The Nurture Theory - Environmentgenealogy.about.com/cs/.../a/nature_nurture.

htm

While not discounting that genetic tendencies may exist, supporters of the nurture theory
believe they ultimately don't matter - that our behavioral aspects originate only from the
environmental factors of our upbringing. Studies on infant and child temperament have
revealed the most crucial evidence for nurture theories.

American psychologist John Watson, best known for his controversial experiments
with a young orphan named Albert, demonstrated that the acquisition of a phobia could
be explained by classical conditioning. A strong proponent of environmental learning, he
said: Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring
them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any
type of specialist I might select...regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies,
abilities, vocations and race of his ancestors.

Harvard psychologist B. F. Skinner's early experiments produced pigeons that could

dance, do figure eights, and play tennis. Today known as the father of behavioral science,
he eventually went on to prove that human behavior could be conditioned in much the
same way as animals.

A study in New Scientist suggests that sense of humor is a learned trait, influenced
by family and cultural environment, and not genetically determined.

If environment didn't play a part in determining an individual's traits and behaviors,

then identical twins should, theoretically, be exactly the same in all respects, even if
reared apart. But a number of studies show that they are never exactly alike, even
though they are remarkably similar in most respects.

So, was the way we behave engrained in us before we were born? Or has it developed over
time in response to our experiences? Researchers on all sides of the nature vs nurture
debate agree that the link between a gene and a behavior is not the same as cause and
effect. While a gene may increase the likelihood that you'll behave in a particular way, it
does not make people do things. Which means that we still get to choose who we'll be when
we grow up.

Wwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

The nature versus nurture debate is one of the oldest issues in psychology. The debate
centers on the relative contributions of genetic inheritance and environmental factors to
human development. Some philosophers such as Plato and Descartes suggested that certain
things are inborn, or that they simply occur naturally regardless of environmental
influences. Other well-known thinkers such as John Locke believed in what is known as
tabula rasa, which suggests that the mind begins as a blank slate. According to this notion,
everything that we are and all of our knowledge is determined by our experience.

For example, when a person achieves tremendous academic success, did they do so
because they are genetically predisposed to be successful or is it a result of an enriched
environment? Today, the majority of experts believe that behavior and development are
influenced by both nature and nurture. However, the issue still rages on in many areas such
as in the debate on the origins of homosexuality and influences on intelligence.
psychology.about.com ... N Index
Nature versus nurtureen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The nature versus nurture debate concerns the relative importance of an individual's innate
qualities ("nature," i.e. nativism, or innatism) versus personal experiences ("nurture," i.e.
empiricism or behaviorism) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and
behavioral traits.

"Nature versus nurture" in its modern sense was coined[1][2][3] by the English Victorian polymath
Francis Galton in discussion of the influence of heredity and environment on social
advancement, although the terms had been contrasted previously, for example by Shakespeare (in
his play, The Tempest: 4.1). Galton was influenced[4] by the book On the Origin of Species
written by his cousin, Charles Darwin. The concept embodied in the phrase has been criticized[3]
[4]
for its binary simplification of two tightly interwoven parameters, as for example an
environment of wealth, education and social privilege are often historically passed to genetic
offspring.

The view that humans acquire all or almost all their behavioral traits from "nurture" is known as
tabula rasa ("blank slate"). This question was once considered to be an appropriate division of
developmental influences, but since both types of factors are known to play such interacting
roles in development, many modern psychologists consider the question naiverepresenting an
outdated state of knowledge.[5][6][6][7][8] Psychologist Donald Hebb is said to have once answered a
journalist's question of "which, nature or nurture, contributes more to personality?" by asking in
response, "Which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?"[9][10][11][12]
That is, the idea that either nature or nurture explains a creature's behavior is a sort of single
cause fallacy.

In the social and political sciences, the nature versus nurture debate may be contrasted with the
structure versus agency debate (i.e. socialization versus individual autonomy). For a discussion
of nature versus nurture in language and other human universals, see also psychological
nativism.

