More handpicked essays just for you.
Nature versus nurture theorists
The differences between nature and nurture in human development
The differences between nature and nurture in human development
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Nature vs. Nurture One of the oldest arguments in the history of psychology is the nature vs nurture debate. Nature is defined as inherited features, from parents, that you can see or feel. Nurture, on the other hand, is what someone gains as a person from caring and encouraging a good environment. These both aid in growth and development from birth. Some people believe that the majority of who you are comes from heredity, or what you're born with from both parents. Other people strongly believe that your environment moldes who you are, and that what you're born with can be changed with enough nurture. Both of these sides have valid points so it is hard to decide whether a person's development is in from DNA, or if the majority of it is influenced …show more content…
When I was five, my mom and dad got separated and it was a lot to adapt to. Both houses were a different environment so I had to change and learn how to act within them both. At my mom's it was just me and her so I had much more responsibility, which helped me grow up and gain that trait. At my dad’s it was me, him, and his roommate, so I was the female of the house learning independence until later on in life when my dad had two more kids which changed my environment again. From only child to having two babies is a huge change and caused me to change who I am around that house. It was no longer only about me, I had to adapt and learn sharing. He also made a move to Texas where now I need to throw girly out the window and know how to be tough and strong. My dad is sort of a grumpy guy, so honestly I picked up a lot of that hearing it and being exposed to it all the time, along with my mom’s attitude. My mom and dad are street smart but not very book smart, surprisingly though, I am very intelligent. I definitely was nichpicking when it came to school because I loved it so my mom helped me achieve my goals and pushes me to succeed. I did much of my own nurture and gained who I am from who I wanted to be. Most of it is wanting to be opposite of what I was genetically predisposed to be. Both nature and nurture play into who I am, but when it comes down to a science, there …show more content…
One study is a twin study, study of a set of twins to be able to see how they are shaped throughout life by having the same nature but different nurture (Feldman, 54). Fraternal twins are a dream come true because it allows a psychologist to compare the two, possibly for a longitudinal study like the David Reimer study where one twin was raised as a girl and the other as the boy he was to prove that nurture can override nature (Edexcel psychology, 1). Another study is Adoption study which allows a psychologist to compare what you get from your biological parents vs. what you get based on nurture from your adopted parents (Feldman, 54). Heritability also allows us to study what you get from birth and what you gain from environment. Differences between groups is environment or nurture, while differences within a group is genetics or nature. This applies to me with my siblings because we have aspects of our dad that we share, but raised in a different environment makes us different. All these methods do not prove if nature or nurture is more influential on growth and development. As far as we know, both play a certain role and equal
...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 book Pudd’nhead Wilson by Mark Twain, race and identity is a large theme in the book, that often impacts the each and every word, thought and action of the characters. The nature vs nurture theme speaks volumes because most whites in the time period of racism believed that whites were noble and blacks were innately evil from birth and can never be changed. In the book there are two boys named Tom, the son of Roxy, and Chambers, the son of Percy Driscoll. Roxy had a gut feeling of her son being separated from her son by Percy so she switches the sons since they look so much alike. Chambers a black person with a upbringing of respectable white background grows up to be “racist” and Tom a white person with a black surrounding thinks nothing of being black. Mark Twain mocks white people because Roxy, a black female, was outsmarting a whole town without anyone noticing for years. Mark Twain dispels the reasons whites or society gives to hate blacks, Twain does through the character of Chambers as well as Tom and societies depictions of them. Society has nurtured the hate people have for blacks for no valid reason and it is shown to the reader, through Chambers. In the book Chambers hates blacks, reason being is that he thought he was white, and society says whites are suppose to hate blacks, so why is that Chambers
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 is often defined in this debate as genetic or hormone-based behaviours, while nurture is most commonly defined as environment and experience.” (("Nature vs. Nurture", 2014, p.1) Many controversial debates have surrounded this issue and many researchers are trying to find evidence to justify if twin and adoption studies have an effect on the nature vs. nurture debate. Twin and adoption studies have had a positive influence on the nature-nurture debate because research and evidence has identified different issues and quality information to help the nature-nurture debate evolve. This essay will outline these positive influences and will elaborate on the research and evidence that has helped the nature-nurture debate.
nurture argument. Theorists have wondered how much of development is affected by genetics and the environment. Ultimately, nature and nurture intertwine to shape the lives of children. Nature may predispose children to certain behaviors if placed in specific environments, however the timing of the environmental exposure and the child’s natural tendencies also play a role. Theorists have also discussed the extent to which development is universal and how much of it is unique to individuals. There are consistencies that have been noted universally yet; theorists have observed variations in their competency in different tasks and way of life that may be contributed to genetics or the environment. Lastly, theorists debate about whether changes in development can be portrayed as qualitative where it involves dramatic changes or quantitative in which development is a steady progression. These debates have merits independently but require each other for a better understanding of child
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.
“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)
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.
One of the most well-known debates in psychology is nature versus nurture. Nature is pre-determined traits, influenced by biological factors and genetics. Physical characteristics such as height, hair color, and eye color is all determined by the genetics we inherit. Nurture is the influence of environmental factors. Nature and nurture affects the physical, emotional, and social development of a child.
A lot of theorists are stuck in the middle of the nature verses nurture. Some believe it’s a biological factor ultimately responsible for human growth. Others believe that children become whatever the environment shapes them to be.
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
The controversy of nature vs. nurture has been going on for many years, and a
Where do you think your personality came from? The nature vs. nurture has been going on for many, many years and will probably keep going on for many more years. The purpose of this debate is to determine which one has a bigger influence on personality. It is a proven fact that both nurture and nature have a huge role in contributing to your personality development. Identical twins have many similarities, but also many differences. Your personality can change while you are growing up. Studies have shown that your personality is based off your surroundings and how you grow up. In most cases nurture has a more stronger influence on your personality than nature does.
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
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.