It is undoubtedly evident that the field of psychology is becoming increasingly reliant on genetic explanations of human behaviour. It’s undisputable power and potential that it holds for the study offers exciting new developments on levels and quantity that many other sciences can simply not match; yet this over reliance on genetic explanations has caused many issues within the field of developmental psychology, where environmental issues are being ignored completely.
Perhaps up until only a few years ago, developmental psychology has been untouched by the era of genetics. While other fields around it grew and adapted to the scientific principle, developmental psychology was still heavily reliant on environmental influences. The rejection of genetic explanations was primarily due to its lack of insight it could provide for the field. Now however, it is becoming worryingly only reliant on this field of thought as genetic advancements increase at an alarming rate. There is no doubt that genetics can provide answers, it would be foolish to dispute in the face of such hard-hitting evidence.
If any area of research is going to hold a genetic basis, facial recognition in children is going to. It is the beginnings of attachment, the basis of social interaction and is vital for infant and caregiver interaction. Therefore it would be obvious that such a skill would have the possibilities to be innate, however new research suggest that this it is also genetic. After Thomas’ researched the theory, he suggested that even with all other variables taken into consideration, there is unlikely to be any variation let to attribute to no familial environment rendering face recognition ability essentially all genetic. It’s not just the ‘normal’ ...
... middle of paper ...
... that holds great potential for developmental psychology. The future of genetics is pointing towards an era that can realistically be entirely reliant on genetics. As McKuskis points out, ‘Scientists’ growing ability to read and write in the language of the genes has already explained some of the once-mysterious basic concepts of genetics’.
It is self-evident that even in an era of genetics, psychological studies of environmental influences are not irrelevant, and in some cases vital for the field of developmental psychology. Genetics does have the potential to be viewed as sole influence on development, but for now there are too many issues surrounding genetics to be considered so. It is an ideological and vain hope that whiles such issues as gene-environment interactions, colorations and epigenetics goes un-answered, that we can ignore environmental influences.
The Nurture vs. Nature has been a long standing debate amongst psychologists. This psychological controversy questions whether or not the environment has more or less to do with the outcome of a child’s psychological development than the genetics involved. The nurture side of the argument is highly illustrated by the memoir The Other Wes Moore, by Wes Moore, due to the fact that both of their lives although starting off similar, ended dramatically different.
While both nature and nurture have evidence to support each theory, it is the effects on one another that may be responsible for shaping development. As we move into a new era where it is no longer nature versus nurture, but instead nature and nurture, the study of behavioral epigenetics will become even more important as we begin to recognize the relationship that exists between the two and how they affect one another.
“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)
The nature vs. nurture debate: the nature side, are those such as biologists, psychologists and others in the natural sciences, argue that behavioral traits can be explained by genetics. Those taking the nurture side are sociologists and others in the social sciences, they argue that human behavior is learned and shaped through social interaction. This argument should be dismissed because you don’t have to look far to see that both genetics and our environment, plays a role in who we are and our behaviors. (Glass). The point is there is a complex relationship between nature and nurture, either one alone is insufficient to explain what makes us human. (Colt). Our heredity gives us a basic potential,...
It is inevitable, children and adults constantly evolve and the evolution of this population requires an ongoing scientific investigation (Eberbach & Crowley, 2009). The scientific investigation of the evolution of children and adults is described as developmental psychology. Developmental psychologists establish theories of developmental trajectories, interpersonal, intrapersonal, emotional, and cognitive processing. Moreover, developmental psychologists endeavor to provide descriptive and expository research to enhance client and professional development (Machery, 2011).
...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.
Every individual has a biological influence on their development; two individuals combine their genetic information to create a new organism, carrying biological predispositions that will shape their expressed behaviors and characteristics. However, Susan Griffin, author of the essay “Our Secret,” argues that while genetic influences are significant, they are not the sole contributors to an individual’s development. Throughout her essay, Griffin reveals to her readers that the presence of external, uncontrollable factors from an individual’s environment can be equally influential as they diverge the individual off of the predetermined path of life created by biological factors.
This chapter discusses The Evolutionary Perspective, Genetic Foundations, reproductive Challenges, and Heredity-Environment Interactions. Natural selection is the process by which those individuals of a species that are best adapted survive and reproduce. Darwin proposed that natural selection fuels evolution. In evolutionary theory, adaptive behavior is behavior that promotes the organism’s survival in a natural habitat. Evolutionary psychology holds that adaptation, reproduction, and “survival of the fittest” are important in shaping behavior. Ideas proposed by evolutionary developmental psychology include the view that an extended childhood period is needed to develop a large brain and learn the complexity of human social communities. According to Baltes, the benefits resulting from evolutionary selection decrease with age mainly because of a decline in reproductive fitness. At the same time, cultural needs increase. Like other theoretical approaches to development, evolutionary psychology has limitations. Bandura rejects “one-sided evolutionism” and argues for a bidirectional lin...
As a mother, I am shocked and dismayed by the general acceptance of the myth of genetic determinism. One's environment, including people one interacts with, has an undeniable influence on how one develops. Nonetheless, many scientists disregard the impact of environment on one's intelligence. I do not deny that one's biology is a crucial part of one's identity. Inheritance of physical traits is obvious. Children often look "just like" their father or mother, or another relative. One's genes determine eye and hair color, height and body build. I believe, however, that what makes us human is not something that can be found in...
Today, realising that genes and environment cooperate and interact synergistically, traditional dichotomy of nature vs. nurture is commonly seen as a false dichotomy. Especially operant conditioning, i.e. the learning of the consequences of one's own behavior can lead to positive feedback loops between genetic predispositions and behavioral consequences that render the question as to cause and effect nonsensical. Positive feedback has the inherent tendency to exponentially amplify any initial small differences. For example, an at birth negligible difference between two brothers in a gene affecting IQ to a small percentage, may lead to one discovering a book the will spark his interest in reading, while the other never gets to see that book. One becomes an avid reader who loves intellectual challenges while the other never finds a real interest in books, but hangs out with his friends more often. Eventually, the reading brother may end up with highly different IQ scores in standardized tests, simply because the book loving brother has had more opportunities to train his brain. Had both brother received identical environmental input, their IQ scores would hardly differ.
One of the most interesting and controversial areas in behavioral genetics, human intelligence is currently assumed to be subject to both genetic and environmental influences.
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.
Height, hair color, eye color and sex are just a few examples of ways our DNA has shaped us. But could it be possible that our DNA also effects the way we behave in society. It is possible that genetics effect us is more ways that we may have imagined. Dr. Peter B. Neubaur believes that shyness, eating disorders, obsessive behavior and psychological illness can all be traced back to our genetics. Sexual orientation is also believed to be derived from genes in our body which determine what sexual preference we prefer. Violence and other types of crimes can be linked back throughout a person’s lineage to witness that other family members have been committed similar crimes without ever meeting one and other.
Genetics is a scientific discipline that deals with how individuals inherit their physical and behavioral attributes. Generally, genetics is a branch of biology that deals with the science of heredity, genes, and differences in living organisms. It’s the process with which a child inherits traits from his/her parents and the molecular organization and function of genes. The question of what determines the development of a child has been an issue that has attracted considerable concerns and debates across educators, biologists, and psychologists. This issue has attracted huge concerns because it’s impossible to explain each and every factor that eventually determines who a child becomes. Notably, the development of a child involves a mix of various influences such as parenting, genetics, individual experiences, family relationships, friends, and school. One of the most important influences on a child’s development and growth is genetics, which primarily is the process of traits inheritance from parents to offspring.
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,