# data[].attributes.body
natural talent vs dedication

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You have probably heard people describe someone as having 'natural talent' or as having been 'born talented'. Maybe the person being described has been you?

But what, exactly, is talent? And is talent something we are born with, or something that we have to work for?

Whether you've got it or not, this post has the answers you need.

What Is 'Talent'?

We all know or know of someone that we would describe as 'talented'. This person could be anyone, from your favorite guitarist to your husband with his unwavering ability to cook delicious family meals for all every night.

Talent comes in all shapes and sizes; but what is it about these 'talents' that make them just that? If you think about all of the talented people you know, the one thing that they have in common is that they make what they do look easy.

These people that you admire for their talent have been practicing whatever it is for so long or for so often that to you their talent looks almost second nature. But were they born with this ability, say, to play the guitar or finely chop a courgette at astonishing speed? No, of course not! They learned the long and hard way, with precision, efficiency and most importantly of all, practice.

This leads us to what is arguably the key ingredient for talent...

Bucket Loads Of Passion!

We may find that we are naturally good at some things, maybe even a lot of things. But without that passion, that's all we'll ever remain; good.

Talent is about having both skill and passion for something. Passion bridges the gap between being good and being great.

We can be skilled at something, but without the necessary passion, our hearts just aren't in it, which means that we'll never strive to be any better than we already are. However, passion without the actual skills can still make for a successful combination. As with enough passion, we become willing to put in the hours and work needed to be great at what we love.

Simply put, our passions are what become our talents.

The 2 Step Guide To Greatness

So, we know that when it comes to developing talent, skills are great but it is the passion that can take you all the way.

There are two vital steps needed for self-improvement in whatever you wish to do:

1. Set Your Intent

Thanks to the Law of Attraction we know that where our mind goes, our reality follows. So, if you want to become better at something you need to get intentional about it.

If you've always enjoyed writing and are often praised on your grammar know-how perhaps your intention should be to develop your writing skills?

This may sound like obvious advice, but you'd be surprised by how many people still think that in order to have a talent they need to pluck something new and exciting out of thin air.

Look closer to home; think about your life and what makes you happy. More often than not, our talents lie in the everyday skills that we overlook but others admire us for.

2. Make Small but Powerful Changes

You know what you love, what you're good at and you're beginning to see the bigger picture. But how do you take passion and a few basic skills and transform them into a talent?

Becoming better at something, no matter what it is, calls for small and specific changes. For example, you may realize that you're passionate about music; you've identified that you're a quick learner and have a good ear for music. Because of this, you've decided that you want to become better at playing the guitar. However, it'd be silly for you to then immediately start sending your demo tape to every music producer you've ever heard of.

Instead, you might want to grow what skills you already have. Perhaps you decide to commit to a guitar lesson once a week for 2 months? Next, you may decide that you're ready to put your name down for some small, local gigs?

Small steps lead to big gains. It's likely that there's a big space right now between where you are and where you'd like to go with your passion. However, by setting yourself small and achievable goals, you'll gradually master what others should soon begin to describe as your 'talent'.

Practice Makes Perfect

It's said that in order to truly become the best at something, it takes a minimum of 10,000 hours practice. Don't let this daunt you! If you think about it and consider the many things that you're probably already talented at, be it listening, empathizing with others, cooking, writing, calculating, dancing, we all harbor talents that are unknown even to ourselves.

To begin uncovering new talents, all you've got to do is identify your passions, get specific with your intentions and practice, practice, practice.

So don't be modest, what are your talents? We may not be born with talent, but we are all born with the potential to make our realities what we want them to be. This is a huge opportunity for all of us, take it!

Use the Law of Attraction Toolkit to help you...

Whether you want to manifest your new found talent or start visualizing showing your talent to others... the Free Law of Attraction toolkit can help.

Take a look at our Law of Attraction toolkit and receive the tools you need to start manifesting your dream life today.

