How the Nature/Nurture Debate is Changing

Or send me a one-off tip of any amount and help me make more videos:

Buy on Amazon through this link to support the channel:

Follow me on:

Subscribe to the podcast:

Sources:

Sources:

David Moore, The Developing Genome: An Introduction to Behavioural Epigenetics.

Maurizio Meloni (2015) Epigenetics for the social sciences: justice, embodiment, and inheritance in the postgenomic age, New Genetics and Society, 34:2, 125-151, DOI: 10.1080/14636778.2015.1034850

Ian Deary, Intelligence: A Very Short Introduction

Rose Mortimer, Alex McKeown & Ilina Singh (2018) Just Policy? An Ethical Analysis of Early Intervention Policy Guidance, The American Journal of Bioethics, 18:11, 43-53, DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2018.1523491

Kim Ferguson et al, The Physical Environment and Child Development: An International Review, nt J Psychol. 2013 ; 48(4): 437–468. doi:10.1080/00207594.2013.804190

Nicky Hayes, Psychology in Perspective

David Shenk, The Genius in All of Us

Description:

The nature-nurture debates inform almost every area of human life – from biology and botany to economics, literature, and history.

To simplify, thinkers on the nature side have, in varying ways, argued that at least parts of your body and mind are behind an impenetrable skin, cannot be gotten to by upbringing, education, politics, or culture. Imagine a one-way street. For example, you have an innate eye color or a creativity that comes out of your DNA – nothing gets to it, its just in you. On the other hand we have empiricists. They believe in a two way street instead of a one way street.

This video looks at some complicated sounding things: DNA, genetics, epigenetics, methylation, phenotypes, stress, twin studies, Steven Pinker's The Blank Slate, and early intervention programs. But I want to avoid being technical, as much as possible, because most fundamentally, most simply, this box is about a fundamentally philosophical idea: freedom.

The idea that we have a nature has been approached in countless ways – philosophically, psychologically, theologically – but the most persuasive, through the 19th and 20th centuries, the best place to start, is biology: the study of DNA and our genes.

[trybunt]

But how am I supposed to feel superior to others when so much evidence suggests that I'm mostly just a product of my environment? How can I look down at others for making bad decisions when so much evidence suggests that they often don't have much say in the matter?

[LitArtCulture]

It's a pity this channel doesn't have at least a million followers. The videos are super well researched and reliable. I can even use them as a reference in academic writing.

[mycroftdonnell]

❤️ "We should treat having children like the most highly skilled job you can possibly do... Because it is... And it has the most consequences for society" ❤️

[lHckrCmfr]

So, let me get this straight: our DNA is actually more like a massive library of natures, in plural, and our bodies select for us the phenotypes that it deems most likely to help us be better adapted to the environment we've been born into.

While the DNA is indeed completely static for any given individual, the systems that allow it to manifest are fully dynamic and responsive, adding one extra layer of adaptability on top of what was originally thought to be a completely closed system as far as individuals were concerned. And this revealed an already incomprehensibly massive puzzle we're only now beginning to unravel.

[thanatos_.]

This may be one of the most important videos on this platform. I hope it reaches a wide audience.

[nestrior]

The image I always go for is that of a map.
Our parents give us a map that is just a landscape. Prenatal influences wear it down, creating natural paths. The diversity of this map is also mirrored in how our minds operate, meaning that neurodiverse people are completely normal, natural and cannot be changed from what they are.
Infancy gives us some tendencies and more paths are made.
Early childhood, when we become more active, we start walking down these both natural and artificial paths. The means our parents have and the way they and others interact with us steer our direction, slowly paving the paths into roads. Kindergarten is also quite important here, starting to build villages where our many skills will live and develop.
School and education is when these roads are transformed into streets, solidifying our abilities and ideally encouraging growth in them. This is where individualized education becomes so very important for our mental well-being.
As we grow older, it becomes more and more important that we learn about the many forms a human can take. This is to help understand both ourselves and others, and to teach us to be kind to those that are not like us. To be understanding when faced with our own ignorance instead of judging.
In adulthood then, the paved roads have become streets and many villages have become towns and cities. We can still change and do so constantly, but an underlying structure has been laid and we truly become fully realized people.

In all of this, our material conditions and life events play major roles. We can only hone what we have access to, oftentimes dependent on whom we meet. This is why rich people are often well connected and can introduce their children to people that can help them gain access to certain things much earlier than poorer people. It's not that they are inherently better or spent more time on a thing, but access to better resources does play a huge role as well. Their accomplishments are still their own, you rarely reach the top of a field without time and effort, but they had a lot more assistance in transforming their biggest village not just into a city but a metropolis. Something that this video advocates to provide for poorer families. It's an investment in everyone's future. One with extremely high returns.

