The Tempest Nature Vs Nurture

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 Similarly, scientists feel that such debate is not only unhelpful, but also outdated.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

nurture debate is deeply connected to the extent in which genetics plays a role in or can explain criminal behavior. The nature vs. nurture debate is one of the most debated arguments in psychology. This debate is concerned with whether a person's development is predisposed in their DNA and genetics (nature), or if it is mostly influenced by life experiences and environment (nurture). Nature can be looked at as the pre-wiring of and individual in which an individual’s traits and behavior have come only or mostly from their genetics or DNA. On the other hand, nurture is not influenced by genetic inheritance and biological factors. Nurture is taken as the influence of external factors. These external factors might include life experiences, or influence from parents or from society and surroundings. Decades ago, twin studies used to be almost the only way to compare the influence of genes and the influence of environment on personality and behavior. However, psychologists have recently determined that it is unwise and slightly misleading to have the debate of “nature vs. nurture”. This is because genes combine with the environment to produce complex human traits and behaviors. It is not a matter of whether nature or nurture is responsible for behavioral traits; rather it is a matter of how much of each contribute to behavioral traits. Although it has been concluded by many that both nature and nurture influence behavior, psychologists are still not satisfied to

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).

Advances in science today suggest neither nature nor nurture is exclusively responsible, but instead an interactive relationship between our genes and environmental influences. The influence that nurture has upon nature is a new and blooming field called behavioral epigenetics.

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

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.

Such findings and the current state of the emerging field of behavioral genetics are summarized by the distinguished academics Cynthia Coll, Elaine Bearer and Richard Lerner, editors of the compendium Nature and Nurture: The Complex Interplay of Genetic

Almost everyone in any related field has an opinion as to which is truly more important, nature or nurture. The director of a group called the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared Apart, Thomas Bouchard, believes that 70 percent of a person's personality is genetic and 30 percent is due to environment. The director of the Lewisville Twin Study, Adam Matheny, however, says it is 50-50.

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

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.

Until recently, it was very difficult to determine is a child 's biology could affect their behavior. This is an example that brings the argument of nature vs. nurture forward. Certain behaviors can be difficult to determine whether it is a learned response or a biological response, but recent studies of twins and adopted children have shown " that antisocial behavior is 40 to 50 percent heritable" (Kaiser, 2012). What is interesting about such studies is how a child 's challenging behavior can develop by both biology and environment. This means that even though a child may be genetically predisposition to a certain problem behavior, with the right environment the behavior can

Is behavior learned? It is inborn? What of aggression, intelligence, and madness? There is a crucial relationship between the behavior of humans toward their own kind and the view of life they hold. Interest in behavioral genetics depends on wanting to know why people differ. According to Jack R. Vale, in Genes, Environment, and Behavior, recognition of the importance of hereditary influence on behavior represents one of the most dramatic changes in the social and behavioral sciences during the past two decades. A shift began toward the more balanced contemporary view that recognizes genetic as well as environmental influences on behavior. Behavioral genetics lies in its theory and methods, which consider both genetic and

Scientists still agree that biology does play a part in human behavior, however. Nature and nurture do not oppose each other in every manner. Today, social scientists hesitate to choose one or the other. As humans, life depends solely on the operating of the body. This is seen especially in children. It is obvious that children share their biological traits, such as hair or eye color, with that of their parents. Heredity also plays a part in their intelligence, how artistic they are, and their overall personality. We all have “potential” inheritances, in which their full development depends on how we are all raised. Both sides