I’m convinced that human fallibility tends toward dichotomous perspectives in regard to complex systems such as sentient life—the ability to experience feelings and sensations while maintaining awareness of one’s own existence. Perhaps you’re familiar with this tendency.
We tend to subscribe to notions of people being either good or bad, or consider whether nature versus nurture is more influential to who or what we are in life. For instance, consider the binary perspective of nature versus nurture, about which one source states:
Nature versus nurture is a long-standing debate in biology and society about the relative influence on human beings of their genetic inheritance (nature) and the environmental conditions of their development (nurture) […]
Nature is what people think of as pre-wiring and is influenced by genetic inheritance and other biological factors. Nurture is generally taken as the influence of external factors after conception e.g. the product of exposure, experience and learning on an individual.
It’s worth noting that the nature-nurture debate has yet to be satisfactorily resolved. There may be a logical and reasonable (collectively “rational”) explanation for this. I argue that it’s a matter of arrogance to declare that all there is to know about human complexity is already understood.
Moreover, I maintain that there may be an additional component to the nature-nurture dichotomy. When working with clients, I invite people to consider that unknown factors regarding psychological and physiological existence qualify for a third “other” category.
As nature relates to genetic inheritance (e.g., eye color) and nurture concerns environmental factors (e.g., behavior shaping), other elements such as parasitic disease (e.g., toxoplasmosis), metaphysics (e.g., space and time), or spirituality (e.g., esotericism) may play a role.
One obvious rejection of the unfalsifiable “other” category regards a materialist perspective. In essence, if something cannot be observed, measured, or analyzed using the scientific method, it simply doesn’t exist. This outlook is a matter of hubris—exaggerated pride or self-confidence.
To elucidate my point, consider the proposed existence of consciousness—the quality or state of being aware, especially of something within oneself. Sigmund Freud suggested that humans have unconscious, preconscious (subconscious), and conscious psychological states of being.
His psychoanalytic theory further postulated that we have an id, ego, and superego which influence emotions, sensations, and behavior. Although much of Freud’s work has been contested, there remain remnants of his theory in common use today.
For instance, the development of machine learning, artificial intelligence, artificial general intelligence, or other forms of synthetic compilations of human knowledge, wisdom, and understanding do not yet fully relate to Freud’s largely accepted concept of a conscious mind.
Even though a person cannot be dissected to a degree whereby consciousness is adequately observed, measured, or analyzed, it’s generally accepted that self-awareness exists. Ergo, humans are said to maintain sentience of which we cannot fully explain.
This raises an obvious question. Is one’s consciousness unique only to the individual? The late French sociologist Émile Durkheim proposed that we share a collective consciousness—set of shared beliefs, ideas, and moral attitudes which operate as a unifying force within society.
Similarly, the late Swiss psychiatrist Carl Jung postulated that there exists a collective unconscious—the unconscious mind and shared mental concepts which are populated by instincts, as well as by archetypes. Concepts of Durkheim or Jung aren’t subject to materialism.
Nevertheless, it isn’t as though these propositional concepts absolutely do not exist. Likewise, it may be argued that proposed collective consciousness and unconscious aren’t necessarily heritable. If granted on its premise, this consideration rules out the nature element.
As well, the nurture element may be ruled out, depending on the age that environmental conditions of development are indicated. Thus, there may remain a third category (other) which is worth consideration. According to one source:
Traditionally, “nature vs. nurture” has been framed as a debate between those who argue for the dominance of one source of influence or the other, but contemporary experts acknowledge that both “nature” and “nurture” play a role in psychological development and interact in complex ways.
Adding an “other” category to this complex system of interaction that influences a person’s life doesn’t seem too farfetched to me. To better understand my position, forgive me a personal anecdote. For context, I was in elementary school when the following photograph was taken.
My black dad and white mom produced the little human in that picture. Clearly, I inherited a skin tone more aligned with that of my mom than dad. Nevertheless, for those who’ve known my dad and me, I’m said to have a personality that is fundamentally a blueprint of his character.
I was raised in the care of my mom from birth until half of my fifth grade year, at which point I was then principally cared for by my dad and stepmom until half of my seventh grade year. Shortly after being returned to custody of my mom, I was placed in a children’s home.
