The nature versus nurture is a debate that is common around the elements of bringing up and the capabilities passed to the children and what they end up becoming in the future. Talents and precepts that people may have growing up are largely attributed to either nature or having come from the way the children were brought up. For some, nature which largely the genetic makeup of a person is the sole reason they are the way they are at an older age. For the other faction of the debate, it is the way that one brings up their children that determines the success they have in their adulthood. It is important to note the impact environments have on the growth of a child. Much like a seed, a child is open to the platform they are introduced to. As …show more content…
Who were your parents? However, in reality, it is the environment the child grows in which has the most impact on how the child turns out. Growing up in family of singers has more to with the environment than it has to do with the genetics. It is the exposure to the musical world that forms the foundation for the child to follow. As such, based on the experiences they have been through in the environment they have been brought up in. Ideally, while one may have been born into a family of athletes which translates into having the genetic makeup for sports; it is the environment which determines the growth and life choices they make along the way. This explain why most of the children will tend to take the path their parents took in their career. There are families that have been in politics for the longest time through several generations. However, it may not be that they are great orators, rather it is the environment they have been brought up in. This is the exposure they have had throughout their lives. If the environment is not right, a great orator may not even discover their talents and develop them. They are likely to live through life trying something different other than being a public speaker.
The debate about nature versus nurture is one that has been around for awhile. For the faction on nature, they feel much of the
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.
For this debate as you know already, I am totally on the Nurture side. I think kids are born and influenced by the environment. Even though some kids are born and are not influenced by their surroundings, that is usually a rare case. Like all of this, my personality has been changed as I have been just like identical twins have many differences. So with all of this to wrap it up, studies show that Nurture is more dominant and overpowers Nature. When you have children remember how they are raised will affect them in the long
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.
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.
“The term “nature versus nurture” is used to refer to a long-running scientific debate. The source of debate is the question of which has a greater influence on development: someone's innate characteristics provided by genetics, or someone's environment. In fact, the nature versus nurture debate has been largely termed obsolete by many researchers, because both innate characteristics and environment play a huge role in development, and they often intersect”. (Smith, 2010 p. 1)
Nature vs. Nurture Debate The controversy over what determines who we are, whether it is Nature. (hereditary, our biological makeup) or Nurture (our environment) is taking a new. shape. The sand is a sand. Over the past decades, psychologists have developed different theories to explain the characteristics of human beings; how we feel, think and.
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.
The ‘Nature versus Nurture’ argument can be traced back several millenniums ago. In 350 B.C., philosophers were asking the same question on human behaviour. Plato and Aristotle were two philosophers who each had diverse views on the matter. On the one hand, Plato believed that knowledge and behaviour were due to inherent factors, but environmental factors still played a role in the equation. Conversely, Aristotle had different views. He believed in the idea of “Tabula Rasa”- the Blank Slate theory supported the nurture side of the argument and put forward the view that everyone was born with a ‘Tabula Rasa’, Latin for ‘Blank Slate’. He proposed that “people learn and acquire ideas from external forces or the environment”. Was he right when he proposed that the mind is a blank slate and it is our experiences that write on these slates? This theory concluded that as humans, we are born with minds empty of ideas and at birth we have no knowledge or awareness of how we should behav...
Nature by itself can affect a child’s development. If the child is born with a disease or mental illness, they may develop at a slower pace. For example, if a child is born with Asperger’s syndrome, the child will have a difficult time with social skills and understanding emotions. Nurture deals with the environment. If a child was raised in a hostile environment, that child is more likely to be hostile when they get older. Environment may play a larger role in most cases due to everyday lifestyle, from the city you live in to the way you are raised. If one was raised in a healthy house hold, someone who lived in a toxic household may behave differently.
A lot of theorists are stuck in the middle of the nature verses nurture. Some believe it’s a biological factor ultimately responsible for human growth. Others believe that children become whatever the environment shapes them to be.
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 one of the oldest arguments in the history of psychology. It is the scientific cultural, and philosophical debate about whether human culture, behavior, and personality are caused primarily by nature or nurture. Nature and nurture are both equally important. They are the two are major influences that affect the person you grow to be and will determine what your children will be tomorrow. Nature refers to heredity, which are traits and features that are inherited from your parents and ancestors. At birth you, as a person, inherits 50% of each parent 's genetic material that are passed along through the chromosomes found in the DNA. Hair color, height, body type, and eye color are some examples of characteristics
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.