The Law Of Attraction toolkit includes:

Extensive affirmation guide and examples.

Dream board and life map plan and step-by-step guide.

Complimentary book.

And more!

Click here to begin or enhance your Law of Attraction journey.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Does 'Natural' Talent Exist? A Practical Guide to Self-Improvement

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You have probably heard people describe someone as having 'natural talent' or as having been 'born talented'. Maybe the person being described has been you? But what, exactly, is talent? And is talent something we are born with, or something that we have to work for?

# data[].attributes.body
article about how musicians are born or made

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The idea that there must be a neurological basis for musical genius makes perfectly good sense. Surely a Beethoven or an Mozart must have had grey matter of a significantly stranger, lumpier, or more creased fashion than us everyday idiots? It makes sense for the brain chemistry and structure of a concert pianist to be fundamentally different from ordinary tone-deaf brains, and to have been that way since birth. But is it actually true? Are some people born more musical than others?

The answer is ... sort of. It looks like your piano teacher was right: becoming a musical genius isn't just a matter of raw talent, it comes down to years of ruthless practice and learning that can literally change the shape of your brain. The difference between musicians' brains and non-musical brains is real - they use their brain hemispheres differently and tend to use creative problem-solving - but it's still not clear how much of that is due to practice, and how much is based on innate shape. Mozart was writing music from the age of four - so how much is nature and how much is nurture?

We don't know very much about the neurology of genius and talent. Geniuses come along very rarely, and many of history's most brilliant minds didn't offer their grey matter to interested observers for the sake of science. But if you've ever wondered how a musician's brain works, where music goes when it enters your head, and if you can turn yourself into Lennon or McCartney via some fancy neural engineering, read on. Preferably with some tunes blasting.

Do We All Have A Musical Brain?

Generally speaking the "musical brain" is kind of a misnomer; we've all got musical brains, of one kind or another. Even if you think you're not particularly au fait with the latest hits or can't sit through an opera without snoring, your ears are still one of the most sensitive of the senses. But different parts of the brain react to different kinds of sound.

Take the human voice. We pick up huge volumes of data from tone and volume in human expression - particularly in tonal languages, like Mandarin, where a huge amount of meaning is enclosed in vocal pitch and tone. In fact, there's some evidence that speaking a tonal language may actually boost the musical areas of the brain. (It happens with accents, too. I'm Australian; the lilt at the end of my every sentence once led my husband to believe that I was constantly asking questions.) It's not the same as interpreting musical notes, but it does still involve a lot of sound interpretation in the brain.

Studies have shown, however, that the brain actually separates listening to voices from listening to music - because an impaired ability to do one doesn't mean you also stop being able to do the other.

Where Does Music Live Inside Your Head?

The "bits" of the brain responsible for music interpretation and enjoyment are tricky to pin down. Monitoring the brain's electrical activity while the subject listens to music has shown that both hemispheres of the brain are active. While the temporal lobe - the bit of the brain mostly devoted to sound - appears to be the most dominant brain part when it comes to musical ability and appreciation, it now looks like the brain's response to music and its creation is hugely diverse.

A study done on patients with damage to different parts of their brains found something very interesting: rather than there being a "music center" in the brain, different bits of it do different jobs. The researchers divided music into five elements - pitch, interval, key, contour, and rhythm - and tested what patients could and couldn't identify. The results were pretty remarkable. People with damage to their right temporal lobes had trouble with key and contour, while damage to the left meant a struggle only with the key.

But it's not all clear-cut. Another study found that advanced understandings of music are probably not determined by your biology. A Melbourne scientist played the gamelan, an Indonesian percussion instrument, to a group of musicians and asked them to find the pitch. Western musicians couldn't, while those trained in the use of the gamelan could. Another study found that professional musicians with years of training use the left hemisphere of their brain while listening to harmonies, while non-musicians use their left. So musicians aren't born with all this stuff innately embedded in them; they learn it, over a long period.

