Nature vs. Nurture Essay

For centuries, human’s behavior has been the center of attention not just for scientists, but also psychologist, scientist, and physiologies have always questioned what the root or main factor that contributes to a person's personality, sexuality; in other words, their entire behavior. Nature v.s. nurture has been one of the biggest debates that the scientific world has faced. Nature states that genes are responsible for human behavior, sexuality, and predisposition to certain diseases. On the other hand, nurture is defined as the theory that says all the contrary compared to nature. According to the nurture theory, the environment is the main factor that contributes to someone’s behavior, sexuality, and predisposition to diseases. This debate goes back to the era of the great philosopher Plato (428-348 B.C.E); who stated that temperament and intelligence are innate. Also, this debate has caused disagreement in two of the major psychologists known to mankind, Lev Vygotsky and Jean Piaget. The disagreement originated when Vygotsky stated that the cognitive development of a child is mainly influenced by

An advocate of the nurture theory would probably say that homosexuality is as a result of the way in which individuals are grown. So for example if a male is grown by his mom in a single parent household and is grown to be more sensitive than other males; the likely of him

Violence take multiple forms, many of which are covered in the nightly news. Murder, rape, familial abuse, bullying, workplace hostility, armed robbery—all of these are societal problems with far-reaching repercussions. There have long debates and discussions regarding whether nature or nurture influences individual violent behavior. People are concerned about what makes an individual to engage in violent behavior such murder or burglary among other types of crimes. They are also concerned about what makes people stop such behavior. However, there is no precise conception whether nature, nurture or both influence violence. Some people assume that, violent behavior results from individual’s life experiences or upbringing also known as nurture. Others feel that violent behavior is more complex and results from individual’s genetic character or nature. In other words, it is not clear whether violent behavior is inborn or occurs at some point in persons’ lives, but even it’s hard, emphasizing one and ignoring other influences is always an unwise way to go.

There has always been a controversial debate based on nature vs nurture. What makes a person who they are today? Is it the genetic or their biological make-up? Or is it their environment; based on how they were brought up, social groups, societies values/beliefs? This question has been an interesting point of discussion between psychologists. Serial killers have always been fascinating because, they have usually murdered more than 3 people, so what makes them a serial killer? In my opinion I think both aspects contribute to your personality and how you are now.

“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

If sexuality is developed at an early stage in a person’s life, then how does homosexuality occur? Homosexuality in Darwin’s selection theory doesn’t even exist. (Roughgarden, 2009, 127) Some say that it’s based on the person’s surrounding environment and influences while others say that it’s purely genetic. There has been substantial evidence that points to both genetic and environmental factors in developing homosexuality, but no one factor that clearly pushes over the top to define the origins of homosexuality. Statistically if a male is straight then there is a 4% percent chance that his brother might be gay, but if the male himself is gay, then the percentage jumps to 22%. (Roughgarden 2009: 247) These statistics simply show that gay males tend to group in families, it doesn’t necessarily point out anything specific about the environment’s effects or the male’s genetic makeup. (Roughgarden, 2009, 247)

Homosexuality is at the front lines of the nature versus nurture debate. Many studies have been conducted, but a clear cause has yet to be found. Anti-homosexuals, consisting mainly of religious groups, believe that homosexuality is abnormal, unnatural, and can be changed. Because of their beliefs, homosexuality must be a learned behavior. Whether homosexuality is biological or learned behavior is still a mystery, but scientists are finding more evidence to suggest the former.

1) Use the example of feral children to construct an argument in the nature versus nurture debate.

In an article posted on WebMD titled “Birth Order May Affect Homosexuality”, there is evidence that homosexuality is caused by nurture. The doctor mentioned in the article, Anthony Bogaert, conducted a study with men who had older brothers whom they shared with their birth mother. He found that homosexuality was more common in boys with older brothers, even if they had not been raised together. Though, Bogaert also conducted the exact same study with families that had adoptive sons as well, and the findings still held. This supports

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

Even though there have been a lot of studies that indicate the biological bases of homosexuality, there are adequate evidence that prove that homosexuality might be base on nurture. Studies conducted by Kinsey in the 1940s imply that homosexuality is a learned behavior [3]. This study stipulate that homosexuality can be influence by your environment and early homosexual experiences. It can also be cause by family abnormality. Most social theorists believe that a child’s play pattern, early peer interaction, and familial patterns can determine sexual orientation. Social theorists such as Jean Foucault believe that homosexuality is a sexual preference.

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.

Throughout this paper, we will be comparing similarities and differences between our seven members based on the Big Five Inventory test results to our Zodiac sign attributes. Each member of Psychology 101 Group 14 was required to take the OCEAN Big Personality Quiz, and then compare the results to the other members of the team. Then after looking at the results individual members compared their scores to their Zodiac signs to see if they could identify similarities.

So if is raised in an environment where homosexuality is frown up on it is most likely that this individual would not go down the part of homosexuality because of one’s environment where it the cultural, moral, family or peer group environment. However, the factor of child sexual abuse was a bit challenging because some evidences suggested that it can cause homosexuality while disapprove of this factor. One would say that the maybe the severity of the trauma on victim and the victims coping skills maybe more of a factor in the developing of sexual orientation. All in all, personal choice is the biggest factor in homosexuality because every practicing homosexual makes a choice to engage in homosexual fantasy or to have gay sex, it is not force up on them. Remember that each individual is responsible for one’s own destiny but remember that the psychosocial factor still plays a vital role in