Week Six

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).

The article was written by Sharon Begley, who is a science writer. It published on December 1, 2008, and it has been illustrated by Harry Campbell for Newsweek. We always think our personality is related to our genes, which is stable or cannot be changed. However, Begley assume we can change our personality as we grow up. It depends on environment and our parents. They both play a great role in shaping our personality.

(d) If much of our behavior is unconscious, can you recognize unconscious behavior in yourself and in others?

The unconscious is one of the most powerful effects on behaviour and emotion. (Your Dictionary,2014)

The argument of whether an individual’s personality is defined by nature or nurture is one of the oldest debates in psychology. On one hand, are biological theorists who use research to support the importance of genetics on behavior (Zaky, 2015). On the other hand, are theorists who support the theory of tabula rasa, which is the stance that we are born with blank slates and acquire our personality from experiences (Zaky, 2015). An example of a biological theorist is, Bowlby who viewed infant attachment as being an innate process for survival (Zaky, 2015). By contrast, behavioral theorist Bandura states that personality is developed based upon social experiences Zaky, 2015).

The collective unconscious, refers to a segment of the deepest unconscious mind not shaped by personal experience. It's genetically inherited and common to all human beings. These collective unconscious was expressed through 'archetypes', universal thought forms or mental images that influenced an individual's feelings and action.

Throughout time several personality trait theories have argued differently. Some state that traits are inherently part of our DNA and others state that they are solely based on the context or environment. My argument aligns with Costa and McRae’s theory in that personality traits are ‘situated in a comprehensive model of genetic and environmental causes and contexts (McCrae & Costa,1994).’

It can be said that psychology owes its lineage to depth psychologists who pioneered the field with bold assertions of an enigmatic influence in human behavior. Contemporary thought knows this force as the unconscious, and by contemporary we mean to say that the word itself is relatively new; to assume one can approach the unconscious only from the point of view that its concept is as new as the word itself ignores evidence to the contrary. Instead one must speak of the unconscious from the context of the totality of the human species and not from the confines of modern thought.

Though the nature-nurture debate has been a toss-up, showing that both genes and environment are key to establishing someone’s personality study’s has concluded that the genetic makeup of a child shows a stronger influence on personality, this study tested with identical twins raised in different families. A study given by the University of Minnesota showed that, “more than 350 pairs of twins have gone through six days of extensive testing that has included analysis of blood, brain waves, intelligence and allergies. For most of the traits measured, more than half the variation was found to be due to heredity, leaving less than half determined by the influence of parents, home environment and other experiences in life”. All together it is look at that though one doesn’t dominantly stick out as the primary reason, hereditary does have a slight edge over environment.

I completely disagree with the fact that we are oblivious to our unconscious behavior, as I believe that the unconscious mind is a mere shadow of the conscious and attentive mind. Like a young child, the unconscious mind likes to serve, and it needs very clear instructions. And just like a child it's based on certain ethics taught and accepted by one's self or their surroundings. So if someone once thought "blacks are dangerous", the unconscious mind would respond to that even after your conscious mind has later on rejected that thought. The two unconscious and conscious minds are two separate minds; however they both function in the same person with the same values and moral views. In conclusion, the unconscious mind cannot be used as a scapegoat

Psychoanalysis doesn’t stop there, there is something called the collective unconscious, a term used by Carl Jung. The collective analysis refers to the conscious mind. Per Jung, the human collective unconscious is populated by instincts and archetypes. Archetypes are characters, personalities that occur over and over like a pattern: anima, great mother, the wise old man, and the hero are just a few.

Studies of behavioural genetics implied that differences in personalities are result entirely of genes and non-shared environment. (Borkenau, Riemann, Angleitner, & Spinath, 2001)

The nurture versus nature debate is commonly seen as one of the most important issues in psychology. It is assuredly one of the best researched, with various studies dating back to the beginning of the 20th century. Two schools of individual difference theorists clearly differ in their approach to this question. The first school of thought, implanted in social psychology and sociology, claims that the environment is of principal importance in determining how individuals behave. For these theorists, the examination of social processes by which intelligence and personality traits are attributed to others is seen as the only relevant issue in personality study. As shared environment has been shown to have a certain impact on personality and intelligence, affirming that « children are not empty canvases on which parents can paint their dreams » (Judith Harris, 1998) is not legitimate. However, the second school of thought claims that personality and ability appear to have a distinct relationship with biology and the nervous system. For these theorists, personality and intelligence are behavioral consequences of biological structures that are within the individual. As it can be shown that a trait is substantially influenced by genetics, affirming that « we can make our children turn out any way we want is an illusion » is reasonable.The aim of this essay is to evaluate the extent to which evidence supports the idea that personality and ability cannot be influenced by parental

Burkitt, I. (2010). Fragments of unconscious experience: Towards a dialogical, relational, and sociological analysis. Theory Psychology, 20(3), 322 – 341. doi: 10.1177/0959354310362827

Will be explained with reference to Sigmund Freud and his important theory which consists of the ego, superego, and id. How he thought humans have become civilized by repressing primitive drives. I will also look at how