How Are The Brains Of Musicians Different?

Larry Busacca/Getty Images Entertainment/Getty Images

If you want to boost your cognitive performance, it looks like learning an instrument - and doing all the slogging, boring scales that come with it - might actually be a huge boost to the brain's overall health. A study released by TED showed that playing music actually works large areas of the brain, from the visual cortex to bits devoted to movement. And it's been shown to kick-start memory.

Another advantage? Studies of musicians versus non-musicians show that musicians simply have more grey matter in areas of the brain devoted to motor skills and interpretation of sensory information. The most likely explanation? Years and years of practice and refinement have literally changed the shape of musicians' brains, exaggerating what may have been minor differences into full-blown radical weirdness.

This answers one question: the difference between musical and non-musical brains isn't just down to one innate neurological advantage. The brain is plastic and evolves over our lives, and musical brains will just become more musical if the lives they lead are full of C-sharps and tuning forks.

As for genius? It's increasingly looking like any innate musical talent is partially genetic: if an identical twin is highly musically talented, it's very likely their twin will be, too. Hence why there are so many music dynasties in the history of music. So unless you're related to a concert pianist, you may not have much of a chance of being the next Rachmaninoff. But tinkle the ivories all the same.
Images: Lechon Kirb/Unsplash; Fotolia (1, 2); Getty Images

Get Even More From Bustle - Sign Up For The Newsletter

From hair trends to relationship advice, our daily newsletter has everything you need to sound like a person who's on TikTok, even if you aren't.

Subscribe to our newsletter >

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Are Some People More Musical Than Others? How Musicians' Brains Are Different

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The idea that there must be a neurological basis for musical genius makes perfectly good sense. Surely a Beethoven or an Mozart must have had grey matter of a significantly stranger, lumpier, or more creased fashion than us everyday idiots? It makes...

# data[].attributes.body
fraternal vs identical twins personality differences/similarities

# data[].attributes.body
article explaining different perspectives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The nature vs. nurture debate in psychology concerns the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities (nature) versus personal experiences (nurture) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits. While early theories favored one factor over the other, contemporary views recognize a complex interplay between genes and environment in shaping behavior and development.

Key Takeaways

Nature is what we think of as pre-wiring and is influenced by genetic inheritance and other biological factors.

Nurture is generally taken as the influence of external factors after conception, e.g., the product of exposure, life experiences, and learning on an individual.

Behavioral genetics has enabled psychology to quantify the relative contribution of nature and nurture concerning specific psychological traits.

Instead of defending extreme nativist or nurturist views, most psychological researchers are now interested in investigating how nature and nurture interact in a host of qualitatively different ways.

For example, epigenetics is an emerging area of research that shows how environmental influences affect the expression of genes.

The nature-nurture debate is concerned with the relative contribution that both influences make to human behavior, such as personality, cognitive traits, temperament and psychopathology.

Examples of Nature vs. Nurture

Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development

In child development, the nature vs. nurture debate is evident in the study of language acquisition. Researchers like Chomsky (1957) argue that humans are born with an innate capacity for language (nature), known as universal grammar, suggesting that genetics play a significant role in language development.

Conversely, the behaviorist perspective, exemplified by Skinner (1957), emphasizes the role of environmental reinforcement and learning (nurture) in language acquisition.

Twin studies have provided valuable insights into this debate, demonstrating that identical twins raised apart may share linguistic similarities despite different environments, suggesting a strong genetic influence (Bouchard, 1979)

However, environmental factors, such as exposure to language-rich environments, also play a crucial role in language development, highlighting the intricate interplay between nature and nurture in child development.

Nature vs. Nurture in Personality Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in personality psychology centers on the origins of personality traits. Twin studies have shown that identical twins reared apart tend to have more similar personalities than fraternal twins, indicating a genetic component to personality (Bouchard, 1994).

