Introduction
The behaviors that individuals exhibit are without a doubt modified by an important factor that can account for the similarities and differences that exist between each individual. Researchers in academia as well as the general public have all pointed out that nature, a person’s genetic makeup, and nurture, a person’s upbringing, could have a significant effect on their behavior (CommonLit Staff, 2015). This essay will show that behavior is mostly altered by nurture as evidenced by identical twins not having the same behaviors, self-reports by several people backing this claim, and the significant effect nurture has on PTSD.
Main body
Human twins, and especially identical twins, are the best example of why nurture has a more pronounced effect on behavior than nature. For one, twins have a very similar genetic profile and thus can be reasonably expected to have the same thoughts, tendencies, and tastes. However, this is not always the case as observed in real-life examples of identical twins. For instance, in the case of Sarah Heath and Celena Kopinscky, one can see that they are almost a perfect genetical match however, they were not exactly similar in every behavioral attribute at the time they met having been separated at birth (CBS Sunday Morning, 2017). This could be explained by the fact that they were separated at birth and have grown up in different environments which have modified their behaviors albeit in nuanced ways.
Moreover, there is a need to study the specific environments to ascertain that the environments are relatively dissimilar to cause relative behavioral changes. For instance, two separated identical twins can quite possibly both grow up in a single-parent household thus causing them to have very similar experiences that are the norm for children in that type of family (Learning the Social Sciences, 2020). However, when the nurture aspect is well pronounced such as each twin growing up in a different culture each twin will likely exhibit behaviors typical for their environment as opposed to exhibiting similar behaviors modified purely by their genes.
A review of self-reports suggests that a vast number of people identify as being more influenced by their environment than genetics. For example, Levitt (2013) reports that offenders in a Dutch prison attributed their crimes to their experiences and rejected the idea that their genetic makeup is to blame for their poor choices. In many cases, people may commit crimes as a result of being exposed to drugs, poverty, or societies where status is ascertained by involvement in certain acts. Additionally, people report being spurred into certain behaviors by past events. For instance, an elementary school teacher can comment on a learner’s ability causing the learner to engage with their schoolwork to prove them wrong. Levitt (2013) reports such cases that immediately question the effect of nature on a person’s behavior. Parents also note that their children respond greatly to the subtle differences in parenting they use. Firstborns may behave a certain way in adulthood that is different from other children because of the state the family was in when they were growing up.
One important piece of evidence that nurture has a relatively more significant behavioral impact on a human being is Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). PTSD sufferers often exhibit trouble and distress caused by recounting past events of tragedy and horror. It is relatively common in war veterans. PTSD can be crippling for persons if not addressed through the right psychological interventions. An interesting aspect of PTSD is that it does not affect all the people who lived through the same disturbing experiences. Hathaway (2020) asserts that an individual’s ability to form social bonds is a key predictor of their likelihood of suffering from PTSD. People who have been brought up in an environment that promotes the formation of stable social bonds with their peers and are capable of seeking assistance from others are less likely to suffer from PTSD as compared to individuals who are averse to forming friendships. Interventions that aim at changing a person’s perception of their social environment have proven effective in reducing the severity of PTSD in certain people.
There are certain genetic occurrences, established by medical research, that predict an individual’s risk as far as suffering from PTSD. Crucially, Hathaway (2020) also incorporates nature into this assertion. People with genetic variations are genetically inclined toward developing PTSD if exposed to causative triggers. However, these genetic occurrences can fail to cause PTSD in a patient if the right environmental conditions exist. This finding is significant for this debate because it proves that environmental factors can modify genetic tendencies.
One should also question the reasons behind the arguments for nature and nurture respectively. Claims that nature is more important than nurture are narrow-minded and almost always support other agendas. For instance, there have also been arguments that certain genetic factors can support criminal behavior (Levitt, 2013). One of these arguments proposes that teenagers should not be sentenced to life in prison because their young brains are genetically inclined toward yielding to peer pressure. Levitt notes that this is a dangerous argument proposed by persons who do not want to account for the adverse environmental factors that marginalize people and push them into crime (2013).
Moreover, the arguments for nature being more influential than nurture almost always point towards eugenics. In particular, certain tribes, ethnicities, or races are genetically wired toward certain behaviors that are socially unacceptable. It justifies the poor treatment of certain members of society while those with “desirable” genetic traits are given superior status. This point is significant for this argument because people proposing that nature is superior to nurture as far as modifying an individual’s behavior need to be investigated for their motives. On the other hand, the argument that nurture is more predictive of behavior than nurture seeks to improve the environment that can greatly shape a person’s behavior.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the argument that nurture is more significant than nature in predicting a person’s behavior is based on sound evidence. Twins with 99.9% similarity in genetic makeup do not have the same behaviors if they are separated at birth. Similarly, people self-report that nurture has played a significant role in their present circumstances going as far as refuting any input of nature in the same. Moreover, the argument that the pro-nature can be made in a bid to avoid responsibility is not based on real-life evidence. The argument of nature vs nurture is not likely to end soon. Researchers will continue to publish sound studies that give support to both sides of the argument in equal measure. The answer to this very relevant question is yet to be answered decisively
References
CBS Sunday Morning. (2017). Twins separated at birth. YouTube. Web.
CommonLit Staff. (2015). The nature vs. nurture debate. COMMONLIT. Web.
Hathaway, B. (2020). Nurture trumps nature in determining the severity of PTSD symptoms. YaleNews. Web.
Learning the Social Sciences. (2020). Nature and nurture – psychology course lecture part I – AP Psychology Review. YouTube. Web.
Levitt, M. (2013). Perceptions of nature, nurture, and behavior. Life Sciences, Society and Policy, 9(1). Web.