From a nature perspective, I have shared traits of both my mom and dad. From a nurture outlook, I also developed patterns of behavior from each of my parents. Still, there are elements of my personality and ways of interfacing with the world which are unlike either of my parents.
From where do these elements originate and in which category do they fit: either nature or nurture? While some may argue that development is an ongoing process and that all environmental factors relate to the nurture category, I’m not convinced of this argument.
I suspect that rejection of a materialist perspective and consideration of an “other” category is a rational matter of contemplation – even if unfalsifiable. Besides, I’ve outright expressed rejection of a strictly “nurture” perspective in a blogpost entitled Tabula Rasa, in which I stated:
It is said that behaviorist John B. Watson “viewed humans as being born tabula rasa, a blank slate, devoid of innate mental content.” Supporting the notion that human beings are born with the capacity to become any sort of individual they choose or which is assigned, Watson stated:
Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select — doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors.
This simplistic view of humanity has been criticized, because, as one source states, the “belief downplays the effects of genetics and biology on the development of the human personality.” It may be hopeful to pretend as though we are all created equal—literally the same—though this simply is not the case.
We aren’t born as blank slates, as the behaviorists of old were incorrect in that assumption. Likewise, a stringently “nature” outlook denies influence of factors such as beliefs. Here, Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT) arguably addresses the “other” category.
REBT theory maintains that when an unexpected Action occurs and a person uses an irrational Belief about the situation, it’s one’s unhelpful attitude and not the undesirable circumstance that causes unpleasant cognitive, emotive, sensational, and behavioral effects as Consequences.
Rather than remaining self-disturbed, an individual is invited to try Disputation which may lead to an Effective new belief that’s used in place of an unproductive self-narrative. With the ABC model, a person learns to stop needless suffering which is caused by unhelpful assumptions.
Whether it relates to rational belief (rB) that results in a desirable consequence or irrational belief (iB) that causes an undesirable outcome, beliefs aren’t entirely related to the effects of nature or nurture. Continuing with a personal anecdote, I’ll briefly make my case.
When using rB as a child, I concluded that although I wasn’t particularly competent at test-taking I at least performed better than other children in regard to artistic accomplishments. As an example, my rB was, “I’m a good artist,” and this self-narrative resulted in joy.
Alternatively, when I used the iB, “Despite being a good artist, I worthless when it comes to math,” then this self-disturbing narrative resulted in sorrow. Neither my rB nor iB were directly related to nature or nurture, even if they were indirectly influenced by either.
The more I practice REBT in my personal and professional life, the more convinced I become that an “other” category exists whereby elements not entirely related to “nature” or “nature” influence what people think, believe, feel (emotions and sensations), and how they behave.
Of course, as the pool of human knowledge, wisdom, and understanding ripples with additional evidence in time, I’m willing to shift my position accordingly.
In any case, what do you think of the proposal regarding an “other” category? Herein, am I merely drowning in concepts of abstraction?
If you’re looking for a provider who tries to work to help understand how thinking impacts physical, mental, emotional, and behavioral elements of your life—helping you to sharpen your critical thinking skills, I invite you to reach out today by using the contact widget on my website.
As a psychotherapist, I’m pleased to try to help people with an assortment of issues ranging from anger (hostility, rage, and aggression) to relational issues, adjustment matters, trauma experience, justice involvement, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression, and other mood or personality-related matters.
At Hollings Therapy, LLC, serving all of Texas, I aim to treat clients with dignity and respect while offering a multi-lensed approach to the practice of psychotherapy and life coaching. My mission includes: Prioritizing the cognitive and emotive needs of clients, an overall reduction in client suffering, and supporting sustainable growth for the clients I serve. Rather than simply trying to help you to feel better, I want to try to help you get better!
