Compare Anything ›› Fraternal Twins vs.

Identical Twins GO »

Nature vs. Nurture

Diffen › Philosophy

The nature versus nurture debate is about the relative influence of an

individual's innate attributes as opposed to the experiences from the environment
one is brought up in, in determining individual differences in physical and
behavioral traits. The philosophy that humans acquire all or most of their
behavioral traits from "nurture" is known as tabula rasa ("blank slate").
In recent years, both types of factors have come to be recognized as playing
interacting roles in development. So several modern psychologists consider the
question naive and representing an outdated state of knowledge. The famous
psychologist, Donald Hebb, is said to have once answered a journalist's question
of "Which, nature or nurture, contributes more to personality?" by asking in
response, "Which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its
width?"

Comparison chart

Nature Nurture

In the "nature vs nurture" debate, In the "nature vs nurture" debate,

nature refers to an individual's nurture refers to personal
What is it?
innate qualities (nativism). experiences (i.e. empiricism or
behaviorism).

Nature is your genes. The Nurture refers to your childhood,

physical and personality traits
determined by your genes stay
the same irrespective of where
Example
you were born and raised.
or how you were brought up.
Someone could be born with
genes to give them a normal
height, but be malnourished in
childhood, resulting in stunted
growth and a failure to develop as
expected.

Factors Biological and family factors Social and environmental factors

Contents: Nature vs Nurture

1 Nature vs. Nurture in the IQ
debate
2 Nature vs. Nurture in Personality
Traits
3 Moral Considerations of the
Nature vs. Nurture Debate
4 Philosophical Considerations of
the Nature vs. Nurture Debate
4.1 Are the Traits Real?
4.2 Determinism and Free Will
5 Videos
6 References
 Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Nature vs. Nurture in the IQ debate

Evidence suggests that family environmental factors may have an effect upon
childhood IQ, accounting for up to a quarter of the variance. On the other hand, by late
adolescence this correlation disappears, such that adoptive siblings are no more
similar in IQ than strangers. Moreover, adoption studies indicate that, by adulthood,
adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero),
while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6. Twin studies reinforce this pattern:
monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately are highly similar in IQ (0.86), more
so than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together (0.6) and much more than adoptive
siblings (almost 0.0). Consequently, in the context of the "nature versus nurture"
debate, the "nature" component appears to be much more important than the
"nurture" component in explaining IQ variance in the general adult population of the
United States.
The video below furthers the debate on Nature vs Nurture:

Nature vs. Nurture in Personality Traits

Personality is a frequently cited example of a heritable trait that has been studied in
twins and adoptions. Identical twins reared apart are far more similar in personality
than randomly selected pairs of people. Likewise, identical twins are more similar than
fraternal twins. Also, biological siblings are more similar in personality than adoptive
siblings. Each observation suggests that personality is heritable to a certain extent.
However, these same study designs allow for the examination of environment as well
as genes. Adoption studies also directly measure the strength of shared family effects.
Adopted siblings share only family environment. Unexpectedly, some adoption studies
indicate that by adulthood the personalities of adopted siblings are no more similar
than random pairs of strangers. This would mean that shared family effects on
personality wane off by adulthood. As is the case with personality, non-shared
environmental effects are often found to out-weigh shared environmental effects. That
is, environmental effects that are typically thought to be life-shaping (such as family
life) may have less of an impact than non-shared effects, which are harder to identify.

Moral Considerations of the Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Some observers offer the criticism that modern science tends
to give too much weight to the nature side of the argument, in
part because of the potential harm that has come from
rationalized racism. Historically, much of this debate has had undertones of racist and
eugenicist policies — the notion of race as a scientific truth has often been assumed as
a prerequisite in various incarnations of the nature versus nurture debate. In the past,
heredity was often used as "scientific" justification for various forms of discrimination
and oppression along racial and class lines. Works published in the United States since
the 1960s that argue for the primacy of "nature" over "nurture" in determining certain
characteristics, such as The Bell Curve, have been greeted with considerable
controversy and scorn. A recent study conducted in 2012 has come up with the verdict
that racism, after all, isn't innate.
A critique of moral arguments against the nature side of the argument could be that
they cross the is-ought gap. That is, they apply values to facts. However, such
appliance appears to construct reality. Belief in biologically determined stereotypes
and abilities has been shown to increase the kind of behavior that is associated with
such stereotypes and to impair intellectual performance through, among other things,
the stereotype threat phenomenon.
The implications of this are brilliantly illustrated by the implicit association tests
(IATs) out of Harvard. These, along with studies of the impact of self-identification
with either positive or negative stereotypes and therefore "priming" good or bad
effects, show that stereotypes, regardless of their broad statistical significance, bias the
judgements and behaviours of members and non-members of the stereotyped groups.

