More handpicked essays just for you.
Nature vs nurture definition simple
The role of genetics in our modern life
Nature vs nurture definition simple
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Noted psychologist Jerome Kagan once said "Genes and family may determine the foundation of the house, but time and place determine its form" (Moore 165). The debate on nature versus nurture has been a mystery for years, constantly begging the question of whether human behavior, ideas, and feelings are innate or learned over time. Nature, or genetic influences, are formed before birth and finely-tuned through early experiences. Genes are viewed as long and complicated chains that are present throughout life and develop over time. Nature supporters believe that genes form a child's conscience and determine one's approach to life, contrasting with nature is the idea that children are born “blank slates,” only to be formed by experience, or nurture. Nurture is constituted of 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 behaviorism, character, and personality traits that constantly change and develop throughout life.
The debate on nature versus nurture has existed for thousands of years. Ancient philosophers Plato and Aristotle formed the argument through conflicting beliefs on the basics of human knowledge. Plato felt wisdom was innate, that all people were born with knowledge, and their experiences only helped to remind them of what they once knew. Aristotle challenged this through his belief of obtaining information through experiences. He viewe...
... middle of paper ...
.... 4 Feb. 2014.
Gallagher, Winifred. Rapt: Attention and the Focused Life. New York: Penguin, 2009. Print.
Goleman, Daniel. "MAJOR PERSONALITY STUDY FINDS THAT TRAITS ARE MOSTLY INHERITED." The New York Times. The New York Times, 01 Dec. 1986. Web. 7 Feb. 2014.
Moore, David Scott. The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of Nature/nurture. New York: Times, 2002. Print.
"Nature vs. Nurture - Twin Study Overview." Nature vs. Nurture - Twin Study Overview. N.p., n.d. Web. 17 Feb. 2014.
"Neuroscience Of Intelligence." Neuroscience Of Intelligence. N.p., n.d. Web. 28 Feb. 2014.
Pinker, Steven. The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. New York: Viking, 2002. Print.
Segal, Nancy L. Entwined Lives: Twins and What They Tell Us about Human Behavior. New York: Dutton, 1999. Print.
"What Is Epigenetics?" Epigenetics? N.p., n.d. Web. 4 Feb. 2014.
...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.
On October 9, 1968, a set of twins were born, but separated at birth and ultimately, put up for adoption. The decision to separate the twins came from the adoption agency who wanted to conduct a nature versus nurture experiment; however, the experiment was conducted in secret. However, for unknown reasons, the experiment never developed to fruition. Unaware the child they adopted was a twin; both sets of parents raised a singular child. Thirty-five years later, one twin began a search for her biological mother through the adoption agency, only to find out that she was born a twin. Upon learning her identity, she reached out to her twin and they began the journey of getting to know one another by comparing characteristics that appeared similar such as temperament and mannerism. They even discovered that they both held positions as a film critic and enjoyed almost identical movies.
Davies, Kevin. "Nature vs. Nurture Revisited." PBS. 17 Apr. 2001. PBS. 28 Mar. 2012 .
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,...
Since the beginnings of psychology the debate of nature verses nurture has been going on. Certain psychologists take the position of the nature perspective. They argue that people are born with predispositions towards certain personalities, traits and other characteristics that help shape them into the people that they become later in life. Meanwhile multiple other psychologists argue the nurture perspective. They believe that people are born as a blank slate and their experiences over the course of life help shape their personalities, traits, and other characteristics.
Today, realising that genes and environment cooperate and interact synergistically, traditional dichotomy of nature vs. nurture is commonly seen as a false dichotomy. Especially operant conditioning, i.e. the learning of the consequences of one's own behavior can lead to positive feedback loops between genetic predispositions and behavioral consequences that render the question as to cause and effect nonsensical. Positive feedback has the inherent tendency to exponentially amplify any initial small differences. For example, an at birth negligible difference between two brothers in a gene affecting IQ to a small percentage, may lead to one discovering a book the will spark his interest in reading, while the other never gets to see that book. One becomes an avid reader who loves intellectual challenges while the other never finds a real interest in books, but hangs out with his friends more often. Eventually, the reading brother may end up with highly different IQ scores in standardized tests, simply because the book loving brother has had more opportunities to train his brain. Had both brother received identical environmental input, their IQ scores would hardly differ.
A common dispute that has left people speechless for years is the debate between nature and nurture. Are humans influenced by their environments or their genetic make-up? This theory has not gone unnoticed while many theorists attempt to sway the opinions of their audience. Nature is comprised of our genetic and biological components that make us who we are while nurture is founded on the principle that humans are influenced by experience. I believe nature and nurture fall on a spectrum. Within the spectrum environmental, cultural, and genetic influences comprise a person’s unique
Throughout history, our society’s socialization, or lifelong social experiences, has been debated upon quite vigorously. It is quite evident that we all obtain certain characteristics and abilities through heredity factors, but many still argue that this is not the only explanation for how our lives are determined. The argument of nature versus nurture is still being discussed by many, although both have been seen to have an impact on our life experiences.
When we born, we all are like a blank slate (Uzgalis). Then, why are we the way we are? How the slate is filling? This answer will lead us to consider the decades of debate, nature vs nurture. In this age-old debate, scholars are trying to figure out whether it is nature or nurture influences and affects individual's development. Nature is heredity or genes that we get from our parents and nurture is our environment. We can't ignore, we share the DNA from our parents, but it is the environment that is filling the slate and shaping us. Again, environment is brighter in describing the shaping of a person because a person is a reflection of the environment of which they were brought up in. Here, environment refers to the experience, information, and knowledge that we acquire from our family, peers, school, neighborhood, and of course, from the media throughout our lifespan. So, I think, nurture has more influence on who we are and will be because our personality, behavior, values, and ideals are not born, but made by the environment around us.
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.
Moore, David Scott. The Dependent Gene: The Fallacy of Nature/nurture. New York: Times, 2002. Print.
Nature versus nurture is one of the longest debates that have been going on. Philosophers Plato and Descartes suggest that certain
Nature vs. nurture has been discussed by philosophers in the past and by scientists more recently. Philosophers such as Plato argued that all knowledge was inherited from your parents and when you were told something you didn’t learn it you were just reminded of it. Aristotle however argued that all humans were born with a blank slate and built on it with influence from there environment. In the 1700’s the empiricists and the internalists took over the argument. They fought through letters explaining there point of views and denouncing the others. This leads to Pavlov coming up with the idea of behaviorism in the early 1900‘s. Behaviorism became the new wave of Psychology and influenced a lean towards the nurture side. It was not effectively argued against until 1928 when Watson published his book. This opened up the floodgates for environmental influences studies. Soon the idea of nurture was the popular excuse for behavior. Studies using animals were the most popular was in which scientists used to prove a theory, or disprove a theory. The newest studies use human twins to prove nature vs. nurture.
Heredity Versus Environment - The Nature-nurture Controversy, Exploring Heredity And Environment: Research Methods, Beyond Heritability
McDevitt, T and Ormrod, J (2010) Nature and Nurture, Education.com [online] Available from www.education.com Accessed on 4th April 2014