[kenzieh]

there is this sort of existential crisis feeling in me when thinking about nature AND nurture, knowing that regardless of whether one of them trumps the other, they both show one thing — I am just a byproduct of my surroundings and or my parents. It makes me wonder just how creative we really are. Do we really have any originality or do we simply copy what we see? Sometimes I wish I was around when no one was really around. Then I could see if I really am the creative individual others say I am. Even in writing, drawing, songwriting, I find myself copying others ideas almost subconsciously, and still thinking I made it up. Are any of us really original?

[devinfaux]

I feel like the best argument *against* the classical Hobbesian model of human nature is that it pre-dated our discovery and understanding the mechanisms by which it would function -- genetics and epigenetics, etc. -- and then *didn't change* once we discovered and began to understand them.

The idea that we got it completely 100% right before we had any way of understanding the underlying causes is just ludicrous.

[keysemerson]

Excellent! Thank you. But I have one over riding concern. My concern is for the poor Aristocrats and the Elites in general. If we uplift our fellow human beings and have a general rise in human wellbeing for members of the human family, who will shovel shit in their stables or drive their limousines or act as pawns in their political chess games or mindlessly run off to fight in their wars for power and wealth retention? They have worked for thousands of years to establish an order based on proper breeding and a recognition of their superior qualities and their right to rulership and authority over we lowly folk. Oh my! I fear for their psychological health if they ever come to a realization that it has all been a scam on humanity and a charade on the part of the pompous, dare I say, A-holes?

[davec]

I've always though:
You can't choose your nature. And you can't choose your environment for many years. By which point so much of who you are has been decided for you (even if you think 'I want to change', it was these things that led to that desire) so you end up with very little control (if any) of who you are.
This is very similar to determinism in a way.

[Hinoteya]

I'm really glad your channel managed to find itself in my recommendations.

Not only are they well put together and have high production value, I also feel like every video teaches me something I did not expect to learn from the title.
Whether that be the history of the importance of public image or the function of DNA, you always bringing new knowledge to the table. I thank you for what you do.

[Ludifant]

Great treatise.
I´ll leave you with a quote from the Matrix: "don´t try to bend the spoon, that´s impossible, instead realise there is no spoon". I think that firmly applies to boxes and our attempts to define them as well, especially since we have been trying with this particular box for 200+ years and now are seriously circling back to a theory proposed at the very beginning of the debate, when Lamarck was laughed away for lack of evidence by a narrow margin.

[jurgenvonstrengel]

I’m giving a lecture tomorrow during my social studies class and I’m using the conclusion of this video. Thank you so much for making this!

[karlijnlikelane]

my editorial nature needs to point out that the term is "tabula rasa, " literally "clean slate" (think of "rasa" as the basis of "erased"), not "tabula rosa, " which translates to "picture of the rose." thank you.

[desolateleng]

I just found you and subscribed. I love how you make philosophical subjects easy to understand, and that your videos are so calm and reasoned.

[krunkle]

I remember a quote from a samurai (it was on some random web 1.0 website about samurai quotes), who said something about you shouldn't be harsh on your children, because it would inhibit them in the future.

This just randomly popped in my head while watching.

[ziad_jkhan]

Thank you soooo much...I've been struggling to explain the issue for years and this video marks the end of my struggles

[TheLacedaemonian]

Another brilliant work of art. The contribution of new information and ideas your videos have instilled in me have been enormous.
Your gift of story-telling, and the range of philosophical thought you cover have introduced me to so much. I would have never know that great thinkers like a Jean Baudrillard if not for this channel.
I wonder what would come of taking the nature/nurture argument along with epigenetics (as we now understand it), and apply it to Jaynes' concept of bicameral mind? It seems as though it could lend credibility to parts of his theory.

[carlosperez]

Studies also show children who are under nurtured between 0-7 months suffer from permanent development abnormalities of which babies grew up unable to read others emotions. Or a drug addicted parent who has two children one before addiction and the second after addiction. The second would of been passed the inclination towards addiction genetically. The first would not have the same inclination to addiction genetically. These are some popular examples of epigenetics (nurture/nature axis). Great video thanks!

[TheLovescream]

Im really glad to see that Social sciences seem to be getting a bit more mainstream with channels like this. Great video and thanks for your amazing work!