Meaghan Duffy
10/24/14
English Comp.
Dr. Adam Johns
Nature v. Nurture
The argument of nature verses
nurture has been an open debate in the psychology field for over a
century. Is the development of an
individual more affected by the genes that make up his or her physical being or
the environment in which he or she was raised and grew up in? “As evolutionary theory has developed over
the last one hundred years and become technologically and scientifically
sophisticated,… the evolutionary view of human nature has developed a modern,
scientific-sounding apparatus that makes it seem every bit as unchangeable as
the theories of divine providence seemed in an earlier age (Lewontin,
89).”
As time progresses and technology
continues to innovate and advance, the argument for nature being the
overwhelming component when it comes to human development has become much
stronger. “Evidence hashing out the
biology behind the theory and supporting its validity began pouring in about
five years ago, once the technology for parsing genetic data was more widely
available to researchers (Rockoff).” Recent
studies have given results proving that an individual’s sensitivity to the
environment in which he or she resides is positively correlated to the genetics
of his or her nervous system. To prove
this, “scientists point to a type they call orchids- people who wit under poor
conditions but flourish in supportive climes (Rockoff).” In contrast to orchids, exists dandelions who
seem to be unaffected, or affected very little, by the environment which they
are exposed to. While nurture is still
relevant when it comes to child development it has been further supported
through studies rather recently that one’s specific gene sequencing is what
causes one to react to nurture in a certain way. It is said that dopamine, a neurotransmitter
that creates a sense of pleasure within an individual, is what differentiates
an orchid from a dandelion. “Evidence
suggests that people who produce less dopamine (the orchids) don’t learn as
well from negative feedback or in a distracting environment, but do perform
well in a warm but strict setting (Rockoff).”
To prove this, researcher Marinus Van I Jzendoorn swabbed the cheeks of
one hundred fifty-seven at risk children for aggression and tested for a
specific variation of DRD4 (dopamine- regulating gene.) Half the children’s mothers consulted with a social
worker on how to discipline their kids by being strict but still warm, while
the other mothers were given absolutely no guidance on parenting skills. Results showed that the mothers with guidance
reported their children as being more open to the new parenting style and
having less to very little behavioral problems following.
Throughout Biology and Ideology,
Lewontin continuously stresses the importance of nature when it comes to child
development specifically. He attributes
everything social and political that happens in this world to people’s
genes. He says, “ we differ in fundamental
abilities because of innate differences…those innate differences are biologically
inherited, and…human nature guarantees the formation of a hierarchical society
(Lewontin, 33).” “The characteristics of
society are seen as caused by the individual properties that its members have,
and those properties, as we shall see, are said to derive from the members’
genes. If human societies engage in war,
that is because each individual in the society is aggressive (Lewontin,
93).” Lewontin argues that without our
specific genes we would all be completely different people emotionally,
mentally and physically; our society would be entirely lacking the form it
takes on today if we were all biologically wired differently. The research Rockoff is referring to in his
article directly supports Lewontin’s claims regarding the severe true importance
of genes in human behavior. When looking
for supportive evidence, Lewontin turns to studies done on separated identical
twins and children adopted at a young age.
It was proven prior that, “there is a premium on speed in IQ testing,
and genes might have some influence on reaction times of general speed of
central nervous processes (Lewontin, 34).”
He qualifies by discussing the fact that adopted children show to have
similar IQ scores to their biological parents even though they weren’t raised by
them.
It is recognized in Lewontin’s work
that human genes’ adapt from generation to generation based on what is
necessary to survive in that particular environment. “So the proportion of variation in a
population as a consequence of variation in genes is not a fixed property but
one that varies from environment to environment (Lewontin, 30).” Specifically, in an environment where
technology is constantly advancing and being used for everyday processes,
genetic variation matters much less.
Here, the gap in abilities is less noticeable because mechanical gadgets
make up for what the human is lacking. Lewontin
concludes by describing how literally dense our bodies are with genes that code
for millions of different traits that make us who we are. He makes sure to end his book stressing that
there is still so much more that needs to be discovered about human nature that
can only be tapped into with time and further advancements in scientific
technology.
Lewontin,
R.C. Biology as Ideology. New York: HarperCollins, 1991. Print.
The danger at the beginning is that you're implying that Lewontin takes part in the nature vs nurture debate when, at least at the surface, he questions the validity of the debate and its terminology, because he believes that nature and nurture are not and never can be independent of one another.
ReplyDeleteThe second paragraph gives an account of interesting-sounding research, but you could give us a little more guidance about what you're doing with it. The orchid vs. dandelion distinction seems very interesting, but you lose me a little bit at the end - the fact that "mothers with guidance reported their children as being more open to the new parenting style and having less to very little behavioral problems following" doesn't seem to have any necessary relationship with any beliefs about human genetics - if anything, it seems to suggest that the parents of at-risk children can benefit from parenting advice, which is perhaps not a shocking result. What am I missing? (In a very Lewontian world, of course, that is all there is, and genetics are somehow smuggled into research that properly is about parenting advice...).
You make serious errors in your third paragraph. "Lewontin argues that without our specific genes we would all be completely different people emotionally, mentally and physically; our society would be entirely lacking the form it takes on today if we were all biologically wired differently." That's basically untrue, with some footnotes. What you're doing is looking at passages where Lewontin is detailing and attacking the views of others in detail. That's an error which would have been more understandable if we hadn't been through lengthy discussion of Lewontin. Similarly, Lewontin is attacking the twin studies, not agreeing with them.
Overall: At the core of this essay, you misunderstand everything about Lewontin. So, unsurprisingly, you have things roughly reversed re: his likely response to the essay. This is a case where it's hard to recover from a serious misreading, unfortunately - you need to have a better grasp of Lewotin to analyze the essay using him.