The classic debated topic of Nature versus Nurture has been and will always be a quarrelsome subject in the scientific world. Meaning, the issue of the level to which environment and heredity sway behavior and development in a person. Nature can be defined as, behaviors due to heredity. This means the behaviors is based on the inherited makeup of an individual and is an influence of the growth and development of that individuals’ all through life. On the other hand nurture is causes of behaviors that are environmental. This Intel’s the influence is from the individual’s parents, siblings, family, friends and all other experiences that individual exposed to during life. However, these concept of ideas supports the inborn genetic framework, inherited from our parents, is the sole influential factor in our behavioral characteristics. These two conflicting viewpoints have created a whole host of thoughts, assumptions, and opinion in psychology. For the reason, the distinction between nature and nurture are not enough to put one overlapping the other. Moreover, applied in the behaviorist surroundings, when roles, skills and inherited characteristics are passed on from one generation to the next is called nature. For example, if a person’s father and their maternal grandfather are both good vocalists then more than likely chances are they would inherited the gene to be a great songster themselves, because genetically, it is in their lineage and the chances of it being passed on to them without effort at all is very high. In other words, nature has a larger impact in determining personality traits and the make up of a person. Children share fifty percent of their genes with each of their birth parents, which means that for ge... ... middle of paper ... ...ll is brought into question by theories of both. When it boils down to it nature is what we are exposed to growing up good and bad and life lesson. While nurture starts at home but is not restricted to, the quality and kind of cares that a parent gives to their till that walk out the front door and enter into the world a whole new ideology. Works Cited Harris, J. R. (2000). Socialization, Personality development, and the child's environments: comment on Vandell (2000). Developmental Psychology, 36(6), 711-723. Retrieved from http://judithrichharris.info/tna/devpsyjh.htm Collins, W.A. & Maccoby, E. E., Steinberg, L., Hetherington, E.M. & Bornstein, M.H. (2000). Contemporary Research on Parenting: The Case for Nature and Nurture. American Psychologist, 55(2), p.223. Retrieved from http://jpkc.ecnu.edu.cn/fzxlx/kewai/Contemporary%20Research%20On%20Parenting.pdf
The nature vs. nurture controversy is an age old question in the scientific and psychological world with both camps having evidence to support their theories. The controversy lies in which is more influential in the development of human beings. While there is no definitive answer for this, it is interesting to look at each of them separately.
Psychology has long argued the effect of nature, or innate features and genes, and nurture, or environment and upbringing, on life outcomes. Modern academics agree that the two are interrelated (Shonkoff).
“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)
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,...
...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 side of the debate expresses that our decisions and end results are stemmed from only our genealogical make up such as, hair color and even diseases. Nurture on the other hand is the actualization that our actions and decisions are brought upon us not by our DNA makeup but actually from the environment around us, including our culture and upbringing. Although many people usually pick a side to be on I feel as if our end result is brought upon us by both our DNA makeup and the way our surroundings affect us on a daily basis (2014, retrieved from http://psychology.about.com/od/nindex/g/nature-nurture.htm).
When discussing human characteristics many statements are made regarding whether or not an individual was born with certain traits, or if they were raised in an environment that instilled the traits in them. This conflict is what is known as the nature and nurture argument, and in the study of behavior this argument is difficult to avoid. However the general consensus is that there is interplay between nature and nurture, that the characteristics and mannerisms that make up an individual are not dependent on one or the other. Generally there are two conclusions are made by research that is done concerning this argument; research that concludes that there is interplay and research
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.
Nature does not simply determine our physical traits. In Alina Tugend’s article, “For the Best of the Best, Determination Outweighs Nature and Nurture,” Tugend explores the interaction of nature and nurture when it comes to talent. Tugend states that “’genetics influence how quickly and how well a person can master the expertise necessary to perform at world-class levels’” (Tugend 7). Nature influences our abilities or our capacity to do something. If nature can determine how quickly someone can develop a talent, then it does not play such a minimal role in our actions. Zoologist Matt Ridley argues that is nature via nurture in his article “What Makes You Who You Are.” Ridley states that “[genes] are both the cause and the consequence of our actions” (Ridley 5). Our genes and our actions are more connected than we thought. Genes can produce actions and our actions affect which genes are active in our lives. Nature greatly influences our behavior, but it is not all nature.
One of the most intriguing science-and-culture debates of the twentieth century is that of the origin of behavior. The issue that has its roots in biology and psychology is popularly framed as the "nature versus nurture" debate. At different points in time, consensus has swung from one to the other as the supposed cause of our actions. These changes are not only the result of an internal dynamic but were subject (as they are today) to external influences, most notably politics and developments in other academic disciplines. The oversimplified polarities in this case-study illustrate an important characteristic of the larger scientific process. In search of a more refined theory, these are the necessary stepping stones in the attempt to get it 'less wrong'.
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
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.
In attempt to understand individuals, psychologists debate whether nature or nurture accounts for human abilities and capacities. The term “nature” refers to the characteristics and abilities that derive from genetics, such as eye color. The term “nurture” indicates the abilities and capacities we acquire from society and the environment around us – the things we learn. Both nature and nurture influence how humans behave and function. Determining where the qualities and characteristics derive from will help us understand and assist the subject we desire to learn about.
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,
The study of nature development refers to the inherited characteristics and tendencies, these are genetic, and these which are inherited help influence the development through childhood. Some inherited characteristics appear in virtually everyone, For instance, almost all children have the capacity to learn to walk, understand language, imitate others, use simple tools, and draw inferences about how other people view the world. The coding of genes in each cell determine the different traits which we have, more dominantly on the physical attributes like eye colour, hair colour, ear size, height, and other traits. However, it is still not known whether the more abstract attributes