However, environmental factors, such as parenting styles, cultural influences, and life experiences, also shape personality.

For example, research by Caspi et al. (2003) demonstrated that a particular gene (MAOA) can interact with childhood maltreatment to increase the risk of aggressive behavior in adulthood.

This highlights that genetic predispositions and environmental factors contribute to personality development, and their interaction is complex and multifaceted.

Nature vs. Nurture in Mental Illness Development

The nature vs. nurture debate in mental health explores the etiology of depression. Genetic studies have identified specific genes associated with an increased vulnerability to depression, indicating a genetic component (Sullivan et al., 2000).

However, environmental factors, such as adverse life events and chronic stress during childhood, also play a significant role in the development of depressive disorders (Dube et al.., 2002; Keller et al., 2007)

The diathesis-stress model posits that individuals inherit a genetic predisposition (diathesis) to a disorder, which is then activated or exacerbated by environmental stressors (Monroe & Simons, 1991).

This model illustrates how nature and nurture interact to influence mental health outcomes.

Nature vs. Nurture of Intelligence

The nature vs. nurture debate in intelligence examines the relative contributions of genetic and environmental factors to cognitive abilities.

Intelligence is highly heritable, with about 50% of variance in IQ attributed to genetic factors, based on studies of twins, adoptees, and families (Plomin & Spinath, 2004).

Heritability of intelligence increases with age, from about 20% in infancy to as high as 80% in adulthood, suggesting amplifying effects of genes over time.

However, environmental influences, such as access to quality education and stimulating environments, also significantly impact intelligence.

Shared environmental influences like family background are more influential in childhood, whereas non-shared experiences are more important later in life.

Research by Flynn (1987) showed that average IQ scores have increased over generations, suggesting that environmental improvements, known as the Flynn effect, can lead to substantial gains in cognitive abilities.

Molecular genetics provides tools to identify specific genes and understand their pathways and interactions. However, progress has been slow for complex traits like intelligence. Identified genes have small effect sizes (Plomin & Spinath, 2004).

Overall, intelligence results from complex interplay between genes and environment over development. Molecular genetics offers promise to clarify these mechanisms. The nature vs nurture debate is outdated - both play key roles.

Nativism (Extreme Nature Position)

It has long been known that certain physical characteristics are biologically determined by genetic inheritance.

Color of eyes, straight or curly hair, pigmentation of the skin, and certain diseases (such as Huntingdon's chorea) are all a function of the genes we inherit.

These facts have led many to speculate as to whether psychological characteristics such as behavioral tendencies, personality attributes, and mental abilities are also "wired in" before we are even born.

Those who adopt an extreme hereditary position are known as nativists. Their basic assumption is that the characteristics of the human species as a whole are a product of evolution and that individual differences are due to each person's unique genetic code.

In general, the earlier a particular ability appears, the more likely it is to be under the influence of genetic factors. Estimates of genetic influence are called heritability.

Examples of extreme nature positions in psychology include Chomsky (1965), who proposed language is gained through the use of an innate language acquisition device. Another example of nature is Freud's theory of aggression as being an innate drive (called Thanatos).

Characteristics and differences that are not observable at birth, but which emerge later in life, are regarded as the product of maturation. That is to say, we all have an inner "biological clock" which switches on (or off) types of behavior in a pre-programmed way.

The classic example of the way this affects our physical development are the bodily changes that occur in early adolescence at puberty.

However, nativists also argue that maturation governs the emergence of attachment in infancy, language acquisition, and even cognitive development.

Empiricism (Extreme Nurture Position)

At the other end of the spectrum are the environmentalists - also known as empiricists (not to be confused with the other empirical/scientific approach).

Their basic assumption is that at birth, the human mind is a tabula rasa (a blank slate) and that this is gradually "filled" as a result of experience (e.g., behaviorism).

