Nature Vs. Nurture In Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

In Mary Shelley’s timeless novel, Frankenstein, the protagonist, Dr. Victor Frankenstein, crafts a monster from old body parts. This story can be interpreted in many ways, but in this case, the question is particularly whether the monster was made to be a monster, or became a monster due to outside factors. Outside of literature, this can spark a question that in the worlds of science and psychology that is hotly debated: which has greater impact on personality, nature or nurture? There is an ongoing controversy as to whether genetics or environment have a greater impact on identity and personality; this is more commonly known as the “nature versus nurture” debate. There are those referred to as nativists, who believe that genes have a greater

Although studies have shown that in the case of twins separated at birth and reunited as adults, twins tended to have the same posture and stand the same way as their twin (Lewis), other studies have demonstrated that the upbringing of a person has a greater effect on their behavior than their instincts do. For example, having perfect pitch, the ability to sense the pitch of a musical tone with no reference, is a gene commonly shared by relatives, in other words, it is not a random skill to have. Albeit, if children have had musical training before the age of six, it is possible for them to acquire perfect pitch, therefore it is not a strictly genetic ability (Davies). This demonstrates that the way one is raised, for example with musical training, can produce certain skills that to some are genetic, in a person that does not possess these traits already in their genes. Clearly then, a skill that comes naturally to some can be taught to others which signifies a greater impact from the way that one is raised versus purely genetic

However, some argue that genetics and nature are more linked to intelligence than environment. One of these people is Arthur Jenson, an American psychologist who concluded that intelligence was mainly hereditary by finding a significant gap between the average I.Q. scores of colored and white people (McLeod). Although this experiment has dignity, it can not be proven that intelligence has nothing to do with the environment where these skills are brought forth. More specifically, if one person is more motivated to learn and is in an environment where learning is encouraged, they will be more intelligent than one who is not motivated or equipped to learn efficiently and become intelligent. In fact, in a study conducted by F. N. Freeman, K. J. Holzinger, and H. H. Newman of the University of Oxford in 1937, average I.Q. scores of identical twins raised together in the same environment had a .88 correlation coefficient, whereas identical twins raised in different environments had a .77 correlation coefficient (“Effects of Hereditary and Environment on individual Differences"). This is clear evidence that the environment that one is exposed to has a greater effect on intelligence than natural