[edit] Scientific approach

To disentangle the effects of genes and environment, behavioral geneticists perform adoption and
twin studies. Behavioral geneticists do not generally use the term "nurture" to explain that
portion of the variance for a given trait (such as IQ or the Big Five personality traits) that can be
attributed to environmental effects. Instead, two different types of environmental effects are
distinguished: shared family factors (i.e., those shared by siblings, making them more similar)
and nonshared factors (i.e., those that uniquely affect individuals, making siblings different). To
express the portion of the variance due to the "nature" component, behavioral geneticists
generally refer to the heritability of a trait.
With regard to the Big Five personality traits as well as adult IQ in the general U.S. population,
the portion of the overall variance that can be attributed to shared family effects is often
negligible.[13] On the other hand, most traits are thought to be at least partially heritable. In this
context, the "nature" component of the variance is generally thought to be more important than
that ascribed to the influence of family upbringing.

In her Pulitzer Prize-nominated book The Nurture Assumption, author Judith Harris argues that
"nurture," as traditionally defined in terms of family upbringing does not effectively explain the
variance for most traits (such as adult IQ and the Big Five personality traits) in the general
population of the United States. On the contrary, Harris suggests that either peer groups or
random environmental factors (i.e., those that are independent of family upbringing) are more
important than family environmental effects.[14][15]

Although "nurture" has historically been referred to as the care given to children by the parents,
with the mother playing a role of particular importance, this term is now regarded by some as
any environmental (not genetic) factor in the contemporary nature versus nurture debate. Thus
the definition of "nurture" has expanded to include influences on development arising from
prenatal, parental, extended family, and peer experiences, and extending to influences such as
media, marketing, and socio-economic status. Indeed, a substantial source of environmental
input to human nature may arise from stochastic variations in prenatal development.[16][17]

[edit] Heritability estimates

This chart illustrates three patterns one might see when studying the influence of genes and
environment on traits in individuals. Trait A shows a high sibling correlation, but little
heritability (i.e. high shared environmental variance c2; low heritability h2). Trait B shows a high
heritability since correlation of trait rises sharply with degree of genetic similarity. Trait C shows
low heritability, but also low correlations generally; this means Trait C has a high nonshared
environmental variance e2. In other words, the degree to which individuals display Trait C has
little to do with either genes or broadly predictable environmental factorsroughly, the outcome
approaches random for an individual. Notice also that even identical twins raised in a common
family rarely show 100% trait correlation.
While there are many examples of single-gene-locus traits, current thinking in biology discredits
the notion that genes alone can determine most complex traits. At the molecular level, DNA
interacts with signals from other genes and from the environment. At the level of individuals,
particular genes influence the development of a trait in the context of a particular environment.
Thus, measurements of the degree to which a trait is influenced by genes versus environment
will depend on the particular environment and genes examined. In many cases, it has been found
that genes may have a substantial contribution, including psychological traits such as intelligence
and personality.[18] Yet these traits may be largely influenced by environment in other
circumstances, such as environmental deprivation.

A researcher seeking to quantify the influence of genes or environment on a trait needs to be able
to separate the effects of one factor away from that of another. This kind of research often begins
with attempts to calculate the heritability of a trait. Heritability quantifies the extent to which
variation among individuals in a trait is due to variation in the genes those individuals carry. In
animals where breeding and environments can be controlled experimentally, heritability can be
determined relatively easily. Such experiments would be unethical for human research. This
problem can be overcome by finding existing populations of humans that reflect the
experimental setting the researcher wishes to create.

One way to determine the contribution of genes and environment to a trait is to study twins. In
one kind of study, identical twins reared apart are compared to randomly selected pairs of people.
The twins share identical genes, but different family environments. In another kind of twin study,
identical twins reared together (who share family environment and genes) are compared to
fraternal twins reared together (who also share family environment but only share half their
genes). Another condition that permits the disassociation of genes and environment is adoption.
In one kind of adoption study, biological siblings reared together (who share the same family
environment and half their genes) are compared to adoptive siblings (who share their family
environment but none of their genes).

