Is Character Developed Via Nature or Nurture?

I do not believe that the nature vs. nurture debate is linear enough to put percentages on it -- on one side of the fence we have nature and on the other side we have nurture. And while nature (genes) certainly has its influences on us, the environment (nurture) normally determines the impact of a gene.

For example, one of the classic examples for discussing genes is Konrad Lorenz's work on the imprinting that occurs in baby geese -- they have it within them to imprint whatever is moving near them, which is normally their mother. However, it could be anything else that is moving around them, such as a person. But no matter what they imprint on, rather it be their mother, a human, or an inanimate object, the piece of the environment that they actually imprint on is going to have a huge impact on their life. Thus genes provide the goal, but the environment provides the process. And it is what happens during the process that will determine the outcome.

Piaget was probably the first person to think of children as species equipped with a characteristic mind, rather than as apprentice adults (little adults). He discovered they went through a series of five developmental stages that were always in the same order, but not always at the same rate: 1) sensorimotor, 2) preoperational, 3) concrete operations, and in adolescence they have 3) abstract thought and finally 4) deductive reasoning.

Piaget's two contemporaries, Konrad Lorenz and B.F. Skinner took up extreme positions. Lorenz as a champion of nature and Skinner as a champion of nurture. Piaget, however, dived right down the middle of this debate. He believed a gene's meaning depends heavily on its context with the surrounding environment. That is, while a child goes through five stages of development (genes), it is the active engagement of the mind with the surrounding environment (nurture) that causes development. The two main forces of the environment are feedback and social interaction. From this, the child assimilates predicted experiences and accommodates it to unexpected experiences.

For some time it was believed that animals grew no new neurons in the cortex of their brains upon reaching adulthood, thus their fate was basically sealed by their genetic nature. This was apparently proved by a Pasco Rakic, a neuroscientist. However, Fernando Nottebohm soon found that adult canaries made new neurons when they learn new songs. So Rakic replied that it was only adult mammals that could not grow neurons. But soon afterward, Elizabeth Gould found that rats grow new neurons. So Rakic replied primates could not. Gould next discovered that tree shrews grew new neurons. Rakic that higher primates could not grow new neurons. Gould then found them in marmosets. Rakic zeroed it down to old-world primates. Gould then discovered them in macaques.

Today it is almost certain that all primates, including humans, grow new neurons in response to new experiences, and lose neurons in response to neglect. Thus, with all the determinism built into the initial wiring of our brain, experience with our surrounding environment refines and in some cases rewires that initial wiring.

Nature may be our internal guide (map), but nurture is our explorer that has the final say in what we do (destination).

quoted