Deric Hollings, LPC, LCSW
References:
Fritscher, L. (2022, November 26). Tabula rasa (blank slate) in psychology. Verywell Mind. Retrieved from https://www.verywellmind.com/blank-slate-definition-2671563
Hollings, D. (2024, November 15). Assumptions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/assumptions
Hollings, D. (2022, May 17). Circle of concern. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/circle-of-concern
Hollings, D. (2024, October 29). Cognitive continuum. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/cognitive-continuum
Hollings, D. (2024, March 19). Consequences. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/consequences
Hollings, D. (2024, October 27). Correlation does not imply causation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/correlation-does-not-imply-causation
Hollings, D. (2022, March 15). Disclaimer. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/disclaimer
Hollings, D. (2023, June 19). Existence. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/existence
Hollings, D. (2023, October 12). Get better. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/get-better
Hollings, D. (2023, September 13). Global evaluations. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/global-evaluations
Hollings, D. (n.d.). Hollings Therapy, LLC [Official website]. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/
Hollings, D. (2022, November 4). Human fallibility. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/human-fallibility
Hollings, D. (2023, May 18). Irrational beliefs. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/irrational-beliefs
Hollings, D. (2023, September 19). Life coaching. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/life-coaching
Hollings, D. (2023, September 8). Lived experience. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/lived-experience
Hollings, D. (2023, January 8). Logic and reason. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/logic-and-reason
Hollings, D. (2023, October 2). Morals and ethics. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/morals-and-ethics
Hollings, D. (2024, September 27). My attitude. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/my-attitude
Hollings, D. (2024, June 2). Nonadaptive behavior. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/nonadaptive-behavior
Hollings, D. (2024, April 22). On disputing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-disputing
Hollings, D. (2023, September 3). On feelings. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/on-feelings
Hollings, D. (2024, May 5). Psychotherapist. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/psychotherapist
Hollings, D. (2022, March 24). Rational emotive behavior therapy (REBT). Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rational-emotive-behavior-therapy-rebt
Hollings, D. (2024, March 14). REBT and emotions. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/rebt-and-emotions
Hollings, D. (2022, November 1). Self-disturbance. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/self-disturbance
Hollings, D. (2024, April 21). Sensation. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/sensation
Hollings, D. (2024, February 27). Suffering, struggling, and battling vs. experiencing. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/suffering-struggling-and-battling-vs-experiencing
Hollings, D. (2022, December 30). Tabula rasa. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/tabula-rasa
Hollings, D. (2022, November 2). The critical A. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-critical-a
Hollings, D. (2024, September 17). The E-C connection. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-e-c-connection
Hollings, D. (2023, August 6). The science. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/the-science
Hollings, D. (2022, November 14). Touching a false dichotomy. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/touching-a-false-dichotomy
Hollings, D. (2025, January 9). Traditional ABC model. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/traditional-abc-model
Hollings, D. (2023, October 22). Unfalsifiability. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/unfalsifiability
Hollings, D. (2022, August 8). Was Freud right? Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/was-freud-right
Hollings, D. (2024, April 10). Welcome to complex systems. Hollings Therapy, LLC. Retrieved from https://www.hollingstherapy.com/post/welcome-to-complex-systems
How to ABA. (2024, January 10). Shaping behavior in ABA: Unlocking potential through gradual progression. Retrieved from https://howtoaba.com/shaping-behavior/#:~:text=What%20is%20Behavior%20Shaping%20in,progress%20towards%20the%20desired%20outcome.
Mackey, D. A. (2021, August 23). What colour are your eyes? Teaching the genetics of eye colour & colour vision. Edridge Green Lecture RCOphth Annual Congress Glasgow May 2019. Nature. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41433-021-01749-x
Pennsylvania State University. (n.d.). Introductory psychology blog (S14)_C. Retrieved from https://sites.psu.edu/intropsychsp14n3/2014/02/04/behaviorism-give-me-anyone-and-i-can-make-them-into-anything/
Psychology Today. (n.d.). Nature vs. nurture. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/nature-vs-nurture
Schlinger, H. D. (2002). Not so fast, Mr. Pinker: A behaviorist looks at The Blank Slate. A review of Steven Pinker’s The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Behavior and Social Issues. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.5210/bsi.v12i1.81.pdf
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Carl Jung. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_jung
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Collective consciousness. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_consciousness
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Collective unconscious. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_unconscious
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Émile Durkheim. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Durkheim
Wikipedia. (n.d.). John B. Watson. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Watson
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Materialism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Metaphysics. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Nature versus nurture. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Philosophy of space and time. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Toxoplasmosis. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxoplasmosis
Wikipedia. (n.d.). Western esotericism. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_esotericism
댓글