In this blog post, I will summarize the development of the “Nature vs. Nurture” debate, my research findings, and my personal reflections, drawing on relevant works such as “Nature via Nurture.”
Background of Topic Selection
My decision to choose “Nature vs. Nurture” as the topic for this blog post stems from a core liberal arts course I took at school called “Modern Society and Psychology.” In that class, the professor explained the differences in perspectives on nature and nurture between the East and West from a cultural psychology standpoint. The gist was that Westerners tend to view the influence of nature on a person’s life and behavior as greater than Easterners do. Simply put, the theory posits that Westerners view the brain as an innate vessel, while Easterners view it as a muscle that can be strengthened through experience.
According to this perspective, from a Western viewpoint, intelligence is determined at birth, and therefore, one might believe that one’s suitable career path is predetermined at birth. Consequently, it was also suggested that, on average, Westerners exhibit less enthusiasm for education compared to Easterners. Reflecting on these differences reveals that the differing perspectives on whether humans are shaped by nature or by subsequent environmental influences create fundamental differences in how we approach life. Furthermore, the values regarding which factor is prioritized are so ingrained that people often accept them as self-evident, acting without realizing that their behavior and decision-making are shaped by those values. That is why I found this topic interesting and chose it, as it was also a topic presented in class.
Research Subjects and Key Arguments
I recently conducted new research on nature versus nurture, primarily referencing two books: Matt Ridley’s *Nature via Nurture* and Evelyn Fox Keller’s *The Mirage of Nature and Nurture*. First, as evident in Matt Ridley’s *Nature via Nurture*, he argues that we should put an end to the long-standing nature versus nurture debate and instead focus on the cultivation of nature through nurture. Ridley succinctly summarizes the core of the debate that has unfolded over time.
The early nature versus nurture debate originated in philosophy. Through philosophical inquiry, it explored whether human nature is innate or whether it is altered or shaped by the environment. John Locke, an advocate of empiricism, rejected the idea of innate nature and championed nurture, viewing the human mind as a “blank slate” filled by experience. In contrast, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that human nature is innate and that the social environment causes people to stray from the state of nature, leading to unhappiness.
The nature versus nurture debate also emerged in the scientific community. In 1829, Charles Darwin’s *On the Origin of Species* shocked the world by proposing that humans are the product of evolution, and around that time, geneticist Francis Galton first used the term “nature versus nurture.” He founded eugenics, a field of applied genetics that studied the influence of heredity on subsequent generations and sought to improve the physical and mental qualities of specific groups. Consequently, with the rise of genetics, the claim that nature governs humans gained traction.
However, nature-based arguments were exploited by Nazism, and Hitler claimed that the elimination of inferior races was “the wisdom of nature.” After World War II, some scholars who had emphasized nature fell silent. When the Human Genome Project began in 1990, people expected that all human information would be encoded in genes, but the situation changed by the time the project was completed in 2001. Craig Venter, a key figure in the project, argued that the smaller-than-expected number of genes served as evidence that “it is difficult to view biological determinism as correct” and that the environment in which one grows up is extremely important.
Thus, the nature versus nurture debate has continued to evolve throughout history.
In the 2000s, scholars emerged who proposed putting an end to this debate, with Matt Ridley and Evelyn Fox Keller being two of them. Evelyn Fox Keller’s argument is more critical. She views the nature versus nurture debate itself as a flawed dichotomy and believes such arguments instill false preconceptions in people. She argues that it prevents us from accepting the common-sense premise that both innate and acquired factors are at play, forcing us instead to think in binary terms of nature versus nurture.
After reading these two books, I came to the conclusion that the nature versus nurture debate is effectively over. We have long known that both factors are important, yet it seems we have overlooked this aspect. Just as it is clear that we differ from chimpanzees because we are born human, it is equally clear that our thinking is shaped by early childhood experiences and that our mindset varies depending on the environment in which we grow up. In a way, the nature versus nurture debate seems like nothing more than an intellectual pastime.
Case Studies, Thought Experiments, and Concluding Reflections
These days, in articles introducing the second generation of celebrity families, it’s easy to see netizen reactions like “superior genes” or “they’ve inherited good genes.” While physical appearance is almost universally regarded as a trait determined by genetics, other articles also feature expressions such as “they take after their mother and have a flair for the arts” or “they inherited their singing ability from their father.” The term “talent” used here encompasses acting ability, singing ability, and the kind of talent or appearance that people find appealing in celebrities, making it difficult to view it as a specific trait. Nevertheless, seeing people routinely claim that these hard-to-define qualities are inherited naturally fosters the perception that celebrities are born with their talents.
