One of the oldest debates in the history of psychology is The Nature VS. Nurture debate. This argument consists of two sides. One side believes that a person’s development is composed from DNA while the other side believes that development is influenced by experience and environment. Studies have shown that both the nature and nurture side, being DNA and environment, contribute to a person’s overall character and being.
My theory is that we are influenced more so through environment and experiences (nurture). It is known that DNA and environment both contribute to someone’s overall being but for choosing purposes of just one side, I would veto nature and proceed with nurture being the largest contributor to a person. In a physical sense, we look like our parents because we share the same DNA. But in a personal sense on a deeper level, is it DNA and genetic pool that makes us who we are or is it the way we are raised?
Nature. Children inherit many physical features from their parents as expected such as hair color and height. But how do personality traits and behavior—qualities that go past physical appearance—influence children through genetics?
…show more content…
The second side of the debate is the Nurturing side. This side argues that who someone becomes is based on experiences in life and the environment in which one is raised in. I, for one, find that my siblings and I are extremely similar. We grew up in the same home under the same circumstances, all around the same time. We share the same background and culture that have been huge developing traits in our lives. Even though we are all unique individuals, we seem to be more alike than different. We share many of the same morals and values but enjoy different subjects and hobbies more or less than the next. We have all experienced different occurrences in life and responded in different ways. Small ways in which we have spent time apart include being in different math classes and by being on different sports
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
There is something to be said for heredity, and the traits that we inherit from our elders. With recent advancements in genetics, such as the mapping of the human genome and the study of epigenetics, scientists have a better understanding of what traits are inherited. There are the obvious traits such as eye color, hair color and skin color that are inherited from one’s parents and there are genes making a person predisposed to certain diseases such as breast cancer. However, the line becomes slightly blurred when it comes to behavior, mental psyche and intelligence. The nu...
“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)
...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.
When it comes to the debate of Nature vs. Nurture I consider myself to be the middle man. I feel that our behavior, physical development and our identity is not only the result of our genealogical makeup but our interactions, and decisions that we encounter on a daily basis as well as our family structure. First I would like to give a brief summary of the two topics.
Noted psychologist Jerome Kagan once said "Genes and family may determine the foundation of the house, but time and place determine its form" (Moore 165). The debate on nature versus nurture has been a mystery for years, constantly begging the question of whether human behavior, ideas, and feelings are innate or learned over time. Nature, or genetic influences, are formed before birth and finely-tuned through early experiences. Genes are viewed as long and complicated chains that are present throughout life and develop over time. Nature supporters believe that genes form a child's conscience and determine one's approach to life, contrasting with nature is the idea that children are born “blank slates,” only to be formed by experience, or nurture. Nurture is constituted of 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 behaviorism, character, and personality traits that constantly change and develop throughout life.
Could our psychological development be mainly hereditary, affected by the environment or both? Many psychologists have often questioned whether our personality traits are inherited as a result of genetics; or if they are caused by their surrounding environment through life experiences, the way we were taught, or where we grew up, and therefore learned. We share our parents ' DNA in the physical sense. I might have long legs like my mother and green eyes like my father, but where did I get my love to paint, or my natural athletic abilities.
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
nurture debate is complicated by a multitude of elements. It is nearly impossible to come to a definitive conclusion when looking at several instances; such as, Victor Frankenstein and Creature in Frankenstein, Equiano in The interesting narrative of Olaudah Equiano, and Babo in Benito Cereno. Each individual is a product of both their nature and nurture; with some being greater influenced by one and it being unclear for others. Understandably, scientists and philosophers are extremely interesting in trying to explain why people are the way they are; scientists sequence whole genomes to find a “bad gene”, psychologists spend decades following individuals to investigate their upbringing and future behaviors and philosophers endlessly try to make sense of the incomprehensible. Frustratingly, with every step forward, we take five steps back from finding the answer to the questions: Is our behaviors driven by our genetic composition or the environment we are surrounded
“Some findings, assuming they can be repeated, will not satisfy gay groups who want homosexuality to be seen as purely a genetic trait. Nor will they please commentators who see homosexuality as a choice made by "sinful" people. What they do show is human sexual behavior in all its splendid complexity.” (inspire.in.gov) Nature vs. Nurture is the debate on whether or not an individual is born homosexual or is homosexual based on who they are influenced by and the environment they are in or surrounded by. The ‘nature’ side of the nature vs. nurture debate is based on if an individual is born homosexual. The ‘nurture’ side of nature vs. nurture is if an individual is taught, influenced, or is affected someway by the environment and/or place they live in and who they live with. Either way, the individual is still homosexual.
Nature’s influence is not limited to appearance but extends further than that. Studies have shown that people inherit cognitive abilities and temperament patterns from their parents. The new question in today's research is: to what extent does nature’s role play in the formation of a human personality and whether the environment can favorably or adversely affect one’s personality (Sigelman & Rider, 2009).
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.
Scientists make a good point about genes but I believe physical aspects come through genetics, but that personality development is shaped based solely on how a person has been nurtured through their lives. All children are bad at one time in their lives; consider this, a 4 year old girl throws a book at her brother, and is punished she is put in the corner.
Nature vs nurture debate is one of the oldest arguments in the history of psychology. It is the scientific cultural, and philosophical debate about whether human culture, behavior, and personality are caused primarily by nature or nurture. Nature and nurture are both equally important. They are the two are major influences that affect the person you grow to be and will determine what your children will be tomorrow. Nature refers to heredity, which are traits and features that are inherited from your parents and ancestors. At birth you, as a person, inherits 50% of each parent 's genetic material that are passed along through the chromosomes found in the DNA. Hair color, height, body type, and eye color are some examples of characteristics
... 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).