Nature, Nurture, Whatever

I have written before about my long involvement in EEOC v. Sears, one of the largest sex discrimination cases ever tried (Find the heading about a quarter way into this long post), and more recently, as a result that “[f]or me, the Summers debate is déjà vu all over again.” This point was just driven home, again, by an article on the front page of Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal ostensibly about English girls closing the math gap with boys.

I’ll come to that article in a moment. But first let me refer to one of the longest-running (and still going strong) debates between liberals and conservatives, nature vs. nurture. This is too simple, but typically, or perhaps stereotypically, conservatives believe (or are said to believe) that a great deal of an individual’s identity is natural, inherited, genetic. Liberals, by contrast, generally believe that social influences are more significant than biological ones.

The political implications of this classic division are clear: conservatives often think it is futile, or worse, to try to undo what Mother Nature has done, while liberals, believing as they do that “society” has produced what they regard as unfair conditions, believe that “society” can improve those conditions through various kinds of reform. Nowhere is this division clearer than in differences over sex roles. Indeed, liberals minimize the salience, or even fact, of “sex,” which is biological, in favor of “gender,” which is “socially constructed.” (Ironically, this division is frequently reversed regarding homosexuality, with liberals tending to believe it is genetic, like race, and conservatives arguing that more often it reflects a choice of lifestyles.)

I lived and breathed the Sears case for so long — around five years of many more 80 hour and longer weeks than I like to remember — that for a long time that’s all I could talk about, much to the annoyance and boredom of many of my friends, not a few of whom are now former friends in large part because of my perceived character defect of agreeing to work with lawyers defending a corporation, a big corporation at that, accused of sex discrimination.

One of the things I would say in those days — in part (but not entirely) tongue in cheek, for shock value — is that the conventional wisdom was all wrong: the fact that some practice or behavior was “socially constructed” and not programmed into our DNA often made it harder, not easier, to change. Sex, after, all, can be changed with a sex change operation; “sex roles,” on the other hand, are far more resistant and difficult to change.

Which brings me (I know you were wondering how I would get there) to that article about the math abilities of English girls. My off the wall observations may not have been so off the wall after all.

The English experience with math education suggests that gender differences, even those that seem innate and based in biology, do not lead inevitably to any particular outcome. That view fits into a broader current sweeping over how scientists think of genetics. Many now believe that traits that seem intrinsic — meaning those grounded in the brain or shaped by a gene — are subject to cultural and social forces, and that these forces determine how a biological trait actually manifests itself in a person’s behavior or abilities. An “intrinsic” trait, in other words, does not mean an inevitable outcome, as many scientists had long thought.

“What’s now in play is the question of what it means for a trait to be innate,” says Eric Turkheimer of the University of Virginia. In 2003, a study led by Prof. Turkheimer found that the influence of genes on intelligence varies with social class: In well-off children, genes seem to explain most IQ differences, but in disadvantaged minority children environmental influences have a greater impact.

In another study, men carrying a gene linked to aggression and criminality were no more likely than other men to become violent adults — unless they were neglected or abused as children, according to a 2002 article published in the journal Science. And last summer, scientists in Canada reported that rats carrying a “neurotic” gene became more jumpy than their peers only if their mothers neglected them. In rats with attentive moms, the same DNA sequence produced mellow animals.

“What we’re learning is that culture and experience actually imprint themselves on the brain, on biology,” says science historian Londa Schiebinger of Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif. In other words, nature and nurture work together in a much more sophisticated way than many scientists had previously thought.

This view is perfectly consistent, or more, with my somewhat but not altogether whimsical argument that genetic factors are more malleable than social forces. Like Mary’s little lamb, wherever society goes the brains will be sure to follow. But the rub is that society is very hard to steer.

And the lesson is clear: if you’re a rat, be sure to choose an attentive mom.

Say What? (5)

  1. Nels Nelson March 31, 2005 at 6:28 pm | | Reply

    In the nature vs. nurture debate I suppose I prefer the liberal position, as it seems to me there’s too much focus on the differences between us and not enough on what we share. The same blood that powered da Vinci and Gandhi pumps now through each of our hearts, and we’re such genetic marvels that even a lifetime of sitting inside a big box while staring at a little box leaves us smarter than any other creature on the planet. If there are innate limits on an individual I assume he hasn’t hit them, and that they most certainly aren’t tied to reading at a fourth-grade level or working at McDonald’s. We need to promote more human pride, amazement at our common potential with unlimited expectations for all; the next person you see, point and shout, “Holy crap, it’s a human being!” as though you’ve just spotted a robot from the year 4250.

  2. Laura March 31, 2005 at 7:07 pm | | Reply

    “In well-off children, genes seem to explain most IQ differences, but in disadvantaged minority children environmental influences have a greater impact.”

    This makes perfect sense. In well-off children, each one experiences the best-case scenario regarding nutrition, medical care, and so on. I guess that for each of us, our genes set us up to reach some maximum IQ given that best-case scenario. Kids who may not eat well or regularly, or aren’t cared for in other ways, can’t reach their potential. It’s one of the criticisms I have about The Bell Curve, because the authors actually touch on this, and then they back off and say that genetics = destiny.

  3. Chetly Zarko April 1, 2005 at 4:02 am | | Reply

    Like most empirical questions, the truth is somewhere in between, or both (quantum mechanics is an ideal example of two truths occupying one space, both literally and philosophically).

    John, I think that characterization of of conservatives and liberals is highly oversimplified (as you admit). For example, many social conservatives would argue for family values with full knowledge of the impact of (a lack of) nurture, and even libertarian conservatives might argue for less government intervention not on the grounds that government CAN’T change people, but that it is fundamentally wrong or a distortion of the market (including ideas) to do so. Of course, there are a few stereotypical conservatives and liberals that fit into this debate – which, as Laura, was one of the failures of The Bell Curve, which, even though it made several important conclusions brought unnecessary (and righteous) criticism upon itself for that extreme underpinning assumption.

  4. meep April 1, 2005 at 5:28 am | | Reply

    Laura – a good example would be height. If you’re malnourished, you’re likely to be rather short, no matter your genes — so the environment (i.e., how much food you ultimately get) is the controlling factor on your height. Thus, we look back to people in eras of limited food and lo! They’re short. Interestingly, it used to be that ethnic groups in America were taller than the same groups back in the Old Country (I think that no longer holds for most groups, though.)

    But once one has a surfeit of food, it’s genes that determine what your height is. I know I was just as well-fed as my husband and his sisters, but I’m only 5’4″ and my sisters-in-law are 6 feet tall.

  5. Cobra April 1, 2005 at 8:10 pm | | Reply

    Nels Nelson writes:

    >>>We need to promote more human pride, amazement at our common potential with unlimited expectations for all; the next person you see, point and shout, “Holy crap, it’s a human being!” as though you’ve just spotted a robot from the year 4250.”

    Well said, Nels. I believe the heart of the matter is that this topic gets internalized, and the motivations of those doing “research” are always called into question. It is almost futile to pursue it.

    –Cobra

Say What?