From this point of view, psychological characteristics and behavioral differences that emerge through infancy and childhood are the results of learning. It is how you are brought up (nurture) that governs the psychologically significant aspects of child development and the concept of maturation applies only to the biological.

For example, Bandura's (1977) social learning theory states that aggression is learned from the environment through observation and imitation. This is seen in his famous bobo doll experiment (Bandura, 1961).

Also, Skinner (1957) believed that language is learned from other people via behavior-shaping techniques.

Freud (1905) stated that events in our childhood have a great influence on our adult lives, shaping our personality.

He thought that parenting is of primary importance to a child's development, and the family as the most important feature of nurture was a common theme throughout twentieth-century psychology (which was dominated by environmentalists' theories).

Behavioral Genetics

Researchers in the field of behavioral genetics study variation in behavior as it is affected by genes, which are the units of heredity passed down from parents to offspring.

"We now know that DNA differences are the major systematic source of psychological differences between us. Environmental effects are important but what we have learned in recent years is that they are mostly random - unsystematic and unstable - which means that we cannot do much about them."

Plomin (2018, xii)

Behavioral genetics has enabled psychology to quantify the relative contribution of nature and nurture with regard to specific psychological traits. One way to do this is to study relatives who share the same genes (nature) but a different environment (nurture). Adoption acts as a natural experiment which allows researchers to do this.

Empirical studies have consistently shown that adoptive children show greater resemblance to their biological parents, rather than their adoptive, or environmental parents (Plomin & DeFries, 1983; 1985).

Another way of studying heredity is by comparing the behavior of twins, who can either be identical (sharing the same genes) or non-identical (sharing 50% of genes). Like adoption studies, twin studies support the first rule of behavior genetics; that psychological traits are extremely heritable, about 50% on average.

The Twins in Early Development Study (TEDS) revealed correlations between twins on a range of behavioral traits, such as personality (empathy and hyperactivity) and components of reading such as phonetics (Haworth, Davis, Plomin, 2013; Oliver & Plomin, 2007; Trouton, Spinath, & Plomin, 2002).

Implications

Jenson (1969) found that the average I.Q. scores of black Americans were significantly lower than whites he went on to argue that genetic factors were mainly responsible - even going so far as to suggest that intelligence is 80% inherited.

The storm of controversy that developed around Jenson's claims was not mainly due to logical and empirical weaknesses in his argument. It was more to do with the social and political implications that are often drawn from research that claims to demonstrate natural inequalities between social groups.

For many environmentalists, there is a barely disguised right-wing agenda behind the work of the behavioral geneticists. In their view, part of the difference in the I.Q. scores of different ethnic groups are due to inbuilt biases in the methods of testing.

More fundamentally, they believe that differences in intellectual ability are a product of social inequalities in access to material resources and opportunities. To put it simply children brought up in the ghetto tend to score lower on tests because they are denied the same life chances as more privileged members of society.

Now we can see why the nature-nurture debate has become such a hotly contested issue. What begins as an attempt to understand the causes of behavioral differences often develops into a politically motivated dispute about distributive justice and power in society.

What's more, this doesn't only apply to the debate over I.Q. It is equally relevant to the psychology of sex and gender, where the question of how much of the (alleged) differences in male and female behavior is due to biology and how much to culture is just as controversial.

What is Epigenetics?

Epigenetics is the term used to describe inheritance by mechanisms other than through the DNA sequence of genes. For example, features of a person's physical and social environment can effect which genes are switched-on, or "expressed", rather than the DNA sequence of the genes themselves.

Stressors and memories can be passed through small RNA molecules to multiple generations of offspring in ways that meaningfully affect their behavior.

One such example is what is known as the Dutch Hunger Winter, during last year of the Second World War. What they found was that children who were in the womb during the famine experienced a life-long increase in their chances of developing various health problems compared to children conceived after the famine.

Epigenetic effects can sometimes be passed from one generation to the next, although the effects only seem to last for a few generations. There is some evidence that the effects of the Dutch Hunger Winter affected grandchildren of women who were pregnant during the famine.

