Nature! Nurture! Another trite distinction that sounds like it might represent something Fundamental And Real. Seems to have largely supplanted Calvin’s debate over total depravity vs penance.
- (free will/determinism)
- (sugar, spice, all things nice/slugs, snails, puppy dogs’ tails)
- (Doctor Who/Daleks)
Unlike Doctor who/Daleks, this one is used for actual decision making and public debate outside of Tumblr, so it bears looking in to.
First question: When does asking, e.g. “which is more important, nature or nurture?” gain us a useful perspective, or research question? Certainly not so vaguely put.
To recycle a common analogy, imagine a computer science where the central questions were ones like: “can do word processing on my laptop because of hardware or because of software?”, or if I tried to represent the “contribution” of “hardware factors” versus “software factors” to “word processing” via a variance decomposition? We could surely extract some nontrivial correlations from that, but it would be hard to argue we were approaching this analysis with the most effective tools. Worse, imagine that we had to pick “sides” and choose which one was “more important”. Anyway, you get the drift.
Even if we make it mathematically precise and ask “What is heritability score of X?”, where X is some policy-relevant behaviour, we are not necessarily thinking about anything interesting because the mathematical definition of heritability itself may not do what we intuitively would like it to. e.g. the classic “How heritable is crime?”
Heritability scores are indeed one sciency projection of this debate: