The John/Joan's Theory Of Nature Vs. Nurture

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.

Throughout the history of human existence, there have always been many questions that have plagued man for centuries. Some of these questions are “what is the meaning of life” or “which came first, the chicken or the egg.” Within the last 400 years a new question has surfaced and has caused an enormous controversy which takes our minds to much further levels. The controversy is whether inherited genes or the environment influences and affects our personality, intelligence, behavior, development and abilities. This controversy is most often recognized as the “Nature vs. Nurture” conflict. Some people believe that it is strictly genes that affect our ways of live and how we are, while others believe that it is the environment that affects

The biggest controversy in psychology today is whether genetics or one’s environment plays a role in the behavior of the individual. Psychologists have researched and developed different theories to explain the reason for the way humans think and behave. The behavior of individuals is either inherited or learned. In my opinion, I believe that nurture plays a big role in the individual’s behavior. Kendra Cherry states, “Nurture refers to all the environmental variables that impact who we are, including our early childhood experiences, how we were raised, our social relationships, and our surrounding culture” (1). People have become who there are because of the environment they were exposed to in their childhood years. The behavior of people is influenced be the environment that surrounds them and can changed many times through one’s lifetime. People have different personalities a person’s

“Trying to separate out nature and nurture as explanations for behavior, as in classic genetic studies of twins and families, is now said to be both impossible and unproductive” (Levitt, 1). Social scientists have declared the nature-nurture debate to be unnecessary. Similarly, scientists feel that such debate is not only unhelpful, but also outdated. From geneticists’ perspective, nurture and nature interact to influence

One of the most enduring debates in the field of psychology is the controversial idea of nature vs. nurture. Throughout the endless history of the debate, no clear conclusion has been met, only hypotheses have been formed. At the center of the debate, human behaviors, ideas, and feelings are being determined, whether they are learned or inherited. Determining physical traits, such as eye color or hair color, are simple because they are hereditary traits. The idea of having a certain personality, intelligence, or ability is under discussion because scientists cannot determine if these traits are learned, or predetermined by genes.

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).

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.

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

The novel “Frankenstein,” written by Mary Shelley in 1818, suggests that nurture has a stronger influence on a life form than nature. The nature vs. nurture argument is said to be one of the oldest in the history of psychology and is also one of the most widely debated. It argues whether we are influenced by our genes and hereditary (nature) or our surroundings and upbringing (nurture). I will be investigating whether or not a person is influenced more by nature or nurture and how each one is capable of impacting a person’s life, mental outlook, or actions. Opinions on this topic vary from person to person and critic to critic.

In psychology, it has long been debated whether nature or nurture influence human behaviours more extensively. This has captured the interest of many psychologists as determining an answer can improve society. For instance, if it is proven that nurture significantly impacts human development greater than nature, we can nurture children to abstain from violence and drugs, resulting in a decrease of crime in society. Nurture refers to the environmental factors and thus the experiences and upbringing of people were studied to see how it affected their development. For example, the Zimbardo Prison Study, Harlow’s Monkey Experiments, and Genie are all exceptional examples of how nurture affects cognitive development and behaviors. Conversely, nature refers to the genetic factors that affect human development. To support this argument that genetics play a more significant role in human behaviours and development, psychologists focused on studying siblings and children. More specifically, The Boy With No Penis, the Jim siblings, and Sandra Scarr’s observations were studied to further understand the heritability of certain behavioral traits and the undeterring quality of nature. By examining these experiments and studies, a possible answer can be reached.

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;

Through history, the idea of nature vs. nurture has been a hotly debated issue. Nature, or genetics is often believed to be the most important aspect of a persons’ upbringing, as nature is something intrinsic to any one person. However, many debate that nurture, or the care and encouragement of any human life, trumps nature. The earliest evidence and rebuttals of these theories have been honed and developed over time by specific psychologists and educational theorists – all who hoped to prove their own ideas as fact at one time in history.

The nature vs. nurture debate has been a long and bloody battle for the longest time for psychologists. Some believe that we are the products of our environment, meaning that we become who we are as a result of our upbringing, social influences, and schooling among other factors. On the other hand, the naturists believe that outside influences have nothing to do with how we turn out; it all depends on our genes. One psychologist, however, has made the attempt to bridge these two sides together. Robert Plomin’s work in genetics and psychology has helped people understand the roles the environment and genetics play in areas such as education, behavior, and development.

The nature vs nurture debate is one of the most enduring in the field of psychology.How far are human behaviors, ideas, and feelings, INNATE and how far are they all LEARNED?These issues are at the

For more than a century, researchers and psychologists, such as Sir Francis Galton, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud and many others, have been trying to understand how people are transformed by their environment. Researchers have mainly argued whether it is in fact our environment or rather genetics, our biological pre-wiring, which has influenced human behavior. This concept ultimately facilitated what is now known as the Nature versus Nurture debate. The Nature aspect states that human behavior is predetermined by our inherited genes or is the product of our innate behavior. The Nurture side of the disagreement postulates that human behavior stems from acquired attributes through individual learning and experiences. Correspondingly, the Object Relations Theory in psychoanalytic psychology supports the position that a person’s natural environment (i.e. family, peers, acquaintances, society) forms human development. The Object Relations theory stresses that it is the relationships between people, more specially family, often between mother and child, that crafts the human psyche.