In this blog post, we’ll examine from various perspectives whether Yuna Kim’s success is due to innate talent or the result of hard work.
Yuna Kim emerged from South Korea—a country once considered a figure skating wasteland—to set a world record, surpassing traditional figure skating powerhouses like the United States and Canada. Is Kim Yuna’s ability truly innate, or is it the product of practice? Questions about whether human talent is something we are born with or something acquired through our environment as we grow up—and, furthermore, whether personality, physical appearance, and IQ are innate or learned—have existed since ancient times. Nevertheless, the answers to these questions remain unclear, and opposing viewpoints are sharply divided. However, I believe that the debate over what influences human beings should not be viewed as a binary choice between nature and nurture, but rather accepted as a situation where both factors exert influence, albeit to varying degrees.
Genetic determinism, which argues that everything about humans is innate—that is, nature—is as follows: it views the fundamental basis of an organism as genes, and the sum of these genes constitutes the organism’s behavior. Furthermore, human social behavior is also attributed to genes. The famous scientific book *The Selfish Gene* also argues that human behavior is determined by genes. Looking at ancient theories on this subject, we find the Eastern theories of innate goodness (性善說) and innate evil (性惡說), as well as the Western Stoic school and the doctrine of original sin. The theory of innate goodness, as advocated by Mencius, is the view that the “nature” (性) or “original nature” (本性) that a person possesses from birth is good. Simply put, the core claim of the theory of innate goodness is that people are born good. The Stoics in the West also argued that human nature is good. In contrast, Xunzi’s theory of innate evil holds that people are born with an inherently evil disposition. The Western doctrine of original sin similarly asserted that humans are inherently evil and are born with sin. Let us now examine the evidence supporting these claims. First, the fact that phenotypes—the physical characteristics of humans—are determined by genes serves as one piece of evidence. In the case of blood type, a child’s blood type is determined by the specific genes inherited from their parents. Similarly, in the case of polydactyly—where a person is born with six fingers on one hand—the condition invariably occurs if the gene responsible for polydactyly is present in a person’s chromosomes. Based on this principle, it is possible to determine in advance whether a fetus in the womb has any disabilities or diseases before birth. In addition to such clearly visible phenotypes, there is also evidence that human intellectual ability, personality, and preferences are influenced by genes and are predetermined from birth. According to Richard Hernstein and Charles Murray’s *The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Social Class in American Life*, human intellectual ability is largely innate, and thus a person’s social status can also be predicted. In particular, there are differences based on race; among American adults, there is considered to be a significant difference in intellectual ability between whites and African Americans. Furthermore, the fact that twins raised in different environments lead similar lives also serves as evidence. Even though these twins lived their lives unaware that they were twins, they shared the same hobbies and had similar preferences. Research on the human brain by psychometricians shows that psychological and rational aspects are deeply linked to heredity.
Approximately 80 percent of psychological and rational traits are determined by genetic factors. These findings support genetic determinism, which holds that humans are shaped by the nature they are born with.
The opposing view is environmental determinism, which argues that humans are born as blank slates and develop through upbringing, suggesting that biological and human structures and behaviors are greatly influenced by the environment. Arguments related to this perspective have existed since ancient times. Xu Zi’s theory of the neutral nature of human character (性無善惡設) asserts that humans are neither inherently good nor evil, and that their character can become good or evil depending on their upbringing. Locke in the West also likened the human mind to a blank slate, viewing it as neither good nor evil. Arguments supporting environmental determinism can be easily observed in everyday life. People are strongly influenced by social prejudices. In one experiment, female students were divided into two groups: one group was shown an essay stating that, due to genetic reasons, girls are worse at math than boys, while the other group was shown an essay stating that there is no difference in math ability between girls and boys. They were then asked to solve difficult math problems. The results showed that the group that read the essay claiming girls are genetically inferior at math scored lower than the group that read the essay stating there is no gender difference in math ability. In the former case, the students came to believe they were bad at math and consequently put less effort into solving the problems. In this way, people are influenced by their surroundings, internalize these influences as their own talents and sense of self, and adapt their lives accordingly. If you keep a cricket in a glass jar for a long time and allow it to adapt to jumping only as high as the jar’s rim, even if you leave the lid open, it will still only jump up to the height it has adapted to. This phenomenon is particularly common in criminal behavior. A woman who was kidnapped as a child and repeatedly attempted to escape, only to be recaptured each time, will, even when she grows up and is fully capable of escaping, simply resign herself to her fate and make no further attempts to escape. Another piece of evidence is as follows. The similarity between twins, which was previously cited as evidence that many traits are determined by nature at birth, can also be interpreted in terms of nurture: twins lived together in the same womb for nine months, and the womb is an environmental factor, not a genetic one. Furthermore, there are frequent reports of children raised by animals, and it is known that these children mimic the behavior and sounds of the animals that raised them. A Russian girl raised by dogs was reportedly found crawling around naked and gnawing on bones with the dogs when she was discovered. Such examples of people adapting and developing according to their environment provide strong support for environmental determinism.
