People can get their blue, hazel, or brown eyes from one of their parents, and their freckles from the other. But where does their talent for singing, or knack for craftsmanship come from? In other words, what makes individuals who they are? Is it predetermined in their genes or was it taught to them by family or friends? My General Psychology instructor recently explained this contest of nature and nurture as won by neither side. “The nature versus nurture debate is one of the oldest issues in psychology. The debate centers on the relative contributions of genetic inheritance and environmental factors to human development.” - (Kendra Cherry). So far the evidence collected from years of research and data suggests a resolution of equal importance between the two factors as fifty/fifty.
In the debate of nature v nurture there are people who take the position that all or most behaviors and characteristics are the result of inheritance; they are known as nativists. Philosophers Plato and Descartes, for example, suggested that certain human behaviors and characteristics occurred naturally, with no regard for environmental influences. An example of a nativist theory within psychology is Chomsky's concept of a “language acquisition device”, or LAD. According to this theory, “…all children are born with an instinctive mental capacity that allows them to both learn and produce language.”~ Chomsky
On the other side of the table, there are people who take the position that all or most behaviors and characteristics are the result of learning; they are known as empiricists. “Racism isn’t born, folks. It’s taught. I have a 2-year-old son. Know what he hates? Naps. End of list” ~ Denis Leary. Besides comedian/actor Denis Leary, well-known ...
... middle of paper ...
...ated the problem. Behind his right temple sat an egg-sized brain tumor. After surgeons removed the tumor, his urges faded and he returned home to his family. Then a year later the tumor partially grew back, and with it the sexual impulses. A second tumor removal again lessened the impulses. (p35, David G. Myers) This case only proves, though, that human behaviors come from within the brain. How they get in there is still under question.
All in all, the majority of experts today believe that behavior and human development are influenced by both nature and nurture. However, the issue is still debated in many areas such as in the origins of homosexuality and influences on intelligence. While few people take the extreme nativist or extreme empiricist approach, researchers and experts still debate the degree to which biology and environment influence human behavior.
...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
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.
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.
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.
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 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)
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.
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.
Nature versus nurture is an argument in psychology over whether a person’s innate qualities and behaviors are caused from their environment or if they’re born with it. Vygotsky places more emphasis on the social factors that contribute to cognitive development, in other words he is in favor of the nurture argument. He believes that everyone learns from their culture, environment, and social interactions. He talks about a few of his theories like the zone of proximal development, and a more knowledgeable other. He also expresses his thoughts on developmental tools and the importance of language to cognitive development. All of these factors together support his idea that children’s behavior is learned.
We cannot be absolute when it comes what shapes us, yes indeed we come to this world which specific characteristic, our genes make us who we are but do not determine our future and our possible potential. Our cultural influence and our interaction with our environment make up our experience and step by step build our schemas and our perception regarding the world around us. Nature gives us the first tools in order for us to service, give us the information from generation to generation to overcome the possible obstacles. Then, nurture’s takes over, through the interaction with the averment, base to our cultural norms and rules we shape our beliefs; values; attitudes and behaviors. We learn how to behave, how to interact and how to communicate with the people around us. Thus, the answer between what side to choose, nature or nurture, I personally believe that the answer lies between the two of them. As we say, especially in the field of psychology, it depends. Yes, we born into this world we some innate information, but this information is interpreted from the stimuli we gather through the interaction we have with the
The ‘Nature versus Nurture’ argument can be traced back several millenniums ago. In 350 B.C., philosophers were asking the same question on human behaviour. Plato and Aristotle were two philosophers who each had diverse views on the matter. On the one hand, Plato believed that knowledge and behaviour were due to inherent factors, but environmental factors still played a role in the equation. Conversely, Aristotle had different views. He believed in the idea of “Tabula Rasa”- the Blank Slate theory supported the nurture side of the argument and put forward the view that everyone was born with a ‘Tabula Rasa’, Latin for ‘Blank Slate’. He proposed that “people learn and acquire ideas from external forces or the environment”. Was he right when he proposed that the mind is a blank slate and it is our experiences that write on these slates? This theory concluded that as humans, we are born with minds empty of ideas and at birth we have no knowledge or awareness of how we should behav...
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