Nature vs Nurtures Impact on the Genders The Nature–Nurture Debates: 25 Years of Challenges in Understanding the Psychology of Gender; written by Alice H. Eagly, and Wendy Wood: examines the combative psychological debate of Nature–nurture debates, undeterred by scientific data supporting gender explanations are a contributing factor (Eagly, & Wood, 2013). A vital aspect of nature vs nurture synergy, includes the fact that the functionality of a gene is not simply a trait that is passed as an inherent entity, with a predetermined force. Individuals inherent genes are profoundly impacted by both lessons and environment (Eagly, & Wood, 2013). Moreover, genes that are unique to each gender are not necessarily absent in both genders, however,
Conversely, there are genetics that each gender will possess, this is the nature of the equation in determining an individual’s behavior, therefore, the nurture would equate to environment and how the individual traits are nurtured, e.g.; a female raised as the middle child in a family of 5 male siblings is far more likely to have more masculine traits nurtured; such as being a risk taker more so than her peers. At the same time, this female with be impacted by peers, this environment will nurture her classically feminine traits. Accordingly, it is vital to equate the both nature and nurture as they work in tandem on a molecular level; influencing complex brain function and maintaining plasticity of the brain. Furthermore, each individual may have earned certain traits, it is the lessons that we learn that impact the growth or suppression of these inherent traits, fostering the unique makeup of unique traits and experiences, that
As nature vs nurture has been proven to be one of the most hotly debated topics in psychology for decades (Eagly, & Wood, 2013). Forthwith, the relevance of their findings prove to combine the psychological debate, with scientific physiological data, concluding that nurturing profoundly effects nature. Markedly, scientifically gender research must consider the implications of this study. Notwithstanding, when formulating theories effectively, it is imperative to scrutinize gender identity biases, environment, culture and the plethora of external factors responsible for the nurturing of these behaviors and traits that are debated to be nature or nurture (Eagly, & Wood, 2013).Superior communication is vital in the science of psychology, and the gender research, reasoning and ideology of behaviors, based on gender, without it science is failing to accurately depict scientific and psychological facts. Eagly and Wood have utilized twenty-five years of research data from peer reviewed research to support their research paper, including, evolutionary, developmental, marriage and family psychology research (Eagly, & Wood, 2013). The importance of the physiological science expressively, cross researched with the psychological development and the effects on natural genetics in addition, to the nurturing of these genetics, resulting in the behaviors of individuals (Karatoreos, & McEwen,
...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.
...ignificant evidence for my research argument indicates that the nature of gender/sex consists of a wide consensus. The latter is significant to original sex differences in brain structure and the organized role through sex differential prenatal hormone exposures through the term used in the article as (the ‘hardwiring’ paradigm). The article is limited to scientific shortcoming that presents neuroscientific research on sex and gender for it lacks an analysis that goes beyond the observed results. The article is based on neuroscience studies and how it approached gender, yet the article suggests that gender should be examined through social, culture studies, ethnicity and race. This article will not form the foundation of my research but will be used a secondary material. The neuroscience evidences will be used to support my argument and will be used as an example.
The nature vs. nurture debate: the nature side, are those such as biologists, psychologists and others in the natural sciences, argue that behavioral traits can be explained by genetics. Those taking the nurture side are sociologists and others in the social sciences, they argue that human behavior is learned and shaped through social interaction. This argument should be dismissed because you don’t have to look far to see that both genetics and our environment, plays a role in who we are and our behaviors. (Glass). The point is there is a complex relationship between nature and nurture, either one alone is insufficient to explain what makes us human. (Colt). Our heredity gives us a basic potential,...
...socially directed hormonal instructions which specify that females will want to have children and will therefore find themselves relatively helpless and dependent on males for support and protection. The schema claims that males are innately aggressive and competitive and therefore will dominate over females. The social hegemony of this ideology ensures that we are all raised to practice gender roles which will confirm this vision of the nature of the sexes. Fortunately, our training to gender roles is neither complete nor uniform. As a result, it is possible to point to multitudinous exceptions to, and variations on, these themes. Biological evidence is equivocal about the source of gender roles; psychological androgyny is a widely accepted concept. It seems most likely that gender roles are the result of systematic power imbalances based on gender discrimination.9
Both Deborah Blum’s The Gender Blur: Where Does Biology End and Society Take Over? and Aaron Devor’s “Gender Role Behaviors and Attitudes” challenges the concept of how gender behavior is socially constructed. Blum resides on the idea that gender behavior is developed mainly through adolescence and societal expectations of a gender. Based on reference from personal experiences to back her argument up, Blum explains that each individual develops their expected traits as they grow up, while she also claims that genes and testosterones also play a role into establishing the differentiation of gender behavior. Whereas, Devor focuses mainly on the idea that gender behavior is portrayed mainly among two different categories: masculinity and femininity, the expectation that society has put upon male and female disregarding any biological traits. Furthermore, both could agree with the idea that society has an effect on how an individual should act based on their gender. Yet, additionally Devor would most likely disagree with Blum regarding the assumption that a biological factor is involved in this following case, but I reside on Blum’s case. Although society is indeed one of the major contributions as to how one should act, as Devor states, biology is somewhat like a foundation that leads to how one should behave as they grow and acknowledge their gender difference as well, residing on Blum’s argument.
