In this blog post, we will examine whether human nature is determined by genetic factors or shaped by the environment and upbringing through various examples and studies.
Before discussing this question, let’s first consider what nature and nurture mean. The debate over nature and nurture has been going on for a long time from philosophical, psychological, and biological perspectives. It raises the fundamental question of whether human characteristics and behaviors are innate or formed during development. This debate plays an important role in understanding human identity, morality, and social behavior.
First, when we think about human nature, there is a phrase that focuses on human nature: “innate.” This means “born with a certain character or ability.” It is unclear whether the standard is birth or the moment of conception when sperm and egg meet in a genetic sense. In this article, we will consider that when human nature is genetically modified, human characteristics are determined by genes. This perspective is linked to biological determinism and includes the claim that all human characteristics are already determined by genes. For example, some people are born with artistic talent, while others have outstanding physical abilities. This perspective is easily found among people who believe that individual achievements are mostly determined by genetic factors.
On the other hand, nurture is not innate but acquired. In other words, nurture means that human characteristics are not determined by genes but are changed by the surrounding environment. The environment includes family, education, culture, and social experiences. Psychologists have long studied how these environmental factors shape human personality, intelligence, and behavior patterns.
For example, even twins with the same genetic background can have completely different personalities and abilities if they grow up in different environments. Genetic determinists argue that the genome genetically determines not only human physical characteristics but also behavioral characteristics. In fact, when we look at the news and examples around us, there are cases that make us think that genetic traits determine a person’s characteristics.
Most of the medalists in track and field at the Olympics are black, and it is difficult to find yellow or white people. This phenomenon can be interpreted as certain races having genetic predispositions that make them excel in certain sports. On the other hand, when we look at the rankings of the International Mathematical Olympiad, where China and South Korea are at the top, it makes us think that genes are involved in determining human characteristics.
However, if we look at people’s behavior and various research results, we can find that these ideas and claims are wrong. Let’s look at prenatal education as an example. If a person’s characteristics and personality are determined by genetic traits, then the moment the sperm and egg meet and fertilization occurs, that person’s characteristics are determined. Prenatal education, as practiced by most people, has no effect on the fertilized egg, whose genome has already been determined, so it is essentially meaningless. However, studies on the effects of prenatal education on fetuses are easy to find. A study by the University of Pittsburgh in the United States revealed that intelligence quotient is largely determined by the environment in the womb rather than genetics. In addition, prenatal education is known to affect the emotions of fetuses. As such, fetal development is greatly influenced not only by genes but also by environmental factors during pregnancy.
Furthermore, Richard E. Nisbett’s book Intelligence and How to Get It shows that the environment also has a significant impact on people after birth. This book uses statistics to show that intelligence, one of the characteristics of human beings, is largely influenced by the environment and has little genetic influence. Through long-term experiments and statistics, the author argues that genetic influence on intelligence is negligible. The book states that academic success stories in today’s society must take into account differences in family environments between races in existing societies and the stereotypes that exist in society. In other words, before concluding that the appearance of a group type in society is simply due to genetic factors, we must also consider the social and environmental factors that cause such phenomena.
Of course, since human characteristics cannot be limited to intelligence or personality alone, the above arguments and research results cannot be seen as representative of all human characteristics. Furthermore, it cannot be said that all human characteristics are manifested and changed by environmental factors. However, looking at the experimental cases mentioned above, it can be seen that environmental factors are more significant than genetic factors. This is particularly evident in a social context, where people are unconsciously influenced by the social groups and cultural backgrounds to which they belong, which in turn has a profound impact on their beliefs, values, and behavior.
These research results provide many implications for people. We can see how wrong it was for the Nazis to emphasize the genetic superiority of Aryans during World War II. It also shows how important environmental factors are for people who want to change themselves. In Intelligence and How to Get It, Richard E. Nisbett says, “There is a big difference between recognizing the possibility of change and working toward it, and working toward change based on the belief that change is impossible.” People who want to change themselves should not blame genetic factors alone, but can bring about change simply by changing their mindset. This not only presents the possibility of individual change, but also offers hope for change in society as a whole. Social progress will also be possible depending on how each individual utilizes the environment around them and uses it as a tool for change.
