The discussion of nature versus nurture is always highly debated. However, it is not that simple of it being one or the other. Rather that nature and nurture go hand and hand. So much of what makes up a person is not done consciously but lies in the unconscious. How a person views themselves is dependent on what that person does in their life. The negative outlook can form a negative self -view that will hinder a person’s achievements. A person develops and matures over time with life experiences shaping who they end up becoming. Positive experiences can shape a person’s personality for the better. What is positive to one person may not be seen as positive to another. Rewards and punishments are motivations of behavior. People are likely …show more content…
‘Reward’ and ‘punishment’ may seem like obvious motivations however; this conceals the non-obvious intricacies for using reward and punishment as the only motivation (Corr, DeYoung, McNaughton, 2013). The classical behaviorist believes that rewards will cause an increase of behavior, while punishments decrease the occurrence of behavior (Corr, et al, 2013). Essentially a ‘reward’ is what a person will try to obtain; while a ‘punishment’ is something a person will try to avoid (Corr, et. al, 2013). Extraversion and Neuroticism of the Big Five is what appears to mainly effected in personality with the awareness and relation to reward and punishment (Corr, et al, …show more content…
There are three standpoints that can be observed: the person as actor (behaving), agent (striving), and author (narrating) (McAdams & Olson, 2010). There are exceptions to the rule but it seems that as individuals go from early adulthood into middle adulthood they develop comfortableness with themselves (McAdams & Olson, 2010). These people more likely to have their emotions stabilized and are less prone to mood swings. There are personality psychologists that assert humans are self-determining and self-regulating and are capable of organizing their in order to accomplish their goals (McAdams & Olson, 2010). This suggests that life is about choice, goals, and hope (McAdams & Olson, 2010). As agentic, the self-determining can being when people become consistent in making decisions that affect situations over time (McAdams & Olson, 2010). These types of people make the lives they want to have at all cost. Temperament is apparent from birth but true personality develops over time (McAdams & Olson, 2010). Even by the first birthday children recognize what is expected (McAdams & Olson, 2010). By age four, there is a “theory of mind” which is a folk-psychological understanding that states individual’s behavior is driven by their desires and their beliefs. (McAdams & Olson, 2010) By the early school years, children understand their own goals and are driven to achieve them (McAdams & Olson, 2010). By the age of seven or eight,
...s may never agree on a conclusive degree to which both nature and nurture play roles in human development, but over the years, more improved studies have shown that both are crucial aspects. With all the knowledge we are gaining from these studies, it would be quite limiting to believe that a criminal and his actions are the sole result of heredity. Even in people who do not commit crimes, genes themselves are affected by the prenatal environment. Undoubtedly, the fetus experiences changes in environment, forcing possible changes in heredity and reactionary response. We are likely to never find the answer to how much or how little either, nature or nurture, impacts our lives, but at least we can agree that they both do, in fact, have major roles. Our development is not the culmination of heredity alone, but of a tangled web of experiences and genetics entwined.
The nature and nurture debate has been studied for many years. Years ago many people thought that human behavior was “instinctive, simply our nature” (Macionis, 2008). Are people born with a predetermined plot of what their life will hold? Many researchers have done numerous studies that have proven that human behavior comes from how a person was nurtured after birth. Biology and nature mean the same thing, and we are biologically programmed at birth to do certain things. For example, at birth a person’s heart beats on its own, and a baby knows how to suck instantly. This shows the nature side of humans. How a child was nurtured at birth has a direct bearing on his or her future.
In the book Pudd’nhead Wilson by Mark Twain, race and identity is a large theme in the book, that often impacts the each and every word, thought and action of the characters. The nature vs nurture theme speaks volumes because most whites in the time period of racism believed that whites were noble and blacks were innately evil from birth and can never be changed. In the book there are two boys named Tom, the son of Roxy, and Chambers, the son of Percy Driscoll. Roxy had a gut feeling of her son being separated from her son by Percy so she switches the sons since they look so much alike. Chambers a black person with a upbringing of respectable white background grows up to be “racist” and Tom a white person with a black surrounding thinks nothing of being black. Mark Twain mocks white people because Roxy, a black female, was outsmarting a whole town without anyone noticing for years. Mark Twain dispels the reasons whites or society gives to hate blacks, Twain does through the character of Chambers as well as Tom and societies depictions of them. Society has nurtured the hate people have for blacks for no valid reason and it is shown to the reader, through Chambers. In the book Chambers hates blacks, reason being is that he thought he was white, and society says whites are suppose to hate blacks, so why is that Chambers
The discussion as to whether nature or nurture were the driving force shaping our cognitive abilities, was for a long time considered interminable. In the 18th century, Locke and the English empiricists claimed that individuals were born with a tabula rasa and only experience could establish mind, consciousness and the self. On the continent, Leibniz envisaged the self as a monad carrying with it some knowledge of a basic understanding of the world. Until the 1960s, this dispute was still very vivid in the behavioral sciences: B. F. Skinner's school of behaviorism in the USA postulated (as reflexology did earlier) general rules for all types of learning, neglecting innate differences or predispositions. K. Lorenz was one of the protagonists of ethology in Europe, focusing on the inherited aspects of behavior. It was Lorenz who ended the antagonistic view of behavior in showing that there indeed are innate differences and predispositions in behavior where only little learning occurs. Today, it is largely agreed upon that nature and nurture are intimately cooperating to bring about adaptive behaviors. Probably only in very few cases ontogenetic programs are not subjected to behavioral plasticity at all. Conversely, the possibility to acquire behavioral traits has to be genetically coded for.
