Nature or
Nurture?
The
debate on Nature versus Nurture is a hot issue in sociology, politics, and even
in people’s everyday lives. The big question: Is Man a product of Nature and what
the sociobiologists proclaim: a product of his genes – or is he a product of
Nurture, namely: of his social environment, the society he lives in, and his
education; said in terms of social science: a product of his socialisation?
The simplified
result of the debate is the statement: "Well, Man is a product of Nature
as well as of Nurture." This however is an unrefined view because it
didn’t answer the question: What feature in a person is product of Nature and
what feature is product of Nurture and to what extend?
You
can learn from a simple example how difficult it is to answer the question: I
suppose that you all believe without doubt that the colour of a cat’s fur is
exclusively determined by its genes. I’ll show you a picture
of a cloned kitten. The kitten’s genes are identical to those of its
mother. Nevertheless the colour of the kitten’s fur looks quite different from
that of its mother. We see that environmental factors must hence played an
important role in determining the colour of the cat’s fur.
Many
people believe that intelligence has to be attributed to the genetic code. A
good example which brings this misunderstanding to view is that there are women
who have themselves fertilised with sperm cocktails of Nobel prize winners
hoping that their child will become a genius. These women surely do not
remember the following cynical remark of George Bernard Shaw. When a beautiful
actress tried to seduce him into marriage by promising that their children
would be as beautiful as herself and as intelligent as him, he gave the
following reply: "I fear that they will become as ugly as I am and as
stupid as you are."
The
question of Nature or Nurture is more than a scientific debate as, let’s say,
the question of since what time the universe has existed. This is because of
the impact on political conclusions which are drawn from either side of the
debate. I limit my discussion of the Nature versus Nurture debate to the
subject of intelligence because the political implications here are very
serious and important for the libertarian theory.
Those
who support the view that intelligence is determined by Nurture – that means by
environmental factors – argue as follows: If the intelligence of a person is
due to the influence of his or her social conditions, the conclusion has to be
drawn that those who do not develop a high intelligence are victims of the
society they’ve lived in. Then it is the duty of society to compensate the
persons in question for this burning shame by special government programs. This
especially applies to minorities, e.g. Blacks in the Western countries.
It’s
of course the welfare ideology in this view which libertarians hate most. Many
libertarians hold the view that the welfare ideology is socialist. But be
careful. When you look at the educational policies of the Eastern countries
during their Marxist period, the opposite was true: There was a standard
education program for the masses. The overachievers, however, were selected and
put into special institutions. From this it becomes clear that the governments
of socialist countries proclaimed the egalitarian theory of Nurture as the
source of intelligence on the outside but acted according to the conservative
theory of "natural talents" within.
Those
who support the view that intelligence is assigned by Nature think along the
following lines: If the intelligence of an individual is assigned to him by his
genes, it would be a waste of the national income to invest money into social
development programs to promote the abilities of those who do not perform well.
Instead, the efforts of society should be directed to select the talented and
promote them. And if it should be true that the average IQ of Blacks is lower
than that of the Whites, too bad for them: Nothing can be done about it.
This
view also shows welfare ideology, but in a conservative version. That is,
libertarians do not like either side of the Nature versus Nurture debate. So we
need a third way, and I will show you that indeed there is a third way, and a
very reasonable one, too. The following findings are taken from my
"libertarian manifesto", published last year in German.
In
order to make clear how the interaction between Nature and Nurture works, respectively
between genes and environment, I’ve chosen an example from botany, from
vegetable life, for it furnishes us with a comprehensive model. Plants serve as
such a perfect model because they do not move. That means you can control their
environment, and moreover you have as many identical genotypes as you like to
test how they react upon different environmental influences.
The
model I present to you is based upon an experiment with yarrow conducted by
biologist Richard Lewontin. However, it is me who developed the model and drew
the conclusions. To make things easy I confined myself to a choice of only
three different genotypes of yarrow and watched how high they grew in only
three different environments, namely in lowlands, in hills, and in highland. (Chart 1)
Environment 1 Environment 2 Environment 3 Lowland Hills Highland Genotype A 088 inches 108 inches 084 inches Genotype B 098 inches 088 inches 096 inches Genotype C 114 inches 104 inches 120
inches
Look
at the first column: Environment 1, Lowlands. All genotypes of yarrow grew in
an identical environment, so that we can be positive that 100 percent of the
differences in growth are genetically determined. We see that there is an
underachiever, namely genotype A, and an overachiever, namely genotype C. But
the fact that 100 percent of the differences are genetically determined does
not imply that achievement cannot alter. This is the crucial point because in
the discussion about Nature versus Nurture the view is held on each side of the
debate that "genetic determination" means that features are constant.