However, it is also clear that abilities like talent or singing ability cannot be viewed as being expressed solely by genes. Survival audition programs demonstrate that one’s potential as an entertainer can be enhanced through acquired effort. Even in cases where a mother is an outstanding vocalist and her children become exceptional musicians, this can be viewed as a result of the environment during their upbringing serving as excellent musical material, rather than innate factors, leading to the natural acquisition of ability. There is significant room for talent or vocal ability to change through an individual’s acquired effort.
At this point, the nature versus nurture debate—which had seemed superficially pointless—resurfaces. To make the debate more vivid, I have devised a thought experiment. Suppose a discussion class on nature versus nurture is held in a high school classroom. The students are told that the content of this class will not appear on the exam. If you explain the historical background at the start of the class, a few students might show interest, but most will not. This is because it has no direct relevance to their own lives. However, if you explain eugenics and mention how the Nazis used it to claim racial superiority, which led to genocide, they might become slightly more interested. This is because the fact that it had a terrible impact on certain people in the past evokes a sense of empathy. Nevertheless, it still does not directly relate to the individual students’ lives.
Now, let’s introduce the topic of celebrities. While social factors also play a role in the profession of being a celebrity—and cannot be explained solely by genetics and environment—we’ll set those aside for now. Instead, I’ll ask the students: “Are celebrities born or made?” Based on the reactions seen in the articles mentioned earlier, I expect some to answer, “Of course, they’re born that way.” On the other hand, students who have seen contestants on audition shows improve their skills through hard work might emphasize the importance of acquired effort. Ultimately, students will likely split into two camps: those who prioritize the influence of genetics and those who prioritize the influence of the environment.
Below is a dialogue I’ve constructed between a nativist and an environmentalist.
Nativist: They say they evaluate skill on audition shows, but where do you think that skill comes from? Ultimately, you still need innate talent for that.
Environmentalist: Still, there are cases where participants work harder than in the previous season, improve their skills, and achieve better results in the next season.
Nativist: Even so, they can’t win first place. There are limits to what effort can do.
Environmentalist: And the concept of innate talent is incredibly vague. If you rely solely on innate talent and don’t put in the effort, it’s useless. Plus, when you see contestants who were highly praised by the judges for their talent unexpectedly getting eliminated early on, it really shows how vague the concept of innate talent is.
Nativist: Look at celebrities. Whether they’re serious actors or talented singers, aren’t most of them good-looking? Those people became celebrities because they have superior genes that give them outstanding looks. So, being a celebrity is something you’re born with.
Environmentalist: Haven’t you seen photos of celebrities before they had plastic surgery? The term “superior genes” is hard to define, but even if such genes exist, this is proof that there are many celebrities who don’t have them.
Nativist: Ah, so do you think you can become a celebrity just by trying hard? No matter how much Kang Ho-dong wants to be an actor like Won Bin, or how hard Won Bin tries to be a comedian like Kang Ho-dong, it just won’t work. It’s about what you’re born with.
Environment Theorist: No, even so, Kang Ho-dong didn’t become the nation’s favorite MC just by being born. If Won Bin had been arrogant, relying solely on his natural looks, people wouldn’t like him as much as they do now… Anyway, effort is…
This debate could go on forever, and readers could certainly continue it if they’re willing. Even as the article progresses, the main point may not be clear, and it might feel like rambling. I admit that it’s unclear whether the intention is to move beyond the nature versus nurture debate or to acknowledge that the debate is bound to continue. My thoughts became complicated as I researched, and in the end, it all felt somewhat futile.
If, after hearing about the differences in Western and Eastern values regarding the brain mentioned earlier, you thought that Westerners need to change their way of thinking, you need to reconsider. Is it really right to make acquired efforts regarding the brain? Let’s assume that doing so actually leads to greater intelligence and a better job. Does that ultimately guarantee a better life for Easterners? Is there any basis for claiming that accepting one’s fate and living contentedly is bad or inferior?
What about people’s arguments regarding celebrities? Whether celebrities were chosen by nature or rose to their positions through immense passion and hard work, what does that have to do with our lives? I suspect that when people discuss celebrities in relation to genetics and effort, it’s merely a topic of conversation, and the real reason they make such remarks is ultimately because they envy those celebrities’ lives.
I have structured this essay in a somewhat non-argumentative manner, but I would like to conclude by suggesting that we move beyond the nature versus nurture debate. I acknowledge that the connections between paragraphs and the overall logic may be lacking. However, the logic within each sentence reflects the actual thoughts I had while contemplating this issue, and I have tried to present them in a coherent sequence. I wanted to explain why this debate is not only fascinating but also possesses a magic that allows it to endure for centuries.
To reiterate my conclusion: since life has already been given to us and we have no choice but to do what we can, let us not cling to the “nature versus nurture” debate in our lives.