The debate of nature vs. nurture continues today in the world of psychology. The effects of an individual’s genetics and the effects of their environment on their personality and actions is an age old debate that is still inconclusive. However, it is evident that both sides of the argument carry some form of the truth. It can be contended that the major characteristics of an individual are formed by their environment, more specifically, their past experiences. An individual’s past moulds and shapes their identity, if they do not make an effort to move on from it.
Being yourself, being who you are. When you hear those two lines you may think they mean the same thing but do they? Think about it, you were born into this world a tiny little baby with no ideas, or preferences, but as you grew you developed a personal identity, but did it really develop or was it in you to begin with. Such questions are what leads to the great debate of nature vs nurture. If you believe you were born already with a personality, then you take the side of nature. on the other hand if you believe that your personality developed based on influences in your life beginning when you were a child then you believe in nurture. Two totally different theories, both which are believed to make us who we are.
Today, a new approach to dealing with this question is emerging. This new approach finds a middle ground between nature and nurture. The conclusion that nature and nurture are complementary and work hand and hand. to shape a behavior (a purposeful and meaningful activity) is not a compromise. It is a result of a vigorous study of each of the components of the equation of heredity and environment and their affects on determining one’s development.
Nurture is constituted by the influence of millions of complex environmental factors that form a child's character. Advocators of nature do not believe that character is predetermined by genes, but formed over time. Although often separated, nature and nurture work together in human development. The human conscience is neither innate from birth or entirely shaped through experience, instead, genetics and environmental influences combine to form human behavior, character, and personality traits that constantly change and develop throughout life. The debate on nature versus nurture has existed for thousands of years.
For the past five weeks we have studied three different but influential people in our perspective on human nature class. They are Freud, Plato and Tzu. The main discussion between all of them is nature versus nurture. I will discuss the difference between nature and nurture and then I’ll apply to each of these philosophers and how they react to it.
Undoubtedly, humans are unique and intricate creatures and their development is a complex process. It is this process that leads people to question, is a child’s development influenced by genetics or their environment? This long debate has been at the forefront of psychology for countless decades now and is better known as “Nature versus Nurture”. The continuous controversy over whether or not children develop their psychological attributes based on genetics (nature) or the way in which they have been raised (nurture) has occupied the minds of psychologists for years. Through thorough reading of experiments, studies, and discussions however, it is easy to be convinced that nurture does play a far more important in the development of a human than nature.
One of the most well-known debates in psychology is nature versus nurture. Nature is pre-determined traits, influenced by biological factors and genetics. Physical characteristics such as height, hair color, and eye color is all determined by the genetics we inherit. Nurture is the influence of environmental factors. Nature and nurture affects the physical, emotional, and social development of a child.
Nature is described as our physical attributes and genes from when we are born. Our genetics that make us who we are include our eye colour, height and hair colour, as well as our natural talents, abilities and our intelligence level.
One of the hottest debates is and has been nature vs nurture for years, but what is the difference between the two? Nature is what people think of as already having and not being able to change it, in other words, pre-wiring (Sincero). Nurture is the influence of experiences and its environment of external factors (Sincero). Both nature and nurture play important roles in human development. Scientists and researchers are both trying to figure out which is the main cause in development because it is still unknown on which it is. The best position to side with is nature. Nature is also defined as genetic or hormone based behaviors (Agin). Regardless of the involvement in everyday life, or nurture, this argumentation centers around the effect genes have on human personalities. Although it is understandable on reasons to side with nurture, nature is the better stand in this controversy. Reasons to side with nature is because of genes and what genes hold. Genes is what
Nature vs nurture debate is an old argument, I believe that nature and nurture both work together. Your genes are something that you are born with but your experiences and how you were raised also make you the person you are today. Experiences and opportunities help you develop your personality. It also provides a valuable training ground for later life. Human culture, behavior, and personality are cause primarily by nature and nurture not nature or
Throughout the history of human existence, there have always been questions that have plagued man for centuries. Some of these questions are “what is the meaning of life” and “which came first, the chicken or the egg”. Within the past 400 years a new question has surfaced which takes our minds to much further levels. The question asked is whether nature or nurture has more of an impact on the growing development of people. It is a fact that a combination of nature and nurture play important roles in how humans behave socially. However, I believe that nature has a more domineering role in the development of how people behave in society with regards to sexual orientation, crimes and violence and mental disorders.