Home Categories About
argument top image
Are we products of nature or nurture? Are we products of nature or nurture?
Nature is more important than nurture Nature is more important than nurture
Nurture is more important than nature Nurture is more important than nature
Nature and nurture are inseparable Nature and nurture are inseparable
We are products of neither. We are products of neither.
Nature is more important than nurture because the way we learn is innate Nature is more important than nurture because the way we learn is innate
Nature is more important than nurture because genes determine who we are Nature is more important than nurture because genes determine who we are
Nurture is more important than nature because our traits are learned Nurture is more important than nature because our traits are learned
The diverse environments in which we develop creates us The diverse environments in which we develop creates us
We are products of nature via nurture We are products of nature via nurture
Nature cannot exist without nurture, and vice versa Nature cannot exist without nurture, and vice versa
Nature versus nurture doesn't matter because we shape our own destiny Nature versus nurture doesn't matter because we shape our own destiny
Debate Mini Map

Are we products of nature or nurture?
Back to question

Nature is more important than nurture

(1 of 4) Next position >

Nature is more important than nurture because the way we learn is innate

Noam Chomsky determined that linguistic ability is predetermined by the genetic "initial state" of the Language Acquisition Device. This shows that nature influences our traits and behaviors more than nurture does.
John McWhorter
(1 of 2) Next argument >

Context

People are a summation of their habits, temperaments, and experiences. However, where do these things that define us come from? Psychology has long been debating whether they stem from our genes or our environment. Settling the debate will expand our currently limited understanding of human development.

The Argument

The Language Acquisition Device (LAD) is how babies learn to speak. No matter how language develops with experience, there is a genetic predisposition for language acquisition. "A careful look at the interpretation of expressions reveals very quickly that from the earliest stages, the child knows vastly more than experience has provided".[1] Language and how it develops is all determined by the child's initial language state. Genetics predetermines the LAD and it grows much like the body's organs do. It is something that the child develops because of something which happens to them rather than something that they themselves experience. For example, a baby can learn both spoken and signed language by the time they are 8-10 months old.[2] Before an infant can truly comprehend the correlation between hunger and its satiation via food, one can teach the child the sign for "drink" when they want a bottle. Genetics, and therefore Nature, determine something as fundamental as how a child learns language, proving that Nature is more important than Nurture.

Counter arguments

If the LAD was determined by genetics, children in multi-lingual households would tend to favor one language over the other, based upon their genetic makeup. If a child's genetic makeup was predominantly Japanese, for example, but the child grew up in a household which spoke Japanese and English equally, the child would learn Japanese more easily because the child's "initial state" of language would be Japanese. However, in a study conducted comparing monolingual and bilingual children, a preferential listening task demonstrated that the bilingual children did not show preference to one language over another when exposed to both languages in utero .[3]

Proponents

Premises

[P1] Language acquisition is predetermined by the initial language state. [P2] The initial language state is determined by genetics. [P3] Genetics, and therefore Nature, are fundamental to human development and identity as a whole.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Language acquisition does not rely on the initial language state, but rather exposure.

References

  1. https://www.amazon.com/Essential-Chomsky-Noam-ebook/dp/B005MYIPDS/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=the+essential+chomsky&qid=1581057933&sr=8-1
  2. https://www.parentingscience.com/baby-sign-language.html
  3. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/annual-review-of-applied-linguistics/article/current-issues-in-multilingual-first-language-acquisition/09730EC40C5250CEB4768347B81E259C

In the Wild

This page was last edited on Monday, 5 Oct 2020 at 14:40 UTC

Explore related arguments