Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Nature vs nurture in educational psychology
Psychology today/nature vs nurture
Psychology today/nature vs nurture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Nature vs nurture in educational psychology
To what degree are our behaviors inherited or acquired? This is a constant debate within psychology. Our thoughts, emotions and behaviors that result from nature are those that we are genetically predisposed to. The nurture aspect of the debate consists of the behaviors that are based on the environment, experience, and our upbringing. Our family and culture play a large role in nurturing. Researchers study the nature versus nurture phenomenon through fraternal and identical twins. Fraternal twins share the same environment, but vary in their degree of genetic relatedness. Identical twins that are reared apart share genes in varying degrees but experience different environments. These studies help us to understand the extent to which our genes or our environment can better predict our behaviors. Shared environments have been found to influence children, especially in regard …show more content…
Low norepinephrine and serotonin activity can lead to depression. But what if a person found an environment that was constantly stimulating and arousing for them or engaged in daily exercise which has been found to elevate these neurotransmitter levels? On the other hand, behaviorists believe that depression occurs when positive aspects of life decrease for a person. Depressed people tend to report less positive rewards and show less positive behaviors than a nondepressed person (Comer, 229). I do not think genes have a greater influence on depression than the environment does. I think that an engaging environment can make people happier. Depression can occur after a tragic life event or can even develop from parenting styles such as physical punishment. It is important for parents to reassure their children and to help their children develop personal control over their lives. Positive thinking and an emphasis on self worth needs to be stressed early in life in order to increase happiness later in
Through time, psychologists have argued over whether only our genes control our behaviors in life or if the environment and the people surrounding us have any effect in our lives. This is called nature versus nurture. We do not know what dictates our behavior, or if it is a combination of both. One question is, if genes control our behavior, are we really responsible for our actions? I think that if we can make choices we are responsible for our actions. While or genes influence various aspects of our personalities, there is no denying that our environment has some effects too. Our genes make us, but our experiences and our surroundings shape the way we behave as people. The people we grow up with, especially our parents teach us ways of acting and thinking that we keep for the rest of our lives.
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.
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
Albert Camus once said, “Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is.” But what makes man what he is? Is it his sheer genetic makeup, or is it the way he was raised? The nature vs. nurture debate has raged on for centuries, but neither side has been able to prove their point indefinitely. Even today we see displays of the contrast between genetics and learned behaviors, some of which are athletics, intelligence, medical histories, etc. Every person is completely unique, a combination of genetic makeup and environment make an individual who they are.
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'.
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)
People love to compare themselves to others. That is an irrefutable fact, morally correct or not. They look at someone next to them and, even without meaning to, think thoughts such as “Why am I not like that?” or something a bit darker like “What a nerd.” This constant comparing undoubtedly affects who one is - their identity, so to speak. The question is, how important is it? Constant arguments have raged over the extent to which comparing yourself to your environment affects who you become, but the most important one is nature vs. nurture - that is, the role of genes and inherent traits compared to the role of environment in determining a human being’s identity. However, as demonstrated in the example above, it is becoming increasingly obvious
One of the oldest arguments in the history of psychology is the nature vs nurture debate. Nature is defined as inherited features, from parents, that you can see or feel. Nurture, on the other hand, is what someone gains as a person from caring and encouraging a good environment. These both aid in growth and development from birth. Some people believe that the majority of who you are comes from heredity, or what you're born with from both parents. Other people strongly believe that your environment moldes who you are, and that what you're born with can be changed with enough nurture. Both of these sides have valid points so it is hard to decide whether a person's development is in from DNA, or if the majority of it is influenced
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
Human behavior is a highly debated topic in the scientific community. While geneticists argue that an individual's innate qualities and genetic makeup cause individual differences in human behavior, psychologists believe that an individual's personal experiences or their environment causes those differences. This debate is known as “nature versus nurture,” and the two sides have evolved as more information has been found in genetic research. While there are still different ideas about how much effect genes and environment have on human behavior, there is a consensus that the two factors work together to influence or predict how a person is most likely to act. But these predictions are not absolute or deterministic, and the factors are not necessarily deterministic.
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.
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,
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 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