We’ve all heard the debate of nature versus nurture, but how many people can say they’ve actually read into the depth of it, instead of just briefly reading about one side of it? I wanted to learn about both sides to determine which was more appropriate.
So, what exactly is nature versus nurture? It’s a long-standing argument in the scientific world about whether a creature is what their genes say, or are influenced by the world around them. People that believe nature determines how an animal, including people, function, also believe that the traumatic occurrences in an animal’s life don’t influence their future actions. They are behaving based on their genes alone. Those that believe in nurture, believe that these events in an animal’s life shape how they react to situations further down the line.
Many people believe that because our genes determine so much of our life, such as our eye color, hair color, whether our hair is straight or curly, there must be some hard-wired genes that determine our personality as well. While this is sometimes true of those that display mental illness, genes controlling our personality aren’t always believed to be the case. Our genes are very important to making up our entire bodies - but are genes really what we are?
“For example, when an infant forms an attachment it is responding to the love and attention it has received, language comes from imitating the speech of others, and cognitive development depends on the degree of stimulation in the environment and, more broadly, on the civilization within which the child is reared.” – (McLeod, Saul. 2015) The people who believe in nurture are claiming that genes play no vital role in our personalities. McLeod has stated that even things such as languages are simply imitations from a world you were born into. He is saying that culture and experiences determine who you become.
Albert Bandura led an experiment, referred to as the “Bobo Doll Experiment”, to amplify the nature versus nurture argument. In this experiment, children of pre-school age were split into groups and were instructed to observe what happened to the dolls. In one group, the scientists directing this experiment reacted violently towards a Bobo Doll, such as hitting, punching, and kicking it. Another group had non-violent reactions, which involved ignoring the Bobo Doll and simply playing with another toy. And a third group was not exposed to any behavior.
The second phase of this experiment involved taking the child individually into another room with highly popular and alluring toys, such as jet airplanes and model cars. After two minutes, the children were told they could no longer play with the fancy toys and instead had to go play in another room with other toys. In this other room, there were toys that were considered aggressive and toys that were not considered aggressive. Aggressive toys consisted of the Bobo doll, a mallet, and dart guns. Non-aggressive toys included crayons, paper, farm animal figurines and other innocent toys.
This led to the final stage of the experiment, where children were observed in secret for 20 minutes. After the monitoring period, an interesting discovery was made. The children that were in the aggressive setting were highly aggressive in return. They hit, kicked, and mocked the Bobo doll, much as the adults had. Nearly 90% of the kids reacted violently and even eight months down the line, 40% of them still reacted violently in a repeat study.
Because of this study, many people began to believe that what we see at an impressionable age is how we are going to react to life. When I first read this study many years ago, I must admit I felt the same way. I was always leaning toward the nurture aspect of this debate. However, many scientists and psychologists have begun to agree that neither nature nor nurture are to be attributed singularly. Nature and nurture, ever since the 20th century, has begun to develop into the idea that both are important, necessary, and contribute to molding a person. This has led the scientific community to the idea of epigenetics.
Epigenetics is believed to be the phenomena of inherent genes being turned off and on, or manipulated, by factors in our environment. As stated by Cath Ennis, epigenetics is essentially taking a highlighter to DNA sequence. “There are different types of epigenetic marks, and each one tells the proteins in the cell to process those parts of the DNA in certain ways. For example, DNA can be tagged with tiny molecules called methyl groups that stick to some of its C letters. Other tags can be added to proteins called histones that are closely associated with DNA. There are proteins that specifically seek out and bind to these methylated areas, and shut it down so that the genes in that region are inactivated in that cell. So methylation is like a blue highlighter telling the cell "you don't need to know about this section right now." (Ennis, Cath. April 25th, 2014).
To summarize, she's essentially saying that epigenetics goes in and alters the DNA." The most interesting thing about epigenetics, is the fact that they are not stationary. It’s possible for the DNA to acquire epigenetics markers. And while that happens, it is also possible that these markers can simply disappear entirely from the DNA, only to reappear on different parts of the DNA! Epigenetics are believed to occur due to outside interference, such as stimulus from the atmosphere. Epigenetics are believed to be the phenomenon that sets people apart.
One example of epigenetics are prevalent in the studies done on twins. Identical twins are born with the exact same genes, and have mostly similar upbringing when with the same family, yet are two entirely different people. Neither nature nor nurture differ meaningfully, yet they are still unique individuals. Because of this, something may be happening to the genes to alter how they react in each person. That something is what the idea of epigenetics centers on.
We are not only speaking of different personalities that these change – but also the overall health of the individuals. Epigenetics controls many different things; practically anything that a gene controls can be modified by epigenetics. (Beyond DNA: Epigenetics, 2012)
Epigenetics are still a science that needs to be studied. It is not well understood at this point, however, epigenetics are becoming more prevalent as studies go on. I believe this will end our nature versus nurture debate and will unify the two to indicate that both are very important to a developing individual.
While it was long debated between scientists to see which would arise on top, it was later discovered that both play a role in the animal body. Our genes set us up for who we will be, but the environment will shape who we are as we age. Due to the research I have done, I can do nothing but agree that both are very important. It is hard to believe that people still struggle with the acceptance of both. I can only hope that the further information uncovered while studying epigenetics will help end this debate.
I’d like to leave you guys with a Ted Talk to explain why both are so vital to an organism. I found it fascinating and I hope you do too!
Sources
“Beyond DNA: Epigenetics.” Beyond DNA: Epigenetics | Natural History Magazine, Natural History Mag, 2012, http://www.naturalhistorymag.c…95/beyond-dna-epigenetics.
Ennis, Cath. “Epigenetics 101: a Beginner's Guide to Explaining Everything | Cath Ennis.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 25 Apr. 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/sci…nners-guide-to-everything.
McLeod, Saul. “Saul McLeod.” Nature Nurture in Psychology | Simply Psychology, Simply Psychology, 1 Jan. 1970, http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html.
Nolen, Jeannette L. “Bobo Doll Experiment.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 24 Nov. 2015, http://www.britannica.com/event/Bobo-doll-experiment.
Robinson, Gene. Youtube, TED, 3 June 2010, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kONM9WO5LGo.