Discuss the nature-nurture debate in relation to individual development (M1)
Evaluate the nature-nurture debate in relation to development of the individual (D1)
Over the course of the last century one of the greatest debates in psychology concerns, the basis of behaviour, specifically whether behaviour is innate i.e. genetically controlled, or whether it is learnt through the socio-cultural environment. This is often referred to as the Nature vs. Nurture debate. There are two main arguments on this issue. The ‘Nativist’ claims that all behaviour is innate believing that genes control the majority of animal behaviour. On the other hand, the empiricist position suggests that all behaviour is learned through an individuals cultural
…show more content…
It has been argued that the propensity towards intellectual plasticity is determined genetically, but that the environment is what governs the moulding of that plasticity. As such, people who have a genetic propensity to intelligence and a highly stimulating infancy will become most intelligent, while those who have a lower genetic propensity to intelligence may still demonstrate high IQ through a highly structured intervention program. This would explain both Ramey’s study, as well as the Devlin argument, and hence support the concept that there might be both a genetic and an environmental influence on intelligence.
Naturally there are opposing views, from the ‘Nativists’ that individual’s genetics are determinant in regards to behaviour, and that indeed certain behaviour and ‘instincts’ are in fact largely under genetic control. A prime example of this is the Chomsky’s cognitive theory of language. Chomsky’s approach to the study of language emphasizes an innate set of linguistic principles shared by all humans- known as universal grammar. N.Chomsky was the first behaviourist to provide a functional, operant analysis of language. He proposed that we are born with a brain mechanism he called the ‘language acquisition device’ (LAD). This
“Trying to separate out nature and nurture as explanations for behavior, as in classic genetic studies of twins and families, is now said to be both impossible and unproductive” (Levitt, 1). Social scientists have declared the nature-nurture debate to be unnecessary. Similarly, scientists feel that such debate is not only unhelpful, but also outdated. From geneticists’ perspective, nurture and nature interact to influence
The basic assumption of the behaviourist approach is that all behaviour is learned through experiences a person has in their environment. From this we know that behaviourists are on the side of nature in the “nature vs. nurture” debate. In comparison bio psychologists will be firmly on the side of nurture.
Nature versus Nurture is the issue of the degree to which environment and heredity influence behavior and development. In this issue nature can be defined as, behaviors due to heredity. Which means behaviors are based on the genetic makeup of an individual and is an influence of the individuals' growth and development throughout life. On the other hand nurture are causes of behaviors that are environmental. Which means the influence is from, parents, siblings, family, friends and all other experiences to which the individual is exposed to.
The historical debate regarding nature and nurture has been going on for years and is still unresolved. Many theorists believe what we have inherited and our genes, makes us the way we are and how we develop. Other theorists believe it is the way we are brought up and our experiences, that make us the way we are and how we develop.
For many years psychologists have been researching behaviour patterns from birth. This is where the ‘Nature’ vs ‘Nurture’ debate begins. Nativists believe that humans are born with various skills needed to survive, where as Empircist believe that humans acquire all or almost of all their behavioural traits from "nurture".
1) Use the example of feral children to construct an argument in the nature versus nurture debate.
Nature vs. nurture has been discussed by philosophers in the past and by scientists more recently. Philosophers such as Plato argued that all knowledge was inherited from your parents and when you were told something you didn’t learn it you were just reminded of it. Aristotle however argued that all humans were born with a blank slate and built on it with influence from there environment. In the 1700’s the empiricists and the internalists took over the argument. They fought through letters explaining there point of views and denouncing the others. This leads to Pavlov coming up with the idea of behaviorism in the early 1900‘s. Behaviorism became the new wave of Psychology and influenced a lean towards the nurture side. It was not
The nature vs nurture debate is one of the most enduring in the field of psychology.How far are human behaviors, ideas, and feelings, INNATE and how far are they all LEARNED?These issues are at the
The relationship between a gene and a human behaviour is rarely, if ever, a one-to-one correspondence, even though disruption of a single gene occasionally has a dramatic effect on behaviour. Nor can one quantify the contribution of genes as a whole to any particular behavior or cognitive ability. Instead, each gene is a single player in an intricate story, involving non-additive interactions of genes, proteins, hormones, food and life experiences, thus leading to effects one variety of cognitive and behavioural functions. Our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors certainly have biological mechanisms, but this does not mean we can separate and quantify the genetic contributions to these processes.