However, genetic determinism and environmental determinism cannot be reduced to a black-and-white debate. Just as a healthy person is not necessarily germ-free and a sick person is not merely infected with bacteria—but rather, the severity of illness varies depending on the extent of bacterial presence—we cannot categorically state that humans are determined solely by genes or solely by the environment; rather, these two factors coexist in an appropriate balance. This means that while genes determine a certain degree of a person’s life, the rest is determined by the environment. If one views genetic determinism as the sole definition of humanity, it is easy to fall into skepticism. If everything is determined by sperm and eggs even before birth, who would make an effort or strive to live their best life? If one follows this theory, one comes to view everything in the world as predetermined.
Since intelligence is also predetermined, test scores would always remain the same, and the universities one can attend would be predetermined based on those scores. Consequently, one’s social status would also be predetermined. If people know there will be no reward for working hard, no one will work hard. In communism, everyone works together, and the profits are distributed equally regardless of contribution. Consequently, those who experience this system do not work hard, leading to a decline in overall productivity and ultimately creating a vicious cycle. Just as many countries have recognized the problems of communism—where there is no reward for effort—and are changing their systems, genetic determinism, which offers no reward for effort, can also be recognized as a problem. Conversely, if we view environmental determinism as the sole defining factor of humanity, certain aspects become inexplicable. The most compelling evidence lies in genes. As mentioned earlier, countless human traits are determined by genes. It has been established that eye color, the presence or absence of double eyelids, and even the shape of the earlobe are determined by genes. Furthermore, the Human Genome Project has revealed the complete nucleotide sequence of the human genome—the arrangement of nucleotides (the building blocks of genes), which determines biological characteristics—and by analyzing this, it is possible to predict genetic diseases and other abnormalities in advance. These traits are not influenced by the environment but are present from the moment of conception. Furthermore, it is difficult to explain that truly innate geniuses are created solely by their surroundings. If achieving outstanding results in a specific field at a young age—to the point of being called a child prodigy—or possessing an exceptionally high IQ that allows one to solve difficult math problems in kindergarten were possible solely through the environment, then all parents would strive to provide such an environment for their children. If that were the case, humanity would be standardized upward, and there would be no such thing as a genius in this world. Thus, rather than choosing between genetic determinism and environmental determinism, we must find the right balance between the two. According to Richard Lewontin, if one person kneads the clay and another shapes the pottery, the exact contribution of each to the finished piece cannot be measured numerically. Similarly, while we cannot determine precise figures, both genetic determinism and environmental determinism can be seen as contributing a certain degree to human life.
Since ancient times, there has been an ongoing debate over whether humans are born with everything predetermined or whether their future is shaped by the environment. Both sides present compelling arguments, backed by scientific evidence. However, as both positions have merit, the view that both nature and nurture influence human traits such as intelligence and personality has been proposed and is gaining widespread support. Isocrates, an ancient Greek teacher, argued that those born with talent can easily learn what they wish to learn, whereas those lacking innate talent find it difficult to achieve excellence even with training. In doing so, he asserted the potential of education while also acknowledging its limitations. However, it remains entirely unknown which theory influences which specific aspects of human characteristics, or to what extent each factor influences every characteristic. Just as it took a long time to uncover the mysteries of human genetics and genes, it will likely take a long time to clarify this issue as well. Until then, the debate over nature versus nurture is likely to continue indefinitely; nevertheless, I maintain that both nature and nurture influence human beings.
