In this blog post, we will examine whether human abilities, personality, and emotional traits are more strongly influenced by innate nature or acquired nurture, and consider the relationship between nature and nurture from a modern perspective.
Although humans are a species within the animal kingdom, they possess unique characteristics in that they use language and symbols, acquire complex knowledge, and form highly developed societies and cultures. In the past, when distinguishing humans from other animals, it was often explained that only humans acquire behaviors or skills through learning and think subjectively based on emotions. However, today it is difficult to accept this distinction at face value. This is because a growing body of research shows that many animals possess learning abilities, and behaviors related to emotions or subjective states have been observed in a wide variety of species. Nevertheless, humans develop highly complex abilities and ways of expressing emotions through language, education, culture, and social relationships; these traits vary significantly from person to person and serve as key factors in defining each individual’s identity. Human behavior is highly complex because it is not determined solely by biological predispositions but is closely intertwined with an individual’s environment, experiences, learning, and social relationships. In human society, where individuals with different characteristics form relationships and coexist, it is by no means easy to fully understand others and adapt one’s life accordingly. To understand these human traits, we can first consider the fundamental question: “Where do human traits originate, and through what processes are they formed?” Traditionally, explanations for this have been divided into two camps: one arguing that traits present at birth are crucial, and the other asserting that traits acquired after birth through parents, peers, education, and the social environment are essential. In a broad sense, this can be referred to as the “nature versus nurture” debate.
The debate over whether nature or nurture shapes human traits has persisted for a long time. In Eastern philosophy, the representative discussions on human nature include Mencius’s theory of innate goodness and Xunzi’s theory of innate evil. Mencius believed that humans possess an inherent moral foundation and the potential to develop toward goodness, while Xunzi argued that since following one’s natural desires and impulses from birth can lead to conflict, human inclinations must be transformed through education, ritual propriety, and conscious effort. Therefore, it is inaccurate to understand the theories of innate goodness and innate evil simply as claims that humans are born as fully formed “good people” or “evil people” from the very beginning. In particular, while Xunzi emphasized human’s innate tendencies, he also placed great importance on the possibility of change through education and social norms. In the West, too, debates surrounding human nature continued. Rousseau believed that humans are inherently naturally good but can become corrupted by the influence of society, while Hobbes explained that in a state of nature—where no common authority exists—serious conflicts can arise among humans due to competition, distrust, and the need for self-preservation. However, one must be careful not to equate Hobbes’s “state of nature” with the simplistic claim that humans are inherently morally evil. In contrast, there are also schools of thought that place greater emphasis on human development and experience. Confucius proposed the view that while people’s innate dispositions are similar, they can vary greatly depending on habits and learning; this can be understood as a perspective that emphasizes the importance of acquired education and self-cultivation. The British philosopher John Locke also presented an empiricist perspective that often likens the human mind to a “blank slate.” However, Locke’s blank-slate theory is not so much a claim that humans possess no innate abilities at all, but rather an assertion that the content of knowledge and ideas is formed through experience. Locke did not deny the fact that humans are born with various mental capacities to receive and process experiences. The debate surrounding nature versus nurture continues even in terms of ability. In modern society, where the importance of complex knowledge and specialized skills has grown, a key question is to what extent the ability to succeed in a particular field is influenced by innate talent and to what extent it can be developed through learning and training. While there are examples of musicians who displayed innate talent at an early age, there are also cases of individuals who achieved outstanding success through prolonged training and effort. However, from a modern perspective, rather than viewing these two cases as completely opposing evidence, it is more reasonable to understand them as part of a process in which genetic predisposition, environment, education, and practice interact to shape ability.
While I acknowledge the existence of basic biological abilities and innate temperament necessary for survival and development, I believe that a significant portion of the complex traits humans exhibit in actual social life takes concrete form through acquired experience and upbringing. This issue can be broadly divided into ability-related and emotional aspects. First, regarding ability, it is difficult to deny that genetic differences exist among individuals and that these differences exert a certain influence on individual variations in physical characteristics or cognitive abilities. Studies in behavioral genetics and intelligence have repeatedly reported that genetic influences exist on various human behavioral traits and cognitive abilities. However, heritability is a statistical concept that indicates the proportion of individual differences observed in a specific environment or group that is attributable to genetic variation; it does not mean that a certain percentage of an individual’s abilities is “determined” by genetics. Furthermore, the influence of genetics and environment can vary depending on one’s developmental process and living conditions. Therefore, it is an oversimplification to explain human abilities solely as innate talent or, conversely, to assume that everyone starts from a completely equal starting point. Most of the abilities required in real-world settings necessitate education, training, and the accumulation of experience. While innate differences may influence language skills, mathematical ability, specialized technical skills, artistic expression, and social communication skills to some extent, it is difficult to fully develop these abilities without appropriate learning and repetitive training. In this regard, while genetic predisposition may influence the range of potential, education and environment can be viewed as crucial conditions that determine how that potential manifests as actual ability.
