In this blog post, we’ll examine from various perspectives whether Yuna Kim’s success is due to innate talent or the result of hard work.
Yuna Kim emerged from South Korea—a country once considered a figure skating wasteland—to set a world record, surpassing traditional figure skating powerhouses like the United States and Canada. Is Kim Yuna’s ability truly innate, or is it the result of practice? Questions such as whether a person’s talent is something they are born with or something acquired through their environment over the course of their life—and, furthermore, whether a person’s personality, physical appearance, and IQ are also innate or learned—have been raised continuously throughout history. Nevertheless, the answers to these questions remain unclear, and opposing viewpoints are sharply divided. However, I believe that the debate over what influences human beings should not be viewed as a binary choice between nature and nurture, but rather accepted as a situation where both factors exert influence, albeit to varying degrees.
Genetic determinism, which argues that everything about humans is innate—that is, nature—is as follows: It views genes as the foundation of an organism, and the combination of these genes shapes the organism’s behavior. Furthermore, human social behavior is also attributed to genes. The famous scientific book *The Selfish Gene* also argues that human behavior is determined by genes. Looking at ancient theories on this subject, we find the Eastern theories of “innate goodness” (性善說) and “innate evil” (性惡說), as well as the Western Stoic school and the doctrine of original sin. The theory of innate goodness, as advocated by Mencius, is the view that a person’s “nature” (性) or “innate character” (本性), which one possesses from birth, is good. Simply put, the core claim of the theory of innate goodness is that people are born good. The Stoics in the West also argued that human nature is good. In contrast, Xunzi’s theory of innate evil holds that people are born with an inherently evil disposition. The Western doctrine of original sin similarly asserted that humans are inherently evil and are born with sin. Let’s examine the evidence supporting these claims. First, the fact that the phenotype—which represents human traits—is determined by genes serves as one piece of evidence. In the case of blood type, a child’s blood type is determined by the types of genes inherited from their parents; similarly, in the case of polydactyly—where a person is born with six fingers on one hand—the condition occurs without fail if the gene causing polydactyly is present within a person’s chromosomes. Based on this principle, it is possible to determine in advance whether a fetus in the womb has any disabilities or diseases before birth. In addition to such clearly visible phenotypes, there is also evidence suggesting that human intellectual ability, personality, and preferences are influenced by genes and are determined at birth. According to Richard Hornstein and Charles Murray’s *The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Social Class in American Life*, human intellectual ability is largely innate, and a person’s social status can therefore be predicted. In particular, there are differences based on race; among American adults, there is considered to be a significant difference in intellectual ability between whites and African Americans. Furthermore, the fact that twins raised in different environments tend to lead similar lives also serves as evidence. Even though these twins lived their lives unaware that they were twins, they shared the same hobbies and had similar preferences. Research on the human brain conducted by psychometricians shows that psychological and rational aspects are deeply linked to heredity.
Approximately 80 percent of psychological and rational traits are determined by genetic factors. This evidence supports genetic determinism, which holds that humans are shaped by the nature they are born with.
The opposing view is environmental determinism, which asserts that humans are born as a blank slate and develop through upbringing, meaning that biological and human structure and behavior are greatly influenced by the environment. Arguments related to this have also existed since ancient times. Xu Zi’s theory of “innate neutrality” (性無善惡設) asserts that humans are neither inherently good nor evil, and that their character can become good or evil depending on their upbringing. Locke, in the West, also likened the human mind to a blank slate, viewing it as neither good nor evil. Arguments supporting environmental determinism can be easily observed in everyday life. People are strongly influenced by social prejudices. In one experiment, female students were divided into two groups: one group was shown an essay stating that, for genetic reasons, girls perform worse in math than boys, while the other group was shown an essay stating that there is no difference in math ability between girls and boys. They were then asked to solve difficult math problems. The results showed that the group that read the essay claiming girls are genetically less capable at math scored lower than the group that read the essay stating there is no gender difference in math ability. In the former case, the students came to believe they were not good at math and consequently put less effort into solving the problems. In this way, people are influenced by their surroundings, interpret these influences as their own talents or sense of self, and adapt their lives accordingly. If you keep a cricket in a glass jar for a long time and allow it to adapt to jumping only as high as the jar’s rim, even if you leave the lid open, it will still only jump up to the height it has become accustomed to. This phenomenon is particularly common in criminal behavior. A woman who was kidnapped as a child and repeatedly attempted to escape, only to be recaptured each time, will—even when she grows up and is fully capable of escaping—simply resign herself to her fate and make no further attempts to escape. Another piece of evidence is as follows. The similarity between twins—which was previously cited as evidence that many traits are determined by nature at birth—can also be interpreted in terms of nurture, given that twins spend nine months living in the same womb, and the womb is an environmental factor rather than a genetic one. Furthermore, there are frequent reports of children raised by animals, and these children are known to mimic the behavior and sounds of the animals that raised them. A Russian girl raised by dogs was reportedly found crawling around naked and gnawing on bones with the dogs. Such examples of people adapting and developing according to their environment provide further support for environmental determinism.
