Nature vs. Nurture: A False Dichotomy

One often encounters in the study of psychology the claim that human actions are the product of two (and only two) competing forces: nature and nurture. On the one hand, proponents of the nature view suggest that human beings are reacting primarily to the contents of their genetic structure. In this perspective, genes tell you everything you need to know about a person. Conversely, the nurture view suggests that human beings cannot operate beyond their upbringing and environment and that it is, in fact, these external forces that are responsible for our actions.

Both perspectives obfuscate the requirement of individual responsibility by ignoring the fact of volition.

Human decision-making is a fundamentally volitional process. Men cannot act on instinct; every action begins in a man’s mind and is deliberately chosen. The genetic structure of an individual provides certain influences – or factors – that must be taken into account in the ultimate decision to act in a certain way. For example, a strong genetic propensity towards diabetes might lead an individual to treat sugars in a way that one without such a propensity would not. However, a propensity towards diabetes does not produce automatic action; it merely provides the individual with an important factor to consider when reaching a decision to act.

Nurture cannot provide us with automatic action either. External stimuli are facts of reality to be perceived, evaluated, and considered in the process of decision-making. And they certainly do exert themselves upon us. But conceptual organisms cannot respond to these stimuli mechanically. In the same way as with genetic predispositions, humans must integrate these environmental factors into the overall structure of their thought process. Consequently, the fact of volition remains essential.

Those who point to individuals with relatively poor brain functioning as examples of the primacy of nature are missing the point. Differences of intelligence among individuals are differences of degree and not of kind. As such, these individuals are still fundamentally volitional organisms who require a process of thought for all their decisions.

The nurture advocates, in my estimation, are slightly closer to the mark. Education, indoctrination, and conditioning in a child’s formative period can affect his psychology and psycho-epistemology in incredibly profound ways. To a certain extent, genetic forces can direct a person’s growth and cognitive processes as well. However, the fundamental fact of volition remains unaltered. All influences in a person’s life are merely that: influences. The responsibility for weighing those factors against the facts of reality and of choosing one possible course of action among all the available alternatives rests solely – and must rest solely – on the individual.

This is the crucial fact that is ignored in the nature vs. nurture literature and is the source of this false dichotomy.

Dr. Gabor Mate: Lord Black Just Needed More Hugs As A Kid

How's this for a crackpot theory? Dr. Gabor Mate, a physician who has done work with addicts, thinks Conrad Black ran into trouble with the law since an absense of unconditional love from his childhood inculcated within him a need to acquire property and to be feared.

Story from The Ottawa Citizen:

To the reams of analysis dissecting what makes Conrad Black tick, add one more theory - that the disgraced media baron was addicted to acquisition because he was an awkward child who was compensating for the pain of being unloved.

So says Dr. Gabor Mate who wrote In the Realm of the Hungry Ghosts, a book about addictions released Saturday. It's based on the physician's work with the addicts of Vancouver's Downtown East Side.

It's a long way from the East Side to Palm Beach, Fla., but Mate, author of the bestsellers Scattered Minds and When the Body Says No, says there's not that much difference between a street addict and Black.

"He kept going for more and more," said Mate, who became fascinated while working with addicts at Vancouver's Portland Hotel by the human drive to fill our voids in self-destructive ways.

...

"People have described him as selfish or a monster, but no one tries to understand what happened to him," said Mate. "He's a sensitive, very gifted man who had a very rough childhood who had to compensate for the pain."

...

Friends from Black's youth say he was close to his father, but he felt uncomfortable around his sporting extended family because he was unco-ordinated and not particularly attractive, said Tombs.

"He didn't get love on his own terms. So he would be feared instead of loved," said Tombs. "I felt that there was a little Conrad inside who was quite sad."

Emphasis mine.

Well, sure. Isn't childhood abandonment issues and psychological maladjustment the root of every good Capitalist's drive for accumulation and profit? Fun times with psychology.