Sometimes the power of the human brain is astounding. How is it that, especially as we age, the random facts that we have learned in school suddenly reappear in our minds but we cannot for the life of us remember the name of a co-worker sitting behind us?

This happened to me as I was considering the debate question, “Are We Products of Our Environment?” For some odd reason, this phrase jolted my memory and caused me to recall a research paper I had written for a 100-level Geography course from my undergraduate days, now some nearly 30 years ago. My professor gave me a book on the work of Thomas Griffith Taylor from which I prepared a class presentation.

Griffith Taylor’s career was marked by a definite “jack of all trades” quality. Mainly a geologist, Griffith Taylor was somewhat of a world explorer as well, participating in an expedition to Antarctica in 1911. Griffith Taylor’s most controversial work, however involved his theories regarding the interplay between environment and the development of racial and cultural differences. This supposed interconnection between the physical environment and the psychological and intellectual attributes of the inhabitants of any given geographic area came to be known as environmental determinism.

By the 1950s, the theory of environmental determinism had been almost completely discredited as racist and far too simplistic in its attempt to explain the development of culture and human behavior. The problem seemed to be that the theory relied too heavily upon the connection between physical environment and behavior. For example, Griffith Taylor and other noted scholars of the day proposed the idea that people who lived in tropical climates were lazier, more relaxed and more prone to sexual promiscuity than those who lived in areas with more variable temperature patterns. The underlying theory was that survival was not as difficult in the warm, tropical environment so the inhabitants were not motivated to work as hard. The problem, however is that the theory seemed to completely ignore other relevant factors such as genetics, social environment and free will.

But was the theory of environmental determinism abandoned too quickly? Despite some of the more obvious limitations of the antiquated theory there do appear to be several modern examples of behaviors, values, etc. being shaped by environment and circumstances.

One fairly well known case was the experiment that Riceville, Iowa schoolteacher Jane Elliott conducted with her class of third graders just after the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. The documentary, Eye of the Storm and its sequel, A Class Divided show the impact that systematic discrimination has upon both the oppressors and the oppressed. In the experiment, the children were told that “blue eyes” were bad and “brown eyes” were good. The brown-eyed children are praised for their “natural superiority”, while negative stereotypes against blue-eyed children are recited as if they are gospel. In very short order the favored group begins to behave with an arrogant sense of entitlement while the oppressed group begins to exhibit signs of depression and decreased academic performance during the span of a single school day. While many critics challenge the experiment as unscientific, I do believe that there are countless examples to support the idea that environmental factors do impact performance.

For example, there have been a number of studies supporting the idea that both male and female students perform better in single sex classes and schools than in co-educational environments. Educators like Marva Collins and Geoffrey Canada have achieved tremendous academic success with minority and economically disadvantaged children partly by providing environments in which those students could better achieve their full potential.

The Stanford Prison Experiment conducted by psychology professor, Dr. Phillip Zimbardo at Stanford University in 1971 provides another chilling example. The young male volunteers who participated in the study were divided into groups and designated as either prisoners or guards. Placed in an environment designed to intensify their sense of power and authority the “guards” very quickly began to exhibit negative behavioral changes that bordered on brutality. The “prisoners” on the other hand, subjected to an environment specifically designed to degrade and humiliate them, also changed as well: passivity, depression and suspicion were just of few of unwelcomed traits that these previously normal and well-adjusted individuals began to exhibit as the result of nothing more than a drastic change in their environment.

More recently, a health study led by Canadian researcher Dr. Kim Raine examined the correlation between the concentration of fast food restaurants in low income neighborhoods and obesity in the poor. The connection between environmental influences and heath seem clear.

The modern workplace may be another excellent place to study the impact of environment upon behavior. Why did the once, seemingly invincible IBM falter in the 1980s while “upstarts” such as Apple and Microsoft continued to thrive? Some suggest that IBM’s ultra-conservative; “play-it-safe” culture placed it at a disadvantage as it attempted to compete with innovative and agile newcomers to the world of technology.

On a more personal level, I would guess that many of us can probably attest to having changed our behavior at various times in our lives in response to changes in our physical environment. How many college students alter their eating habits, style of dress, grooming standards or spiritual beliefs in response, at least in part, to their new physical surroundings? How many suburban homeowners succumb to the lawn care standards of their neighborhoods even when they are not particularly “yard conscious” themselves? Who among us hasn’t heard stories about bright and articulate female or minority students concealing their intellectual prowess when placed in an environment where underachievement and poor motivation are worn like badges of honor?

Environment certainly doesn’t account for the complete picture of “who we are.” I’m sure that each of us can recall real live examples of people from “good homes” that have gotten off track and people who grew up in poverty or abusive or neglectful households who, nevertheless managed to “make good.” But there seems to be no doubt that environment is definitely a contributing factor determining who we are at any given time.