Nature vs Nurture: how much of an effect do you really have on your child?

Dave!

Hey folks,

Just thought I'd throw this topic up here as I was watching a very interesting talk by cognitive scientist and linguist Steven Pinker. It's available for stream here:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/steven_pinker_chalks_it_up_to_the_blank_slate.html

It's only 20 mins long, worth a look.

His talk is about a 2002 book which he wrote, called 'The Blank Slate', in which he argues against the commonly held tabula rasa view that all humans are born with 'blank' brains, which are then molded by their parents, their society, etc. His contrary opinion is that genetics plays a huge role in shaping the individual, and eg. parents have very little effect.

I'll present some of the points he makes opposing the blank slate idea:
1. Common sense: Anyone who has more than 1 child knows that they come into the world with different temperments. You'll also note that your child will pick up language quickly, whereas your pet will not, so obviously there is something built into the child that facilitates this. The minds of men and the minds of women are also very different.

2. Human universals: There are commonalities which can be found in all of the worlds 6,000 cultures, including aesthetics, affection, weapons, weather, etc.

3. Genetics and neuroscience: The grey matter in the brain was measured in a large sample of people, and the thickness of this was charted and compared between people to see similarities. When random people are compared together, there are little or no similarities in the distribution of grey matter. When fraternal twins (share half their DNS) are compared, there is an increase in correlation. When identical twins (share all of their DNA) are compared, there are huge areas of similarities.

These similarities have consequences in thought and behaviour, not just in anatomy.

In identical twins seperated at birth, when compared in psychological tests on personality and intelligence, there are astronishing similarities noted. This often extends to idiosyncracies too, where for example 2 twins studied have a habit of carrying elastic bands around on their wrist, or intentionally sneezing to an elevator to make people jump... when they showed up to the study, they were both wearing the same colour t-shirt too.


He also criticises studies on parenting because they do not control for heritabiliity. They measure some action which they parents took, how the kids turn out, and assume some correlation. eg. parents who talk alot to their kids have kids which turn out articulate, parents who spank their kids have kids that grow up to be violent, etc. The studies don't take into account that the parents may have passed on genes which make the child articulate, or violent. Until the studies are carried out on adopted children, who have the parents and environment, but not the genes, they are useless.

Genetically controlled studies also find that, siblings who grow up together are not more similar than those who grow up apart, again suggesting that it's the genes that shape them and not their parenting. All that happens in the home throughout your childhood and adolescence appears to leave no lasting mark on your personality or your intellect.

And a complementary, but unrelated, study shows that adopted siblings who grew up together are not similar at all.

He concludes by suggesting that children are shaped by i. their genes, ii. their culture, iii. their peer group, and iv. chance events in the wiring of the brain in-utero, as well as chance events throughout your life.


So for anyone who watched the video or read, what do ya think?

If you're interested in more of Steven Pinker's stuff, just search on google or youtube for his name. He has a lengthier lecture online in which he fleshes out the arguments I summarised here, and of course his book the Blank Slate does so even further.

lostinnappies

Nauture and nurture go hand in hand as far as im concerned.

MoominPapa

Brilliant stuff. Love Pinker (and his hair - fabulous!).

An old friend of mine said to me after his second child that he had come to realise the only thing a parent can truly gift their children is confidence and I reckon he was on to something. A confident child is more likely to achieve their potential but because they are confident does not mean their potential has increased.

stovelid

I agree with what you (and Pinker) are saying. Anybody with children (or close to children) knows that they display specific personality traits at a very early age.

But I do think that some amount of nurture comes into play. I always worry that these 'pinkerisms' might be used to justify meritocracy, class prejudices, or to downplay the effect of deprivation on children,

I'm not a scientist, but it should go without saying that these studies are probably conducted in a kind of 'nurture vacuum', or at least a stable environment, and that extreme environmental effects (especially profoundly harmful ones like violence and deprivation) can still have some say in determining personality.

