The phrase “nature/nurture debate” refers to an old competition between those who think that human behavior and psychology is determined by biology (that is, genetics, both evolutionary and individual, hormones, neurology, etc) and those who believe that it is determined by environment (that is, socialization, cultural context, experiences in childhood, etc). While the nature/nurture debate rages in the mass media, most scholars reject it altogether. Instead, social scientists and biologists alike recognize that our behavior and psychology is the result of an interaction between nature and nurture (yep, even sociologists like myself).
A recent story on NPR illustrates this beautifully. James Fallon, a neuroscientist specializing in sociopaths, had been scanning the brains of murderers for 20 years. His research had demonstrated that sociopath brains have a distinct appearance: dark patches in the orbital cortex, the part of the brain responsible for moral thinking and controlling impulses.
You can see the dark patches in the brain on the right, the brain on the left is a “normal” brain:
At a family gathering one day, Fallon’s mom mentions that there were some pretty violent types in Fallon’s own family history (it apparently didn’t come up anytime in the previous 20 years !!!) and, so, he investigates. It turns out that there were eight proven and alleged murders in his ancestral line, including Lizzy Borden, one of the most famous murderers in history. Because Fallon knows that the atypical neurology associated with sociopaths runs in families, he decided to scan the brains of all his family members. No one had the dark patches.
Except him. Fallon had the dark patches. In fact, that brain on the right: that’s him.
Not only did he have the neurology of a typical sociopath, he also carried a genetic determinant known to be associated with extreme violence.
Fallon doesn’t have the answer to why he’s not a sociopath, but scientists think that a person needs to have some sort of experiential trigger, like abuse as a child, in addition to a biological predisposition.
Significantly, [Fallon] says this journey through his brain has changed the way he thinks about nature and nurture. He once believed that genes and brain function could determine everything about us. But now he thinks his childhood [and his awesome mom] may have made all the difference.
For related examples, see our posts on the response of testosterone levels to political victories and the historical shift in the average age of menstruation.
Lisa Wade, PhD is an Associate Professor at Tulane University. She is the author of American Hookup, a book about college sexual culture; a textbook about gender; and a forthcoming introductory text: Terrible Magnificent Sociology. You can follow her on Twitter and Instagram.
Comments 30
Lilac — August 3, 2010
That's just really cool. I like hearing that all types of things matter because it makes it harder for people to point at one item and blame blame blame.
Faith — August 3, 2010
Scientific integrity FTW.
Andie — August 3, 2010
YES! Excellent post!
Maria — August 3, 2010
(Joking, kind of)
Hmm, this story seems too nicely-wrapped-up to be true. He's been studying sociopaths for 20 years, I'm sure his family knew about this, that's about the only interesting dinner-party tidbit about his neuroscience career. So I'm really suspicious that his Mom hadn't mentioned the murderers in his family before.
Also, does anyone watch Dexter?? Maybe this guy *is* a sociopath and regularly murders people while keeping up the pretense of being a mild mannered scientist.
Josef Fruehwald — August 3, 2010
I think this case importantly stresses the interaction between biological determinants and environmental factors. However, I would't want to take this single case as any kind of evidence in one direction or another. It's certainly not evidence against the claim that certain brain structures and genetic characteristics tend to be correlated with violent behavior. For instance, we all know that smoking is highly correlated with all sorts of health problems, but everyone also has that one aunt who smoked every day and lived to be 92. James Fallon could be that aunt for this case.
Really, we don't know how strongly correlated these brain structures are with behavior. Apparently all psychopathic killers have these particular brain structures, but we don't know how many people have these brain structures and are very nice people like James Fallon. So we can't really evaluate how surprising or unsurprising his peaceful existence is.
Rhonda — August 3, 2010
Cool. As. Hell. It's such a difficult thing to teach students about this because they are SO steeped in that socio-biological viewpoint. Think I'll use this example to discuss the intersection of nature & nurture. Maybe it'll get through to some of them. Thanks for the post!
Ed Heath — August 3, 2010
MOM!!! LOOK OUT!!! THAT GUY'S A MURDERER!!!!!
Norm — August 3, 2010
Were the dark patches present from birth or embryonic development in sociopathic individuals?
