One of the most hotly debated topics of human psychology has been the relative effects of nature (our genetic makeup) and nurture (the environment in which we are raised) on human behavior. It is clear, at least to me, that each has at least some effect on our current mental and emotional state and how we deal with the events in our lives.
Some philosophers, John Locke notable among them, developed the idea of the tabula rasa, or blank slate. This school posits that we are developed by our environment alone; nature has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
Others believe that our genetics drive everything; that our development is driven very predominantly if not entirely by our genetic makeup.
One other school of thought is that nature gives us a general default reaction and outlook, especially when we are young or under some form of stress. This general tendency given us by nature can be overridden to various degrees through mental conditioning, sheer willpower, or training. As children, our parents and others help us learn how to best handle life’s stresses. This nurturing is a continual process, lasting throughout our lives.
Are nature and nurture the sole determinants of our current mental state and outlook? Many psychological researchers appear to have decided that they are sufficient to explain why a given person behaves the way he does.
It seems to me that nature and nurture, both alone and in combination are insufficient. If this were the case, it would mean the drivers of our personality are completely out of our control. There must be some aspect that allows us to determine our personality, current mental state, and outlook to at least some degree, otherwise we would be simple automatons, born of our parents, then reprogrammed by them and others throughout our lives.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.