This blog post examines from various perspectives whether Kim Yuna’s success stems from innate talent or is the result of acquired skill through practice.
Kim Yuna emerged from South Korea, a country previously considered a figure skating wasteland, to set world records, surpassing traditional powerhouses like the United States and Canada. Is this ability truly innate, or is it acquired through practice? Questions about whether human talent is something possessed from birth or acquired through one’s environment, and further, whether personality, physical appearance, and intelligence quotient are innate or learned, have persisted since ancient times. Yet, the answers to these questions remain unclear, with opposing viewpoints sharply divided. However, the debate over what influences humans should not be viewed as a binary choice between nurture and nature. Rather, it should be accepted that both factors exert influence, differing only in degree.
Genetic determinism, which asserts that everything about humans is innate—that is, nature—holds the following view: The fundamental basis of an organism is its genes, and the sum of these genes constitutes the organism’s behavior. Furthermore, human social behavior also arises due to genes. The famous scientific book ‘The Selfish Gene’ similarly argues that human behavior is determined by genes. Looking at ancient theories on this, we find the Eastern doctrines of the theory of innate goodness (性善說) and the theory of innate evil (性惡說), and the Western doctrines of Stoicism and original sin. The theory of innate goodness advocated by Mencius is the perspective that the nature (性) or original nature (本性) humans possess from birth is good (善). Simply put, the core claim of the theory of innate goodness is that people are born good. The Western Stoic philosophy similarly asserts that human nature is inherently good. In contrast, Xunzi’s theory of innate evil posits that people are born with an inherently evil disposition. The Western doctrine of original sin also claims that humans are inherently evil and born sinful. So, what evidence supports these claims? First, one basis is that the phenotype, which represents human characteristics, is determined by genes. For instance, a child’s blood type is determined by the specific genes inherited from their parents. Similarly, in the case of polydactyly, where six fingers grow on one hand, if the gene causing polydactyly exists within a person’s chromosomes, it invariably manifests. By this principle, the presence of disabilities or diseases in a fetus can be detected before birth. Beyond such clearly visible phenotypes, there is also evidence that human intellectual ability, personality, and preferences are influenced by genes and are predetermined at birth. According to Richard Hunstein and Charles Murray’s ‘The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life’, human intellectual ability is largely innate, and this can predict a person’s social status. Notably, there are racial differences; among American adults, significant differences in intellectual ability are observed between whites and African Americans. Furthermore, the observation that twins raised in different environments often lead similar lives provides another piece of evidence. Even twins who lived unaware of their twinhood shared similar hobbies and preferences. Research by psychometricians on the human brain indicates that psychological and rational aspects are deeply linked to heredity. Approximately 80 percent of psychological and rational aspects are determined by genetic factors. These arguments support genetic determinism, the view that humans are governed by innate nature present at birth.
The opposing argument is environmental determinism, which holds that humans are born blank slates and develop through nurture, emphasizing that biological and human structure and behavior are greatly influenced by the environment. Arguments related to this have also existed since ancient times. Gongja’s theory of the neutrality of human nature (性無善惡設) asserts that humans are neither inherently good nor evil; their character can become good or evil depending on their education. Locke in the West also likened the human mind to a blank slate, viewing it as neither good nor evil. Arguments supporting environmental determinism are easily observable in everyday life. People are strongly influenced by social preconceptions. In one experiment, female students were divided into groups. One group was shown an essay claiming that, due to genetic reasons, female students are worse at math than male students. Another group was shown an essay stating there is absolutely no difference in math ability between female and male students. Afterwards, they were given difficult math problems to solve. The results showed that the group that read the essay about girls being genetically inferior in math performed worse on the math problems than the group that read the essay about no gender difference in math ability. The former group developed the belief that they were bad at math, leading them to exert less effort in solving the problems. In this way, people are influenced by their surroundings, internalize these influences as their own talent or self, and live their lives accordingly. If you confine a cricket in a glass jar for a long time, training it to jump only as high as the jar’s rim, it will still only jump up to that height even if you remove the lid. This phenomenon is particularly common in criminal behavior. A woman kidnapped in childhood who repeatedly attempts escape only to be recaptured each time may, upon reaching adulthood when escape is entirely feasible, simply resign herself and cease further attempts. Another piece of evidence is as follows. The similarity between twins, previously cited as evidence that much is determined by nature at birth, can also be interpreted from the perspective of nurture. Twins lived together in the same womb for nine months, and the womb is an environmental factor, not a genetic one. Furthermore, cases of children raised by animals are frequently reported, and these children are known to mimic the behaviors and sounds of their animal caregivers. For instance, a Russian girl raised by dogs was reportedly found crawling naked, gnawing on bones with the dogs. Such examples of people adapting and developing according to their environment strengthen the case for environmental determinism.
