In this blog post, I will summarize the development of the “nature vs. nurture” debate, the results of my research, and my personal reflections, drawing on relevant works such as “Nature via Nurture.”
Background on the Topic Selection
My decision to choose “Nature vs. Nurture” as the topic for this blog post stemmed 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 versus nurture between the East and the West from the standpoint of cultural psychology. The point 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; therefore, one might believe that one’s suitable career path is predetermined at birth. Consequently, it was explained that, on average, Westerners exhibit less enthusiasm for education than Easterners. Reflecting on these differences reveals that differing perspectives on whether humans are shaped by nature or by nurture 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 became interested in this topic and chose it, especially since it was also a subject covered in class.
Research Subjects and Key Arguments
I recently conducted new research on nature versus nurture, primarily drawing on two books: Matt Ridley’s ‘Nature via Nurture’ and Evelyn Fox Keller’s ‘The Mirage of Nature and Nurture’. First, as can be seen 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 reflection, it explored whether human nature is innate or whether it is altered or shaped by the environment. John Locke, an empiricist, rejected the idea of innate nature and advocated for 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 populations. Consequently, with the rise of genetics, the claim that nature governs human behavior 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 our genes, but the situation changed by 2001, when the project was completed. 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 conclude that biological determinism is correct” and that the environment in which one grows up is extremely important.
As such, the nature-versus-nurture debate has continued to evolve throughout history.
In the 2000s, scholars emerged who proposed putting an end to this debate; Matt Ridley and Evelyn Fox Keller are two such figures. 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 people from accepting the common-sense premise that both innate and environmental factors play a role, forcing them instead to think in binary terms of either nature or nurture.
After reading these two books, I came to the conclusion that the nature versus nurture debate is, in fact, over. We’ve long known that both factors are important, but it seems there are aspects we’ve overlooked until now. Just as it’s clear that we differ from chimpanzees because we’re born human, it’s also 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 a mere intellectual exercise.
Case Studies, Thought Experiments, and Concluding Reflections
These days, in articles introducing the second generation of celebrity families, it’s common to see netizens’ reactions such as “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 like “they take after their mother and have a natural flair” or “they inherited their singing ability from their father.” The term “talent” used here encompasses acting ability, singing ability, and the talents or physical attributes that people find appealing in celebrities, making it difficult to view it as a specific trait. Nevertheless, when we routinely hear people say that these hard-to-define qualities are inherited, the perception that celebrities are born with their talents naturally takes root.
However, it is also clear that abilities such as talent or singing ability cannot be attributed solely to genetics. 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 classical singer and her children become exceptional musicians, this can be viewed as a result of the environment during their upbringing—rather than innate factors—serving as excellent musical training that naturally fostered their abilities. There is considerable room for “talent” or singing ability to change through an individual’s acquired effort.
At this point, the nature versus nurture debate—which was superficially considered pointless—resurfaces. To make the debate more vivid, I’ve devised a thought experiment. Suppose a discussion class on nature versus nurture is being 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 class, a few students might show interest, but most will not. This is because it has no direct relevance to their own lives. However, they might become slightly more interested when you explain eugenics and mention how the Nazis used it to claim racial superiority, which led to genocide. 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 students’ individual lives.
Now, let’s introduce the topic of celebrities. While social factors also play a role in the profession of a celebrity—making it impossible to explain it solely through genetics and environment—let’s 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 role 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 to be born with talent.
Environmentalist: Still, there are cases where contestants work harder than in the previous season, improve their skills, and achieve better results in the next season, right?
Nativist: Even so, they still 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 whom the judges raved about for their talent unexpectedly get eliminated early on, it really shows how unclear 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 anyway? 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 plenty of celebrities who don’t have them.
Nativist: Oh, so do you think you could 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 good looks, people wouldn’t like him as much as they do now… Anyway, effort is…
This debate could go on, and readers could certainly continue it if they’re willing. 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 Westerners need to change their way of thinking, you need to reconsider. Is it really right to focus on acquired efforts regarding the brain? Let’s assume that doing so actually leads to greater intelligence and a better job. But does that ultimately guarantee a better life for Easterners? Is there any basis for claiming that accepting one’s fate and living contentedly is wrong 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 get the feeling that when people talk about celebrities, genetics, and effort, it’s merely a topic of conversation, and the real reason they say such things is ultimately because they envy those celebrities’ lives.
I’ve structured this essay in a somewhat non-argumentative manner, but I’d 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 were lacking. However, the logic within each sentence reflects the thoughts I actually had while contemplating this issue—it’s the result of my effort to present a logical progression. I wanted to explain why this debate is not only fascinating but also possesses a magic that has allowed it to endure for centuries.
Finally, to restate my conclusion: since life has already been given to us and we have no choice but to do what we can, let’s not cling to the “nature versus nurture” debate in our lives any longer.
