Nature vs nurture

Do people differ psychologically from each other more because of their biology or because of their environment? I used to not think about this much, and when I did I would definitely favor the environment. I've always had a utopian side which wants to believe in the underlying good and limitless malleability of people. But I've also had a curiosity for the truth, and science (and real life) have a way of shaking even the most cherished beliefs of anyone with an open mind.

Part of it is that I can't resist a good, high stakes debate. Think about the huge implications-- if the environment is responsible for most of our differences, then there are concrete changes that we can make to start making things a lot more fair and equal in our educational system and the economy. If genes are responsible for most of our differences, then we're living under the veil of a huge cultural myth and our understanding of ourselves as a species is greatly hampered. Either way, brash teenager that I was, I set out a few years ago to solve the puzzle of nature vs nurture.

A huge amount of research has been done on the genes vs environment question, and it can be overwhelming at first. But, as with all things, you eventually start getting a hold of it. The surprising finding from the research is that genes are more important than we'd expect, and that the environment doesn't work in the way we'd expect it to.

The best controlled studies-- those of twins or adopted kids-- find that which (first world) family you're raised in has little or no effect on your later personality or intellect as an adult. To give a concrete example, there tends to be little or no correlation between an adult adoptee and his parents for IQ, personality traits, or psychopathology. This flies in the face of research by developmental psychologists who have been reporting correlations between kids and their parents for years, but never controlling for heredity.

The twin and adoption studies have various problems, though, which might be biasing them significantly against the family environment. I've dabbled quite a bit in that debate, and even wrote an article arguing for the importance of which family you're raised in for your eventual IQ. Debates over social science statistics are incredibly difficult, so my policy is to remain skeptical but open to differing viewpoints and theories.

While the significance and nature of environmental influences remains unclear, no one thinks that genes don't play a significant role in psychological differences. So, this decade will be a very interesting one, as big studies using new genome-scanning technology discover the genes underlying everything from Crohn's disease to neuroticism.

Religion

Right now at the Large Hadron Collider there are a group of scientists using one of the greatest, most magnificent machines in existence to study the smallest theorized constituents of the universe. If you think more abstractly about it, the scientists are themselves made of these small particles. So, after billions of years of evolution, the universe is studying itself.

When I think about things like this, or the fact that I even exist and have consciousness, I am led to believe that there is some supernatural force (God) which is trying to assert itself, by guiding the progress of the universe, towards truth or the Good or something else. This is not only an intellectual view; I feel it deep down in the same way that any fervent religious believer does. Sometimes I'll be going about my day and get this "feeling" about the universe, about God.*

This idea has been around for a while-- it's called Logos:

Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, wrote in the first century CE. Philo offered a syncretic theology that attempted to blend Hebrew tradition and Greek philosophy, faith and reason. Such reconciliation required eschewing a literal reading of scripture and embracing an allegorical one, which Philo did happily. In Philo's theology, the Logos—reason, order, or the Word—is conceived in the mind of God and then uttered into the physical universe. The unfolding of the Logos introduces, among other things, a directionality into history.

Beyond the "feeling" I have for it, it's possible to create many strong arguments in favor of a supernatural force. First, there's the fact that for no apparent reason, a universe exists with laws which are fine-tuned for the evolution of life into higher forms of consciousness. Second, a completely natural metaphysic is unable to explain consciousness. Conscious experience is itself supernatural because it cannot cause things to happen, as things in nature are supposed to be able to; some philosophers wish away this problem by pretending that brain function and consciousness are identical. Obviously, there are also arguments against the supernatural-- e.g. if the supernatural force favors our spiritual/moral evolution, why does it allow all this interfering stuff like evil get in the way? I haven't spent enough time reading about ethics, religion, and free will to competently address these arguments, but they don't seem unanswerable to me.

But what do I think of existing religions, like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam? I think the first thing that needs to be acknowledged is that the core texts of all the religions in the world are made-up stories. Moses didn't split the Red Sea, Jesus didn't walk on water, etc. If you spend some time reading up on historiography, history, and social psychology, you'll see that there are relatively straightforward historical explanations for how these religions came into existence and came to make the claims that they do. Physics, as set forth at the Big Bang, is simply not violated.

On the suggestion of my friend, I took the Beliefnet Beliefomatic quiz. I highly suggest taking it. My top result was "Unitarian Universalism." Reading up on this religion, I find that it holds pretty much the same views as I do. Like me, it is hesitant to lay out the specifics of God. On this basis, people criticize it for "having nothing to say." Compare this with the various major religions which are insistent that there are really two Gods, or that God is one and has three parts, or that God wants you to stop eating pork.

However, I am not a Unitarian Universalist. I am Jewish; I follow the commandments to a reasonable extent, such as keeping kosher. Now, why would I identify as Jewish if I don't completely agree with its theological beliefs? Really, it comes down to Judaism having a richer tradition, and that I identify with the group maintaining that tradition. Maintaining its ethnocentric and esoteric traditions is part of that. Obviously, there's a down side to excessive group identification, so I try to keep a balance.

As I said, I have much more to read about ethics, religion, and free will. Maybe as I learn and think more, I'll move beyond the broad concept of Logos. In the mean time, I'm in awe of the wonderful universe that we're living in.

====

*I definitely think there's something to the idea of religious feeling being genetic. I have the "God gene(s)", and I'm friends with many people whom never have spiritual feelings. I think the genetic element is mainly limited to the emotional side, though.. There are a good amount of people who have religious feelings but don't believe in the supernatural, and people who believe in God w/o the associated feelings.