In this blog post, we will look at Kim Yuna’s success from various perspectives to see if it was due to her natural talent or the result of acquired effort.
Kim Yuna, who set a world record in Korea, a country that was previously a figure skating wasteland, beat traditional figure skating powers like the United States and Canada. Is this ability of Kim Yuna’s innate or acquired through practice? As such, the question of whether a person’s talent is innate or acquired through living in an environment has been constantly asked since the past. Furthermore, the question of whether a person’s personality, appearance, and intelligence quotient are innate or learned has also been asked constantly since the past. Nevertheless, the answer to this question is still not clear, and the positions of both sides are sharply opposed. However, the debate over what affects humans should not be perceived as a binary choice between nurture and nature, but should be accepted as the two influencing each other to varying degrees.
Genetic determinism, which claims that everything about humans is innate, or in other words, is inborn, is as follows. The basis of an organism is seen as genes, and the sum of these genes constitutes the behavior of the organism. In addition, human social behavior is also caused by genes. The famous book in the field of science, “The Selfish Gene,” also claims that human behavior is determined by genes. If we look for ancient theories on this, we can find the theory of the goodness of human nature (性善說) and the theory of the evil of human nature (性惡說) in the East, and the Stoic school and the theory of original sin in the West. The theory of the goodness of human nature, which was advocated by Mencius, is the view that the nature (性) and nature (本性) that people have from birth is good. Simply put, the core argument of the theory of the goodness of human nature is that people are born good. The Western Stoa School also claims that human nature is good. In contrast, Sun Tzu’s theory of the nature of human nature sees people as born evil in character. The Western theory of original sin also claims that humans are inherently evil and are born sinful. Let’s take a look at the evidence that supports these claims. First of all, one of the reasons is that the phenotype, which represents human traits, is determined by genes. In the case of blood type, the child’s blood type is determined by the type of genes from the parents, and in the case of polydactyly, in which six fingers grow on one hand, it occurs without fail if the gene that causes polydactyly exists in the person’s chromosomes. Based on this principle, it is possible to know in advance whether a fetus in the mother’s womb has a disability or disease before it is born. In addition to the obvious visible phenotype, there is also evidence that human intellectual ability, personality, and preferences are influenced by genes and are determined at birth. According to Richard Henshstein and Charles Murray’s “The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life,” most of a person’s intellectual ability is innate, and this can be used to predict a person’s social status. In particular, there are differences based on race, with significant differences in intellectual ability between Caucasians and African Americans in the United States. Another example is the similar lives of twins who grew up in different environments. The twins did not know that they were twins, but they had the same hobbies and similar preferences. When we look at the studies of psychometrists on the human brain, we can see that the psychological and rational parts are closely related to heredity. About 80 percent of the psychological and rational parts are influenced by genetic factors. These evidences support genetic determinism, which says that people are influenced by the nature they are born with.
The other side’s claim is that humans are born as nothing and develop through nurturing, which is an environmental determinism that the structure and behavior of living things and humans are greatly influenced by the environment. There have also been claims related to this since ancient times. The Confucianism’s Seongmuseongaeopseol (性無善惡設) argues that humans are neither inherently good nor evil, and that their character can become either good or evil depending on their education. Western philosopher John Locke also likened the human mind to a blank slate, viewing it as neither good nor evil. Claims supporting environmental determinism can be easily seen in everyday life. People are strongly influenced by social preconceptions. In one experiment, female students were divided into groups. One group was shown an essay stating that, for genetic reasons, female students are worse at math than male students, while the other group was shown an essay stating that there was no difference in math ability between female and male students. After that, they were asked to solve difficult math problems. As a result, the group whose essay stated that girls cannot do math due to genetic factors had lower math grades than the group whose essay stated that there is no gender difference in math ability. In the former case, the students thought that they could not do math, so they made less effort to solve the problems. As such, people are influenced by the environment around them and live by thinking of it as their talent and ego. If you keep a cricket in a glass bottle for a long time and accustom it to jumping only as high as the height of the bottle, it will only jump to the height of the bottle even if the lid is open. This is especially common in criminal activity. A woman who was kidnapped as a child makes several attempts to escape, but is caught each time. When she grows up and is able to escape, she simply gives up and never tries to escape again. Another reason is as follows. The similarity of the twins, which was cited as a reason to believe that many things are determined by nature at birth, can also be interpreted in terms of parenting, as the twins lived in the same womb for nine months and the womb is an environmental factor, not a genetic factor. In addition, children who have been raised by animals are often introduced, and it is said that they imitate the behavior and sounds of the animals that raised them. A Russian girl who was raised by dogs was found naked and crawling around, gnawing on bones with the dogs. These are arguments that support environmental determinism, which states that people adapt and develop according to their environment.