Some have pointed out that environmental inputs affect the expression of genes (see the article
on epigenetics). This is one explanation of how environment can influence the extent to which a
genetic disposition will actually manifest.[citation needed] The interactions of genes with environment,
called geneenvironment interactions, are another component of the naturenurture debate. A
classic example of geneenvironment interaction is the ability of a diet low in the amino acid
phenylalanine to partially suppress the genetic disease phenylketonuria. Yet another complication
to the naturenurture debate is the existence of gene-environment correlations. These
correlations indicate that individuals with certain genotypes are more likely to find themselves in
certain environments. Thus, it appears that genes can shape (the selection or creation of)
environments. Even using experiments like those described above, it can be very difficult to
determine convincingly the relative contribution of genes and environment.

[edit] Interaction of genes and environment

This section does not cite any references or sources.
Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be
challenged and removed. (June 2008)
In only very few cases is it fair to say that a trait is due almost entirely to nature, or almost
entirely to nurture.[citation needed] In the case of most diseases now strictly identified as genetic, such
as Huntington's disease, there is a better than 99.9% correlation between having the identified
gene and the disease and a similar correlation for not having either. On the other hand,
Huntington's animal models live much longer or shorter lives depending on how they are cared
for (animal husbandry).

At the other extreme, traits such as native language are environmentally determined: linguists
have found that any child (if capable of learning a language at all) can learn any human language
with equal facility. With virtually all biological and psychological traits, however, genes and
environment work in concert, communicating back and forth to create the individual.

But even in the most clear-cut cases, extreme genetic or environmental conditions can overrule
the otherif a child is born mute due to a genetic mutation, it will not learn to speak any
language regardless of the environment; similarly, someone who is practically certain to
eventually develop Huntington's disease according to their genotype may die in an unrelated
accident (an environmental event) long before the disease will manifest itself.

Examples of environmental, interactional, and genetic traits are:

Predominantly Environmental Interactional Predominantly Genetic

Specific language Height Blood type
Specific religion Weight Eye color
Skin color

The "two buckets" view of heritability.

More realistic "homogenous mudpie" view of heritability.

Steven Pinker (2004) likewise described several examples:

concrete behavioral traits that patently depend on content provided by the home or
culturewhich language one speaks, which religion one practices, which political party
one supportsare not heritable at all. But traits that reflect the underlying talents and
temperamentshow proficient with language a person is, how religious, how liberal or
conservativeare partially heritable.
When traits are determined by a complex interaction of genotype and environment it is possible
to measure the heritability of a trait within a population. However, many non-scientists who
encounter a report of a trait having a certain percentage heritability imagine non-interactional,
additive contributions of genes and environment to the trait. As an analogy, some laypeople may
think of the degree of a trait being made up of two "buckets," genes and environment, each able
to hold a certain capacity of the trait. But even for intermediate heritabilities, a trait is always
shaped by both genetic dispositions and the environments in which people develop, merely with
greater and lesser plasticities associated with these heritability measures.

Heritability measures always refer to the degree of variation between individuals in a population.
These statistics cannot be applied at the level of the individual. It is incorrect to say that since the
heritability index of personality is about 0.6, you got 60% of your personality from your parents
and 40% from the environment. To help to understand this, imagine that all humans were genetic
clones. The heritability index for all traits would be zero (all variability between clonal
individuals must be due to environmental factors). And, contrary to erroneous interpretations of
the heritibility index, as societies become more egalitarian (everyone has more similar
experiences) the heritability index goes up (as environments become more similar, variability
between individuals is due more to genetic factors).

A highly genetically loaded trait (such as eye color) still assumes environmental input within
normal limits (a certain range of temperature, oxygen in the atmosphere, etc.). A more useful
distinction than "nature vs. nurture" is "obligate vs. facultative"under typical environmental
ranges, what traits are more "obligate" (e.g., the noseeveryone has a nose) or more
"facultative" (sensitive to environmental variations, such as specific language learned during
infancy). Another useful distinction is between traits that are likely to be adaptations (such as the
nose) and those that are byproducts of adaptations (such the white color of bones), or are due to
random variation (non-adaptive variation in, say, nose shape or size).