MoominPapa

stovelid wrote: »

But I do think that some amount of nurture comes into play. I always worry that these 'pinkerisms' might be used to justify meritocracy, class prejudices, or to downplay the effect of deprivation on children,

I'm not a scientist, but it should go without saying that these studies are probably conducted in a kind of 'nurture vacuum', or at least a stable environment, and that extreme environmental effects (especially profoundly harmful ones like violence and deprivation) can still have some say in determining personality.

Heres an extended talk on the Blank Slate where Pinker deals with the issues you raise and much besides. Its in 13 parts so quite a lot to take in but entertaining throughout.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udmdh3zRooA&watch_response
Guess I should read the book now:)

MonkeyBalls

Much of his research on parenting comes from Judith Rich Harris's book The Nurture Assumption, which is directly focussed on parenting and its effects (or lack thereof) on children. The Blank Slate, on the other hand, covers a varied range of ideas and topics, from violence to arts to marxism to cognition.

di11on

I have this discussion with DW a lot.

Can we take the credit for our children being so wonderful, or is it just that they are naturally wonderful people? :-)

Seriously though, since having kids I've realised that much more than I ever thought is genetic. For example, our first daughter is such a girly girl, has to wear dresses and pink all the time. She doesn't get that from her mum and she certainly doesn't get it from me! It really showed me that it really is a myth that social conditioning is the reason for these kinds of things.

I saw a documentary once which studied twins. Two identical twins were placed in front of a camera with a screen between them so they couldn't see each other. They were asked to strike a pose and both of them did the exact same thing.

I don't think that minimises our role as parents though. Our children may have a predisposition to be, say, musical or creative but it's up to us to develop and nurture these tendencies and I think that's what makes the difference. So really, it's nurture nature and not nature or nurure! It also works the other way.

I suppose it's like saying that German Shepherds make really good guide dogs, but if no one actually trains them, this ability may never be realised.

MonkeyBalls

di11on wrote: »

I have this discussion with DW a lot.

Can we take the credit for our children being so wonderful, or is it just that they are naturally wonderful people? :-)

Seriously though, since having kids I've realised that much more than I ever thought is genetic. For example, our first daughter is such a girly girl, has to wear dresses and pink all the time. She doesn't get that from her mum and she certainly doesn't get it from me! It really showed me that it really is a myth that social conditioning is the reason for these kinds of things.

I saw a documentary once which studied twins. Two identical twins were placed in front of a camera with a screen between them so they couldn't see each other. They were asked to strike a pose and both of them did the exact same thing.

I don't think that minimises our role as parents though. Our children may have a predisposition to be, say, musical or creative but it's up to us to develop and nurture these tendencies and I think that's what makes the difference. So really, it's nurture nature and not nature or nurure! It also works the other way.

I suppose it's like saying that German Shepherds make really good guide dogs, but if no one actually trains them, this ability may never be realised.

Excellent post. Very well said.

IM0

Nurture, sorry its all about 'learned behaviours' which begin with our parents and then the close and extended family, and then into the world of 'strangers' and experiences away from the home, they all are absorbed, and the ones which happen most often (or are more traumatic) are the ones which will stick, and shape the child as he grows up over time.

Spartan09

I came across what I think is a really great quote about this topic a while back:

Genetics loads the gun and environment pulls the trigger.

For me this conceptualises the essence of the nature nurture debate, I do tend to side more on the nurture side of the debate though

Dave!

I think it's best to think of it as nature/DNA sets the upper bound, and your environment dictates where you fall beneath that.

So if the scale goes from 0 to 100, and your genes place your upper bound as 85, then the amount of stimulation, etc., that you recieve as you develop will influence how close to 85 you reach.

Gabsdot

I find this very interesting as my son is adopted. He is very like myself and my husband in some ways, e.g. he loses his temper exactly like I do, but maybe that's learned.....
He is very good at sport and mechanical things, like my husband, but maybe that's because my husband plays sports with him and lets him help with fixing things....

It's always a surprise watching his developmental.