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.

Nature and nurture is a debate where both sides are convincing and where people have argued to find out which one is possible correct. The meaning of nature is that our behaviors are linked to our genes that were passed on from our parents. The meaning of nurture is that our behaviors are influenced and our intelligence and personality is determined by our environment. Nature and nurture has been studied by scientists because we want to know which side would be correct but today we still are not quite sure if there is only one correct side, maybe both sides are right.

Throughout history, studies have shown that who you become later in life is determined at birth, that one’s genes solely influence who they grow up to be. To some extend this may be true however, new research concluded that the environment and experiences someone experiences as a child can be just as influential as genetic makeup. These studies have led to the Nature verses Nurture debate, with the nature side being one’s heredities and the nurture side, childhood experiences and relationships. This controversy has largely impacted the criminal world, as law enforcement tries to understand why some people commit horrendous acts. Nature vs. Nurture specifically comes into play when trying to understand the psychology of a serial killer, as

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 “.

The issues pitting nature against nurture are exceptionally significant for the gamut of discoveries that attribute an increasing proportion of traits and behaviours to one's genetic makeup. The resulting variety of physical shortcomings and limitations in each person has, for centuries, been countered by endeavours to improve or interfere where necessary, and every individual is consequently the product of a delicate middle path of balance between the two.

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.

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

Throughout growing up, an individual is told they can do and become anything they want to as long as they put their mind to it. That is great for someone to understand, but despite knowing this philosophical viewpoint, people quickly learn that some individuals are better than others at certain activities. I’m sure throughout school you realized that some students comprehended skills quicker than others.

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?

The nature versus nurture debate is one of the oldest issues in psychology. The debate centers on the relative contributions of genetic inheritance and environmental factors to human development.