For many years society has embraced the idea that the difference between men and women were biologically determined. Others see not only the physical but also the social, emotional and intellectual differences between males and females. Though through traditions, media, and press, we act accordingly to how others view us. Each individual has pressure placed upon them based on their genders. Our sex is determined by genetics while our gender is programmed by social customs. Gender roles by definition are the social norms that dictate what is socially appropriate male and female behavior. Some theories interpret that a woman is tender and a loving mother, while on the other hand men are aggressive and are the dominant one of the family. An individual gender role is modeled through socialization. Individuals learn the ways, traditions, norms, and rules of getting along with others. A person’s environment has a big influence on the roles deemed expectable for men and women.
There are many different facets to the nature versus nurture argument that has been going on for decades. One of these, the influence of nature and nurture on gender roles and behaviors, is argued well by both Deborah Blum and Aaron Devor, both of whom believe that society plays a large role in determining gender. I, however, have a tendency to agree with Blum that biology and society both share responsibility for these behaviors. The real question is not whether gender expression is a result of nature or nurture, but how much of a role each of these plays.
The belief that gender roles are inherently biological is a cultural fallacy, which can lead to an inability to effectively communicate when we do not assess each individual’s personality. Research of this topic is necessary in order to learn how to completely understand how to communicate. When trying to communicate with an individual there are more variables than simply gender that need to be assessed. However, there are many ways that society implies that this is not necessary.
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.
Someone can physically look like their parents, siblings or even ancestors from the third generation. When a baby is born, it is common to learn in a natural way. No one teaches a baby how to crawl or how to react when he and she is hungry. However, talents, qualities and personalities are developed through experiences. The environment in which people grew up can have a lasting effect or influence on the way they talk, behave and respond to things around. According to Steven Pinker, Behavioral genetics has shown that temperament emerges early in life and remains fairly constant throughout the life span, that much of the variation among people within a culture comes from differences in genes, and that in some cases particular genes can be tied to aspects of cognition, language, and personality (2). Researchers believe that the origin of behaviors occur in genes in the DNA or even animal instincts which this concept is known as nature of human behavior. Other researchers believe that people are they were they are because they are taught to do so. This concept is well known as nurture in human behavior. In society, there will always be the doubt between Do we born in this way or do we behave according to life experiences? I strongly believe that nurture plays an important role in the upbringing of a child and the decisions that one makes in the future. Firstly, humans learn from their environment and other’s behaviors. Secondly, culture is a huge remark in people’s life. Finally,
In 1874, Francis Galton said, “Nature is all that a man brings with him into the world; nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth”. The human body contains millions upon millions of cells and each of these cells contains hereditary information and DNA. However, there is no proof that the information carried in these genes predetermines the way in which we behave. I believe it is our life experiences and what we see and are told that shape the way in which we behave. Therefore, it appears to me that nurturing plays a far more governing and dominant role in a human being’s development rather than nature.
Moreover, in the past, as supported by both Freud as well as Erikson, general public sentiment was that “anatomy is destiny.” It was thought that an individual’s anatomy determined their gendered behavior as human behavior was thought to be directly related to reproductive processes. Furthermore, this perspective prompted Erikson to conclude that sexual behavior and gender were unlearned (nature) and instinctual. Now, these perspectives have been critiqued from the standpoint that there is more freedom to self-select gender roles than was previously envisioned.
Heredity Versus Environment - The Nature-nurture Controversy, Exploring Heredity And Environment: Research Methods, Beyond Heritability
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.
Anthropologists have examined our assumptions about the ‘natural’ roles of men and women in society through investigating the past and present. This is important as the core of anthropology is the ability to understand and use our knowledge of not only the past, but also the present to question societal norms (Blasco, 2010). Gender roles, society’s image of expected roles and attitudes a particular gender should possess, continue to be of great interest to anthropological studies. These expectations result in many gender stereotypes and create a stigmatized definition of what it means to be a man or a women (Blasco, 2010). The purpose of this paper is to conduct a gender analysis of