The most evident pillar of human existence is the unrelenting and quenchless desire to discover the unknown and uncover the mysteries of reality. In the past century, humans have figured out how to fly, walked on the moon, and begun to use phrases like “gigabits per second” and “nuclear fusion.” The question of if we will figure it out was altered to when will we figure it out, and it seemed like nothing was out of reach for human discernment. For all of these reasons, it is arguably poetic that the one thing it seems we cannot interpret is ourselves. The human mind thus presents the greatest challenge to understanding and countless hours have been dedicated to studying every aspect and every permeation of cognitive development, in order to …show more content…
Generally, “nature” is associated with biological systems and related consequences while “nurture” refers to social and cultural factors. This distinction becomes very important when investigating the roles of nature and nurture on gender and sex differences. For example, in a 2013 publication for the Association for Psychological Science, Alice H. Eagly and Wendy Wood cite that, in the 1970s, many psychologists “advocated separating sex as a biological influence from gender as a sociocultural influence” (Eagly and Wood 2). They go on to mitigate this statement by noting that the hypothesis was mostly a result of the feminist movement, with women attempting to diminish the effects of gender-based stereotypes. Eagly and Wood write that when the feminist-backed nurture movement dwindled in the 1980s, a revitalized push for nature’s dominance began (Eagly and Wood …show more content…
Thus unorthodox gender expression would be classified as a condition, and a presumably treatable one. In response to this, Gardner explains that the decision for a man to identify as a woman is instead in an effort to meet her needs as a human being based on who she feels she is (Gardner 34). This contrasting thought-process holds true in Jennifer Finney Boylan’s She 's Not There: A Life in Two Genders in which Boylan writes about her transition from man to woman. In the book, Boylan explains that all throughout her life she “needed” to be a woman and eventually had no doubt of the gender she perceived herself to be. At one point, Boylan writes that she would often wake up at night and think, “I’m the wrong person… I’m living the wrong life, in the wrong body” (Boylan 102). Boylan’s unadulterated story of her identification as a woman after being raised a man makes a case for both nature and nurture. Her sex change later in life and descriptions of her new perspectives as a woman shed a positive light on the possibilities of sexual reassignment surgeries and show that a penis is not necessarily synonymous with “man.” This section of her story supports the nurture argument, showing that gender does not have to be set in stone at birth. Nonetheless, Boylan’s adamancy that she felt her identity as a woman very early in childhood and fought it for so long show that it was not a choice for her but something that was wired in her
In a study conducted in 1983, researchers studied more than 350 pairs of twins in order to research if human personality traits were largely inherited or learned. Daniel Goleman, author of “Major Personality Study Finds that Traits are Mostly Inherited,” shares with his audience the parameters and results of this elaborate twin study. Goleman introduces his reader to Auke Tellegen, a psychologist and principal researcher on the long-term study, performed at the University of Minnesota, discovered that the human traits most strongly determined by heredity were leadership, obedience to authority, and even traditionalism. He would surely argue that heredity, more than influence of experience, is more responsible for development in human traits. Tellegen may have substantiating facts that nature is more predominant in a mere handful of traits, but what about the several other traits he failed to test? It is possible for a person who shows leadership and obedience during one part of their life to have an experience in which their obedience and leadership is thwarted. The study Tellegen conducted could not have been without environmental influence. Every single one of the participants, whether a twin or not, had environmental experiences separate from the others. Since every person experiences and responds to environmental stimuli differently, how can several prior years of experience be measured in order to present an unbiased result in this study? Unquestionably, it is impossible. Just as this particular study failed to take into consideration a persons’ prior experiences, it also failed to consider the probability of future environmental factors that could affect the traits Tellegen focused on in his study. Although difficu...
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.
The nature vs. nurture controversy has been one of the oldest and most incessant debates throughout history. The disputation of this debate has generated numerous hypotheses, and explorations by various researchers, however, it has not been clearly determined as to whether a person is biologically determined or whether they are shaped by the environment. Nature’s theory holds that a person’s mental ability is sustained by what he or she is born with genetically. Conversely, the argument that a person’s environment plays a large role in his or her mental aptitude is nurture. Despite the numerous and overwhelming experiments that have been fulfilled by theorists who support the nature theory, I strongly believe that the environment around a person, on the other hand, is ever-changing and offers more opportunities for growth and variation.
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.
