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.

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 can be critical for teens’ long term happiness and wellbeing.

In the end, teens’ identity, behavior, and personality are influenced by many different factors, not just family or friends. Jesse explains tha...

What’s feeding the 5,000-mile blob of seaweed growing in the Atlantic?