Therefore, it makes more sense to say that the difference between two people's behavior is mostly due to hereditary factors or mostly due to environmental factors.

This realization is especially important given the recent advances in genetics, such as polygenic testing. The Human Genome Project, for example, has stimulated enormous interest in tracing types of behavior to particular strands of DNA located on specific chromosomes.

If these advances are not to be abused, then there will need to be a more general understanding of the fact that biology interacts with both the cultural context and the personal choices that people make about how they want to live their lives.

There is no neat and simple way of unraveling these qualitatively different and reciprocal influences on human behavior.

Epigenetics: Licking Rat Pups

Michael Meaney and his colleagues at McGill University in Montreal, Canada conducted the landmark epigenetic study on mother rats licking and grooming their pups.

This research found that the amount of licking and grooming received by rat pups during their early life could alter their epigenetic marks and influence their stress responses in adulthood.

Pups that received high levels of maternal care (i.e., more licking and grooming) had a reduced stress response compared to those that received low levels of maternal care.

Meaney's work with rat maternal behavior and its epigenetic effects has provided significant insights into the understanding of early-life experiences, gene expression, and adult behavior.

It underscores the importance of the early-life environment and its long-term impacts on an individual's mental health and stress resilience.

Epigenetics: The Agouti Mouse Study

Waterland and Jirtle's 2003 study on the Agouti mouse is another foundational work in the field of epigenetics that demonstrated how nutritional factors during early development can result in epigenetic changes that have long-lasting effects on phenotype.

In this study, they focused on a specific gene in mice called the Agouti viable yellow (A^vy) gene. Mice with this gene can express a range of coat colors, from yellow to mottled to brown.

This variation in coat color is related to the methylation status of the A^vy gene: higher methylation is associated with the brown coat, and lower methylation with the yellow coat.

Importantly, the coat color is also associated with health outcomes, with yellow mice being more prone to obesity, diabetes, and tumorigenesis compared to brown mice.

Waterland and Jirtle set out to investigate whether maternal diet, specifically supplementation with methyl donors like folic acid, choline, betaine, and vitamin B12, during pregnancy could influence the methylation status of the A^vy gene in offspring.

Key findings from the study include:

1. Dietary Influence: When pregnant mice were fed a diet supplemented with methyl donors, their offspring had an increased likelihood of having the brown coat color. This indicated that the supplemented diet led to an increased methylation of the A^vy gene.

2. Health Outcomes: Along with the coat color change, these mice also had reduced risks of obesity and other health issues associated with the yellow phenotype.

3. Transgenerational Effects: The study showed that nutritional interventions could have effects that extend beyond the individual, affecting the phenotype of the offspring.

The implications of this research are profound. It highlights how maternal nutrition during critical developmental periods can have lasting effects on offspring through epigenetic modifications, potentially affecting health outcomes much later in life.

The study also offers insights into how dietary and environmental factors might contribute to disease susceptibility in humans.

References

Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575-582

Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bouchard, T. J. (1994). Genes, Environment, and Personality. Science, 264(5166), 1700-1701.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment. Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Loss. New York: Basic Books.

Caspi, A., Sugden, K., Moffitt, T. E., Taylor, A., Craig, I. W., Harrington, H., ... & Poulton, R. (2003). Influence of life stress on depression: moderation by a polymorphism in the 5-HTT gene. Science, 301(5631), 386-389.

Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic structures. Mouton de Gruyter.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press.

Dube, S. R., Anda, R. F., Felitti, V. J., Edwards, V. J., & Croft, J. B. (2002). Adverse childhood experiences and personal alcohol abuse as an adult. Addictive Behaviors, 27(5), 713-725.

Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological Bulletin, 101(2), 171.

Freud, S. (1905). Three essays on the theory of sexuality. Se, 7.