Both Deborah Blum’s The Gender Blur: Where Does Biology End and Society Take Over? and Aaron Devor’s “Gender Role Behaviors and Attitudes” challenges the concept of how gender behavior is socially constructed. Blum resides on the idea that gender behavior is developed mainly through adolescence and societal expectations of a gender. Based on reference from personal experiences to back her argument up, Blum explains that each individual develops their expected traits as they grow up, while she also claims that genes and testosterones also play a role into establishing the differentiation of gender behavior. Whereas, Devor focuses mainly on the idea that gender behavior is portrayed mainly among two different categories: masculinity and femininity, the expectation that society has put upon male and female disregarding any biological traits. Furthermore, both could agree with the idea that society has an effect on how an individual should act based on their gender. Yet, additionally Devor would most likely disagree with Blum regarding the assumption that a biological factor is involved in this following case, but I reside on Blum’s case. Although society is indeed one of the major contributions as to how one should act, as Devor states, biology is somewhat like a foundation that leads to how one should behave as they grow and acknowledge their gender difference as well, residing on Blum’s argument.
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.
There are many different facets to the nature versus nurture argument that has been going on for decades. One of these, the influence of nature and nurture on gender roles and behaviors, is argued well by both Deborah Blum and Aaron Devor, both of whom believe that society plays a large role in determining gender. I, however, have a tendency to agree with Blum that biology and society both share responsibility for these behaviors. The real question is not whether gender expression is a result of nature or nurture, but how much of a role each of these plays.
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'.
“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)
In “The Gender Blur: Where Does Biology End and Society Take Over?” Deborah Blum states that “gender roles of our culture reflect an underlying biology” (Blum 679). Maasik and Solomon argue that gender codes and behavior “are not the result of some sort of natural or biological destiny, but are instead politically motivated cultural constructions,” (620) raising the question whether gender behavior begins in culture or genetics. Although one may argue that gender roles begin in either nature or nurture, many believe that both culture and biology have an influence on the behavior.
Gender identity has been a delicate issue when it comes to determining if a person's gender is set at birth or develops and changes as a person ages. A person’s gender is not as simple as being classified as either male or female. There’s a considerable amount of external factors that can influence someone’s identity. Although society has a major role in gender identity, sex assignment at birth is not final; furthermore, a person's gender can be influenced by psychological, physiological differences and undergoing changes to the human body. A common misconception many people believe is that gender and gender are the same or go hand in hand with one another.
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
Development across the lifespan is one of the most interesting areas of psychology. The word development refers to human development which can be defined as “the scientific study of changes that occur in people as they age from conception until death.” (Ciccarelli, & White, 2009)Psychologists study this developmental change over time through several different methods. The book highlights three: Longitudinal design, cross-sectional design and cross-sequential design. Longitudinal design is a research design “in which one participant or group of participants is studied over a long period of time.” Cross sectional design differs from longitudinal design because cross-sectional designed research studies “several different age-groups of participants are studied at one particular time.” (Ciccarelli, & White)Cross-sequential designed research is a combination of the other two types; the cross-sequential research design studies participants by means of a cross-sequential design but they are also followed and assessed for a period of time no more than six years. A controversial topic associated with development across the lifespan is the theory of “Nature versus Nurture”. Nature versus nurture refers to the relationship between development and heredity and environmental factors. The answer lies on a spectrum between environmental factors and heredity. Psychologists on the environmental side are called empiricists. Empiricists believe that human development is fully influenced by a person’s environment. On the opposite side of the spectrum are the nativists. Nativists are psychologists that believe a person’s development is based completely on genetic factors. The facts are divided in relation to the two theor...
Throughout the history of human existence, there have always been questions that have plagued man for centuries. Some of these questions are “what is the meaning of life” and “which came first, the chicken or the egg”. Within the past 400 years a new question has surfaced which takes our minds to much further levels. The question asked is whether nature or nurture has more of an impact on the growing development of people. It is a fact that a combination of nature and nurture play important roles in how humans behave socially. However, I believe that nature has a more domineering role in the development of how people behave in society with regards to sexual orientation, crimes and violence and mental disorders.
“We have been very conditioned by the cultures that we come from and are usually very identified with the particular gender that we happen to be a member of.” This quote by Andrew Cohen explains partially how gender identity develops, through the conditioning of our environments. The most influential factor of gender development, however, is still a very controversial issue. An analysis of the gender identification process reveals two main arguments in what factor most greatly contributes to gender development: biology differences (nature) or the environment (nurture).