Nature vs. Nurture: Depression, Balance Rather than Battle. When discussing human characteristics many statements are made regarding whether or not an individual was born with certain traits, or if they were raised in an environment that instilled the traits in them. This conflict is what is known as the nature and nurture argument, and in the study of behavior this argument is difficult to avoid. However the general consensus is that there is interplay between nature and nurture, that the characteristics and mannerisms that make up an individual are not dependent on one or the other. Generally there are two conclusions are made by research that is done concerning this argument; research that concludes that there is interplay and research …show more content…
One study examined the relationship between mothers who have depression and their children who began displaying anti social behaviors at a young age. This study concluded that when mothers show signs of depression, they have poor quality interactions with their children. But what they could not determine was whether it was the quality of the environment or their genetic disposition (Kim-Cohen et al., 2005). A further study made the variability of how genetics and environment can combine when developing mental illness such as depression the focus of their article. They observed how children and young adults who had similar levels of susceptibility to mental illness varied in how they developed it. This study stated that there is to much variability to clearly determine which theory had the stronger influence. The point being that both nature and nurture are balanced different for every individual (Goodman & Gotlib,. …show more content…
I think that there must be a balance between nature and nurture regarding what behaviors or disorders we develop. I have personal experience with this concerning depression. I have an older sibling, they are only 16 months older than me so we developed, grew and learned generally around the same time. We were raised in the same environment, went through the same hardships and enjoyed fun times with our family. As adults we both are successful in post secondary; we both also have the same straightforward and determined attitude when it comes to meeting our goals. However despite how similar we are, my sibling very recently was diagnosed with manic depression as well as paranoid psychosis. Despite our identical environment and our genetic similarities only one of us has developed a mental illness. If only nature or nurture were responsible for characteristics or disorders we develop; by that school of thought I would have also been living with something similar to my sibling. This difference reinforces my opinion that all behaviors and disorders are a result of a spectrum of variability between the influences of our genetic susceptibility and our environmental
...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.
There will never be an end to the debate over nature and nurture. Having examined different philosophers and studies it is clear that there are legitimate arguments for both sides. Locke believed that we furnish our minds with experience; Hobbes thought that human trait and behavior are determined at birth, and finally Bouchard concluded that it is a mixture of the two. It is this writer’s conclusion that neither nature nor nurture causes the evil tendencies, for it is a combination of the two that truly shapes a mankind. There are no rules. Who we become due to our nature and our nurture can only be decided on a case-by-case basis.
It is not common knowledge, but people can be genetically predisposed to develop depression during their lives. Depression runs in families. It can be passed d...
Biological psychologists believe that a person usually develop depression because of genetic factors. Family history is very important evidence for doctors to see when tying to diagnosis depression since the family history will show whether depression illness runs through the families that could have been inherited. Weissman found that around 50% children whose parents also expressed depressive symptoms develop depression too. This is a great number to inherit depression from therefore this shows that genetics plays a great role in developing depression.
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.
In psychology field, there is a long-lasting discussion about whether one’s behaviors are determined by the environment or natural instinct. The terms of “nature” and “nurture” have been used since at least 16th century. The definitions of nature and nurture are various among different schools and change along with time. No matter which dimensions of meanings are taken for research, childhood is definitely one of the most crucial life period for this topic because the effects of both nature and nurture are reflected most apparently in childhood. Children are growing both mentally and physically. Therefore, they are easily affected by the environment and unlikely to cover up
On average, the american household contains 2.4 kids, who are all unique in the way they are raised. But does this mean that some kids will develop a disorder from the way they were nurtured? Today researchers are having the debate on whether disorders like bipolar disorder, Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder, and autism spectrum disorders originate from genes or their early childhood environment. This topic is also one of the most common arguments among the psychology department with nature versus nurture. The debate is whether much of an individual is related to inborn tendencies and genetic factors, or environmental and learning factors. Personalities, mental illnesses, and pure intelligence are a few of the most common areas when
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.
Human behavior is a highly debated topic in the scientific community. While geneticists argue that an individual's innate qualities and genetic makeup cause individual differences in human behavior, psychologists believe that an individual's personal experiences or their environment causes those differences. This debate is known as “nature versus nurture,” and the two sides have evolved as more information has been found in genetic research. While there are still different ideas about how much effect genes and environment have on human behavior, there is a consensus that the two factors work together to influence or predict how a person is most likely to act. But these predictions are not absolute or deterministic, and the factors are not necessarily deterministic.
The nature-nurture debate is one of the oldest arguments in psychology, dating back to Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. While Socrates and Plato believed that knowledge is innate, Aristotle thought that knowledge is not preexisting and grows with experience. Even today, people ask whether nature (genetics/inherited characteristics) or nurture (environment and experiences) has a larger effect on one’s personality and behavior. Both nature and nurture have influenced everybody’s lives, including my own. Everything from the color of someone’s eyes to their temper can be explained by nature, nurture, or a combination of both. My genetics explain many of my traits and make me similar to my parents and the environments I have grown
The issues pitting nature against nurture are exceptionally significant for the gamut of discoveries that attribute an increasing proportion of traits and behaviours to one's genetic makeup. The resulting variety of physical shortcomings and limitations in each person has, for centuries, been countered by endeavours to improve or interfere where necessary, and every individual is consequently the product of a delicate middle path of balance between the two.
Someone can physically look like their parents, siblings or even ancestors from the third generation. When a baby is born, it is common to learn in a natural way. No one teaches a baby how to crawl or how to react when he and she is hungry. However, talents, qualities and personalities are developed through experiences. The environment in which people grew up can have a lasting effect or influence on the way they talk, behave and respond to things around. According to Steven Pinker, Behavioral genetics has shown that temperament emerges early in life and remains fairly constant throughout the life span, that much of the variation among people within a culture comes from differences in genes, and that in some cases particular genes can be tied to aspects of cognition, language, and personality (2). Researchers believe that the origin of behaviors occur in genes in the DNA or even animal instincts which this concept is known as nature of human behavior. Other researchers believe that people are they were they are because they are taught to do so. This concept is well known as nurture in human behavior. In society, there will always be the doubt between Do we born in this way or do we behave according to life experiences? I strongly believe that nurture plays an important role in the upbringing of a child and the decisions that one makes in the future. Firstly, humans learn from their environment and other’s behaviors. Secondly, culture is a huge remark in people’s life. Finally,
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 has been discussed by philosophers in the past and by scientists more recently. Philosophers such as Plato argued that all knowledge was inherited from your parents and when you were told something you didn’t learn it you were just reminded of it. Aristotle however argued that all humans were born with a blank slate and built on it with influence from there environment. In the 1700’s the empiricists and the internalists took over the argument. They fought through letters explaining there point of views and denouncing the others. This leads to Pavlov coming up with the idea of behaviorism in the early 1900‘s. Behaviorism became the new wave of Psychology and influenced a lean towards the nurture side. It was not effectively argued against until 1928 when Watson published his book. This opened up the floodgates for environmental influences studies. Soon the idea of nurture was the popular excuse for behavior. Studies using animals were the most popular was in which scientists used to prove a theory, or disprove a theory. The newest studies use human twins to prove nature vs. nurture.
Although the question was first posed as a nature-versus-nurture issue, developmental psychologists today agree that both nature and nurture interact to produce specific developmental patterns and outcomes. Consequently, the question has evolved into how and to what degree do environment and heredity both produce their effects? No one grows up free of environment influences, nor does anyone develop without being affected by his or her inherited genetic makeup. However, the debate over the comparative influence of the two factors remains active, with different approaches and theories of development emphasizing the environment or heredity to a greater or lesser degree.