However, genetic determinism and environmental determinism cannot be viewed as a black-and-white debate. Just as it is not the case that healthy people are germ-free while only sick people are infected with bacteria—and the severity of illness varies depending on the level of bacterial exposure—we cannot categorically state that humans are determined solely by genes or solely by the environment; rather, the two coexist in an appropriate balance. In other words, while genes determine a certain degree of a person’s life, the rest is determined by the environment. If one views genetic determinism as the sole defining factor of humanity, it is easy to fall into skepticism. If everything is determined by sperm and eggs even before birth, who would make an effort or do their best to live life to the fullest? Following this theory leads one to believe that everything in the world is predetermined.
Since intelligence is also predetermined, test scores would always rank the same, and the universities one can attend would be predetermined based on those scores. Consequently, one’s social status would also be predetermined. If people know there will be no reward for working hard, no one will work hard. Under communism, everyone works together, and the profits are distributed equally regardless of individual contribution. Consequently, those who experience this system do not work hard, which leads to a decline in overall productivity and ultimately creates a vicious cycle. Just as many countries have recognized the problems of communism—where effort goes unrewarded—and are changing their systems, genetic determinism, which also offers no reward for effort, can be recognized as a problem in its own right. Conversely, if we view environmental determinism as the sole defining factor of human nature, certain aspects become inexplicable. The most compelling evidence lies in genes. As mentioned earlier, countless human traits are determined by genes. It has been established that eye color, the presence or absence of double eyelids, and even the shape of the earlobe are all determined by genes. Furthermore, the Human Genome Project has revealed the complete nucleotide sequence of the human genome—the arrangement of nucleotides, which are the building blocks of genes and determine biological characteristics—and analyzing this sequence allows for the early prediction of genetic diseases and other abnormalities. These traits are not influenced by the environment but are present from the moment of conception. Furthermore, it is difficult to explain that truly innate geniuses are the product of their surroundings. If achieving outstanding results 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 one to solve difficult math problems in kindergarten were possible solely through environmental factors, then all parents would strive to provide such an environment for their children. If that were the case, the entire human population would be leveled upward, and there would be no such thing as a genius in this world. Thus, rather than having to choose between genetic determinism and environmental determinism, we must strike a balance between the two. According to Richard Lewontin, if one person kneads the clay and another shapes the pottery, the extent to which each contributes to the finished piece cannot be measured numerically; similarly, while we cannot determine exact figures, both genetic determinism and environmental determinism can be seen as contributing to a certain degree to human life.
Since ancient times, there has been an ongoing debate over whether humans are born with everything predetermined or whether their future is shaped by their environment. Both sides present compelling arguments, backed by scientific evidence. However, it has been argued—and this view has gained significant support—that both nature and nurture influence human traits such as intelligence and personality, and that both perspectives have merit. Isocrates, an ancient Greek teacher, argued that those born with talent can easily learn what they wish to learn, whereas those lacking innate talent find it difficult to achieve excellence even with training. In doing so, he emphasized the potential of education while also acknowledging its limitations. However, it remains entirely unknown which theory influences which aspects of human characteristics, or to what extent each factor influences every trait. Just as it took a long time to uncover the mysteries of human genetics and genes, it will likely take a long time to clarify this issue as well. Until then, the debate over nature versus nurture is likely to continue indefinitely; nevertheless, I maintain that both nature and nurture influence human beings.