So,
take a look at the second column: Environment 2, Hills. Again, if you compare
the figures vertically, 100 percent of the differences are due to the
genes. But notice how the achievement has changed. The underachiever of the
first column is the winner, here!
Let
us concentrate now on the horizontal lines and leave the vertical
columns. Genotype A achieves in environment 1 88 inches and in environment 2
108 inches. As it is exactly the same genotype 100 percent of the differences
are due to the environmental influence.
If
we compare the underachievement of genotype A in environment 1 to genotype B in
environment 2 – both of them only grow 88 inches high – then it is not possible
to trace the growth back to either genes or environment. Environment and genes
both interact to produce this poor outcome. It is even no point in saying the
ratio is 50:50, 50 percent genes, 50 percent environment. 50 percent of what?
Shall we believe that the first 44 inches are determined by the genes and the
next 44 inches by the environment? Such a statement obviously would be pure
nonsense.
If
we take genotype A out of environment 1 and into environment 2, it will grow
108 inches high, and if we take genotype B out of environment 2 and into
environment 1, it will grow 98 inches high. Let us arbitrarily assume that
there are no more than these three types of environment, namely lowlands,
hills, and highland. Then we can come to the following conclusion: Genotype A
has a genetic maximum height of 108 inches if not restrained by negative
environmental influences. But again it wouldn’t be of any use to trace the
achievements back to either genetic or environmental determination. Even in the
case of maximum height it is always both, Nature and Nurture together, which
produce the outcome.
Now
let us take a look at all of the columns. Given these facts, what would you do
if you were a gardener? Would you choose one type of environment for all
of your yarrow? At least if your aim is to grow yarrow at a maximum height then
you would choose environment 1 for genotype B, environment 2 for genotype A,
and environment 3 for genotype C. Compared to the average height there even is
no rational criterion to decide between the three environments. The gardener
can only improved the outcome by choosing the best environment for each
genotype. (Chart 2)
Environment 1 Environment 2 Environment 3 Best Lowlands Hills Highland Mixed Genotype A 088 inches 108 inches 084 inches 108 inches Genotype B 098 inches 088 inches 096 inches 098 inches Genotype C 114 inches 104 inches 120 inches 120 inches Average 100 inches 100 inches 100 inches 109 inches
Before I go on analysing the question of human
intelligence with the help of this model, I will summarize the findings of the
discussion:
1. To say
that a given feature is "genetically" determined does not imply that
it cannot alter.
2. For best
results do not choose one environment for all, but the best one for each.
3. To
choose the best environment for each genotype you need the complete
information.
What About Human Beings?
The following table shows an application of the model
to human beings. I used the same figures but choose the term "IQ"
rather than "inches". I will come back to the meaning of the three
environments and of the vocations I put in place of the "genotypes", but
first let me state this.
(Chart 3)
Environment 1 Environment 2 Environment 3 Conventional Egalitarian Conservative Worker 088 IQ 108 IQ 084 IQ Craftsman 098 IQ 088 IQ 096 IQ Student 114 IQ 104 IQ 120 IQ Deviation (s) 13,0 10.5 18.0
This
table is purely hypothetical. Whereas the table given for the yarrow can be
verified by experiments it is not possible to do the same for human beings. The
major problem is that we do not have enough identical copies. At best we have
identical twins as test specimen. Most of them were not separated and grew up
in the same environment. But even if they grew up apart from each other – and
we know them well enough to collect data of their intelligence – we cannot be
sure whether the environments are really different. Let’s suppose a pair
of identical twins were separated at a very early age: one has grown up in a
middle class family in London and the other one in a middle class family in
Melbourne. How different is their environment in respect to our purpose? We can
test the different environments for the genotypes of yarrow at will, but it is
hard to imagine that it would be possible – and, moreover, ethically justifiable
– to "test" the reaction of human genotypes by assigning identical
twins to environments chosen for them by scientists, for instance: Separate
identical twins and let one of them grow up in an upper class family in
Washington and the other one in a slum in Uganda for the purpose to examine and
compare their intelligence when they reach the age of 18.