However, this genetic determinism versus environmental determinism debate cannot be reduced to a black-and-white argument. Just as a healthy person isn’t germ-free and only sick people are infected with bacteria—the severity of illness varies depending on the bacterial load—neither genetic determinism nor environmental determinism can be rigidly applied to say humans follow only genes or only environment. Both coexist in appropriate proportions. To some extent, genetics determine how humans live, but the remainder can be shaped by the environment. If one believes genetic determinism alone defines humanity, it’s easy to fall into skepticism. If everything is predetermined by sperm and egg before birth, who would strive or live to their fullest potential? Adhering to this theory leads to viewing everything in the world as predetermined. Intelligence is also predetermined, meaning test rankings would always remain the same, and the universities one could attend based on those scores would also be fixed. Consequently, one’s position in society would likewise be predetermined. If people know that hard work brings no reward, no one will strive diligently. In communism, everyone works together, and the profits are divided equally regardless of contribution. Consequently, those who experience this stop working hard, leading to a decline in overall productivity and ultimately creating a vicious cycle. Just as many nations recognize the problem of communism, where effort is unrewarded, and are changing their systems, genetic determinism, which also lacks reward for effort, can be seen as a problem. Conversely, if we view environmental determinism as the sole factor defining humans, unexplained aspects emerge. The most compelling evidence lies in genes. As mentioned earlier, numerous human traits are determined by genes. Eye color, the presence of double eyelids, and even the shape of earlobes have been shown to be genetically determined. Furthermore, the Human Genome Project has mapped the entire sequence of bases—the building blocks of genes—within the human genome. This sequence determines biological characteristics. Analyzing it allows for the prediction of genetic diseases and other abnormalities. These traits are not influenced by the environment but are present from the moment of fertilization. Moreover, it is difficult to explain truly innate geniuses as being solely shaped by their environment. If achieving outstanding accomplishments in a specific field at a young age—to the point of being called a child prodigy—or possessing an exceptionally high IQ that allows solving difficult math problems in kindergarten were possible solely through environment, then all parents would strive to provide such an environment for their children. If that were the case, humanity would be leveled up, and there would be no geniuses in this world. Thus, genetic determinism and environmental determinism are not mutually exclusive; rather, they must be skillfully blended. According to Richard Lewontin, when making pottery, if one person kneads the clay and another shapes the pot, the degree of contribution to the finished pot cannot be measured numerically. Similarly, while the exact numerical values are unknown, both genetic determinism and environmental determinism can be seen as contributing a certain amount to human life.
Since ancient times, the debate has raged: are humans born with everything predetermined, or is the future shaped by environment? Both sides present compelling arguments, backed by scientific evidence. However, both positions hold merit, and the claim that both nature and nurture influence traits like human intelligence and personality has gained significant support. The ancient Greek teacher Isocrates argued that those born with talent learn what they wish to learn with ease, while those lacking innate talent find it difficult to achieve excellence even with training. He thus asserted both the potential and the limits of education. However, it remains entirely unknown which theory influences which specific aspect of human characteristics, or to what extent each influences all traits. Just as it took considerable time to uncover human genetics and genes, revealing this will also require a long time. Until then, the debate over nature versus nurture will likely persist. Nevertheless, I maintain that both nature and nurture influence human beings.
