Nature versus Nurture: The Continuous Developmental Debate

I’m a psychology minor, and throughout my career in this department, I’ve seen a persistent concept that continues to show up time and time again: the nature versus nurture debate. You’re probably wondering why I would write about something like this—why is it important? Well, it’s the concept regarding whether or not development is primarily influenced by nature (i.e., heredity, biology, genetic makeup, and how that’s expressed in our phenotypes) or nurture (i.e., environment and surrounding social contexts). Nature is what we think of as pre-wiring and is influenced by genetic inheritance and other biological factors. Nurture is generally taken as the influence of external factors after conception (e.g., the product of exposure, life experiences and learning on an individual). There are some proponents that believe in the biological side having more influence in shaping our development throughout the lifespan, and these individuals are nativists (i.e., those who believe that most of our skills, etc. are innate and hard-wired in our brains before birth). The proponents who believe the opposite are called empiricists. The truth of the matter is that our development is the direct result of both biological and environmental circumstances. Just because a father has an athletic ability doesn’t mean that his kid will be the same way—it’s about how our genes and environment correlate and interact with one another throughout our lifespan to shape these behaviors, responses, skills, etc. Several studies done on twins separated shortly after birth reveal that genetics does play a significant role in the development of certain personality characteristics, sexual orientation, and religious affiliations. The bond between identical twins was also suggested to be genetic by these studies, as 80 percent of identical twins reported that they felt closer to their twin than they did to their closest friends, despite having just met their twin, thereby signaling the bond between these individuals. One study also suggested that genetics plays a significant role in the development of personality: environment had little effect on personality when twins were raised together, though it did have an effect when they were raised apart. All of this information is particularly interesting to me when I apply it to my own life. Even though I’m not an identical twin, I still do see relationships and connections to this concept. I have a different personality than my twin brother, but we were also reared in similar ways. We have different genes and biologies, but when it came to child rearing and growing up, we were much better off than children who grew up in disadvantaged environments (e.g., poverty, maltreatment, trauma, parental depression, etc.). My brother is more musically-inclined than I am, and I'm more athletically-inclined than he is. We all need to consider both aspects in order to form an accurate and relevant understanding of how we develop—yes, the different genes we have wire us for specific personalities and temperaments, but how we were raised and the environments we are exposed to play an equal role in determining our future outcomes and developmental patterns. Looking back at how I was raised and how far I’ve come, it’s interesting to see how these concepts have played a role in my own life. There are huge individual differences when it comes to this concept, and it’s important to know that we’re all unique and marked with our own combination of biology and environment.