Nature Vs Nurture

Throughout the history of human existence, there have always been many questions that have plagued man for centuries. Some of these questions are “what is the meaning of life” or “which came first, the chicken or the egg.” Within the last 400 years a new question has surfaced and has caused an enormous controversy which takes our minds to much further levels. The controversy is whether inherited genes or the environment influences and affects our personality, intelligence, behavior, development and abilities. This controversy is most often recognized as the “Nature vs. Nurture” conflict. Some people believe that it is strictly genes that affect our ways of live and how we are, while others believe that it is the environment that affects

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?

One of the most enduring debates in the field of psychology is the controversial idea of nature vs. nurture. Throughout the endless history of the debate, no clear conclusion has been met, only hypotheses have been formed. At the center of the debate, human behaviors, ideas, and feelings are being determined, whether they are learned or inherited. Determining physical traits, such as eye color or hair color, are simple because they are hereditary traits. The idea of having a certain personality, intelligence, or ability is under discussion because scientists cannot determine if these traits are learned, or predetermined by genes.

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.

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

Erickson’s psychosocial theory adds perspective to why identical twins, Linda and Lydia, turned out differently (Feldman 2010). Linda was raised by a family in the rural west, while Lydia went to a family in the urban south. These are two very different situations filled with different socioeconomical environments (Feldman 2010). The differences in the girls’ social environment could have had huge influence on their cognitive development (Feldman 2010). We need to analyze what Erickson’s psychosocial theory says about the way our social interactions with other people can test and outline our development (Feldman 2010). We can also take a look at the

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

Nature versus nurture is a complicated subject to speak about. If one’s abilities or lack of are due to their environment or their genes. For example, a child is behaving negatively in class. Many individuals are quick to jump to the conclusion that “Oh, that kid’s parents don’t care, or just don’t know how to raise their child.” That could very well be a possibility, but most people never think that maybe they have a hereditary problem, such as ADHD, that was passed on to the child. This cannot be helped by the child, it is out of their control, but can be just as easily overcame than to just using their disorder or disability as a crutch. It is a very controversial topic in terms of which one is more important. Does the disorder or disability completely ruin the person’s life or can they overcome it? Which has the most effect on one’s life? The answer is, yes.

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

The debate of Nature vs. Nurture is almost as old as humans themselves. Science that mysterious language that allows to understand the world around us still can't give us a clear picture into our DNA. Are our personalities somehow linked to the chemicals in our brains or do we take after those who raise us?

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

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.

For more than a century, researchers and psychologists, such as Sir Francis Galton, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud and many others, have been trying to understand how people are transformed by their environment. Researchers have mainly argued whether it is in fact our environment or rather genetics, our biological pre-wiring, which has influenced human behavior. This concept ultimately facilitated what is now known as the Nature versus Nurture debate. The Nature aspect states that human behavior is predetermined by our inherited genes or is the product of our innate behavior. The Nurture side of the disagreement postulates that human behavior stems from acquired attributes through individual learning and experiences. Correspondingly, the Object Relations Theory in psychoanalytic psychology supports the position that a person’s natural environment (i.e. family, peers, acquaintances, society) forms human development. The Object Relations theory stresses that it is the relationships between people, more specially family, often between mother and child, that crafts the human psyche.