Some may say that man is born intrinsically evil while others would argue that evil is a trait developed and learned. Is it nature or simply nurtured? This is one of the oldest disagreements in psychology history: “Nature versus Nurture”. Nature, in other words, innate knowledge is basically behavior, culture, and personality that are inherited through genes and biological factors. However, nurture which is acquired knowledge is more based on external factors like one’s environment and experience. This popular and ongoing controversy is argued by those who believe knowledge is instinctive, attained and both based on common causes.
There are many reasons to why the “nature” theory is argued for. The first reason is that mental health is affected
…show more content…
The first cause that is part of the “nurture” theory is also mental health. In order to discover if one has psychopathic tendencies, he/she does a positron emission tomography scan. After James Fallon, the neurologist, did the PET scan, he discovered he had the brain of a psychopath. However, due to the fact that he grew up in a nurturing and loving environment, he was able to become a successful adult in which simultaneously even prevented him from developing full traits of a psychopath(“Nature vs. Nurture”, 2015). Yet another cause also common in the “nature” theory is how the external environment affects one’s behavior. Infants are the perfect example of this. An infant only forms an attachment to someone in return for the love and attention she/he has received (McLeod, 2007). Another supporting idea is the fact that children tend to imitate people who play an influential and important role in their life -usually the parents. Thus, the son would learn from the father and begin to copy who he has made his role model and the same relationship occurs with the daughter and the mother (Lippa,2005). Thus, based on the findings above, the “nurture” theory contradicts with what those who support the “nature” theory believe
An advocate of the nature theory would probably say that homosexuality is as a result of environmental factors around us. So for example if a female grows up with 11 brothers and barely has any female friends. The likelihood of her being a lesbian is high because all she will hear daily are her male acquaintances discussing other females.
Violence take multiple forms, many of which are covered in the nightly news. Murder, rape, familial abuse, bullying, workplace hostility, armed robbery—all of these are societal problems with far-reaching repercussions. There have long debates and discussions regarding whether nature or nurture influences individual violent behavior. People are concerned about what makes an individual to engage in violent behavior such murder or burglary among other types of crimes. They are also concerned about what makes people stop such behavior. However, there is no precise conception whether nature, nurture or both influence violence. Some people assume that, violent behavior results from individual’s life experiences or upbringing also known as nurture. Others feel that violent behavior is more complex and results from individual’s genetic character or nature. In other words, it is not clear whether violent behavior is inborn or occurs at some point in persons’ lives, but even it’s hard, emphasizing one and ignoring other influences is always an unwise way to go.
There has always been a controversial debate based on nature vs nurture. What makes a person who they are today? Is it the genetic or their biological make-up? Or is it their environment; based on how they were brought up, social groups, societies values/beliefs? This question has been an interesting point of discussion between psychologists. Serial killers have always been fascinating because, they have usually murdered more than 3 people, so what makes them a serial killer? In my opinion I think both aspects contribute to your personality and how you are now.
Nature affects people the most because genes and hereditary factors in which influence people to become who they are. Plato and Descartes, philosophers, proposed that certain things are inborn and regardless of environmental influence they occur naturally and many other philosophers believed that all of our characteristics and behaviors are the result of evolution (Chemy 2). People learn new information every day; as soon as individuals are conceived their brain starts to learn and understand things around them. Newborn babies are accustomed to the mother’s womb and as a human being individuals are born oblivious to everything that appears to be around them. Each individual needs parents
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).
Susan Evers and Sharon McKendrick, the famous identical twins from the movie The Parent Trap, were separated at a young age by their divorcing parents. Sharon grew up in Boston to a socialite mother while Susan grew up in California on her father’s ranch. Sharon had structure while Susan’s life was very laid back. They looked the same and liked many of the same things, yet their personalities were very different. What is responsible for these differences? Is it simply that they are two different people with different interests and preferences? Or did the environments that they grew up in play a part in making who they are? In the nature vs. nurture controversy, nature proclaims that our genetic make-up plays the primary role in human
The nature side of the argument is basically what we are born with, our heredity. The main idea of this is that we are born with predetermined traits that may or may not create psychopathic tendencies in us. Dr. Richard Davidson of the University of Wisconsin at Madison published a report in 2000 that compared brain scans of five
“Cut from the same cloth”, “The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree”, “A chip off the old block”; most of us have heard these types of idioms at one point or another, ways of likening us to our parents. Sometimes they are right, while other times it couldn’t be farther from the truth; leaving us to wonder, “what is it that makes us who we are?” Are we simply the product of our environments, a collective sum of our interactions and experiences? Or, do our genetics pre-determine who we are, complex variations in our DNA that dictate our individual personalities? Some scientists argue on behalf of the nurture theory, that our personalities are continually changing and growing, influenced by the world and people around us. Others believe that we are pre-wired by genetics alone, that while external factors may magnify or diminish some aspects of that wiring, everything we are is already programmed into us from the moment of conception. So, who is right?
There has been extensive debate between scholars in the field of psychology surrounding the Nature vs. Nurture issue. Both nature and nurture determine who we are and neither is solely independent of the other. “As the area of a rectangle is determined by its length and its width, so do biology and experience together create us.”(Myers, 2008, p. 8) Carl Gustav Jung, and leading thinker and creator of analytical psychology, believes: “Human behavior is influenced both by individual experience and also by an innate “collective unconscious” that vests all of us with certain proclivities and tendencies.”(Hayes, 2000, p. 7) From my personal life experience
From Dr. Money’s perspective, raising Bruce as a girl would allow him to live a “normal” life, if he were to live his life without a penis, he would be seen as an outsider and rejected from society. He also suggested to put Bruce on estrogen, but also surgically give him a cosmetic vagina. Dr. Money explained to Ron and Janet that Bruce/Brenda, would psychologically mature as a woman, and be attracted to men, as well as be able to have sexual intecourse, without a problem. According to Bruce’s parents, there was no reason “that it shouldn’t work” (50). However, they could have thought it out thoroughly, what if Brenda didn’t feel comfortable in her own skin? Would she feel as though something is wrong with her? This is where the topic of
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 has been a long never ending debate for some time now. Nature vs Nurture has been so profoundly debated, that now it’s unclear whether what makes us who we are and what we do, nature or nurture. For purposes of this essay Nature is going to be defined as characteristics we acquire through our genetic and biological factors, while that Nurture is going to be defined characteristics we acquire through our interactions and influences with the environment. There are endless ways of taking an approach to the Nature vs Nurture conflict, thus the reason that it’s truly unclear if its Nature or Nurture or even both what makes us who and what we are.
Aim: To calculate meta-analytic estimates of heritability in liability and shared an individual – specific environmental effects from the pooled twin data.
Scientists and psychologists everywhere study twins. The argument most commonly studied is nature versus nurture. The focus of this essay, however, is whether or not to separate twins in schools. Some believe the separation is demeaning and traumatic to the twins. The side about to be proved however that is this separation is a necessary step in the individualization of twins. Often, separation sparks the path to individualization.
Scientists still agree that biology does play a part in human behavior, however. Nature and nurture do not oppose each other in every manner. Today, social scientists hesitate to choose one or the other. As humans, life depends solely on the operating of the body. This is seen especially in children. It is obvious that children share their biological traits, such as hair or eye color, with that of their parents. Heredity also plays a part in their intelligence, how artistic they are, and their overall personality. We all have “potential” inheritances, in which their full development depends on how we are all raised. Both sides