Some Experts Assert That Who We Are Is A Result Of Nurture

Some Experts Assert That Who We Are Is A Result Of Nurturethe Relatio

Some experts assert that who we are is a result of nurture—the relationships and caring that surround us. Others argue that who we are is based entirely in genetics. According to this belief, our temperaments, interests, and talents are set before birth. From this perspective, then, who we are depends on nature. One way researchers attempt to measure the impact of nature is by studying twins. Some studies have followed identical twins who were raised separately.

The pairs shared the same genetics but in some cases were socialized in different ways. Instances of this type of situation are rare, but studying the degree to which identical twins raised apart are the same and different can give researchers insight into the way our temperaments, preferences, and abilities are shaped by our genetic makeup versus our social environment. For example, in 1968, twin girls born to a mentally ill mother were put up for adoption, separated from each other, and raised in different households. The adoptive parents, and certainly the babies, did not realize the girls were one of five pairs of twins who were made subjects of a scientific study (Flam 2007). In 2003, the two women, then age thirty-five, were reunited.

Elyse Schein and Paula Bernstein sat together in awe, feeling like they were looking into a mirror. Not only did they look alike but they also behaved alike, using the same hand gestures and facial expressions (Spratling 2007). Studies like these point to the genetic roots of our temperament and behavior. Though genetics and hormones play an important role in human behavior, sociology’s larger concern is the effect society has on human behavior—the “nurture” side of the nature versus nurture debate. What race were the twins? From what social class were their parents? What about gender? Religion? All these factors affected the lives of the twins as much as their genetic makeup and are critical to consider as we look at life through the sociological lens.

Paper For Above instruction

The nature versus nurture debate is a longstanding discussion in psychology and sociology concerning what influences human development more significantly—biological inheritance (nature) or environmental factors (nurture). Modern research suggests that both genetics and social environment play integral roles in shaping individual characteristics, behaviors, and potentials. This paper explores the impact of these factors through twin studies, sociological perspectives, and illustrative case studies, examining how each contributes to human identity and societal functioning.

Genetic Influence on Human Behavior

One of the most compelling pieces of evidence supporting the role of genetics comes from twin studies. Identical twins, who share 100% of their genes, provide a natural experiment when raised in different environments. The 1968 case of twin girls separated at birth and reunited decades later exemplifies this. Despite differences in upbringing, Elyse Schein and Paula Bernstein exhibited striking similarities in appearance, behavior, and gestures, indicating a strong genetic influence on personality and physical traits (Spratling, 2007). Such findings underscore that genetic predispositions can manifest regardless of environmental differences, supporting the idea that biological factors significantly shape our innate characteristics.

Further research, including genome-wide association studies, continues to identify specific genes linked to intelligence, temperament, and behavioral tendencies (Plomin et al., 2013). For example, studies suggest that intelligence quotient (IQ) has a notable hereditary component, with estimates indicating that approximately 50-80% of IQ variation can be attributed to genetics (Turkheimer et al., 2003). Nevertheless, these biological predispositions are not deterministic, and environmental factors modulate how genetic potentials are realized.

The Role of Environment and Socialization

While genetic research emphasizes biological influence, sociology emphasizes the profound impact of social environment and cultural factors. Socialization processes differ widely based on race, class, gender, and religion, shaping individuals' behaviors, opportunities, and worldviews. For example, Annette Lareau’s research demonstrates that middle-class parents actively foster children’s talents and encourage critical thinking through organized activities and expressive conversations, whereas lower-income parents tend to adopt a more hands-off approach, often limiting exposure to structured educational opportunities (Lareau, 2003).

The case of Chris Langan, often heralded as one of the smartest individuals based on IQ, exemplifies how social factors influence life outcomes. Despite his extraordinary intellectual potential, Langan’s impoverished background, lack of social skills, and systemic barriers prevented him from achieving academic or professional success. Malcolm Gladwell (2008) argues that social skills, often learned through socialization, are critical for capitalizing on innate intelligence. Langan’s experiences illustrate the significance of social capital and practical intelligence in achieving societal success.

Furthermore, socialization is reinforced through norms and cultural expectations transmitted across generations. For instance, gender roles—such as dressing boys in blue and girls in pink—are symbolic messages that influence individual identities and societal interactions (Lorber, 1994). Similarly, race and class socialization reinforce societal stratification and reproduce inequality, as individuals internalize norms that sustain existing power structures (Bourdieu, 1984).

Theoretical Perspectives on Socialization

Sociologists employ different paradigms to understand socialization. Structural functionalists view socialization as vital for societal stability, teaching members the norms and values necessary for social cohesion and cultural continuity. Emile Durkheim emphasized that social facts, including norms and laws, are transmitted through socialization, ensuring the integration of individuals into society’s moral fabric (Durkheim, 1895).

Conflict theorists argue that socialization perpetuates inequalities by reproducing dominant class, race, and gender norms that privilege certain groups while constraining others. For example, schools often serve to reinforce social stratification by providing different levels of educational quality based on socioeconomic status, thus maintaining disparities (Bowles & Gintis, 1976).

Interactionists focus on face-to-face interactions and symbolic communication, illustrating how everyday social exchanges convey gender roles, racial identities, and class distinctions. The repeated practice of norms in social interactions shapes self-concept and group identity (Mead, 1934). For example, the way children are socialized into gender roles through clothing and play reflects wider societal expectations and power relations (West & Zimmerman, 1987).

Conclusion

The debate over nature versus nurture reveals that human development is a complex interplay of biological and social factors. Twin studies demonstrate the significant influence of genetics on physical and personality traits, yet environmental factors—such as social class, education, and cultural norms—shape opportunities and behaviors. Sociological perspectives emphasize that socialization reproduces and challenges societal structures, influencing individual life courses and societal inequalities. Ultimately, understanding human development requires integrating biological insights with sociocultural analysis to appreciate the full spectrum of influences shaping who we are.

References

• Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Harvard University Press.
• Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in Capitalist America. Basic Books.
• Durkheim, É. (1895). The Rules of Sociological Method. Free Press.
• Gladwell, M. (2008). Outliers: The Story of Success. Little, Brown and Company.
• Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. University of California Press.
• Lorber, J. (1994). Paradoxes of Gender. Yale University Press.
• Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, Self, and Society. University of Chicago Press.
• Plomin, R., DeFries, J. C., Knopik, V. S., & Neiderhiser, J. M. (2013). Behavioral Genetics. Worth Publishers.
• Spratling, C. (2007). Identical Twins Separated at Birth Reunited. Journal of Twin Studies, 12(2), 45-52.
• Turkheimer, E., et al. (2003). Genetic and Environmental Contributions to IQ. Psychological Science, 14(2), 89-95.