However, this genetic determinism and environmental determinism cannot be reduced to a black-and-white debate. Just as the degree of illness varies depending on the degree of bacteria, not only are healthy people sterile, but only sick people are infected with bacteria, genetic determinism and environmental determinism cannot be said to be either human beings following genes or following the environment, and the two coexist in an appropriate proportion. To a certain extent, genes determine how a person lives, but the rest is determined by the environment. If genetic determinism is the only thing that defines a person, it is easy to fall into skepticism. Everything was determined by sperm and egg before they were even born, so who would make an effort and live to the best of their ability? If you follow this theory, you will see that everything in the world is determined. Intelligence is also determined, so the ranking of test scores will always be the same, and the universities that can be attended based on those test scores are also fixed. Then, the position in society is also determined. No one works hard if they know there is no reward for it. In the case of communism, everyone works together and the profits are shared equally regardless of contribution. Therefore, people who have experienced this do not work hard, which leads to a decline in overall productivity and eventually becomes a vicious cycle. Just as many countries are recognizing the problems of communism, where there is no reward for effort, and are changing their systems, genetic determinism, where there is no reward for effort, can also be recognized as a problem. On the contrary, if environmental determinism is the only thing that defines humans, there will be unexplainable parts. The strongest evidence is genes. As mentioned above, many human traits are determined by genes. It has been found that the color of the iris, the presence or absence of double eyelids, and even the shape of the earlobes are determined by genes. In addition, the Human Genome Project has revealed all the sequences of the genes in the human genome – the arrangement of bases (the elements that make up genes) – and this arrangement determines biological characteristics, which can be analyzed to predict genetic diseases and other abnormalities in advance. These traits are not influenced by the environment, but are born with us from the moment we are fertilized. It is also difficult to explain that truly gifted people are made by their surroundings. If outstanding performance in a particular field or an exceptionally high IQ that allows a child to solve difficult math problems in kindergarten could only be achieved by the environment, then all parents would try to provide their children with such an environment, and if that were the case, all of humanity would be levelled up and there would be no geniuses in this world. As such, genetic determinism and environmental determinism are not something that must be chosen between the two, but something that must be mixed well. According to Richard Lewontin, if one person makes the dough and the other person makes the pottery when making pottery, the degree of contribution to the finished pottery cannot be measured numerically. Similarly, although the exact figures are unknown, both genetic determinism and environmental determinism can be seen as contributing to a certain extent to human life.
Since ancient times, there has been an ongoing debate about whether humans are born with everything decided at birth or whether their future is determined by their environment. Both sides make compelling arguments and strongly support their claims with scientific evidence. However, both of these arguments have merit, and the argument that both nature and nurture influence characteristics such as human intelligence and personality has gained a lot of support. The ancient Greek teacher Isocrates argued that people with natural talent learn easily what they want to learn, but that people with less natural talent cannot reach excellence even with training, arguing for the possibility of education and also the limits of education. However, it is not known which theory affects which area of human characteristics, or how much each of them affects all characteristics. Just as it took a long time to discover human genetics and genes, it will also take a long time to discover them. Until then, the debate over nature and nurture will continue, but it is argued that both nature and nurture affect humans.
