It's So Traumatizing, I Don't Even Remember It!

Hey all!  Hopefully everyone is enjoying this week and what not.  I know lots of semester schools students are on vacation, so congrats to y'all!  If you're stuck in the quarter system (like me), hopefully you've made it through midterms!

Anyways, the other day I was thinking about the whole nature vs. nurture argument prevalent between psychology and biology.  Of course, the simple answer is that both nature (to simplify, think genetics for humans) and nurture (think societal influences and anything not genetic) both play a role in how one develops.  Yet, the real question lies in how much of a role each factor plays its part.  To summarize and simplify huge bodies of literature and twin studies and what not, societal factors are rated at 52% and genetic factors are rated at 48% (according to my teacher of LS 15, Dr. Phelan, and my teacher of PSYCH 115, Dr. Jentsch).  Studies disagree here and there, but the main idea is that there is about a 50% influence from each factor.  Thus, teachers argue that no matter what genes you may receive, you can still fight against it.

Of course, this is not true for things that rely only on genetic information, such as Huntington's Disease.  No matter what you do, Huntington's Disease will be present as long as you have the genetic requirements.  In that case, the situation is entirely dependent upon your genetics and not your environment.  It's a question of what other things are inheritable or not, but practically anything that isn't for sure genetically determined raises the idea of a balance between nature and nurture (somewhat circular, I know, but hopefully you understand what I'm trying to say).  

Well, the question I raise for tonight is what if initially the balance between the environment is 50/50, but events out of your control lead to the odds being against your favor (my goodness, an indirect Hunger Games reference.  Blarghhh...)?  To better explain this, it's best to look at an example...

Back in Developmental Psychology, we learned of a study in which experimenters (Tottenham, Hare, Quinn et al, 2010) looked at records of when children were adopted out of orphanages.  The researchers were examining reported anxiety and amygdala volume, which is essentially a part of the brain that reacts to intense emotions like fear.  The researchers found a positive correlation between the later the children were adopted out of the orphanage and anxiety and amygdala volume.  This may not come as a surprise to you, but the real kicker is that all these children were adopted when they were infants.  In other words, all these children have no recollection of the orphanage itself or the poor conditions present.  Yet, the effects of such an environment were present even to the day of measurement.

Of course, before anyone points out that correlation does not equal causation (which it doesn't!), this was a quasi-experiment, where a control/comparison group was used to help clarify the effects (for more info on quasi-experiments, go read wiki or something...).  In other words, they're a little bit more sure than just a pure correlation study of their results.

Anyways!  With methodological concerns out of the way, what's really the significance?  When we think of the balance between nature and nurture, like I mentioned, it's usually qualified as a 50/50 balance.  Yet, if there are effects out of your control (such as being raised in an orphanage before you can even remember, let alone take care of yourself), how does that affect the balance?  Technically, being raised in an orphanage is not something genetic; how much it affects you may have some genetic component, but the effects themselves are part of the nurturing aspect.  The big question that arises is if you're somehow genetically inclined to be very fearful (or nature has its 50% effect), and your environment affects you in someway before you can even remember or properly comprehend, does this mean that there is nothing you can do but be fearful, since the scales are weighted against you?

Honestly, I'm not really sure what to think.  Even if the odds are against you somehow, and you have a nature that is quite fearful and your environment leads to fearfulness as well, I would like to believe that you can still fight back somehow in the present and thus balance out the effects.  In other words, some aspect of your nurturing still allows you to fight back and thus possibly control anxiety/fear.  Perhaps it may not be fully controllable, but it's manageable somehow.  Also, it is hard to believe that one would have genetics that are completely inclined to being fearful, meaning that one's genetics may have a buffering component against being fearful as well.  But, in the absolute worst case scenario, it would be horrible to imagine that one is prone to be fearful both genetically and environmentally with no real hope of fighting back or control.  It would be a factor that one could not do anything about, and that in itself might lead to hopelessness...  Anyways, I think that's enough for now, and perhaps gives you something to think about.  Hopefully my posts are starting to get shorter so that people actually make it to this final sentence without skipping ahead, eh?  Oh well, until next time!