you?
Sociologists, psychologists, geneticists, and every other person in between has been debating this for at least the past 500 years. (But there is now evidence that this debate actually started sometime in early BC; which would then make the list of the longest-running argument in all of history... a few below the argument over children's literature: no, I'm not kidding: one of the top three longest-running debates is over children's literature... but that's for another blog.)
Anyways, there is overwhelming (and after you get through it all- ) confusing evidence that supports the notion that both nature and nurture contribute in the process of shaping personality. As it turns out, we were just discussing this very topic in Sociology today. We analyzed the cases of Genie and Viktor (for more information: go to link below). Both kids were found isolated for more than ten years of their lives (it seemed like from birth to preteen age). When people found them, neither of them could talk and they acted strangely more like animals than Homo sapiens (clawing, spitting etc.). In summary, there was much debate over why they couldn't talk and how- if there was a way- they could ever communicate one day.
After many years of analyzing in each case, it was hypothesized that some, maybe all, language skills are actually embedded in our genes- but there is a time limit for when we can start accessing those skills. In both Genie's and Viktor's case, they learned how to communicate, but not with sentences. They communicated with gestures and a small vocabulary and by that time they were both basically past puberty. Which leads us back to: Were they born with mental retardation that prevents them from reaching their full communication potential? Or was it the fact that they started harvesting their communication skills too late? Unfortunately, we will probably never know until more unlucky feral, or isolated children are found so we can analyze their case and add to the very little data there is now.
A few hours later after Sociology, the idea of Genie and Viktor still fresh in my mind, I read an article posted by Science News that read "Harsh Conditions in Childhood Have Long-Term Affects" by Laura Sanders. Whether is was some, weird coincidence trying to steer me towards more research on human development or not- I had to read it! Here is the part that stuck out to me: (funny how it turned out to be the first sentence)
"Children who spent their first two years in Romanian orphanages behaved abnormally in social interactions with other children, even years after leaving the institution. "
I hastily read the rest of the article to find that it directly related to what we just talked about in Sociology. It supported my (and many others before me) hypothesis of: human interaction is necessary in proper human development. Which if you really think about: the thing that Genie and Viktor needed most was a social network. Bring on the Facebook, Twitter- whatever you want to call it. Yes, Facebook may be the downfall of this generation but I have to wonder: Is a moderate amount of Facebook healthy for you (just like a moderate amount of wine a week is actually beneficial for you)? Is social interaction that important to our development? Tune in for Part 2! {Look below Genie (when she was found at the age of thirteen at 1970) and a portrait of Viktor about the age of 12 painted in 1800.}
P.S. After this whole blog post, I realize that I'm still convinced it's a combination of both nature and nurture that make us who we are (with a little tilt on the nurture side)... in case anybody was wondering.
If you're looking to read the whole Science News article:
http://www.sciencenews.org/
If you want to learn more about Genie and Viktor:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2112gchild.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genie_%28feral_child%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_of_Aveyron
