Nature Vs Nurture Essay

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.

This refers to all those characteristics and abilities that are determined by your genes. This is not the same as the characteristics you are born with, because these may have been determined by prenatal environment. In addition some genetic characteristic only appear later in development as a result of the process of maturation. Supporters of nature have been called natavist.

In today's society, one will find that there are many different factors that go into the development of a criminal mind, and it is impossible to single out one particular cause of criminal behavior. Criminal behavior often stems from both biological and environmental factors. In many cases criminals share similar physical traits which the general population do not usually have. For example criminals have smaller brains than properly adjusted individuals. However biological reasons cannot solely be the cause of criminal behavior. Therefore, one must look to other sources as to how a criminal mind is developed. Social and environmental factors also are at fault for developing

easily traced as far back as the start of the present century with at least some

Why do people act a certain way? Some people are aggressive and others aren’t. Nature and nurture play a role in this. Is it because of the genes passed down from their parents or is it because of the environment where they live in? The reason I picked this topic is because in some areas of my life and other people’s lives, environmental aspects plays a role which affects their behavior and actions, but genes play a role too. I am curious about the topic and why scientists have not found an answer to whether it is nature or nurture. How can a topic have evidence explaining why it is both environmentally and genes. Why isn’t there one answer? Do the aspects intelligence, aggressive behaviors and Mental disorders contribute to the environment where people live in and their genes pasted down?

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

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

Nature vs Nurture is something that has been researched for many years especially when it comes to finding the reason for someone committing a crime. When talking about nature, I am talking about how you are born. The genes that you are born with that make you who you are. When referring to nurture I am talking about how someone is raised. Such as the environment you live in and what is taught to you. As humans we cannot control our nature it is simply what you are born with. When you are born you have all your genes that will decide what you look like, how tall or short you will be, so why do we not believe that our behavioral tendencies, and personality attributes come from our genes too. Psychological theories such as the biological approach, and psychoanalysis have helped to show us how are genetics predetermine our behavior. Researchers have found multiple facts that support each side and for years no one has been able to decide which one influences us over the other one. I believe that our nature has a greater impact on us then our nurture especially when it comes to criminal actions.

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?

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

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.

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

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.

The argument I buy most into is the combination argument, which is nature and nurture influencing each other and that it is a combination of DNA and the environment you grew up in. Why do I believe this? There is a movie I watched based on a girl named Mary Adler in second grade who had math skills far beyond greater than most in her age group. Her mother Diane was also a math genius who was famous for her work on the Navier-Strokes equation and who had many mental health issues due to a mother who decided that her daughter would only focus on this one equation and was overbearing, killed herself when Mary was an infant. Diane Adler did not want that life for her child and left the child to her brother who ended up raising her. When he raised her she was happy, a child, and still very smart and went to college as a six-year-old to take more advanced math classes. Her being raised in a happy environment had no difference in her excellent math skills yet had a big part in her not showing any signs of the mental problems her biological mother had (Abraham, Alex). I understand that this is a just simply a movie and make-believe but it is a situation to use as an example. One study done by Albert R. S. showed that children who are smarter than average have parents who “were well-educated and had attained significantly more formal education than the national norms” (Albert R. S.). Another example to think about is people in rural areas who have the potential to be far greater but