Nature Vs Nurture What plays a greater factor in human development: nature or nurture? This question is considered to be one of the biggest questions in the world of psychology. Many experiments, studies, and debates have taken place throughout the years in attempts to determine whether genes or environment are the cause of whom humans become. This debate causes a controversy because even though it’s true that genetics play an important role in human development, environment also has a major role, because it is which, how the person is brought up, and learns from others. One must remember that nature and nurture contribute to who we are, because it explains how people become who they are in life. This battle has been going on for years and …show more content…
According to the famous psychologist John Locke human are born with a blank mind which he named Tabula Rasa (Myers). Our environment, or one’s experiences in an environment, are said to develop us. It is considered to be how one’s is brought up and molds the child development and maturation concepts biologically. Everyone is different; people have different backgrounds, environments, and religions which are considered to external factors that have a great impact in one’s development. Certain studies have been examined to such how environmental information can be transferred from one generation to the next this phenomenon is considered to known as epigenetics ("Nature and nurture work"). The environment side is more open to ideas, because people act different to different situations, and one does this because one has learned from past experiences which helps people determine what to do in new situations in life. If one is brought in an authoritative home kids are like to mature faster and act independently. In an authoritarian home kids are more likely to act the same way they were brought up which is by harsh punishment, and anger issues. Permissive home, parents act like the child’s best friend, which gives them a total different view of life and situations. Lastly uninvolved homes the child is basically trying to provide basic needs for them, which is the first stage in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Myers). Listed …show more content…
It is wise to say that both the role of genes and environment make up one’s traits and behavior. You can’t fault either or, for the reason that without one, the other would not exist. Genetics plays influence on people’s personality and behavior, while on the other hand environment shapes the way one is going to act and react due to the experiences we have learned throughout life. The enduring controversy is difficult to pin point accurately when the part of genes and environment are going to come into
...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 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,...
In the well-received novel “Pudd’nhead Wilson,” Mark Twain skillfully addresses the ancient argument about the origin of one’s character and whether it’s derived from his nature or his surroundings. We can best see this battle between nature versus nurture by inspecting the plot lines that follow the characters Thomas a Becket Driscoll, Valet de Chambre, and Roxana the slave. Thomas was born into a wealthy white family while Roxy birthed Chambers into a life of slavery. It seemed as though each would have gone their separate ways into opposite walks of life, but Roxy secretly swapped the children, which destined each to their counterintuitive fates. Through their words and actions, Tom, Chambers, and Roxy have proven the idea that one’s behaviors and desires are a result of his upbringings and the environment he lives in rather than by his innate nature.
For this first analytical essay, I have decided to have a go at analyzing the Nature Vs. Nurture using my own viewpoint as a sibling. No doubt this is a topic that has been debated to mental death already, but I think it is something I will benefit from thinking about. Also, at the end of my main topic, I will quickly address a topic brushed on in the book.
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
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
The quote from the famous psychologist John B. Watson essentially sums up behaviourism. Behaviourism refers to the school of psychology founded by Watson, established on the fact that behaviours can be measured and observed (Watson, 1993). In behaviourism, there is a strong emphasis that the acquisition of learning, or permanent change in behaviour, is by external manifestation. Thus, any individual differences in behaviours observed was more likely due to experiences, and not by the working of genes. As the quote suggest, any individuals can be potentially trained to perform any tasks through the right conditioning. There are two major types of conditioning, classical and operant conditioning (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2012).
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 proponents of the nature side of the nature vs. nurture argument hold the position that we are who we are because of our genetic code. They think that they have isolated genes that determine whether someone is predisposed to alcoholism, smoking, and mental as well as physical illness. In April of 2006, Susan Bergeson and a team of scientists at the University of Texas “found 20 gene candidates that could influence excessive drinking.” (Bryner. 2006) There have also been reports of a gene isolated that even determines the number of cigarettes that a person smokes based on how they metabolize the nicotine. There are those scientists who believe that we act on instinct alone based solely on our genetic makeup. This is a rather dangerous view because it relieves us of the responsibility we must all have for our own actions. Using the reason that one can’t control one’s behavior, they were simply born with a predisposition toward violence could be used as an excuse to commit violent crimes. Although we certainly have some genetic predispositions toward things like hair and eye color, certain diseases, and so on, it is not our genetic code that determines our life path for us.
“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)
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.
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.
Nature vs Nurture is a very long living debate that has been on the minds of many who study motor development. This can be a very difficult topic to choose a side to argue for because both Nature and Nurture have very strong points which prove they influence the development of a person. Nature refers to the genetic makeup and genetic relations an individual has linked to their birth parents. Nature is strictly about the genetics and the way these genetics make up and influence the way a person develops, behaves and lives their life. Nature refers to heredity and the traits an individual will obtain from their parents that have been passed down from generation to generation. Nurture refers to the environment one lives in and the experiences
Height, hair color, eye color and sex are just a few examples of ways our DNA has shaped us. But could it be possible that our DNA also effects the way we behave in society. It is possible that genetics effect us is more ways that we may have imagined. Dr. Peter B. Neubaur believes that shyness, eating disorders, obsessive behavior and psychological illness can all be traced back to our genetics. Sexual orientation is also believed to be derived from genes in our body which determine what sexual preference we prefer. Violence and other types of crimes can be linked back throughout a person’s lineage to witness that other family members have been committed similar crimes without ever meeting one and other.