Human beings and what defines us is a complex, never-ending process. We are a combination of our biology and our experiences. I believe that a person is born with a personality that becomes molded overtime due to our experiences and produces who we are as people. Who we are as people is determined by a multitude of interactions and constructs. This idea of personality is nearly impossible to define, as everyone defines personality differently. The construct of personality is hard to define, and many personality theorists continue to debate on its definition. Personality is a difficult construct to define because so many theorists evolved their own distinctive perspective due to a lack in agreement on the nature of humanity. Due to a lack of …show more content…
I believe that people are a byproduct of both their inherited and inborn characteristics, as well as their environment. The nature versus nurture debate has long been a hot debate in the psychology world with evidence supporting both sides of the argument. It is hard to determine whether nature or nurture has more of an influence on our behaviors. For instance, you have a child who is a bully in a classroom. The question is then raised, is this child a bully because his genetic makeup created him to be more aggressive and less empathetic? Or is this child a bully because his home life fosters and rewards him for being aggressive? Or is his home life one where the parents are negligent and aggressive towards the child? If all of the above scenarios were true, then it would be relatively easy to state that the child’s bullying behavior is a byproduct of both his nature and his nurturing. Now let’s look at a professional athlete. Some say a person is born with the skill, hence the phrase natural born athlete. Now a child could be born with the innate aptitude to be an all-star athlete, however, no skill can succeed without practice. Therefore, that would bring to reason that a child could not have any skill to begin with, but with practice they become an all-star athlete. Both of these examples (the bully and the athlete) portray the interconnected and complex ideal of nature versus nurture, with neither providing substantial evidence that …show more content…
We as human beings focus strongly on our differences and what makes us unique, and we ignore our underlying similarities. You cannot treat everyone differently, just as you cannot treat everyone the same. People come from different cultural backgrounds, different life experiences, ultimately we are all created differently. It is important to address these differences while treating people equally. For example, a man and a woman are different from one another physically and through society’s eyes, therefore, it is important to look at what their individuality is in this aspect. However, though it is necessary to look at their sex and gender, it is important to also look at what makes these people similar like their emotions and their underlying
...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.
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.
Nature vs nurture has been an ongoing debate for many decades among some of the greatest minds in psychology. Everyone is trying to figure out the source of human personality. Does our personality develop primarily by genetics, known as nature or is it based off of our environment and the way we were raised, nature? I believe it is a bit of both, but in my opinion nurture plays a bigger role.
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.
chimps, infants, and twins. Nurture theories claim that it comes from experience and that it is
The nature vs. nurture debate is about what causes human behavior. For example, if someone is a superior basketball player, how much is intense training and motivation, and how much is genetic. Nature means that it is the environment. It is most likely places, or even a person's biography. For example, forests, mountains, myself, you, us, etc. While nurture means taking care of. For example, Nurturing your child means taking care of your child.
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.
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.
Has society ever stopped to think that behavior is caused by the way a child’s parent act, what kind of environment they were born in and the way they were raised growing up? According to Sarah Mae Sincero, “the nature verses nurture debate is one of the oldest debates in the world” (Sincero). She says, that “nature is the coding of genes that make up features like eyes and hair color. Nurture is the way someone acts because of the genetic influences the child has” (Sincero). Sarah makes many good points in her article, but behavior in children is not necessarily because of the genetic influences. Bad behavior can be caused by the environment the child is surrounded by. Think about this, if a child lived in poverty, but later
I believe that it is not nature VS nurture, but nature and nurture. Nature “refers to the traits, capacities, and limitations” (Berger, 2017, p. 6) that a person receives in his DNA when that person is conceived. Nurture is developmental, and is influenced by the persons surroundings after the person is born. Some examples of nurture are a person’s culture, school environment, and family life. It is not possible that an individual is only influenced by one or the other. If it was true, then that 6-year-old tommy who was born an angel child would in no way be influenced by peers in his school because he is who he is because of his genes.
A huge psychology debate that has been going on for years is called, Nature vs Nurture. We think of nature as pre-writing, the genetics we are born with, and some other biological factors. Nurture is the influence everyone gets through external factors, such as experience and learning. Although, the real question is, can we predict the outcome of a child's behavior due to the past experiences of their parents? I do not believe a child can be born to act like the parents, genetically.
One of the oldest arguments throughout the history of Psychology is the Nature versus Nurture debate. One side believes that the majority of an individual’s personality comes from their life experiences and their environment. On the Nurture side, it is believed that an individual’s personality comes from his/her DNA. “In analyzing the nature versus nurture debates in psychological science, we provide the terms in their broadest meaning, whereby nature refers to biological structures and processes and nurture refers to sociocultural influences” (Eagly, 2013). “For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
The distinctive characteristics and qualities of any one person is one way to define personality. According to Feist & Feist (2009) personality is described as a pattern of relatively permanent traits and unique characteristics that give both consistency and individuality to a person’s behavior. These traits are the precursor of behavior as per individuality, and that of behavior that is consistent throughout life. Although a person can argue the fact that traits is a disposition of genetic predisposition of certain characteristics, the pattern in which these are characterized are different. Each person’s anatomy, intelligence, and temperament are differently and each owns a unique personality, different from parents, grandparents, and any other individual on this planet. Personality theorists’ however may not concur.
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