Nature and nurture are usually seen as very different things, but they are actually somewhat similar and even integrated. There is a huge debate over which holds more influence over how people develop and whether they behave based on genes or their environment. In Sincero’s article Nature and Nurture Debate she discusses arguments for both sides, saying behavior may be completely in a person’s genes, or it could come from experience and influence. Many people believe “that the criminal acts, tendency to divorce and aggressive behavior causing abuse can be justified by the ‘behavioral genes’” (Sincero). These genes are said to be the reason that people behave as they do and one cannot help their own actions. Other arguments suggest “that genetic influence over abstract traits may exist; however, the environmental factors are the real origins of our behavior. This includes the use of conditioning in order to induce a new behavior to a child, or alter an unlikely behavior being shown by the child” (Sincero). Environment is a key role in determining how a person is developed, even if genes lay the foundation for personality. However, not only are both very important in influencing behavior, but they also incorporate each other, as part of natural instinct is to prosper and grow, which includes nurturing and protecting others. The importance of nature and nurture in the development of a person as well as their importance within each other contribute to many different situations
Scientists and biologist have argued the Nature versus Nurture debate for decades. This debate argues the degree to which our genetics or environment, affects our behaviour and developmental stages. Nature is described as the genetic material that makes up an individual. Nurture can be described as the way in which the environment and experiences of an individual influence their behavior and development. The debate has centered on which is a greater factor for many years but current contemporary views accept and acknowledge the intricacy of the developmental procedure and recognize that “development is not the case of nature or nurture, but rather nature and nurture” (Howard & Walton 2015) It has been shown that genetic and environmental factors are in such continuous interactions that the emergence of particular structures and functions is the result of the dependent interaction of genetics and environment.(Lewkowicz, 2011.)
Nature versus nurture is a commonly debated topic in the scientific world. For example were all child molesters abused as children themselves or are their genes or other factors to blame for their bad decisions? Genes seem to determine much about children, such as eye color and height, but do they also determine behavior and overall health, or is the environment the children were raised in to blame? For example, when a child is misbehaving, is it the parents responsibility to take the blame for their offspring's behavior due to how they have chosen to raise their son or daughter, or is the child's genetic makeup to blame for their faults? Can a child's environment override the genes a child is born with?
Controversy arises when nature (inheritance) is combated against nurture (environment). This controversy began with the development of the behavioristic point of view. “Behaviorism arose as a protest against all form of “introspective psychology,” which was concerned with mental states such as consciousness and will”(Plomin 3). It led to an environmentalism that rejected the possibility of genetics influences on behavior. The burden of explaining individual differences fell completely to environmental factors. Genetics involve genes, which are chemical structures that control the production of proteins, thereby indirectly affecting
Theories whose fundamental understanding of human behaviour focuses on characteristics in which, we are born with like our genetic make-up, stable personality traits, and physical predispositions are Naturists. In contrast theorists who are on the nurture side of this debate argue that human behaviour is a result of life experiences that mould and change through one’s life such as how one is reared by their parents, what one is educated in school and one’s culture. The nature vs. nurture debate can
Of course, to every argument there has to be two sides. Some scientists argue that the way we are and act is not necessarily all determined by our genes. Believers of this side think that our behavioral aspects are derived from the environment in which we are brought up in. In the theory of nurture, our behaviors are not instinctive, but are learned throughout our lives. For example, we all laugh and cry at different time and under different circumstances. As humans, we learn from our surroundings and are influenced by our peers and parents. Another example of the role of nurture explaining our behaviors is that fact that we learn our fears and phobias. The key difference is that nurture alters itself from the fact that our biological make up is the only explanation for our behavior.