Ep 196: Do Genetics Determine Teens’ Behavior?

Jesse Prinz, author of Beyond Human Nature, joins us to discuss
the role of both nature and nurture in teens’ development. He
explains why we shouldn’t attribute teens’ abilities to biology,
and shares the significance of both parental and peer influence
on teens.





Sponsored by Equip: Eating disorder treatment
that works—delivered at home. Visit equip.health/talking for more
information, and a free consultation.


Full show notes


For centuries, parents have been locked in a nature vs. nurture
debate, trying to uncover the forces behind our teens’
development. Some parents believe nature has majority control
over who teens become, and that things like personality, mental
health issues and risk of addiction are passed down through the
gene pool. Others think that these factors are mainly influenced
by socialization, parental behavior and cultural
influence–meaning the way we treat our kids shapes who they
become. 





When teens are exhibiting behavior we’re not exactly proud of, it
can be tempting to blame biological factors. We let ourselves off
the hook, claiming that there’s nothing we could have done to
stop their substance use or aggression anyway. But constantly
attributing kids’ behavior to nature can be inaccurate and even
harmful! It stops us from critically examining the way we've
influenced our teens, and even perpetuates certain sexist or
racist agendas by declaring “natural” differences as the
foundation for discrimination.





To understand the nuances of this ongoing nature vs. nurture
debate, we’re talking to Jesse Prinz, author of Beyond Human
Nature: How Culture and Experience can Shape the Human Mind.
Jesse is a Distinguished Professor of philosophy and Director of
the Committee for Interdisciplinary Science Studies at the
Graduate Center of the City University of New York. He’s been
conducting research on the mind for over twenty years, and has
authored multiple books and over a hundred articles on topics
like consciousness and emotion.





In our interview, Jesse and I are discussing how using nature as
the default explanation for kids’ development can lead to harmful
discrimination. We’re also discussing how affluence plays a role
in who teens become, and debating whether parents or peers have a
biggest influence on teen behavior.



Why We Shouldn’t Blame Genetics 





With so much revolutionary tech and research in the field of
genetics in recent years, Jesse notes that humans seem to be
trending towards biological explanations for a variety of human
conditions. However, as we discuss in the episode, he finds that
we’ve been categorizing too many things as innate and out of our
control–and it’s been holding us back.





In the episode, Jesse and I discuss a concerning conclusion drawn
a few years back, when this idea of natural, biological
differences was incorrectly used to explain discrepancy. When
Harvard president Larry Summers was examining levels of
enrollment in STEM fields at his university, he found that there
were significantly less women in math and science majors. To
explain this gap, he remarked that there must be an innate
difference between men and women that endows certain natural
talents to males–and males only.





As Jesse and I discuss in the episode, this explanation fails to
take into account the real reason why women shy away from STEM
professions. Young women are constantly socialized to believe
they aren’t as capable as men when it comes to crunching numbers
or solving equations! In our interview, Jesse dives into a wealth
of research that indicates parents and administrators are much
more likely to encourage male students to challenge themselves on
math or science homework, while simply giving female students the
answers. Most shockingly, Jesse explains that we usually do this
subconsciously, even if we believe that male and female students
are equal in their capabilities.





In fact, students face a lot of unequal treatment, and not just
on the basis of gender. Jesse and I are also discussing how lower
socioeconomic status can hold students back, even on tests that
are simply supposed to measure innate intelligence.





How Affluence Affects Teens’ Abilities





Relying on nature to explain the differences in our teens’
aptitude can often fail to account for differences in
socioeconomic status, Jesse explains. Our education system hands
our kids a lot of standardized tests, assuring us that if our
kids are naturally smart, they’ll perform well. But as Jesse and
I discuss in the episode, wealthier students who can afford
private tutoring or advanced classes for the test typically score
20% higher than those who can’t…meaning that being gifted
sometimes isn’t enough.





Some students also face a phenomenon known as the stereotype
threat, a sensation experienced by minorities who fear that
stereotypes about their race or gender might apply to them
personally, explains Jesse. This often occurs during high
pressure situations, and is especially common for those from
poorer backgrounds. Many women and people of color have been
socialized to believe they aren't going to perform as well as
their counterparts on these standardized tests–and studies show
that when they have to write down details like their race or
gender before taking these exams, they usually score lower. 





The same is often true within the world of sports, Jesse
explains. Although certain aspects like height and build are a
result of biology and give some kids an upper hand, they don’t
always promise athletic success. Affluence plays a huge role in
which athletes get a leg up. Having access to better coaches or
expensive lessons, a healthy and individualized diet, and certain
digital assets are all indicators of probable athletic
success–and also cost an arm and a leg! So if kids are struggling
to make the basketball team, it might have less to do with their
innate abilities and more to do with the fact that you don’t have
thousands of dollars to spend on their dunking skills.





Affluence and socialization clearly have a significant impact
over who a teen becomes… but how much responsibility lies on
parents? Jesse and I are tackling the “nurture” side of the
debate and explaining how much of an effect parents really have
on their teens’ development.



The Influence of Parents and Peers





In our discussion, Jesse brings up a commonly believed theory,
originating from those who tend to lean more towards the nurture
side of the debate–that peers actually have more influence over
kids than parents do. Those who subscribe to this theory
typically believe that parents don’t have a remarkably deep
impact on their kids, given that the parents are decent enough
caretakers. Instead, kids are mainly influenced by the peers they
hang out with regularly. This can lead parents to become a bit
nervous about who their teen is spending time with, and maybe
even cause them to micromanage their teen’s friends.





However, Jesse explains that peer groups can actually be a safe
haven for teens. The validation that fellow kids provide while
your teen still evolving can do wonders for confidence and
identity formation. Sometimes, this group of friends might be a
bit more rebellious than you’d like, but the rebellious crowds
can actually help your teen break free from convention and feel
more comfortable stepping out of their comfort zone, says Jesse.
This ca...