Influence Of Nature Vs. Nurture On The Environment

One of the oldest debates in the history of Psychology is about Nature versus Nurture. Today, we know that both play a significant role in human’s life. Some people believe that it is genes which affects our way of life and some people believes that it is none other but our environment that greatly influences our lifestyle and some believe that both has tremendous impact on one’s way of life. Indeed in certain cases both our nature (our genes) and our environment roughly play an equal role in human life.

The fundamentals of the social learning theory significantly describe offenders and their criminal behavior which is learned based on observation and imitation. A researcher by the name of Albert Bandura along with coworkers tested the social learning theory with several experiments on children and their imitation of aggression based on what they saw and were exposed to. Bandura’s focus was to prove that human behavior such as aggression is learned through social imitations and copying the actions of others. Walters (1966) gives details about the Bobo doll experiment and explains its purpose related to learning a violent behavior based on observation. In the experiment, the tested subjects were children of both sexes, ranging from the ages of three to six years. Some of the children were exposed to a non-aggressive adult, while the other children were placed in a room with an aggressive adult who would both physically and verbally attack the Bobo doll. The control group in the experiment was not exposed to any adult. During the second phase of the experiment, the children were left in a room by themselves with the toys, and watched to see if they would demonstrate the aggressive behavior like that of which they observed adults doing earlier. Walter (1966) describes the results as “children who had been exposed to an aggressive model showed more imitative physical and verbal

In social psychology when nature or nurture is mentioned this always brings up arguments and debates. It said to be dated back to Victorian era and it’s a never ending battle (Maribeth Mabanag).They argued that one of either nature or nurture was responsible for how human turned out in life. This is something no scientists have been able to prove up to these modern times. Nature is said to be things that you are acquired your from parents and you are born with such as this like you eye colour, hair texture and your nose. It is said that whatever you are born with is responsible for how you develop in life. When they speak of nurture, this deal with the effect of the environment and how it helps develop a child’s life. However, certain human traits remain a biological mystery. These traits have been studied on the "outside" but whose "inside" origins remain unclear. Such "mysterious" traits can be anything like intelligence, athletic ability, skin tone and muscle mass. So all the assumptions and

Nature Vs Nurture is often the huge debate in psychology when it comes to determining and understanding individual’s characteristics traits. Nature is hereditary to our behavior while nurture is based on our environmental influences. Although most argue whether or not nature or nurture defines our characteristics, I believe both have an impact on we are.

The nature vs nurture issue has been a controversial argument among psychologist for decades. This argument exposes two different views. One of them emphasizes that our personality depends solely on genetics (nature). On the other hand, the second view suggests that humans “develop through experience” (Myers 2013, SG 6) (nurture).

The concepts of Nature vs Nurture, are major concepts in social science. Nature is the hereditary pattern of physical features in a human being 's development. These features include, but are not limited to, our personality, usual and unusual appearances and the general measurements of how humans hold the attributes of being sociable, hostile behavior, their emotions, and the usage of alcohol and drugs. On the other hand Nurture is slightly different. Nurture is the influence of the environment that plays upon the behavior and characteristics in a human. The idea of nurture is that humans will grow up to form their personality on the way they are raised and life experiences. Culture is defined by the people in the environment, however, the environment helps shape and form human personalities in order to forge a culture. Culture is created by religions/beliefs, clothing/foods, language/social habits as well as the humanistic discipline; such as music, paintings, literature, and many more. Culture is generated by humankind, because humans hold their belief systems and patterns that was passed down by generations; by humans passing down what they have learned from their families this begins to create a culture. Personality plays a central role in both nature vs nurture and culture. Furthermore, personality is stated “the total organization of inherited and acquired characteristics of an individual as evidenced by the individual 's behavior (Hunt 119). Personality is either

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.