I don't strictly see the content being presented here as transcending the nature/nurture issue, as it seems to retain both explanatory stories as distinct and opposing rather than transcending them and so annihilating them and this opposition as they are overcome. The separation is maintained in that adult brain states are being treated as 'nature' and so entirely genetically caused, and situational/experiential environmental triggers are activating one consequnce of this genetically-caused physical condition.
An alternative would be to assert the possibility that adult brain states are the integrated consequence of continual, lifelong interaction between genetic and environmental factors. Perhaps the 'sociopath brain' is not activated by factors such as childhood abuse, but *produced* in part by these factors as well as genetic predispositions.
I.e perhaps it is not that the brain constitutes a genetic predisposition toward sociopathic behaviour which is triggered by certain environments, but that producing such a brain is, in some, a genetically predisposed response to certain environments.
Y — August 4, 2010
Of course, Lizzie Borden was never convicted of any murder, and she couldn't be anyone's ancestor because she never had a child. If he's just saying he's related to Lizzie Borden, fine; but so is much of old New England.
Mädchenmannschaft » Blog Archive » Homo-Ehe, Alleinerziehende, Weltärztinnenkongress, LGBT im TV, Merkel, Transsexualität und Al-Jazeera — August 5, 2010
[...] Images kommentiert die jahrzehntelange nature/nurture Debatte und plädiert mit einem interessanten Beispiel über Gehirne und Gewalttäter_innen für [...]
Der Ekelbaron — August 5, 2010
Nice little story... Somehow it sounds like a fable with its proper moral at the end.
But what can it tell us about the N/N-debate?
Probably nothing at all. Nobody but a pure fundamentalist would nowadays argue, that a human being`s character is fully determinated either by nature or by society. This whole debate just doesn´t see the point in the division of labour between natural sciences and humanities. A biologist doesn´t have to care much about what sociologists write and vice versa. Why should it be different? How could it? Nothing against interdisciplinarity, but a "solution" to the n/n-debate would only be sensible within some kind of unified science.
And apart from that: Measuring brains to find out about a persons character is just the same as the nazis did with phrenology. The only difference is that the one looked at the face while the other is looking at the brain. The rest remains dangerous nonsense.
As a sociologist I don´t want to work with such pseudo-scientists, allthough I think that the effect of hormones is not having the importance in gender/queer/whatever studies it should have.
Der Ekelbaron — August 5, 2010
My two arguments seem to be conflicting somehow... To make that clear: I support interdisciplinarity, especially in gender studies. But even the most interdisciplinary study may be completely dull.
I dont like that metaphor about a mysterious "interaction" between nature and nurture. Why cant we just say: There are facts in the natural sciences and there are facts in the humanities and by now we have no idea how to formulate them within a common theory.
Marc — August 6, 2010
@Der: I recommend reading chapter seven of Jeremy Adam Smith's 2009 book "The Daddy Shift"--drawing heavily on interviews with both social scientists and neuroscientists, he does a very good, very well-researched job of exploring exactly how nature and nurture interact in shaping parenting behaviors--and the endnotes point the reader toward the original studies.
K — August 7, 2010
I remember watching his TED talk about this same topic. If anyone would like to see that as well: http://www.ted.com/talks/jim_fallon_exploring_the_mind_of_a_killer.html
The Human in us all - Muslimas Oasis — August 9, 2010
[...] there’s the recent post Sociological Images did on a study by Neuroscientist James Fallon. Fallon specializes in Sociopaths and has been studying them for 20 years. His research had [...]
RyanFaulk — August 12, 2010
"The phrase “nature/nurture debate” refers to an old competition between those who think that human behavior and psychology is determined by biology (that is, genetics, both evolutionary and individual, hormones, neurology, etc) and those who believe that it is determined by environment (that is, socialization, cultural context, experiences in childhood, etc)."
- Why do people keep saying this? Do they really believe there is this great mass of simpletons who believe in nothing but genetic causation or nothing but environmental causation?
Waiting Room Reading 8/12 « Welcome to the Doctor's Office — August 12, 2010
[...] TRANSCENDING THE NATURE/NURTURE DEBATE [...]
Nurture debate | Supermom1 — May 23, 2012
[...] Transcending the Nature/Nurture Debate » Sociological ImagesJan 2, 2012 … Scientists have long pointed to identical twins to show that genes reign supreme in the battle of nature versus nurture. But a growing body of … [...]
kali — September 25, 2013
There are many sociopaths who were never abused.