[edit] IQ debate
Main article: Heritability of IQ
Evidence suggests that family environmental factors may have an effect upon childhood IQ,
accounting for up to a quarter of the variance. On the other hand, by late adolescence this
correlation disappears, such that adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers.[19]

Moreover, adoption studies indicate that, by adulthood, adoptive siblings are no more similar in
IQ than strangers (IQ correlation near zero), while full siblings show an IQ correlation of 0.6.
Twin studies reinforce this pattern: monozygotic (identical) twins raised separately are highly
similar in IQ (0.74), more so than dizygotic (fraternal) twins raised together (0.6) and much more
than adoptive siblings (~0.0).[20]

[edit] Personality traits

Personality is a frequently cited example of a heritable trait that has been studied in twins and
adoptions. Identical twins reared apart are far more similar in personality than randomly selected
pairs of people. Likewise, identical twins are more similar than fraternal twins. Also, biological
siblings are more similar in personality than adoptive siblings. Each observation suggests that
personality is heritable to a certain extent. However, these same study designs allow for the
examination of environment as well as genes. Adoption studies also directly measure the strength
of shared family effects. Adopted siblings share only family environment. Unexpectedly, some
adoption studies indicate that by adulthood the personalities of adopted siblings are no more
similar than random pairs of strangers. This would mean that shared family effects on personality
are zero by adulthood. As is the case with personality, non-shared environmental effects are often
found to out-weigh shared environmental effects. That is, environmental effects that are typically
thought to be life-shaping (such as family life) may have less of an impact than non-shared
effects, which are harder to identify. One possible source of non-shared effects is the
environment of pre-natal development. Random variations in the genetic program of
development may be a substantial source of non-shared environment. These results suggest that
"nurture" may not be the predominant factor in "environment."[citation needed]

[edit] Advanced techniques

The power of quantitative studies of heritable traits has been expanded by the development of
new techniques. Developmental genetic analysis examines the effects of genes over the course of
a human lifespan. For example, early studies of intelligence, which mostly examined young
children, found that heritability measures 4050%. Subsequent developmental genetic analyses
found that variance attributable to additive environmental effects is less apparent in older
individuals,[21][22][23] with estimated heritability of IQ being higher than that in adulthood.
However, the high IQ heritability estimates are derived with questionable methodologies,
according to work by Peter Schnemann.[24]

Another advanced technique, multivariate genetic analysis, examines the genetic contribution to
several traits that vary together. For example, multivariate genetic analysis has demonstrated that
the genetic determinants of all specific cognitive abilities (e.g., memory, spatial reasoning,
processing speed) overlap greatly, such that the genes associated with any specific cognitive
ability will affect all others. Similarly, multivariate genetic analysis has found that genes that
affect scholastic achievement completely overlap with the genes that affect cognitive ability.

Extremes analysis, examines the link between normal and pathological traits. For example, it is
hypothesized that a given behavioral disorder may represent an extreme of a continuous
distribution of a normal behavior and hence an extreme of a continuous distribution of genetic
and environmental variation. Depression, phobias, and reading disabilities have been examined
in this context.

For a few highly heritable traits, some studies have identified loci associated with variance in
that trait in some individuals. For example, research groups have identified loci that are
associated with schizophrenia (Harrison and Owen, 2003) in subsets of patients with that
diagnosis.

[edit] Philosophical difficulties

[edit] Are the traits real?
It is sometimes a question whether the "trait" being measured is even a real thing. As an example,
much energy has been devoted to calculating the heritability of intelligence (usually the I.Q., or
intelligence quotient), but there is still some disagreement as to what exactly "intelligence" is. the
rraits are real because i said so
[edit] Biological determinism
If genes do contribute substantially to the development of personal characteristics such as
intelligence and personality, then many wonder if this implies that genes determine who we are.
See Genetic determinism and Biological determinism.

[edit] Is the problem real?

Many scientists feel that the very question opposing nature to nurture is a fallacy. Already in
1951, Calvin Hall in his seminal chapter[25] remarked that the discussion opposing nature and
nurture was fruitless. If an environment is changed fundamentally, then the heritability of a
character changes, too. Conversely, if the genetic composition of a population changes, then
heritability will also change. As an example, we may use phenylketonuria (PKU), which causes
brain damage and progressive mental retardation. PKU can be treated by the elimination of
phenylalanine from the diet. Hence, a character (PKU) that used to have a virtually perfect
heritability is not heritable any more if modern medicine is available (the actual allele causing
PKU would still be inherited, but the phenotype PKU would not be expressed anymore).
Similarly, within, say, an inbred strain of mice, no genetic variation is present and every
character will have a zero heritability. If the complications of geneenvironment interactions and
correlations (see above) are added, then it appears to many that heritability, the epitome of the
naturenurture opposition, is "a station passed."[26]