Galton, F. (1883). Inquiries into human faculty and its development. London: J.M. Dent & Co.

Gottlieb, G. (2007). Probabilistic epigenesis. Developmental Science, 10, 1-11.

Haworth, C. M., Davis, O. S., & Plomin, R. (2013). Twins Early Development Study (TEDS): a genetically sensitive investigation of cognitive and behavioral development from childhood to young adulthood. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 16(1), 117-125.

Jensen, A. R. (1969). How much can we boost I.Q. and scholastic achievement? Harvard Educational Review, 33, 1-123.

Johnston, T. D., & Edwards, L. (2002). Genes, interactions, and the development of behavior. Psychological Review, 109, 26-34.

Keller, M. C., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2007). Association of different adverse life events with distinct patterns of depressive symptoms. American Journal of Psychiatry, 164(10), 1521-1529.

Monroe, S. M., & Simons, A. D. (1991). Diathesis-stress theories in the context of life stress research: implications for the depressive disorders. Psychological Bulletin, 110(3), 406.

Oliver, B. R., & Plomin, R. (2007). Twins" Early Development Study (TEDS): A multivariate, longitudinal genetic investigation of language, cognition and behavior problems from childhood through adolescence. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 10(1), 96-105.

Petrill, S. A., Plomin, R., Berg, S., Johansson, B., Pedersen, N. L., Ahern, F., & McClearn, G. E. (1998). The genetic and environmental relationship between general and specific cognitive abilities in twins age 80 and older. Psychological Science, 9(3), 183-189.

Plomin, R., & Petrill, S. A. (1997). Genetics and intelligence: What's new?. Intelligence, 24(1), 53-77.

Plomin, R. (2018). Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are. MIT Press.

Plomin, R., & Bergeman, C. S. (1991). The nature of nurture: Genetic influence on "environmental" measures. behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14(3), 373-386.

Plomin, R., & DeFries, J. C. (1983). The Colorado adoption project. Child Development, 276-289.

Plomin, R., & DeFries, J. C. (1985). The origins of individual differences in infancy; the Colorado adoption project. Science, 230, 1369-1371.

Plomin, R., & Spinath, F. M. (2004). Intelligence: genetics, genes, and genomics. Journal of personality and social psychology, 86(1), 112.

Plomin, R., & Von Stumm, S. (2018). The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics, 19(3), 148-159.

Skinner, B. F. (1957). Verbal behavior. Acton, MA: Copley Publishing Group.

Sullivan, P. F., Neale, M. C., & Kendler, K. S. (2000). Genetic epidemiology of major depression: review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157(10), 1552-1562.

Szyf, M., Weaver, I. C., Champagne, F. A., Diorio, J., & Meaney, M. J. (2005). Maternal programming of steroid receptor expression and phenotype through DNA methylation in the rat. Frontiers in neuroendocrinology, 26(3-4), 139-162.

Trouton, A., Spinath, F. M., & Plomin, R. (2002). Twins early development study (TEDS): a multivariate, longitudinal genetic investigation of language, cognition and behavior problems in childhood. Twin Research and Human Genetics, 5(5), 444-448.

Waterland, R. A., & Jirtle, R. L. (2003). Transposable elements: targets for early nutritional effects on epigenetic gene regulation. Molecular and cellular biology, 23 (15), 5293-5300.

Evidence for an Interaction

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The nature vs. nurture debate in psychology concerns the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities (nature) versus personal experiences (nurture) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits. While early theories favored one factor over the other, contemporary views recognize a complex interplay between genes and environment in shaping behavior and development.

# data[].attributes.body
identical twins separated/adopted

# data[].attributes.body
Serena/Venus Williams become pros in tennis because their dad pushes them and practices with them every day

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Venus and Serena Williams growing up in Compton

# data[].attributes.body
an example of how fish/people are shaped by how they are raised

# data[].attributes.body
explains the different arguments