Nativism Vs Empiricism

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

Sexual selection also suggests that females prefer males who have a strong jawline and prominent cheekbones. These characteristics arise because of a strong presence of testosterone which also helps to indicate

As journalist Kate Fox stated, “Every period of history has had its own standards of what is and is not beautiful, and every contemporary society has its own distinctive concept of the ideal physical attributes” (Mirror Mirror). Although the standards of beauty have fluctuated over various eras, Mary Shelley confronted many concepts of beauty in her novel, Frankenstein. According to Face Research, one reoccurring standard of beauty is symmetry, as “...Evolutionary Advantage view suggests that attraction to symmetric individuals reflects attraction to healthy individuals...” This suggests that facial symmetry and human perception of beauty

In another study, Langlois and Roggaman (1990) took photos of faces and morphed them together to produce composite images made up of 4, 8, 16 or 32 images. Participants rated faces as increasingly attractive the more faces that went into each image; this applied to both male and female faces. The more faces in an image, the more symmetrical they become, it seems that moving a facial image closer to the average increases its perceived attractiveness. It is likely that symmetry equates to fitness and “good genes”, these people are less likely to have been affected by harmful mutation. People with attractive faces are preferred because of the benefits of passing on these attractive characteristics to offspring. Little & Hancock propose that humans have evolved to be attracted to symmetrical faces because they indicate “averageness”, which equates to genetic health. Grammar and Thornhill (1994) found that females are attracted to males with masculine characteristics, for example: large jaw and prominent cheekbones. These features arise as a result of testosterone, which is also a handicap because it suppresses the immune system. Therefore, showing only “healthy” individuals can afford to produce these traits- advertising a strong immune system. Cartwright (2000) supported this, finding men prefer photographs of women with symmetrical faces and vice versa.

The way we look can be argued to be mainly due to nature. The genes we inherit from our parents make the basis of we look. For example, people often say ‘Don’t you look like your father/mother!’ Genetic inheritance can determine our eye colour, whether we have straight or curly hair or how tall we will be. We

In the "nature vs nurture" debate, nature refers to an individual's innate qualities (nativism). Nature is your genes. The physical and personality traits determined by your genes stay the same irrespective of where you were born and raised. Nature factors that trigger an individual to commit crime are influences by biological and family factors. The nature method suggests that individuals are born with qualities, abilities and characteristics that determine the kind of person that individual will become.

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".

The Nature vs Nurture theory is, if D.N.A., which shapes the way you look is more responsible for the way you act than the environment and people around you. An example of this would be, if a japanese man moves to America midway through his life and he sticks to his japanese culture, he would keep his japanese culture. But if a Japanese man were to born in america would he still have Japanese culture from his D.N.A.?

When examining the human development, considering the input of both environmental influence and biological inheritance is significant. Empiricists believe that development is influenced by social factors and environmental experiences. On the other hand nativists view development as predisposed and defined by the genetic codes of an individual, including those that subsequently mature with age (Keating, 2011, P1).

The evolutionary advantage theory proposes that symmetric individuals are attractive because they are particularly healthy, and the perceptual bias theory proposes that symmetric individuals are attractive because the human visual system can process symmetric stimuli of any kind more easily than it can process asymmetric

Within the past decade we have witnessed a series of new developments and an enormously growing interest in the understanding of human behaviour, especially when it comes to the basic principles of human mate choice. Mate preference is something which is often considered a very individual choice and appears to be influenced by cultural and economic norms. However, on the basis of numerous research works, it is a today’s acceptation that attractiveness represents a signal resulting from sexual selection. Although we have different preference for facial expression, body shape or height, recent findings suggest that mate preferences are mainly cued on

Behaviorism assumes that we are born as a blank slate and so equal at birth. The theorists believe that it is the environmental factors that shape our behaviour rather than genetic or biological differences. Behaviorism very much represents the nurture aspect of the nature-nurture

In society, not one person is alike. By saying this, many people believe that they strongly take after their parents. Meaning they think Nature is a big part in their life and why they are who they are. The genes in each cell in us humans determine the different traits that we have, more dominantly on the physical connections like eye color, hair color, ear size, height, and other traits. However, it is still not known whether the more abstract attributes like personality, intelligence, sexual orientation, likes and dislikes are gene-coded in our DNA. The nurture theory has experiments showing a child’s behavior with the environment as to adult behavior. In the Nature Vs Nurture debate, everyone has their own thoughts and ideas on each

Generally as the average rating decreased the standard deviation for the ratings increased. Some of the facial ratios measured were either much higher or lower than the golden ratio. The ratios for a/g and b/d were closest to the golden ratio. The greatest variability was seen for the ratio of the tip of the nose to the lips to the width of the lips (standard deviation for 0.87) The second greatest variability was the ratio of the pupil to the lip to the top of the head to the pupil. Interestingly when all the faces measurements were averaged together we could see that all the faces are close to the golden ratio. We next examined the correlations between the absolute difference between phi and the measured ratio (delta phi) and the average attractiveness rating. No significant correlations were seen except for the b/d ratio. Interestingly, as the ratio went farther from the golden ratio the higher the faces were ranked (Spearman’s correlation r = 0.58, p =

Biologists believed that facial symmetry should be attractive because it may signal mate quality. Rhodes, Proffit, Grady and Sumich (1998) manipulated the symmetry to figure out the effect on attractiveness. 4 versions of a picture were created. One was perfectly symmetric, the others were a highly symmetric version, normal level of symmetry and a low symmetric version.64 subjects rated these faces. The results clearly stated that perfect symmetry was significantly more attractive and low symmetry faces were unattractive, more over the males found the perfect symmetric faces more appealing as potential life partners, so facial symmetry does play a role in mate selection. In the second experiment the authors compared the attractiveness of faces at three symmetry levels. These were normal, high and perfect. The subjects were shown two versions of the same face at different