But
luckily human beings are able to come to rational conclusions by logical
thinking, not only by experiments. So let’s try.
We
start with a given conventional society, say the United States at the end of
the 19th century. This is environment 1. We have three individuals, a worker, a
craftsman, and a student. Each one has developed the IQ we expect from him: the
worker has the lowest IQ and the student the highest IQ. The standard deviation
at the bottom of the column is the indicator of inequality within the
respective "societies".
Then
there happens to be an egalitarian revolution of progressivism. According to
the egalitarian credo, the most highly endowed person is not promoted. The IQ
of the frustrated student consequently falls from 114 points to 104 points. The
worker is given maximum help and his IQ is raised as intended from 88 points to
108 points. The egalitarians also are very happy that the inequality of the
society shrinks as the standard deviation is reduced from 13
to 10.5.
But
look at the IQ of the craftsman. His IQ drops from 98 points to 88 points. So
why that? Well, in the conventional society he would have attended school a few
years only and then he would have gone in for his profession by training on the
job. Now, as compulsory education is introduced, he is forced by the
egalitarians to go to school for a fixed period of time. But he hates to go to
school, school lessons just don’t match his preferred type of learning. He
looses courage, his joy of life vanishes, and he ends up as a dumphead and
loser.
For
both, the student and the craftsman, the new egalitarian environment turns out
to be a disaster. That’s why they incite a conservative counter revolution. The
counter revolution, however, does not re-establish the old order but creates a
new one. The conservatives prefer rigid selection procedures. Those who succeed
are promoted. The student profits from this, as his IQ goes up from 114, the
original level, to 120 points. The worker is not excluded from the selection
process as in the conventional system. He develops an even lower IQ level than
in the conventional system because he can’t hold out the pressure of the selection
process and thus fails. Even the craftsman isn’t successful. In the traditional
system he would have finished school let’s say after six years and would have
been proud of being treated like a grown up at an early age. But after having
failed in the selection process he thinks of himself as a looser what be
actually turns out to be according to the principle of self fulfilling
prophecy. As the egalitarians feared, the inequality of society raises,
indicated by the standard deviation of 18.
With
this model I can solve the Nature versus Nurture debate even in respect to
ethnic minorities. The most acknowledged book which favours the hypothesis that
genes to a great extend are responsible for the lower achievement of Blacks in
IQ testing is "The Bell Curve" by Richard Herrnstein and Charles
Murray. They voice three empirical reasons for their belief in the genetic
determination of intelligence but I give you the two which are relevant to my
subject:
1. Herrnstein and Murray found out that the gap between the average
IQ of Whites and Blacks narrows, but not as much as expected: The improvements
of the living conditions of Blacks and especially the larger amounts of money
government puts into the support of underprivileged children should have
resulted in a faster advance of the Blacks, Herrnstein and Murray say. They
conclude that Blacks are limited by their genes and so explain their slow
advance although living conditions have become much more favourable for them.
But let us assume that among the Black population of
the United States many react as our genotype B or craftsman: The support they
got from the welfare state harmed them. This is of course an explanation
which fits to what can be noticed at schools: A society where compulsory education
has been introduced is confronted with various problems resulting from this
kind of coercion:
(a) Compulsory education destroys the possibilities of a child for whom
learning in a class room is the improper way.
(b) Compulsory education allows children who are unable for learning in
a class room to bother those who want to follow the lessons.
(c) Compulsory education reduces the teacher to a warden.
What is curious about Charles Murray is that in his
former book "Loosing Ground" he seemed to say exactly this: The
welfare state programs actually harmed the underprivileged who were supposed to
profit from them. This hypothesis gave Charles Murray some credit among
libertarians. But in "The Bell Curve" he argues that people who do
not react positively to the welfare programs could only be genetically
inferior. This is just bad science.
2. Herrnstein and Murray compared the average IQ of the following
minority groups: Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and Jews. They found out that Asians and
Jews do achieve high IQ scores although they are discriminated as well as
Blacks and Latinos. From this fact Herrnstein and Murray conclude that
discrimination is not the reason for the lower IQ level of Blacks. Their
inferior genes are responsible for their poor achievement: That’s what
Herrnstein and Murray say.
Let’s take a look at the table
again. If a minority group is composed mostly of genotypes reacting as our
worker, the group will prosper under the rule of progressivism. But if the
group is composed of genotypes reacting as our craftsman, the group will loose
out. And if the group is composed of genotypes reacting as our student, the
group will profit most from conservative rule.