[edit] Myths about identity

Within the debates surrounding cloning, for example, is the far-fetched contention that a Jesus or
a Hitler could be "re-created" through genetic cloning. Current thinking finds this largely
inaccurate, and discounts the possibility that the clone of anyone would grow up to be the same
individual due to environmental variation. For example, like clones, identical twins are
genetically identical, and unlike the hypothetical clones share the same family environment, yet
they are not identical in personality and other traits.

[edit] History of the nature versus nurture debate

Further information: Empiricism and Tabula rasa
Traditionally, human nature has been thought of as not only inherited but divinely ordained.[citation
needed]
Whole ethnic groups were considered to be, by nature, superior or inferior. Since the late
Middle Ages, intellectuals increasingly attributed differences among races, classes and genders to
socialization (nurture), rather than to innate qualities (nature).[citation needed] In the 20th century, the
Nazis pursued an agenda based on the concept of human nature as defined by one's race. The
Communists, on the other hand, largely followed Marx's lead in defining the human identity as
subject to social structures, not nature. In scientific circles, this conflict led to ongoing
controversy of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.[citation needed]

Qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq
q

1. www.associatedcontent.com Lifestyle Parenting -

Is a child's development influenced primarily by genetics and biological predisposition? Or,
could the majority of influence be found in the child's environment? This nature/nurture question
is possibly one of
AdChoices

the oldest theories debated in psychology (Bee, 2004). Today, it is commonly accepted that
most aspects of a child's development are a product of the interaction of both nurture and
nature (Bee). Both sides of the nature/nurture argument present compelling evidence of how
each factor impacts development. It is no longer a question of whether it is nature or nurture,
which influence development, but more importantly in what ways, and to what extent.

The Impact of Nature on Development

Nature, which is also known as heredity, is the genetic code you are born with. It is passed on to
you from your parents. Some examples of nature or heredity could be your height, behavior, and
IQ just to name a few.

The issue of nature having a great impact on a child's development can be illustrated in the
studies of twins. Flanagan (2002) explored the Minnesota study in which a set of twins was
raised separately. In one case, a set of identical twins was raised apart, known as the Jim twins.
They did not meet until they were almost forty and had many similarities even though they were
raised apart. There was no real explanation for all their similarities except that nature must play
a crucial role in development. "The Minnesota twin study concluded that on multiple measures
of personality and temperament, occupational and leisure-time interests and social attitudes,
mono-zygotic twins reared apart are about as similar as are mono-zygotic twins reared
together" (Flanagan). This is a prime example that nature plays a significant role in our
development.

Another example of nature is the study of adopted babies. Families with adopted children share
the same environment, but not the same genetic code (Flanagan, 2002).

