Evening star., 1927-10-10
Born So or Made So?

You can't settle one of the hardest
problems that the mind of man ever
tackled by a few cases; but you can
get a hint. Which had more to do in
making you what you are, your he
redity-what nature gave you to start
with--or your environment-what
training and experience made Of you?
The two are so closely entangled that
you would have to live twice under
different surroundings to tell; and one
couldn't be sure it was the same you.
1t isn't right to think of the total re.
sult--what you now areas divided
up between heredity and environment;
SO that what share doesn't fall to one
falls to the other. You must think of
how far your heredity favored the
effect of environment to develop you
toward-well toward what? That di-
rection is all-important; it completes
the question.
Suppose we fill 1t out by adding:
toward making musician OF you.
Nature made some persons so natu-
rally musical, made the musical the
commanding streak in their nature,
that they were headed for the career
of musicians. Nature made others so
unmusical that no amount of training
would have made passable musicians
of them. AS to the majority of us,
we find our places in between, some
taking naturally to music and becom-
ing pretty good or pretty poor anna
teurs, and the rest only fairly inter-
ested.
The large ma jority of concert-goers
are people whom nature favored
musically, yet whose musical capaci-
ties have been developed by more or
less training. The non-musical stay
away.
Put poetry for music and the same
holds. We say that a poet is born,
not made; quite similarly, though not
so definitely, is an engineer born so,
or any one else. He starts out with
something out of which a poet is
readily made, or with something IA
vorable to take on the training that
makes one an engineer; he is good at
that sort of thing.
For q good test take a field of ex.
preston that appears in early child
hood, and stands close to the center of
behavior, the emotional disposition
such things as timidity or temper.
And plainest of all is behavior tied
up with such fundamental needs as
food and fatigue, in that simple child
setting where nature is strong.
In this case both father and mother
were trained Psychologists. Their first
child, Jill, proved to be definitely
nervous" AT 3 Jill wouldn't eat,
was constantly throwing herself on
the floor to rest, would play Is min.
utes and be tired often had fits of
temper and contrariness, and was a
constant n II
ally at the table. The parents said. in
forcible language. that il they ever
had another child they wouldn't put
up with all this fussiness. That next
child would eat what was put before
1t, and go to sleep when told, and not
loll around and be a nuisance gener-
ally. When Jill was Jack was
born, and those parents watched an.
xlously for the first signs of fussiness,
determined not to suffer as they had
with Jill.
Well, they watched in vain; their
anxiety was needless. Jack wasn't
that kind. He ate everything and
anything; he slept when he was put to
bed and walked when you shook him.
When Jack was 4 he had the bad
example of his older sister eating a
bite and then resting. 1t didn't bother
MIN one Dlli ne wasn't FOLLOWING eX.
amples. He was just going ahead
according to his nature. His father
said that there wasn't a nerve that
he could find in Jacks body He was
as calm as an oyster, never cried ex-
cept when hurt, never went off the
handle. Jack is now and Jill 10;
and the differences remain.
Jack and Jill had the same heredity
as far as parents go; they had the
same training. 1t looks as though
they were born so. Now that doesn't
mean that Jill's nervousness couldn't
have been reduced by careful manage
ment; nor that Jack if sufficiently
badly treated couldn't have acquired
some bad nervous habits. But what
nature provided in this brother and
sister was a favorable and an unfa-
vorabIe foundation for nervousness.