But you don’t have to go as far as
to ask how the genotypes react to show that the Herrnstein and Murray argument
is outright nonsense. Asians and Jews have a positive attitude towards
schooling, whereas the culture of the Blacks and, by the way, catholic
Italians, tends to reject schooling. This explains the differences of minority
achievement under the rule of statism, either egalitarian or conservative.
As
shown by example of the yarrow I think the most favourable way is not to choose
the one way for all but the best way for each. (Chart
4)
Environment 1 Environment 2 Environment 3 Best Conventional Egalitarian Conservative Libertarian A (Worker) 088 IQ 108 IQ 084 IQ 108 IQ B (Craftsman) 098 IQ 088 IQ 096 IQ 098 IQ C (Student) 114 IQ 104 IQ 120 IQ 120 IQ Average 100 IQ 100 IQ 100 IQ 109 IQ Deviation (s) 13,0 10.5 18.0 11.0
The
average of each group will raise if each individual has the chance to develop
in the environment best for him. Even the inequality, measured in standard deviation,
is only slightly higher than in the egalitarian environment! The difference is
only 0.5.
To
come to a really libertarian conclusion we need to go one step further. In the
case of the yarrow it only needs a good gardener to achieve maximum results.
How is the idea that it only needs a benevolent dictator who is able to make
good decisions for every child?
Conservatives
often say that parents know their children best and have the highest motivation
to choose the best of all alternatives for their children. But welfare
advocates also have many arguments to support their idea that parents often
choose what turns out to be a bad alternative. Libertarians would say that the
solution is to give children the control over their own lives much earlier than
it is done in our societies, so that children can decide on their own what is
best for them.
Although
I have much more to contribute to this debate, too, I would like to draw your
attention to another aspect which to my knowledge nowhere else is discussed. I
think that under the condition of private education the private education
companies will become experts in making good offers to the parents or the
children, whoever decides.
Let’s
turn to the table, again. Our entrepreneur who deals in education expects the
child who could be a future customer of his company to be of type A. He will
offer to the child or his parents to take the progressive low pressure class.
Even if the parents think that their child can be a genius, the private
educator will do everything to persuade them not to put the child into the high
pressure class. Why? Just because the child will become an underachiever and
this will ruin the reputation of the school. On the other hand, the private
educator will encourage the parents to have their type A child attend school
for a longer period of time even when they don’t believe in the abilities of
their child. Why? Because the private educator makes more money having the
child at his class a longer period of time.
So I
think that the market process will lead to the environment I indicated as
"best". A dictator will not lead children to this environment for the
same reasons dictators failed to direct the economy to produce enough food for
all. We don’t have only three genotyes and we don’t have just three possible
environments. No dictator and no bureaucracy has the knowledge, the ideas, the
flexibility, and the respect for the individual to decide what the best way for
each child is. Only the market will.
My
conclusion of the Nature versus Nurture debate is as follows:
1. Saying that intelligence is "genetically" determined
does not imply that it is not affected by environmental factors.
2. For best results do not choose one environment for all, but the
best one for each individual.
3. In order to choose the best environment for each individual we
would need complete information, which we don’t have. The next best thing is
the market process.
But
the best news for libertarians I kept back till the end of my speech: These two Russian girls are not only identical twins,
they are Siamese twins. That is: No one can be biologically more identical than
these twins. They have not only identical genes, their blood is the same, too. And
no one can be more identical sociologically then Masha and Dasha because they
always are together and share the same environment and the same company. But …
…
but they are very different. As a child Masha was rebellious and
aggressive, Dasha calm and good natured. Masha resisted learning while Dasha
followed the lessons and made greater progress in class. I don’t know how much
their IQ differed but the teachers considered that they even shouldn’t have
been in the same class! Last but not least Masha later turned to alcohol while
Dasha did not although they share the same blood. That is, Dasha doesn’t feel
any pain when she is able to convince Masha to stop drinking.
So
we can be sure that besides the influences of both, Nature and Nurture, human beings
have an individuality which is not honoured or appreciated by either the
biologists or the sociologists.
Thank
you
Transcript of a
conference given at a Seminar jointly organised by
Libertarian Alliance
and Libertarian International,
at the National-Liberal
Club, London, 9-10 November 2002