Nurture Controversy

One of the oldest debates in the history of Psychology is about Nature versus Nurture. Today, we know that both play a significant role in human’s life. Some people believe that it is genes which affects our way of life and some people believes that it is none other but our environment that greatly influences our lifestyle and some believe that both has tremendous impact on one’s way of life. Indeed in certain cases both our nature (our genes) and our environment roughly play an equal role in human life.

The question of whether we are more heavily influenced by our surroundings and/or our upbringing as opposed to what comes naturally to us is a very controversial ongoing debate. This examination can be seen in the 1965 experiment known as “The John/Joan Case”, intended to test the theory of “Nature vs Nurture”. This dispute within psychology is concerned with the extent to which particular aspects of behavior are a product of either inherited or acquired characteristics. “Nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world; nurture is every influence without that affects him after his birth.” (Galton)

The nature vs nurture issue has been a controversial argument among psychologist for decades. This argument exposes two different views. One of them emphasizes that our personality depends solely on genetics (nature). On the other hand, the second view suggests that humans “develop through experience” (Myers 2013, SG 6) (nurture).

For example, individuals who have a predisposition are not into crime scene. People who are born with genetic disorders tend to be more controlled by therapists and medications. On the other hand, nurture is more focused on the impact of “behavior, education, society and environment” (Karen Hart), it is the final determinant of how our genes are expressed. A person’s development is formed more by nurture. For example, in the case of Ethan Couch, lawyers defend their client as not being taught right from wrong.

Theoretical Propositions: The question of why people are who they are and why they behave the in the way that they do was asked. The researchers wanted to understand if people develop into who they are primarily from factors in the environment or because of there genetic makeup. In the second half of the 20th century most psychologists agreed in the theory of behaviorism, human behavior is caused only by factors in the environment. This study would answer the common “nurture vs nature” question that many people still ask today.

There has been extensive debate between scholars in the field of psychology surrounding the Nature vs. Nurture issue. Both nature and nurture determine who we are and neither is solely independent of the other. “As the area of a rectangle is determined by its length and its width, so do biology and experience together create us.”(Myers, 2008, p. 8) Carl Gustav Jung, and leading thinker and creator of analytical psychology, believes: “Human behavior is influenced both by individual experience and also by an innate “collective unconscious” that vests all of us with certain proclivities and tendencies.”(Hayes, 2000, p. 7) From my personal life experience

The nature nurture debate discusses to what extent aspects of behaviour are a product of either inheritance or learning. The nature or inherited aspect of this debate is influenced purely by genetic inheritance and other biological factors. The biological approach to psychology states that behaviour is due to genetics, neurochemical and hormonal changes. Early philosophers such as Plato and Descartes suggest that certain things and behaviours are innate and not due to the environment. It has been excepted for a long while that certain physical characteristics are purely biological and are determined by genetic inheritance this includes aspects of a person such as their eye colour.

One of the oldest, most prominent topics of academic debate is the Nature vs. Nurture argument. Nature vs. Nurture is a largely psychological term, in which the Nature aspect places more significance on genetics and personality; our innate predisposition to various circumstances tell us a great deal more about who we are. On the other side, the Nurture aspect places more focus on our environment and stresses the salience of the majority of what we do in our daily lives have been “learned” We see a wide array of examples of this specific argument in literature, popular culture, and even in our everyday lives. While no one can deny that both sides have extremely valid points, it would be very naive to assume that one had more of a dominant factor;

The nature-nurture controversy is an age-old dispute that has been debated since at least the time of Hippocrates (460-377 B.C.E). According to the nature stance, who we are as individuals, that is, our physical characteristics, personality, intelligence, and how we behave, is biologically inherited, now known through our genetics. Hippocrates for instance, posited that human behaviour was linked to our bodily fluids, which he referred to as humors. Four personality types were identified that were related to four humors: choleric, or yellow bile was associated with being hot-tempered; sanguine or blood to confidence;

There is a debate occurring in the world of psychology revolving around the way people’s behavior is based on either nature or nurture. Both of these, again, deal with psychology and are both aspects of behavior that are products by one of two realms. One being inherited through genetics and the other

heated in the recent years. Following the mapping of the human genome, scientists are pursuing

From my perspective, the way a person behaves can be influenced by the combination of both elements, Nature and Nurture. Although people inherit genetic traits from their parents, his or her behaviors can also be affected through his or her parents’ upbringings and through the environment in which he or she grows up in. In addition, a person’s personality from childhood may not necessarily last into adulthood, which could also have an important effect on a person’s behavior. Ultimately, inheriting traits from our family member can be one of the reasons why we behave and act like them, but because everyone is different and unique, it makes the research more difficult.

It showed the nurture perspective and discussed how all children need a stable and caring environment or else it would cause a lack of brain development in caring behaviors and cognitive capacities (Perry, B. D., 2002). Nurture has also been associated with children’s behaviors and personalities because of the environment they grew up in. For example, if a child lived in a more caring home, they are more likely to be a joyful person than someone who grew up in an abusive setting. Although this is a common debate, most people agree that nature and nurture end up working together. In the words of author David G. Meyers, “Nurture works on what nature endows”. In cases like intelligence, it could be argued that it is hereditary because it is passed down to children and environmental because parents are teaching their kids and their influence is a large factor. Instead of debating on which subject works more in humans, both of these terms should be used to figure out environmental and genetic behaviors that are present in

Of course, to every argument there has to be two sides. Some scientists argue that the way we are and act is not necessarily all determined by our genes. Believers of this side think that our behavioral aspects are derived from the environment in which we are brought up in. In the theory of nurture, our behaviors are not instinctive, but are learned throughout our lives. For example, we all laugh and cry at different time and under different circumstances. As humans, we learn from our surroundings and are influenced by our peers and parents. Another example of the role of nurture explaining our behaviors is that fact that we learn our fears and phobias. The key difference is that nurture alters itself from the fact that our biological make up is the only explanation for our behavior.

The debate, nature vs nurture, is one of the longest on-going arguments in psychology. Many are unable to agree about whether genetics, or environment impacts personality more. Genetics, because passed in DNA, many family lines share many genes. Environment, being what you're exposed to, can influence genetics. Many believe either genetics or environment over powers the other in all cases. I, however, believe each case is different. That it's almost impossible to determine if one overpowers the other in every situation.