When examining human development, the universal idea of conflict between nature and nurture often arises. The argument presented by the “Nature vs Nurture” debate is extremely controversial and has been discussed and critiqued for decades. “Nurture” is cited as being a combination of elements from one’s environment and experiences that shapes a person and their life, whereas “Nature” is cited as being a combination of genetic and hereditary aspects that dictates who a person is and will become. The controversy surrounding the argument most directly stems from the differences of views on whether or not nature or nurture affects a person’s life more. Historians, scientists, psychologists, and everyday philosophers have all studied this uncertainty, and many of whom have developed countless theories. Among these is the

Nature versus nurture is one of the most controversial topics of discussion among human beings. For many years, phycologist’s have been studying various people’s behavioral patterns in order to settle the debate. The argument of nature suggests that a person is born with a pre-conceived set of personality traits that determine the way they will act for the rest of their life. That is to say that all characteristics of a person, not just physical appearance, are passed down through genetics. The case with nurture states the idea that every person, no matter where they are from, is born with a blank slate. In other words, asserting that the behavior of someone is solely a result of their surroundings. This subject often comes up when a person

Nature versus nurture is one of the oldest physiological debates in history. Some believe that nature, the innate factors like genetic inheritance and other biological elements impacts human development. Nurture, however, are the external aspects such as experiences and the raising of a child. The Age Old Debate of Nature Versus Nurture article reads that “John Locke believed in what is known as tabula rasa, which suggests that the mind begins as a blank slate (Cherry, Kendra). According to this notion, human evolution and knowledge are determined by experiences.

One of the oldest, most prominent topics of academic debate is the Nature vs. Nurture argument. Nature vs. Nurture is a largely psychological term, in which the Nature aspect places more significance on genetics and personality; our innate predisposition to various circumstances tell us a great deal more about who we are. On the other side, the Nurture aspect places more focus on our environment and stresses the salience of the majority of what we do in our daily lives have been “learned” We see a wide array of examples of this specific argument in literature, popular culture, and even in our everyday lives. While no one can deny that both sides have extremely valid points, it would be very naive to assume that one had more of a dominant factor;

The ongoing debate of the topic “Nurture” is more important than “nature”, has been considered true many times throughout the world from books to real life scenarios and events, but what is our meaning of “nurture” and “nature”? The common aspect of “nurture” is where outside influences determine what we will be like society being an example, while “nature” is basically that genetics determine the outcome of how people turn out. There is an easy argument for the case of “nurture”, but just because of the argument being an easy case, is it really true? People acquire their personalities, opinions and beliefs through “nurture”, while they also inherit a much deeper meaning of quality through “nature”, being that, quality is the trait which it takes to commit murder, seek risk, or become an accountant. That is why the statement “nurture” is more important than “nature”is false.

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-nurture debate has been around for decades. It is one of the oldest and most popular topics in the history of psychology asking what makes people who they become and how they behave and develop the way they do. What makes the debate more interesting is that now scientists are asking if personality traits and even sexual orientation can be determined by what is in already there from conception. Bodies are built up of chromosomes which contain genetic information. Many of these are inherited from parents and relatives. The nature side of the debate states the way people are is predominantly from inherited genetics and other biological factors not so much the environmental factors. The genes humans have in their bodies play a huge role to many aspects of who they are and who they become. For example, hair colour, eye colour and height are all predetermined by genes. Unchangeable. This is natures way. The argument stands to decide whether most attributes do stem from nature, genes, or if they can be affected by the environment and the way people are nurtured as they have grown. The nurture side of the argument believes although humans do have the genes and traits with which they are born, most personality traits are being made up of environmental factors. For example, being loved and cared for as children, if parents or carers were positive role models and if those people were taught in ways which provided them with discipline and respect for others. Where nature

The nature vs. nurture debate has been argued for many years throughout the psychology community. In my case, I tend to think of myself as a pretty good athlete and a good student. The question of whether good athletes and smart people are born or made is debated often in our world. Do you get where you want to be because of the environment you grow up in or because of who your parents are? Nature and nurture are complementary to each other. Nature is what sets the foundation for a person and the nurturing of the person builds something out of that foundation.