Nature Vs Nurture Research Paper

Nature vs Nurture debate is the representation that society is an organism, but the question is do we inherently possess the knowledge to function as an organism, or are we taught this skill. The debate over Nature vs Nurture is more of a struggle about which theory is the correct theory in my opinion. Social behaviors can be the product of both genetics as well as an influence by our environment.

One of the oldest debates in psychology is nature versus nurture. Nature is the inborn, innate character of an organism. (Spencer A. Rathus pg. 56) Nurture is the sum total of the environmental factors that affect an organism from conception onward. (Spencer A. Rathus pg. 56) Basically nature is what you have from heredity and nurture is you environmental influences.

When examining human development, the universal idea of conflict between nature and nurture often arises. The argument presented by the “Nature vs Nurture” debate is extremely controversial and has been discussed and critiqued for decades. “Nurture” is cited as being a combination of elements from one’s environment and experiences that shapes a person and their life, whereas “Nature” is cited as being a combination of genetic and hereditary aspects that dictates who a person is and will become. The controversy surrounding the argument most directly stems from the differences of views on whether or not nature or nurture affects a person’s life more. Historians, scientists, psychologists, and everyday philosophers have all studied this uncertainty, and many of whom have developed countless theories. Among these is the

Nature versus nurture is one of the most controversial topics of discussion among human beings. For many years, phycologist’s have been studying various people’s behavioral patterns in order to settle the debate. The argument of nature suggests that a person is born with a pre-conceived set of personality traits that determine the way they will act for the rest of their life. That is to say that all characteristics of a person, not just physical appearance, are passed down through genetics. The case with nurture states the idea that every person, no matter where they are from, is born with a blank slate. In other words, asserting that the behavior of someone is solely a result of their surroundings. This subject often comes up when a person

Whether people were born with a certain trait or them naturally having the ability to adapt to a certain condition , due to the environment they are living in. In these two articles the authors wrote the article with different points of view , often debating whether someone’s environment has to do with their own success and the way they end up in the future . If they are successful or if they end up in “bad” places due to the choices they make. In the article “The Science of Success” , in paragraph 3 its states “ With a bad environment and poor parenting , orchid children can end up depressed , drug addicted, or in jail - but with the right environment and good parenting they can grow up to be society's most creative, successful, and happy people “.

Is one’s life set in stone right from birth? Or does an individual gain certain qualities through experiences in life? Nature versus nurture has always been a controversial debate, and there are many different theories and explanations that have been provided around the world, and although many of these statements are true, no one has come to an official conclusion that explains this psychological phenomenon. There have been hundreds of studies conducted in order to explain this topic, and the findings can help develop an understanding that can eventually define the truth. By analyzing certain cognitive traits in individuals it is possible to learn whether these certain traits are predisposed or if the environment one grows up in influence the appearance of the traits.

Nature is the natural mental and physical way a person should act by the way their genes are formed, however nurture changes nature by changing one's environment to change the natural behavior one posses. Nurture is more dominant feature for people's psychological development due to the environment one's in. Nurture is dominant because the environment can change a person's gene features allowing their to cancel out the negative personality they naturally have in their genes. Nature is very deceptive because someone's destiny to be a crazy psychopath can become the opposite in the future, this is the result from environmental, someone raised positively will shape

When it comes to the debate of whether counselors and born or made, I think that my stance falls more in the center of both extremes. I don't think that it is impossible to be a good counselor if you were not praised for your abilities to be easy to talk to at an early age, but I do think that there are some personalities that may be better suited for different types of counseling. I believe that counselors should approach the field and developed both, from scientific and intuition or feeling based skills. I think that over time even if you did not begin with a natural therapeutic way of being you can develop into a good counselor, if that it what you really want and strive for. I also don't that counseling should only be based off learning from experiences but should also partly rely on the scientific foundations and theories in which counseling was based upon.

The nature vs nurture debate is one that naturalists and empiricists love to have. The naturalists are on the nature side of the debate; they believe that a person's development is primarily influenced by their genetic traits. The empiricists, on the other hand, side with the nurture part of the debate; they believed that a person's development is mostly influenced by the environment they are raised in. Most modern psychologist, however, don’t take such radical approaches. They instead accept that a person’s development is influenced by a mixture of both nature and nurture, although there is still debate over which plays a larger role (McLeod). In my life, both nature and nurture have played key roles in my development as a person and who I

The topic of whether nature or nurture is more important in the shaping of a person's personality. To start off, the heredity is the passing of mental and physical characteristics from one generation to another. On the other hand of the debate, the nurture/environment is basically the place a person grew up in, personal experiences, early childhood life etc... The debate has a long history as one of the oldest debates in psychology. The longevity of the debate and the great importance of both aspects of a person's personality makes side picking extremely difficult. However, one side does have an advantage over the other.

According to the dictionary the term "Nurture" means to feed and protect, and "Nature" means the particular combination of qualities belonging to a person. Although the brothers have one similarity that I would consider nurturistic, which is there willingness to help people thorough their occupation, I believe the rest of the other similarities that the brothers share fall along the lines of nature. For example, both brothers share the same shoe size which seems to be an inheritance from their parents and that is a natural similarity. Also, the brothers share similar interests such as smoking, reading, exercising, coffee, music, brand of clothing, and religion, which also falls into the category of natural characteristics.

In regards to being a “natural born killer”, behavior in a person can ultimately be broken down into it’s biological components. Humans have a “warrior gene” built inside of them and sometimes it’s an uncontrollable urge that just releases with little to know warning. For example, on a drastically smaller scale, you get punched in the face and your immediate reaction is to strike back. That feeling, that action is the “warrior gene” inside of you. That’s part of your DNA to adapt and survive. Some people are born with extremely bad tempers. Where do you think that came from? It’s passed down from generation to generation. Men are more common to strike back, have a poor attitude or make a big deal out of something

nurture is environmental factors, where nature is what a person is born with. Both of these are very important and it is actually quite hard to decide whcih is more important than the other. I did some research on this topic and found there are many debates. For this assigment i decided to say nurture is more important in a childs learning because if a teacher does not no whats going on at home they may jump to concolusions about the child. Nurture doesnt just mean home life either, its friends, neighboors, groups and children can become easily peerpresured into doing something they dont want to do which could lead bullying, and i believe it is our goal as future educators to provvent that from happing. that is why i sided on team nurture though

A debate on Nature versus Nnurture has been going on for a long time. In this essay I will describe my views on the subject. To examine them side by side we will explore how they both affect intelligence. The Pearson Custom Library Psychology defines nature as “the influence of heredity or genes… (P. 342)” and Nnurture as the “environment (P. 342 Ciccarelli)” affecting one’s personality or intelligence. In other words, how is someone’s environment affecting their mental development compare to their genes?

I think that nature and nurture both affect a person's life, but I think nurture has more to do with our lives than nature does. When I was little, i was at a parade and the people in a tracter threw candy I didn't get any so I started crying and felt bad. It connects to me now I am an ESFP a Feeler. I think that nature has a lot to do with our lives but nurture has more to do with it, and that nurture controls what you think and act.