The Problem Of Nature Vs. Nurture Debate

Studied and debated for generations, is the conflict of Nature versus Nurture in the development of the human population; nature being the genetics that makes up the new human being and nurture being any other influences in the environment, such as: pre-natal health, care givers, location of development, education systems, and more. Some regard all happenings in a life time to genetics. Everyone is pre-destined by the genes from their parents to do certain things. An example of this would be if the child’s parents are both in jail, then the child would be a criminal as well; or if both parents are saints than the child will be an innocent being. As Berger says, children are innately good or bad in the view of people who see nature as the

The Nature versus Nurture debate has been ongoing for centuries. People have tried to gain power through knowledge in determining what causes the human “mind to tick.” For centuries leaders and scientists have performed unethical and immoral studies to determine why two people with similar genetic composition can come from similar backgrounds and turn out so differently. I have witnessed a person raised in a poor home by parents with drug addictions become a thriving contributable member of society. Unfortunately, I have also witnessed a person raised in a Christian home with a Father as a minister who ended up in prison. As we learn about the psychological and biological composition of human beings and the affecting environment, I am

When we compare nature to nurture, we have to know what they mean. Nature is looking at the genetics, and the biological way you are made. Something you have usually have no control over. There have been some serial killers in

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

Nurture refers to society, family, and church that impacts who we become. Some examples are how we are raised, where we are raised and our experiences during childhood. If a person is raised in a religious setting they will probably have those same morals and beliefs when they are older. If they were in foster system that will effect who they become depending on their experience in foster care.

Scholars around the world commonly discuss the topic of “nature vs. nurture” in relation to the importance of an individual’s inherent qualities. All aspects of human behavior are affected by both nature and nurture, operating together. Nature refers to the factors that have shaped the genetics that we inherit from our parents and ancestors. Nurture refers to all the things that have influenced us since we began to develop- even from the moment we were conceived. Therefore, nature determines the range of our human potential while nurture affects the ways that our human potential is objectified, being helped or hindered by good or bad environmental contributions.

One of the main, and most controversial topics discussed in a child’s development is, nature vs. nurture. Nature pertains to genetic influences that a child has inherited from their parents, such as traits, abilities, and capacities. For instance, what color eyes the child may have, how athletic they may be, and even their brain development. Whereas nurture, refers to the environment the child is raised in and how this shapes their behaviors. Such factors can include, the family’s socio-economic status, schooling, parental discipline, as well as whether the child is provided with enough resources. When it comes to nature or nurture having a stronger influence then the other, the answer is both, nature and nurture, influence the outcome of the child. This idea that both nature and nurture, play a part in how the child will develop, is known as the nature-nurture continuum.

Nature versus nurture is one of the most controversial topics of discussion among human beings. For many years, phycologist’s have been studying various people’s behavioral patterns in order to settle the debate. The argument of nature suggests that a person is born with a pre-conceived set of personality traits that determine the way they will act for the rest of their life. That is to say that all characteristics of a person, not just physical appearance, are passed down through genetics. The case with nurture states the idea that every person, no matter where they are from, is born with a blank slate. In other words, asserting that the behavior of someone is solely a result of their surroundings. This subject often comes up when a person

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 ongoing debate of the topic “Nurture” is more important than “nature”, has been considered true many times throughout the world from books to real life scenarios and events, but what is our meaning of “nurture” and “nature”? The common aspect of “nurture” is where outside influences determine what we will be like society being an example, while “nature” is basically that genetics determine the outcome of how people turn out. There is an easy argument for the case of “nurture”, but just because of the argument being an easy case, is it really true? People acquire their personalities, opinions and beliefs through “nurture”, while they also inherit a much deeper meaning of quality through “nature”, being that, quality is the trait which it takes to commit murder, seek risk, or become an accountant. That is why the statement “nurture” is more important than “nature”is false.

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.

Numerous people, like Galton, have tried to find where these two terms separate in their means of influence, whereas for others “who used the terms, nurture was rarely, if ever, seen as separable from nature; instead, it was referred to as helping and assisting, or as responding to, nature; nurture was more of a verb than a noun.” (Plonka, 2016) Similar to many things in the world, ideas that state that something works solely by itself is harder to believe than if it were to work with another component of the world around it. Those who believe that nature and nurture work together in sync to influence an organism believe that they show “a crucial biological phenomenon of mutual influences of both hereditary and environmental factors in the trait formation.” (Plonka, 2016) Nature alone cannot determine a person alone, yet nurture only has limited influence as

Nature vs. nurture is a debate that stretches through all periods of time. Since the biblical era to now the issue is still widely debated and even more so relevant right now than it ever has been. It’s beginnings stem from the first great minds who wondered whether one’s genetics decided their psychology, or rather their environment. Essentially that is all nature vs. nurture is; whether a person’s thought process, actions, and behavior are determined by nature or nurture.

The Nature vs. Nurture has been a long never ending debate for some time now. Nature vs Nurture has been so profoundly debated, that now it’s unclear whether what makes us who we are and what we do, nature or nurture. For purposes of this essay Nature is going to be defined as characteristics we acquire through our genetic and biological factors, while that Nurture is going to be defined characteristics we acquire through our interactions and influences with the environment. There are endless ways of taking an approach to the Nature vs Nurture conflict, thus the reason that it’s truly unclear if its Nature or Nurture or even both what makes us who and what we are.

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.