Another issue that may arise here is the claim that humans are born with a certain degree of interest, curiosity, aptitude, or inclination toward specific fields—that is, “aptitude”—and that this aptitude influences their level of understanding and proficiency in those fields. I believe that upbringing and environment play a very significant role in the process by which aptitude develops into actual ability. The curiosity or interest a child develops in a particular field during early childhood is closely linked not only to the individual’s temperament but also to what they frequently see and hear, what their parents and those around them are interested in, and what opportunities they have to experience various activities. If a child is repeatedly exposed to a particular field and has positive experiences with it during early childhood—a time when curiosity is actively developing—the likelihood of maintaining a sustained interest in that field later in life increases. Furthermore, one of the environments that exerts the most consistent influence on a young child is the home. Children spend a great deal of time with their parents or caregivers, observing and imitating their words and actions, and in the process, become familiar with specific activities and values. In fact, it is not uncommon to see musicians emerging from musical families or people who grew up in academic environments developing an interest in academic fields. However, such similarities within families cannot be attributed solely to environmental influences, as parents and children share not only their living environment but also genetic traits. Contemporary research also suggests that genetics and environment do not act independently of one another but rather interact in complex ways: an individual’s disposition leads them to choose specific environments or elicit certain responses from those around them, and in turn, those environments influence the development of the individual’s disposition and abilities. Therefore, rather than categorizing aptitude as purely innate or purely acquired, it is more appropriate to view it as a trait formed and reinforced by a combination of innate disposition, repeated experiences, family environment, and education and training.
The influence of upbringing and environment is also significant in the emotional realm—that is, in an individual’s personality or disposition. While there was once a strong tendency to clearly distinguish human emotions from the behavior of other animals, current research suggests that various emotional and subjective states may exist in many animal species as well. Therefore, it is inappropriate to draw a distinction based on the assumption that animals act solely on instinct, while only humans possess emotions.
Furthermore, it cannot be said that humans are born completely devoid of emotional elements. Even newborns possess a basic emotional system that allows them to respond to stimuli and express discomfort or comfort; as they grow, these basic emotions gradually develop into more complex and nuanced forms through relationships with others, language, cultural norms, and repeated experiences. What is important is that the complex ways in which humans express and regulate emotions in social life, as well as the meanings they ascribe to those emotions, are closely linked to social learning. Through interactions with others, people learn when to express or suppress emotions in certain situations, how to interpret the emotions of others, and what meanings to assign to specific emotions. As these experiences accumulate over time, each individual develops a unique personality and pattern of emotional responses. While there is substantial research indicating that genetics influences personality, environment and experience also play a significant role in its development and change.
In the past, cases of people who had been isolated from human society for long periods were cited as evidence to illustrate the relationship between nature and nurture. A notable example is a woman discovered in Cambodia in 2007, who was reported to have gone missing as a child and lived in the jungle for approximately 19 years. At the time, people claiming to be her family asserted that she was Ro Chom Pheng, who had gone missing around the age of eight, and it was reported that the woman, upon discovery, was unable to use language properly and had difficulty adapting to human society. However, doubts about the woman’s identity and past life were raised from the outset, and key facts—such as the lack of DNA testing—were not sufficiently verified. Subsequently, claims even emerged that the woman was actually someone else. Therefore, it is inappropriate to use this case as conclusive evidence proving that humans lose specific emotions or human characteristics when cut off from a social environment. Nevertheless, it is difficult to deny that interaction with others and learning are crucial in the process by which humans develop language, social norms, ways of expressing emotions, and interpersonal relationships. Human emotions and personality are not simply given in a complete form at birth; rather, innate emotional tendencies take concrete shape as they are constantly adjusted and developed through interactions with family, peers, school, society, and cultural experiences.
Thus far, we have examined human traits by dividing them into ability-based and emotional aspects to explore the respective roles of nature and nurture. Considering modern research findings, it is difficult to conclude that human traits are determined entirely by nature or, conversely, created solely by nurture. Rather than being two separate forces, genetics and environment continuously interact throughout the human developmental process. Nevertheless, the importance of nurture, learning, education, and the social environment is immense when understanding how abilities and personality manifest and change in real life. While innate temperament or genetic predispositions may provide certain tendencies, they do not predetermine the entirety of a person’s life. At the same time, since parents and the surrounding environment also exert a profound influence on children, we must acknowledge the possibility that the early childhood rearing environment acts as another constraining factor. However, human traits are not fixed forever once formed in early childhood. Even in adulthood, certain aspects of behavior, values, abilities, and personality can change based on new experiences, learning, social relationships, and conscious effort. Ultimately, what is important in understanding human life is not choosing between nature and nurture, but examining how innate potential manifests and changes within the context of environment and experience. In this sense, humans can be described as beings influenced by nature, yet also as beings who continuously shape themselves through learning and experience.
