For me this is a thorny topic to tackle in intro psych. There are those who suggest that nurture is very important. For example, Carol Dweck's work on fixed versus growth mind-sets when it comes to intelligence would come down on the nurture side--i.e., a growth mindset leads to growth! A fixed mindset leads to stagnation and other attendant behaviors and attitudes.
There are others, for example, those who talk about in-born temperament as a precursor to personality, and behavioral genetics as a driving force in development of many abilities and behaviors across the board, resulting in many bidirectional nature/nurture influences on behavior, who would come down on the nature side as having primary influence. So on the one hand I start teaching that it is good to believe that some things are mutable, such as intelligence; but on the other hand, I start teaching that some things are fairly set, such as personality, and that these in-born characteristics determine how others respond to us. This is hard for me to resolve, as a teacher. The students don't seem to notice. I wish there were some strong data to support one side or another for most of these things. I believe that the behavior geneticists have a very strong set of evidence, as Scott noted, that many human characteristics are largely determined by nature. But if that's the case, then where do the data come from that show that abilities such as intelligence are mutable? Or, might it be the case that it is the belief that abilities such as intelligence (or personality?) are mutable is what is important, and not the reality of whether or not it is? And if the belief itself is important in changing behavior, well, then, the behavior is mutable, isn't it? Frankly, I don't believe we can change our personality. Believe me, boy oh boy have I tried in various ways! Ah, I can so confuse myself at times. Maybe looking at myself as an N=1 is really the error and trying to build the knowledge base around that. But on the other hand, doesn't the research on concept formation suggest that building knowledge by integrating it with our 'selves' is important (c.f., self-reference effects)? Annette Annette Kujawski Taylor, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology University of San Diego 5998 Alcala Park San Diego, CA 92110 619-260-4006 [email protected] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
