Nature Vs Nurture

Nature or Nurture. Nature may be all of the genes and hereditary factors with which influence them to become who they are such as physical appearances and personality characteristics. Nurturing impacts people’s lives as well as how they are raised and all the environmental factors. In combination, these qualities can be the true identity of oneself. Many people may argue that nurture appears to a play huge factor in the two, but others may think otherwise. Not having both as a characteristic can have a negative effect on a person physically and mentally. The debate of nature versus nurture appears to be the oldest argument known to man, and it still remains to be unanswered. In the old-age argument nature versus nurture, nature may play a huge role in determining a person’s true identity.

When comparing the biological and psychoanalytic approach to psychology, you are able to see that they are different from one another. For example, the biological approach assumes that the mind and behaviour originate from the functioning of the body and that behaviour is driven by biological instincts. Whereas the psychoanalytic approach claims behaviour is driven by instincts such as the unconscious processes as well as the conflict between unconscious desires (pleasure and reality principle). Additionally, both approaches have a common feature of being reductionist,

The biological approach suggests that behaviour is affected by the DNA we inherit and is a beneficial adaptive function. We inherit 23 pairs of chromosomes which can affect our behaviour. Biological factors such as chromosomes, hormones and the brain all have a significant influence on human behaviour, e.g., OCD. Another factor in the Biological approach is the role of biochemicals.

The biological approach of psychology looks at psychology as a science. In fact, this approach believes that all behaviours have a physiological basis (Glassman & Hadad, 2009). Meaning that they are the result of the structure of genes, the nervous system and hormones and how they work. The biological approach aims to understand two main issues: the relationship between the mind and the body, that is to say; how can the body affect the mind or how can physical parts of your body can affect your behaviour and way of thinking, and the influence of heredity (Glassman & Hadad, 2009). As this approach focuses on the internal processes, that

(AC1) Two perspectives in psychology are the behaviourist approach and the biological (also known as physiological) approach. These perspectives consist of different theories, research methods and treatments in relation to mental illness.

The biological approach focuses on the physiological causes of behaviour based on genetics, brain physiology and biochemistry. This approach also adopts the view that biology is adapted based on the environment an organism is in and therefore most behaviours serve an evolutionary purpose. Research is gained through a nomothetic approach that uses scientific methods. The psychoanalytical approach focuses on instincts, childhood experiences and the unconscious mind as motivators for behaviour. An idiographic approach is adopted from the case studies Freud used to develop his theory, however, Freud also attempted to apply general laws of behaviour using a nomothetic approach. There are several similarities within the two approaches: they both draw on nature and nature, are deterministic, materialistic and internal approaches. Additionally, both have practical applications in modern life. However, some differences between the two are that the biological approach accounts for external forces as well as internal whilst psychodynamic does not. The psychodynamic approach places greater emphasis on unobservable forces unlike the biological approach that primarily looks at observable structures – although often in animals rather than humans.

This essay will outline and compare both biological and behavioural perspectives on human behaviour. The history, major discoveries and theories will be discussed along with some of the most influential theorists in each of these two areas of psychology. This essay will also compare the two areas strengths and weaknesses in the field of psychology.

Does the environment that one grows up in contribute to alcoholism or is alcoholism determined by genetics? It wasn’t until 1991 that alcoholism was considered both a medical and psychiatric disease by the American Medical Association. Alcoholism is defined in the dictionary as a chronic disorder characterized by dependence on alcohol, repeated excessive use of alcoholic beverages, the development of withdrawal symptoms on reducing or ceasing intake, morbidity that may include cirrhosis of the liver, and decreased ability to function socially and vocationally. (dictionary.com). It is also defined as an addiction to the consumption of alcoholic liquor or the mental illness

(P1)The biological approach means that our behavior is the cause of biological factors. This approach looks at our genetics to construct a reason why we act the way we do and why we develop abnormal behaviors. The brain and nervous system are the biological approach and so are chemical changes in the body .This can mean chemical reactions in the brain. For instance, in eating disorders - twin studies were carried out and it was shown that if one identical twin suffered from an eating disorder then the other twin would also be more likely to suffer from a disorder as well. This did not happen with non-identical twins, suggesting that the

The biological approach states that “all thoughts, feeling & behavior ultimately have a biological cause” (Simply Psychology). This approach says that we are affected by biological factors. Biological factors are “anything which affects the function and behavior of a living organism. Internally, this factor can be a physical, physiological, chemical, neurological, or genetic condition

1. Some people have argued that the Johns Hopkins psychologist used this opportunity as an experiment to test his nurture theory of gender identity. What are the expected results of this experiment, assuming that the nurture theory is valid?

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.

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

Many scientist have studied, if one’s nature is the reason for their success or if the way they were nurtured the reason for their success. The nature theory has to do with the way someone's genes; something they were born with influences their success. And the nurture theory has to do with how someone is raised or how things they are taught influences their success. Both of these theories have different aspects on how they influence individual success.

First we will look into the biological aspect of human behavior. Biological pertains to one’s body chemistry and from a psychological standpoint the chemistry of the brain. No two people have exactly the