other species.” Second, “Most of what humans know or know how to do is not present in any form at birth.” As well as that, “Many, if not most, of the important similarities and differences in behavior between individuals can parsimoniously be explained due to learning.” (Schlinger) Human behavior is much more variable and complex than that of animals because humans acquire more knowledge.
From birth to death human beings are constantly learning. Almost everything about our personality and behavior is the way it is because of what we have learned over the course of our lives. We differ from animals in this way. “All other species rely more upon reflexes or fixed-action patterns that, although not insensitive to learning experiences, are relatively stable. Examples include aggressive displays, courtship and mating, migration, imprinting, and care of young. Human behavior, on the other hand, is noteworthy for its variability”. (Schlinger)
Humans do not rely upon instincts as animals do because humans are capable of functioning on more meaningful levels than that of other species. However, it would be difficult even for a human to function in a useful way if it was not for our learning capabilities and the nurturing we receive throughout our first experiences of life. Schlinger does not deny that genes influence behavior, but questions how they do. He recognizes that it is because of the human nervous system that we have such an ability to learn, but argues that the actual learning depends on our environment.
Many psychologists and neuroscientists use functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging scans to see the brain while the person is engaged in activities. Schlinger states that this method is not any kind of proof for either argument because, “Simply identifying structures in the brain that seem to relate to behavior does not in and of itself implicate either evolution or learning as the ultimate cause.” (Schlinger)
Schlinger mentions a few studies of certain influences learning has on the human brain. In one study, behavioral methods were used to improve the dyslexia in children, which not only enhanced their reading performance but also increased brain activity in corresponding areas. Another study showed metabolic brain changes in associated areas in patients who had major depression and were treated with interpersonal psychotherapy and medication. A third, separate study demonstrates that successfully modifying behavior of obsessive compulsive disorder causes changes in the function of the caudate nucleus in the brain. However, as stated by Pinker, “Neural plasticity is just another name for learning and development, described at a different level of analysis.” (Schlinger)
In his article Schlinger says that learning is typically defined as specific behavior changes caused by certain kinds of experiences. There are two types of learning called classical and operant. Classical learning is when a neutral stimulus can elicit a response that would not normally occur as a result of that specific stimulus. Operant learning either strengthens or weakens behaviors depending on their consequences. Operant learning is implemented by reinforcement and punishment. Classical conditioning has been shown to influence many phenomena including phobias, physical dependence on drugs, and anxiety. Operant conditioning causes various behaviors such as actions involving skeletal muscle activity.
As for language learning, Pinker believes that children will speak even without their parents intentionally teaching them how. However there is evidence to support the opposite idea, which is that children learn by their parents reinforcing imitation of language. Babbling is an example of how humans first begin to imitate vocal sounds. When young children begin to babble, their parents will act very excited and make a big deal out of the effort, whether it is a recognizable sound or not, thus reinforcing it. The parents do not intentionally condition them to make specific sounds though; we learn them simply by listening, memorizing, and repeating. Sounds that are familiar to the child will be continued in use because of their familiarity alone.
Learning real words involves reinforcement by way of excited response and repeating the word that was spoken by the child. This reinforcement continues as the child comes up with new words. This is also used to teach new words. Children learn how to use the words based on the responses of their parents and others around them. Studies have shown that aspects such as grammar can be learned through operant learning. In a study about language interactions between American children, from birth to age two and a half, and their families, not only did the children talk the same amount as their parents but a high percentage (about 86-98%) of the children’s vocabulary included the same words their parents use. Children may not imitate everything adults say or do, but when they are reinforced for imitating a behavior they will continue to exhibit that behavior, and so will adults.
The conclusion of Schlinger’s article recognizes that evolution and inheritance are indeed important, but that human learning is also very important. He believes that getting to the root of human problems lies in learning rather than genetics. Using learning principles as well as behavior, analysis has already shown improvement in autistic children and those with other disabilities or behavior problems. Focusing on learning also helps otherwise normal people in many ways. Schlinger includes a quote by B.F. Skinner, “After almost a century and a half, evolution is still not widely understood. It is vigorously opposed by defenders of a creator… The role of variation and selection [learning] in the behavior of the individual suffers from the same opposition.” (Schlinger) Overall, there is no doubt that Schlinger believes that learning, or nurture, is the dominant cause of human behavior.
The other article I will mention is called “Contemporary Research on Parenting: The Case for Nature and Nurture” by five authors, Collins, Maccoby, Steinberg, Hetherington, and Bornstein. The position in this essay is equally for nature and nurture. One of the first topics discussed is temperament and parenting. In this article it is stated that temperament is genetic; for example a child could be at genetic risk for antisocial behavior. As for parenting, it is not only affected by a child’s natural temperament but can also have an effect on the child’s temperament and behavior.
Interestingly, they found that adopted children with at least one schizophrenic biological parent would more commonly end up with a range of psychiatric disorders than adopted children who did not have such biological parents, but this is only if the genetically at risk child is adopted into a dysfunctional family. This shows a sort of partnership between nature and nurture being that the bad nature of a child will come out only if there is insufficient nurturing of the child.
Both of these articles have compelling points and interesting facts about some different aspects of the nature versus nurture debate. Schlinger argues the importance of learning for humans. He emphasizes learning because it supports the idea of nurture, which is the side he believes is the more important, dominant part of the influence of human behavior. Undoubtedly humans learn more than any other known species on Earth. Humans are also capable of more things than other species, and exhibit much more complex behaviors. In the second article, the authors report many examples of studies and experiments about parenting and genetic influence. The majority of these studies show that there is a fair balance between nature and nurture. I believe it is fair to say that all sides, nature, nurture, as well as both equally, have many good points and evidence to support them. Although genetics may have a significant effect on nurture, I would still agree that nurture is the more important of the two, even if only slightly.
Bibliography
Collins, W. Andrew, et al. "Contemporary Research on Parenting: The Case for Nature and Nurture." American Psychologist 55.2 (2000): 218-232.Groff, Philip and Laura McRae. "The Nature-Nurture Debate in Thirteenth-Century France." n.d. October 2012 <http://htpprints.yorku.ca/archive/00000014/00/Silence.htm>.
Schlinger, Henry D. "The Almost Blank Slate." Skeptic 11.2 (2004): 34-43.