Nature versus Nurture
You got your dark brown hair from your father and you got your looks from your mother, but where did you get your excitement for sports and your love for all animals? A person’s physical characteristics lean more towards genes and heredity, but our genes are not mentioned as much when behavior is the topic. This is how the nature versus nurture debate first began. Scientists who believe in the nature theory believe that people behave the way they do due to heredity and genes. On the other hand, nurture scientists believes behavior is taught and influenced by the environment and the surrounding people. Many say that behavior results from nature, while others believe in the opposite, the environment. Human development has been viewed as one of the most highly controversial topics in the world of psychology today, and the debate of nature versus nurture is at the top of the discussion list.
Discussion
Nature There are two types of believers regarding human development: nativists and empiricists. Nativists are those who believe that specific skills or abilities are “native” or engrained into the brain in the womb or at birth. Each person has their own unique genetic code that is specific to that individual as a whole. Therefore, some people are born with a more superior genetic makeup than others (McLeod, 2007). Bowlby’s theory of attachment is an example of a strong nature position in psychology. His theory illustrates the bond between a mother and her
“Trying to separate out nature and nurture as explanations for behavior, as in classic genetic studies of twins and families, is now said to be both impossible and unproductive” (Levitt, 1). Social scientists have declared the nature-nurture debate to be unnecessary. Similarly, scientists feel that such debate is not only unhelpful, but also outdated. From geneticists’ perspective, nurture and nature interact to influence
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).
“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?
John Tooby and Leda Cosmides, two highly respected and influential people in the nature vs. nurture study state, “Evolutionary psychology is not just another
Scholars around the world commonly discuss the topic of “nature vs. nurture” in relation to the importance of an individual’s inherent qualities. All aspects of human behavior are affected by both nature and nurture, operating together. Nature refers to the factors that have shaped the genetics that we inherit from our parents and ancestors. Nurture refers to all the things that have influenced us since we began to develop- even from the moment we were conceived. Therefore, nature determines the range of our human potential while nurture affects the ways that our human potential is objectified, being helped or hindered by good or bad environmental contributions.
One of the main, and most controversial topics discussed in a child’s development is, nature vs. nurture. Nature pertains to genetic influences that a child has inherited from their parents, such as traits, abilities, and capacities. For instance, what color eyes the child may have, how athletic they may be, and even their brain development. Whereas nurture, refers to the environment the child is raised in and how this shapes their behaviors. Such factors can include, the family’s socio-economic status, schooling, parental discipline, as well as whether the child is provided with enough resources. When it comes to nature or nurture having a stronger influence then the other, the answer is both, nature and nurture, influence the outcome of the child. This idea that both nature and nurture, play a part in how the child will develop, is known as the nature-nurture continuum.
1) Use the example of feral children to construct an argument in the nature versus nurture debate.
Through history, the idea of nature vs. nurture has been a hotly debated issue. Nature, or genetics is often believed to be the most important aspect of a persons’ upbringing, as nature is something intrinsic to any one person. However, many debate that nurture, or the care and encouragement of any human life, trumps nature. The earliest evidence and rebuttals of these theories have been honed and developed over time by specific psychologists and educational theorists – all who hoped to prove their own ideas as fact at one time in history.
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
The nature vs Nurture debate allows us to see if behavioral tendencies, personality attributes and mental abilities are already a part of us before we are already born. Nature is influenced by genetic inheritance and biological factors. Nurture is the influence of external factors after conception, with experience and learning
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
Numerous people, like Galton, have tried to find where these two terms separate in their means of influence, whereas for others “who used the terms, nurture was rarely, if ever, seen as separable from nature; instead, it was referred to as helping and assisting, or as responding to, nature; nurture was more of a verb than a noun.” (Plonka, 2016) Similar to many things in the world, ideas that state that something works solely by itself is harder to believe than if it were to work with another component of the world around it. Those who believe that nature and nurture work together in sync to influence an organism believe that they show “a crucial biological phenomenon of mutual influences of both hereditary and environmental factors in the trait formation.” (Plonka, 2016) Nature alone cannot determine a person alone, yet nurture only has limited influence as
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 debate is one of the most enduring in the field of psychology.How far are human behaviors, ideas, and feelings, INNATE and how far are they all LEARNED?These issues are at the
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.