The Controversy of Nature and Nurture

by

Kirsten Siebach www.bucconeer.worldcon.org/.../2002e_f3.htm -

Are we the way we are because of our genes? How much of our personality and
characteristics are because of the way we were brought up, and our experiences, and how
much is because of the way we were wired when we were born? The argument of nature, our
genetics, and nurture, our upbringing, has been going on for years, and scientists are still
struggling to find out why we are who we are.
If you asked 100 randomly selected genetic scientists their view on the controversy of nature vs.
nurture, you would get 100 entirely different answers, and almost every one would make perfect
sense with the evidence that supports it. As Kenneth Rothman said, "It is easy to show that 100
percent of any disease is environmentally caused, and 100 percent is inherited as well." Thus, it
is a heated debate that has been going on for decades, one that may never stop. (N vs. N; an
Unnecessary Debate)
In February 1999, we completed the Human Genome project. Since then, scientists have been
looking for new clues in our DNA, trying to find hints of certain genes and what they mean, and
what that means for human society.
Most scientists base their conclusions about nature and nurture by studying identical twins that
were separated at birth. These twin sets tell us many things about nature vs. nurture. We can
compare how they acted in different environments, see how many things they did that were
surprisingly alike, how they score on IQ tests, if they answer many of the questions the same
way, and how similar their health records are. (Farber, 4)
One living example of the idea that your genes say much about who you are the Lewis and
Springer Twins. When they were born, they were both adopted into different families. They first
met when they were forty years old, and they then found that the similarities between them were
extraordinary. Both were named Jim, both got dogs and named them "Toy," they had the same
hobbies, jobs, handwriting, weight, appearance, and test results. Because of this, and other
similar cases, some scientists believe that genes are the dominant force in creating who we are.
(Farber, 33)
Some scientists however, think that our genes have very little to do with the specific things that
we do. Scientists started thinking this more when we first finished the human genome and
discovered that we only had 30,000 genes. Until we finished the genome, we thought there could
be genes for nearly all of our characteristics, but when we learned we only had 30,000 genes we
decided that was not enough genes to have that many different genetic characteristics. (Clark,
102)
One of the main questions that has been asked is, "Does Genetics influence intelligence?" Could
social Darwinism, the belief that some people are farther along in evolution than others and thus
have social advantages, be alive in our society today? Some scientists say yes, while others say
no way.
Francis Galton says, "Men who are gifted with high abilities... easily rise through all the
obstacles caused by inferiority of social rank." He believes that genetics has a great deal to do
with intelligence. He argues that social advantages are not enough to make an average man great;
however, social inferiorities are not enough to make a smart man "average."(Roleff, 25)
Walter Lippman said, "Children of favored classes test higher on the whole than other children."
He argues that a child of a prominent person has a 1 out of 4 chance of becoming just as
prominent, while an ordinary child has a 1 in 4,000 chance at becoming just as distinguished.
(Roleff, 49)
The controversy between nature and nurture could affect each of us in many ways. One of the
main ways it could change our lives would be if scientists found what triggers diseases like
cancer. They could find cures easier if they knew exactly what caused illnesses. Also, from what
scientists know now, we can say that many diseases like cancer are a mix of nature and nurture,
and that if while we were still infants, we could take out the "nurture," then we would no longer
be affected by those diseases. Such research could potentially have an incredibly large impact on
our health and lifespan. (Clark, 35)
I became interested in this subject last year when my class watched some videos on genetics and
one of them mentioned this controversy. I chose it because it is a controversy that will rage on,
and which we will no doubt continue to investigate.
Bibliography
Clark, William R. and Michael Grunstein. Are we Hardwired?. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, 2000.
Farber, Susan. Identical Twins Reared Apart. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1981
"Nature vs. Nurture: An Unnecessary Debate." A Public Health Perspective. ;July. 2000. 20 Nov.
2001. http://www.cdc.gov/genetics/info/files/text/nvsn.pdf
Roleff, Tamara L. Genetics and Intelligence. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, Inc, 1996

Fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

www.johnconnell.co.uk/blog/?p=1353

Why Nurture is always more important in Education than

Nature
Posted on | January 4, 2009 | 4 Comments
Researchers at UCB, have shown for the first time that the brains of low-income children function
differently from the brains of high-income kids.
.scientists at UC Berkeleys Helen Wills Neuroscience Institute and the School of Public Health report
that normal 9- and 10-year-olds differing only in socioeconomic status have detectable differences in the
response of their prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that is critical for problem solving and creativity.
Brain function was measured by means of an electroencephalograph (EEG) basically, a cap fitted with
electrodes to measure electrical activity in the brain like that used to assess epilepsy, sleep disorders and
brain tumors.
Kids from lower socioeconomic levels show brain physiology patterns similar to someone who actually
had damage in the frontal lobe as an adult, said Robert Knight, director of the institute and a UC
Berkeley professor of psychology. We found that kids are more likely to have a low response if they have
low socioeconomic status, though not everyone who is poor has low frontal lobe response.
It is research such as this that demonstrates the fundamental fallacy, and the basic inhumanity,
inherent in the bell-curve bunkum promulgated by Charles Murray and his ilk. Taken alongside other
bits of research from the past thirty years or so for instance, the work done by Thomas Boyce
(highlighted in the same press release) that showed, that children in low-income families are
spoken to far less, on average hearing 30 million fewer words by the age of four such work offers
some scientific credence to a view that one can derive anyway from a combination of elementary logic
and simple compassion.
While there are those who might wish to turn these research conclusions inside out by proposing that
genetic factors are the root cause of the described lack of frontal-lobe activity in the kids from poorer
homes, to do so would be to come to a conclusion that simply cannot be supported by the research. It
may or may not be possible to demonstrate genetic factors in intelligence across a population, but no
such macro-research makes it possible to apply the same conclusions at the individual level. In other
words, confronted by a child who is demonstrating, in some way, a lower intelligence than the child
sitting next to him, it is simply not possible to determine the extent to which hereditary factors have
played a part in creating that difference. Given that fact, there is simply no value to be derived from
pursuing such thinking.
And, of course, even if it were possible to reach, and prove, such a conclusion for any individual
learner (how many teachers and other professionals come to just such a conclusion every single day
of their teaching careers faced when with yet another stupid child?) it is, quite simply, a pointless and
unproductive judgement to make. We can do something about the childs environment (as well as our
own pedagogy, the current learning environment, the tools and resources are using, etc), but the
genetic make-up of an individual is not something we can affect in any useful way.
We all know that material poverty is the single most important explanatory factor for low educational
achievement. We all know that the so-called best schools tend to be those filled with children from
higher socio-economic status homes and communities. We all know that the so-called sink schools
tend to be those filled with chidren from lower socio-economic status homes and communities. (I
recognise that there are some brilliant schools that buck these trends, but they are outliers.)
Why then do governments insist on pursuing inherently contradictory policies that, on the one hand,
establish strategies and programmes designed to mitigate the effects of poverty in education, but
that, on the other hand, promote precisely the kinds of targets-driven tactics that not only fail to
recognise the work of good schools that happen to be in poor areas but actually serve to demonise
them as bad schools?

Technorati Tags: nature, nurture, university of california at berkeley, thomas boyce, bbc, Helen Wills
Neuroscience Institute, UCB School of Public Health
Category: children, education, elitism, environment, ethics, government, learning, research, schooling, society

Comments
4 RESPONSES TO WHY NURTURE IS ALWAYS MORE IMPORTANT IN EDUCATION
THAN NATURE
1. David Gilmour
January 5th, 2009 @ 12:01 am
 Thanks for this, and the link. I found it encouraging to hear that they dont believe this is necessarily a
life sentence.
2. Jenny Luca
January 6th, 2009 @ 6:30 am
Thanks for writing this John. Coming from a lower socio economic background myself, I find these kind
of research findings offensive. No-one should be pigeon-holed into boxes determined by others.
3. Sean McDougall
January 9th, 2009 @ 11:01 am
Just two quick comments from me:
1. Nutritionists have shown that intelligence is not inheritable except in utterly closed communities. It
arrives randomly as part of evolutions strategy of diversifying the same as bigger and smaller feet, or
lighter and darker hair. However, the ability of the spine and brain to develop is in large part conditioned
by nutritional intake before conception, and after birth by vitamin and mineral intake. Combine poor
nutritional makeup with lack of role models and stimuli and you have a big problem. Council estates
such as the one I grew up in and am sitting in at the moment are almost the perfect encapsulation of
both high unemployment equals lack of role models, and shops selling beer, fags and fish-fingers
equals poor nutrition.
2. Some of your comments echo those of Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers. His central thesis is that
children from poor backgrounds spend less time learning and that lack of experience helps to explain
subsequent performance shortfalls. However, he does seem to be recommending enforced educational
labour camps for the poor, and misses the point that Outliers seldom come from institutions. I wrote a
short commentary on his own views here ( http://www.stakeholderdesign.com/thoughts/?p=99 ).
4. John Connell
January 9th, 2009 @ 11:18 am
Thanks, Sean.
I kind of tolerated Gladwell, and quite enjoyed The Tipping Point (although, as with all such books, it
consisted of a very simple thesis hugely overcooked). I read (some of) Blink thought it was basically
nonsense.
I decided to give up on him, however, when I read his New Yorker piece a few weeks ago on the the
recruitment of teachers it was drivel admittedly sprinkled with some interesting and though-
provoking points here ans there but still ultimately drivel.