Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Nature and nurture debate
Nature vs nurture debate
Behavioral genetic research
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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, Jhon B Watson, a behaviorist, conducted an experiment inspired by the Russian psychologist Ivan Pavlov to determinate the classical condition in humans. Little Albert experiment was conducted in a 9 month old baby whom a rat is showed to see his r... ... middle of paper ... ... have come to the conclusion that genetics is very important for the development of personality but even they have to determine how these genes are investigated for the purpose of determining a particular personality. “What scientists have found is that there does not appear to be a single gene for a particular trait, but that genes show their effects by working together in complex combinations. For example, there is no single gene for dancing or music. Whether a child will be musically inclined will be determined by the way that child's genes interact with one another. Some parents would like to believe that by creating an environment rich in music while the child is young will develop the child's talent towards music. However, despite assumptions like this, there is no evidence that shows long term effects of growing up in a particular environment” (Pinker, 2003).
...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 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.
Have you ever thought about whether the way you are is based on your genetic makeup? Do you believe our environment shapes us into who we are, instead? In the psychology debate of nature versus nurture, I believe that nurture plays a big role in who
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.
The issue of whether or not criminal or aggressive behavior and violence is caused by biological or environmental factors has proven to be one that has caused a dispute for many years now. The biological or genetic factor of violent/criminal or aggressive behavior is certainly a much talked about topic. The idea that certain individuals could be predisposed to violence is something definitely deserving of doing research about. The nature vs. nurture topic has been a continuing debate for many aspects of human behavior, including aggression/violent behavior and criminal behavior. There have been many studies indicating that chemical relationships between hormones and the frontal lobe of the brain may play a key role in determining aggressive behavior as well as genetics, while other studies have explored environmental and social factors that have been said to control patterns in human aggression. Aggressive/violent behavior can’t be answered directly if it is caused by either nature or nurture; instead it is believed that both cause it.
acting a certain way. In Mary Shelly’s, “Frankenstein”, the antagonist of the novel, the creature,
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
In the following essay I will be looking into the study conducted by Watson and Rayner (1920) on a small child known as ‘Little Albert’. The experiment was an adaptation of earlier studies on classical conditioning of stimulus response, one most common by Ivan Pavlov, depicting the conditioning of stimulus response in dogs. Watson and Rayner aimed to teach Albert to become fearful of a placid white rat, via the use of stimulus associations, testing Pavlov’s earlier theory of classical conditioning.
nurture argument. Theorists have wondered how much of development is affected by genetics and the environment. Ultimately, nature and nurture intertwine to shape the lives of children. Nature may predispose children to certain behaviors if placed in specific environments, however the timing of the environmental exposure and the child’s natural tendencies also play a role. Theorists have also discussed the extent to which development is universal and how much of it is unique to individuals. There are consistencies that have been noted universally yet; theorists have observed variations in their competency in different tasks and way of life that may be contributed to genetics or the environment. Lastly, theorists debate about whether changes in development can be portrayed as qualitative where it involves dramatic changes or quantitative in which development is a steady progression. These debates have merits independently but require each other for a better understanding of child
One of the oldest arguments in psychology is the nature versus nurture debate. This debate focuses on if the contributions of genetic inheritance or the environment plays a role in human development. As always, there are two sides of every debate. In this case, there are the nativists, who believe human development is determined by genetics, and there are the empiricists, who believe that development is the result of learning and the person’s environment. Philosophers from centuries ago, such as Plato, suggested that certain aspects of human life are innate or that they occur because of someone’s environment. However on the contrary, John Locke believed in the “blank slate” on the nurture side of the debate. According to Locke, humans are determined and molded into the people they are by their experiences or learning. There have been countless of twin studies, showing that genetics does play a role in human development, but on the empiricist’s behalf, there have also been many cases, like Oxana Malaya, who was practically raised by dogs because of her parent’s abandonment and started...
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.
The argument of nature vs. nurture is a long-standing one in the psychological and social worlds. It is the argument about whether we are ruled by our genes or our upbringing. It is my thought that neither is true. It is nature working with nurture which determines our personality and our lifestyle.
and behavior of the child. In fact, the more we understand about development and behavior, the better. the more obvious it becomes that nature and nurture are similarly influences. rather than determinants, not only singly but also in combination. Here below, I will endeavour to expose the leading theories dealing with the question of nature.
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.
The Little Albert experiment has become a widely known case study that is continuously discussed by a large number of psychology professionals. In 1920, behaviorist John Watson and his assistant Rosalie Rayner began to conduct one of the first experiments done with a child. Stability played a major factor in choosing Albert for this case study, as Watson wanted to ensure that they would do as little harm as possible during the experiment. Watson’s method of choice for this experiment was to use principles of classic conditioning to create a stimulus in children that would result in fear. Since Watson wanted to condition Albert, a variety of objects were used that would otherwise not scare him. These objects included a white rat, blocks, a rabbit, a dog, a fur coat, wool, and a Santa Claus mask. Albert’s conditioning began with a series of emotional tests that became part of a routine in which Watson and Rayner were determining whether other stimuli’s could cause fear.