Nature vs.

Nurture Project (50 Points)

All students are required to watch Three Identical Strangers after reading chapter two and
complete a reflection paper responding to the following prompts four prompts. Insert
responses into this form where applicable.

1. Explain the differences between the ‘Nature’ versus ‘Nurture’ theories of the origin of
human behaviors based on your text. (8 points)
The “nature” theory says that behaviors are based solely on genetic factors and that we
behave the way we do because of inherited DNA. The “nurture” theory says that all
human behavior is learned and, therefore, genetics does not play a role in our behavior.

2. Culture, behavior and personality are involved in the debates regarding nature vs.
nurture. Provide an example of each from the film and identify if they fall into nature or
nurture. (12 points)
a. Culture—Each of the triplets was placed in a household with a different
socioeconomic status. One twin was placed in an upper class home where the
father was a doctor. The second triplet was placed in a middle-class home where
the father was a teacher, and the third triplet was placed in a home where the
family were immigrants and the father owned a small business. These
placements resulted in each child being raised in a different type of home even
though all three lived within a 100-mile radius. As is revealed late in the film,
the researchers also deliberately chose families whose parenting styles were very
different. One set of parents is described as particularly supportive and
nurturing, another as being distant, and a third as being autocratic. All of these
differences fall firmly into the “nurture” side of things.

b. Behavior—The triplets, of course, all looked alike by nature of being identical

triplets. Their hands are mentioned specifically by more than one of the people
interviewed as being very similar. They also shared a number of similar
mannerisms and behaviors, including the way they hold their heads, the way
they stand, the way they sit. They also demonstrate a preference for similar
activities, such as wrestling in junior high and high school. They all smoke the
same brand of cigarettes. They prefer the same colors and are attracted to the
same type of woman. All of this, despite the fact that they were separated and
had no knowledge of each other’s existence, fall firmly into the “nature”
category.

c. Personality—Despite being genetically identical, their personalities seem to be

somewhat different. While they are all cheerful and outgoing, Eddy is described
as being particularly so. The fact that the three brothers had difficulty running
their business together is also another clue as to their personality differences.
The film does not make the details of these disagreements very clear, but it is not
 difficult to see how three young men raised in three very different homes might
have very different ideas of how a business should be run. The son of a father
who was very authoritative is going to have a very different idea of how to run a
business from the son of more permissive parents. I feel like this area has both
“nature” and “nurture” aspects and I am not sure that the two can be readily
separated.

3. What do today’s scientists conclude regarding nature vs. nurture? (15 points)
The conclusion of scientists today is that both nature and nurture impact who we
become. According to the text, identical twins who are reared apart show a very high
hereditary similarity in some areas, including religion, job interests, general intelligence,
learning disabilities, alcoholism, mental illness, and tendency toward criminal behavior
among many others. However, research has also shown that non-genetic factors play a
very large role in complex behaviors. Also, while there may be a genetic tendency
toward a particular preference or behavior, not every individual will follow that
tendency equally, so different individuals will have differing outcomes.

4. What are examples from this film that support this conclusion? (15 points)
I think that the biggest examples that stand out for me are the differences in personal
beliefs and attitudes that I alluded to in question 2 about personality. I think that each of
the three boys had a genetic tendency to a big, boisterous, outgoing personality but that
this personality trait was more prominent in one than in the others, a result that likely
came from the “nurture” side. Another similarity is alluded to a number of times in the
film but its impact on the boys is never really explored in depth and that is the idea of a
genetic factor in mental illness. If, as was briefly alluded to in the film, the birth parents
of these children who were separated at birth all suffered from mental illness, why does
depression manifest in only one triplet to the degree that he commits suicide? The other
two brothers do not give us any evidence that they have struggled with depression to
any degree at all. Similarly, it is briefly mentioned that when the three boys met their
birth mother, it was at her local “watering hole” and that she was “keeping up with
them” in their drinking. I have seen in my husband’s family a familial tendency toward
addictive behavior, particularly with alcohol but also to a certain degree with other
substances. Is that connection “nature,” “nurture,” or some combination of both. It
seems likely that if the birth mother drinks heavily—as is implied in the film—that one
or more of her sons should have a similar struggle. The film describes them as drinking
heavily as young men who were making the rounds of the party scene in New York City
in the 1980’s, yet it is not mentioned as having any lasting impact or influence on their
later lives. Does that mean that none of them faced a struggle with substance abuse of
addiction, or does it mean that this issue was simply not dealt with in the film?

I want to mention that I found the film to be really intriguing—and disturbing. The idea
that a scientist—a doctor no less—could conceive of such as study and then actually carry the
study through and then apparently hide his findings is very disturbing. It is even more
disturbing when one considers that an organization with an apparently good reputation in the
community was financing this study. And the fact that the subjects of the study were Jewish
and the doctor a refugee from Europe in the time of the Nazis……well, that is just breathtaking.
And the film is put together in such a way that the viewer is drawn into the story, wants to see a
happy ending for these boys who were dealt such an injustice, and when the suicide comes
along it just takes your breath away.