Nature v Nurture

[bcholmes]

This article discusses something about childhood development. It's not a topic I'm particularly interested in, really, but I was interested by the "environment can affect biology" angle, a view almost entirely absent (in my opinion) from science reporting.

Comments

[indefatigable42.livejournal.com]

It's definitely well-known that environment can affect biology. Popular (read: lowest common denominator) science reporting likes to reduce it to nature vs. nurture, but that's oversimplification.

For example, it's known that people with no sign of depression can become chronically depressed after a traumatic event, even after the source of the stress is taken away. Their brain chemistry changes to the point where they have to take medication to return it to the way it was. If they don't do that, they have long-term depression caused by a chemical deficiency-- but the deficiency itself was triggered by an outside stimulus.

A more concrete physiological example is that children who don't learn language end up being unable to learn language. Certain parts of their brains actually don't develop the way they're supposed to, and they end up with brains that are incapable of the level of communication that we call language. This has been seen in severely neglected children and in 'feral' children.

[indefatigable42.livejournal.com]

I should also add that the oversimplification is probably done for the sake of making 'nice' explanations. A lot of people are confused by issues of guilt and blame around this stuff.

People with depression are plagued by thoughts of inadequacy: if I'd been a 'stronger' person, would I not have become depressed, and would it be easier for me to get over it now and return to being a functional human being? Mothers of kids with behavioural disorders wonder: if I'd been a Better Mother, would my kid be normal?

On the flip side, people with depression are told to 'suck it up and get better' by people who can't understand the problem (or who don't want to spend tax dollars on something they think isn't a 'real' disability), and mothers have always been a convenient finger-pointing target when someone is trying to find an easy answer regarding the causes of society's ills.

The reality is closer to having to meet halfway. In any one situation with any one patient, there are lots of factors that contributed to the severity of the problem. People just don't like not having a simple answer.

[epi-lj.livejournal.com]

The overall article is fascinating, but I think the opening sentence officially blew my mind. I had no idea that we'd identified hormones essential to forming social bonds and achieving emotional intimacy. I will need to mull and integrate this.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

It's definitely well-known that environment can affect biology. Popular (read: lowest common denominator) science reporting likes to reduce it to nature vs. nurture, but that's oversimplification.

Oh, I agree totally. It's especially interesting to me from the point of view of the "science" of gender. So much of the stuff that gets reported about the science of gender has this built-in assumption that if there are perceptible differences in the brain, then those differences must exist prior to birth.