Philosophical Considerations of the Nature vs. Nurture

Debate
Are the Traits Real?
It is sometimes a question whether the "trait" being measured is even a real thing.
Much energy has been devoted to calculating the heritability of intelligence (usually
the I.Q., or intelligence quotient), but there is still some disagreement as to what
exactly "intelligence" is.

Determinism and Free Will

If genes do contribute substantially to the development of personal characteristics
such as intelligence and personality, then many wonder if this implies that genes
determine who we are. Biological determinism is the thesis that genes determine who
we are. Few, if any, scientists would make such a claim; however, many are accused of
doing so.
Others have pointed out that the premise of the "nature versus nurture" debate seems
to negate the significance of free will. More specifically, if all our traits are determined
by our genes, by our environment, by chance, or by some combination of these acting
together, then there seems to be little room for free will. This line of reasoning
suggests that the "nature versus nurture" debate tends to exaggerate the degree to
which individual human behavior can be predicted based on knowledge of genetics
and the environment. Furthermore, in this line of reasoning, it should also be pointed
out that biology may determine our abilities, but free will still determines what we do
with our abilities.

Videos
Here are two interesting videos discussing the impact of nature vs. nurture on human
personality:

Epigenetics, a new field that challenges the 'nature vs. nurture effect on humans'
theory:
 A video of Neil deGrasse Tyson discussing the science of
epigenetics on NOVA ScienceNow.

References
Wikipedia: Nature versus nurture
Nature vs Nurture: Racism isn't Innate - National Journal

Related Comparisons

Fraternal Twins vs Psychiatry vs Genotype vs

Identical Twins Psychology Phenotype

Left Brain vs Right Behaviourism vs Anthropology vs

Brain Constructivism Sociology

Follow Share Cite Authors

If you read this far, you should follow us:

Comments: Nature vs Nurture

Comments via Facebook Anonymous comments (6)
May 9, 2014, 2:03pm
66 comments
Nurture an nature can change becose it is unchangeble to the
Add a comment... personality.
— 141.!.!.231

Also post on Facebook

Posting as Melissa Beran Taft (Not you?) Comment
October 10, 2012, 8:50am

Mugerwa Kassim · Lubiri SS Somewhere, someone has to be scratching their head and
Is there some similarities of nature and nurture. saying...what about free will? What about man's ability to reason?
Reply · Like ·
Nature and nurture do not complete the picture. They are influences,
1 · Follow Post · October 17 at 3:30am
but we should not reduce the human mind and spirit to such base
Lewis Mann · Follow
concepts.

hello — 69.!.!.87
Reply · Like · Follow Post · October 15 at 3:54pm

Okoye Joseph Davidson · Follow · Works at Self-Employed February 28, 2013, 7:28pm

nice one nature all the way

Reply · Like · Follow Post · October 2 at 11:51am — 170.!.!.19

Sasha Praetorian · Follow · Welder at P.A.L Incorporated

what's the different between nature and nurture?
what's the different between nature and nurture?
I'm so amazed of this . interested .
September 13, 2012, 1:25pm
Reply · Like · Follow Post · September 8 at 10:34pm
we were assigned to be on the "nature" side, to defend it. and the
Hari Sharan · Works at Nepal Red Cross Society information I got from here made me "encouraged" to win on our
debate, and has provided me a chance of having a high grade
llok like same but different meaning of both.
tomorrow. thanks..
Reply · Like · 1 · Follow Post · July 3 at 2:01am
— 109.!.!.162
Angelo Lawrence · Juba, South Sudan
different nuture and nature
June 18, 2009, 1:55pm
Reply · Like · 1 · Follow Post · May 7 at 5:15am
we were assigned to be on the "nature" side, to defend it. and the
Richeal Siaw · University of Ghana, Legon information I got from here made me "encouraged" to win on our
excellent.... debate, and has provided me a chance of having a high grade
Reply · Like · Follow Post · April 16 at 6:34pm tomorrow. thanks..
— 124.!.!.255
Jasper Kambole Milambo · Works at Zambezi FM 107.7
nature or nurture. how is language acquired?
Reply · Like · Follow Post · March 20 at 3:32am June 18, 2009, 1:54pm

we were assigned to be on the "nature" side, to defend it. and the

Chukwu Daniel · Institute of Management and Technology Enugu information I got from here made me "encouraged" to win on our
Coool debate, and has provided me a chance of having a high grade
Reply · Like · Follow Post · March 21 at 1:31am tomorrow. thanks..
— 124.!.!.255
Jared Acadimia · Geneva High School, Geneva, Ohio
I am so intrigued by this. It just makes my head spin with information. :)
Reply · Like · Follow Post · March 2 at 5:25pm

Michael B Smith · Top Commenter · Augusta, Missouri

I believe nature has a very strong influence on the type of person we are.
However, if you look at the stunning statistics of children from fatherless
homes, you'll see that nurturing is also critical in how a child developes
and reacts to life.
Reply · Like · 5 · Follow Post · October 5, 2013 at 8:25am

Jhon HJ
YOU IS SUCH A DUMB BIUTCH NIGGA
Reply · Like · 1 · January 31 at 12:15pm

Pam Smiley Wheelz Hall · Bronx, New York

His was a good video, I think everyone should have a chance to watch it,
and share what they think for himself and for the generation to come.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · February 15 at 11:16am

Kelly Appleby
Everyone is born with certain tendancies, it is completely normal to want
to explore them.
Homosexuality is not a sin, it is people who cannot accept it and who
preach that make it a sin and therefor make these children feel ashamed
and outcast.
Nature and nurture go hand in hand, we all preach what we are taught, its
just a shame some of us do not think first.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · Edited · December 11, 2013 at 10:17am

Bre Boss Chatman · Concordia Lutheran College

Out of curiosity, why don't you think it's a sin?
Reply · Like · December 11, 2013 at 5:41pm

Ralpheal Audi · Managing Director at Dope Hotties

KELLY with all due respect ,i think you have gotten this
NATURE vs NUTURE issue twisted! Homosexuality cant be
classified as nature cos Men were born to be with women and
not Men for MEN. OR women for women.
Reply · Like · December 25, 2013 at 5:47pm

Ralpheal Audi · Managing Director at Dope Hotties

THINK ABOUT IT THIS WAY, if everyone in this world is gay
and adopts children, dont you think the human race would go
into Extinction? i mean c'mon who would then be giving birth
to babies?
Reply · Like · December 25, 2013 at 5:49pm

View 12 more

Jessa Alena Calimlim · Follow · Shinwa (seol korea)

well
Reply · Like · Follow Post · November 19, 2013 at 2:15am

Luke Fuller · Cashier at Woolworths

well what about Homosexuality?

do we inherit that from our parents?

I thought people were born gay/lesbian? and don't grow into it...
does that mean we must consider it as a disease or mental disability!
(hypothetical, I'm sure its not either of those).

I think we still have much more to discover.

Reply · Like · 5 · Follow Post · May 29, 2013 at 11:25am

Gina Bobb · University of the West Indies

 Gina Bobb · University of the West Indies
No my friend no one is born that way but bceause of spiritual
dyfunctions and bad choices people make. I will like to point
you to the book of Romans chapter 1:fr vrs15 and you will see
what causes homosexuality; which most of the world is blind to
but dont be caught in that circle because the price is a heavy
one to pay.
Reply · Like · 3 · June 12, 2013 at 4:52pm

Oyinkan Olusesi · Follow

No one is born to be a homosexual. We are all born as a
heterosexual. Why would God make homosexual babies when
he knows it's against his will/commands. Homosexuality is due
to "nurture" not nature. Also you cant inherit gay/lesbian gene
when gay/lesbians cant procreate to begin with.
Reply · Like · 8 · October 16, 2013 at 11:51pm

Chris Giles
As a teacher I believe both nature and nurture both play an
important part in a child's education. I also agree with Michael
about the 'fatherless generation' and how critical this is to a
child's development, but not essential as single mum and dads
do an amazing job nurturing a child without their spouse
present. On the homosexuality debate, I do not think it is too
significant if it is either nature or nurture, and this might be an
issue that will bother and vex us for the rest of our lives.
However, what is important is fighting for LBGT rights in
society and groups/communities that feel on the fringes of
society being accepted and appreciated as human beings.
Reply · Like · October 21, 2013 at 2:52pm

View 2 more

View 27 more

Facebook social plugin

About Diffen © All rights reserved.

Log in / Register
Request a Comparison
Terms of use | Privacy policy Up
Submit Feedback
Fra
Stay connected Iden