Nature vs Nurture: The Violent Mind

I had an interesting conversation/debate with my mother and Laura during our 8 hour hike across Whistler Mountain to Singing Pass.

See, Laura believes that in the Nature vs Nurture debate, the balance is about 10-90. So 90% of what determines the person one becomes is due to environmental factors.

My mother, on the otherhand, believes that genes matter far more, she quoted around 40-60 as the more accurate balance in her mind.

My response to both of them was that they weren't giving enough credit to either influence.

Overall I do think that we give far too much credit to "genes" in society. I think that environment plays a very very important role in how a persons brain and social behaviour develops, and that environmental conditions can often render genetic predispositions to be impotent. But I also think that, conversely, the power of particular genetic dispositions can also sometimes override any environmental constraints.

(For example if someone has a genetic condition that makes them 450lbs, no amount of ballet lessons are going to make them very able as ballet dancers).

This debate has implications which make it an often controversial and/or emotional topic.

Some people feel as though, by attributing behaviour and interests to environment, its not giving enough credit to free will. Others might argue that to say that certain people are hard-wired to be better than others is something which is dangerously close to defending classism or racism.

I think if anyone analyzes how the brain develops, especially as a baby, the overwhelming influence lies in the environment you grow up in. However, from a macro perspective, within societies, there seems to be evidence of brain development and behaviour disproportionately in one direction.

Professor Jim Fallon at the University of California has this GREAT lecture which explains how this phenomenon occurs, as he touches upon this debate through the prism of analysis of the brains of violent murderers.