Essay on Nature vs Nurture: Genetics vs Environment

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.

Personality and how we behave have been of much interest to psychologists for a long time now and because of this there have been many theories and theorists that have been developed. Personality is defined as consistent behavior patterns and intrapersonal processes originating within and individual (Fritzley, 2012, p. 10). There are six main approaches to personality psychology they include: biological approach, humanistic approach, behaviorist approach, trait approach, psychoanalytic approach and cognitive approach. Each approach shines a little light onto why we behave the way we do and how our personalities are formed, the approaches contain many different theories from

The classic debated topic of Nature versus Nurture has been and will always be a quarrelsome subject in the scientific world. Meaning, the issue of the level to which environment and heredity sway behavior and development in a person. Nature can be defined as, behaviors due to heredity. This means the behaviors is based on the inherited makeup of an individual and is an influence of the growth and development of that individuals’ all through life. On the other hand nurture is causes of behaviors that are environmental. This Intel’s the influence is from the individual’s parents, siblings, family, friends and all other experiences that individual exposed to during life. However, these concept of ideas supports the inborn genetic framework,

In reading stories about identical twins my point of view is easily understood. Various types of psychologist have analyzed the study of identical twins. It shows that individuals with the same genetic make-up can be totally different, when it comes to personality. Nurture promotes the twins to grow up as separate individuals. Its a lot better if a twin has his or her own personality rather than the same exact personality of the other half. I think this great debate weighs heavier on the nurture side. As a child my parents, and sibling overshadowed my genetic make-up. No matter how much I thought my physical traits made me behave. It did not affect me more than the things that I had seen and been exposed to. The more things that I had seen around and experienced made me the person that I am today. If my genetic make-up was totally different, to a certain extent, I am sure that I?d behave the same way that I do presently. There are exceptions to that. For instance if I were six foot five and one hundred and ninety pounds, I?d most likely be in the NBA and be really rich. I think if I was really rich and in the NBA I wouldn?t have the same worries that I have today. Even if before I were in the NBA I would have lots of attention and have a lot more confidence. So to an extent I would change a little if my genetic make-up were different. In a sense, genetic make-up is just a competitor to the environmental factors

Everybody has his or her own type of personality. We all act in a certain way that makes us who we are. It is believed that our parents, peers and, the environment we grow up in, shape us. Personality is describes as a combination of emotions, attitude, and behavioral patterns of an individual. There is a reason that we are the way we are and there are many theories that go along with that. Different theorist present their own definitions of the word personality based on their own theoretical positions. Which brings us to discussing Carl Jung’s theory of analytical psychology and Harry

In an attempt to understand human behavior, professionals for centuries have looked at the nature vs. nurture theory. While it is known that the physical traits such of eye or hair color have to do with nature, some strongly believe that the way people behave such as in personality and intelligence, have to do with genetic makeup and some believe that people behave a certain way solely due to their environment. Professor Jerome Kagan, from Harvard opened up a brand new world and offers hope for those who behave a certain way. He pointed out that two year old Marjorie unlike other children her age started out shy, a tendency he believed she inherited and while it is true that Marjorie cannot change the fact that she is a girl there are

1. Which one, genetics (nature) or the environment (nurture), do you think plays a larger role in the development of who you are? Please provide me with what percentage you think each contributes, e.g., 50% genetics/50% environment.

“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

“We have been very conditioned by the cultures that we come from and are usually very identified with the particular gender that we happen to be a member of.” This quote by Andrew Cohen explains partially how gender identity develops, through the conditioning of our environments. The most influential factor of gender development, however, is still a very controversial issue. An analysis of the gender identification process reveals two main arguments in what factor most greatly contributes to gender development: biology differences (nature) or the environment (nurture).

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

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

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

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.

This paper is a comparison of three different viewpoints on the subject of personality. Carl Jung, B.F. Skinner, and Carl Rogers all had very different outlooks on what defined someone’s personality. As an added feature I have included myself as a theorist because my views are also different from the previous mentioned theorists. This paper will also look briefly into the background of each theorist because their views on life began in their childhood. Amazingly you will notice the all had similar backgrounds, but came up with completely different ways of looking at life.