Throughout the recent centuries, biologists, psychologist, and sociologists have been franticly researching a single question, which if solved, can help us decode our every behavior and decision. Why exactly are we the people we are today? This question has sparked many passionate debates, one of them being; Nature (Genetics, biological traits,) versus Nurture (Environmental effects, learning behavior). There are two radical groups of thinkers in which strictly oppose each other, Nativists and Empiricist and with a common interest in mind, their perspective of how a being develops behaviorally and cognitively differ drastically with very few to none similarities. This theory provides the most insight to the mystery that is ourselves. …show more content…
On the other hand, we have not the slightest proof that behavioral traits are passed down through genetics, which leads us to believe that our next best answer would consist of environmental stimuli influencing our development of the mind. An example of an environmental stimuli would be social interaction, in which we all show signs of change from our fetal stages to the day we die. During this time span of time we form our own unique individuality and behavior. There are many different perspectives of psychology in which psychologists try to explain the reasoning behind humanistic behavior and thinking. There are two extremist groups of psychologists that strictly oppose each other when it comes to the Nature vs. Nurture theory. Nativists, psychologists who adopt strong hereditary reasoning or Nature theory, believe humans are a product of evolution and our inner and external traits as well as our behavior are due to our very complex genetic form. The Nativists believe our individuality is a result of the mixed genetic code, which we get from both of our parents. This code is solely different from any other being in the world. Nativists strongly believe every reaction we have and behavior we exhibit is part of our genetic code, which still remains a mystery today. These thoughts are so radical that after decades of research and experimentation, it is still strongly believed that our genetic code is the proper
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.
“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
The concept of nature vs nurture is easily one of the oldest and most controversial arguments of modern times. Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker is notably known in the world of psychology and the social sciences for his book “The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.” In his book, Pinker addresses this exact argument and reasons that human behavior is mostly and at its roots is formed by evolutionary psychological adaptations. In 2003, Steven Pinker gave a Ted Talk regarding his book and the idea that human behavior is predisposed, rather than formed by socialization, interactions between people and the exposure to culture. Pinker discusses the reasoning behind his stance on nature over nurture using five key discussion points, these points being, human universals, neurology and DNA, political reasoning, the arts and parenting. During his Ted Talk, Pinker begins by stating that there are human universals, concepts, behaviors and traits that are carried and found, with many similarities, throughout every human civilization, he then explains that a common example of this is with twins separated at birth, and can be proven through neurological studies. Another concept that Pinker address to further solidify his stance is the idea that the argument that humans are ‘blank slates’ and human behavior is developed through nurture rather than nature is the political reasoning behind the benefits of everyone being ‘blank slates’. Two critical points he made however
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).
Both normative and nonnormative influences and nature and nurture influences both shed light on human development over childhood and adolescence. The nature and nurture debate refers to whether particular aspects of development are a result of inherited characteristics (nature) or obtained characteristics (nurture). The answer to what characteristics were obtained by which source is a difficult task as there is still much to learn about the way genetic markers work and how their patterning influence organisms. Instead nature and nurture should be looked at as a intricate ecology (Claiborne, Drewery, Paki, & Peters, 2014). This is where characteristics are not considered to have only a single source but can linked to a contribution of our genetic
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,
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
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
For many years psychologists have been researching behaviour patterns from birth. This is where the ‘Nature’ vs ‘Nurture’ debate begins. Nativists believe that humans are born with various skills needed to survive, where as Empircist believe that humans acquire all or almost of all their behavioural traits from "nurture".
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.
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
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
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.
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.