Nature vs. Nurture Critical Analysis

Nature Vs. Nurture For centuries psychologists have argued over which plays the larger role in child development, heredity or environment. One of the first theories was proposed in the seventeenth century by the British philosopher John Locke. Locke believed that a child was born with an empty mind, tabula rasa (meaning “blank slate”) and that everything the child learns comes from experience, nothing is established beforehand. Years later, Charles Darwin brought forth his theory of evolution, which led to a return of the hereditarian viewpoint.

With the twentieth century, however, came the rise of behaviorism. Behaviorists, like John B. Watson and B. F. Skinner, argued that a child can be made into any kind of person, regardless of their heredity. Today, most psychologists agree that both nature (genes) and nurture (environment) play an important role, not independently, but as they interact together (Atkinson, p. 72). One of the most important factors believed to influence a child are parents. Parents are known to share a distinctive bond with their children. This special bond is what enables parents to shape their children.

Whether it is into free-willed adolescents, ready to challenge any controversy, or into caring adults willing to spend the seventy cents a day to save a poverty stricken child. Parents have the power to mold their children. Setting firm, yet sensible, guidelines teaches children discipline and good behavior. Using physical abuse produces aggressive children, but having patience and understanding leaves a child better capable to handle stress in later years. How parents raise their children influences how they will turn out (Begley, p. 53). Surprisingly, a new debate is taking place.

As the author of The Nurture Assumption: Why Children Turn Out the Way They Do; Parents Matter Less Than You Think and Peers Matter More, Judith Rich Harris argues that parents have absolutely no say in what kind of children they raise. She claims that after the parents contribute an egg or sperm filled with DNA, their job of “creating” a child is complete. Her book is backed by some 750 references, but most of her conclusions come from the observation of her own two daughters; one her own and one adopted (Begley, p. 53). Parents, however, do play an important role in childhood development.

For the purposes of this essay, her theory that parents have no lasting effects on a child’s personality will be argued. The following contains supporting scientific evidence. The DNA structure of a human, the genes, determines the height a person will reach, whether an individual’s eyes will be green or brown, and if a person’s hair will be straight or curly (Saplosky, p. 44). Research has also found that genes are 30 to 70 percent responsible for personality traits such as aggression, passion, shyness and intelligence. The other 30 to 70 percent of a person’s personality develop from the environment (Pool, p. 2). Genes, however, are not what produces a behavior, an emotion, or even a thought. Instead, genes produce a protein that contains hormones, which carry messages between cells, and neurotransmitters that carry messages between nerve cells. The protein also contains receptors that receive the hormonal and neurotransmitter messages as well as enzymes that read the messages. So what does all this have to do with behavior? Well, the hormone does not cause a behavior either, but rather a reaction. This reaction is a tendency to respond to the individual’s environment in a certain way. This response is behavior.

Without the ever changing environment, behavior would not happen (Saplosky, p. 42-43). Wouldn’t this fact make everyone act the same? Everyone lives in the same world. Everyone is facing the same problems of a growing population, pollution, and disintegrating resources. Wouldn’t this make everyone act the same? Not at all. When speaking of the environment that shapes a person’s personality, it isn’t the environment that the world population shares. It includes more personal things like birth order and personal, unique life experiences. This is the “environment” that influences behavior.

Things like the pollution leave no lasting effect on a child’s behavior (Pool, p. 52). Everyone’s genes also differ. Of the DNA found in every human being, only 5% can be coded and used to determine which proteins will be used. The other 95% of non coded DNA is used as a instruction manual for the operator. The environment being the operator which regulates the genes. In turn, a personality is produced. As well as having different genes to produce different proteins, the proteins produce hormones at different levels. For example, two people both have the same functioning gene.

The hormones produced are the same, but function at different levels. Therefore, one of them may become more prone to depression than the other simply because the proteins in that person’s genes function, in a sense, better (Sapolsky, p. 46). Parents can not determine whether or not their family history of shyness is passed on to their children, but they can determine if they are going to let it control their childrens’ life. Studies done by Harvard scholar Jerome Kagan prove that parents who push their timid children to try new things end up with children who are far less fearful.

On the other hand, overprotective parents did nothing to ease their childrens’ discomfort. Intervention studies, studies similar to Kagan’s, have shown that parents who purposely change their behavior can change their child’s behavior. Although genes cannot be helped, parents can control whether or not they affect the child (Begley, p. 56). Research has also found that a child’s experience of his or her parents is an especially strong sculptor in parts of the brain involved with emotion, personality, and behavior.

Strong bonds with parents are found to increase a child’s ability to learn and cope with stress. On the other hand, abusive parents raise children that in later years grow to express inappropriate aggression and have a small attention p. Having responsive, sensitive parents inspire trust and secure attachments. Yet, insensitive and withdrawn parents create an insecure attachment. Developmental psychologists agree, the bond children have with parents is essential for them to become well-functioning adults (Wright, p. 76).

Megan Gunnar, a developmental psychologist at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis, studies relationships between parents and children. One of her studies focused on the relationship between attachment security and reaction to stress. Gunnar found that when infants were exposed to stressful situations, such as vaccinations, strangers, or separation from the mother, the stress hormone cortisol was produced. By the age of two, the hormone wasn’t produced by the toddlers in stressful situations, although they acted out as if it were.

These children, however, had secure attachments to their parents. Children who didn’t have the security still produced the hormone cortisol (Wright, p. 76). Harris, who feels parents leave no impression on their children, believes that “Parental divorce has no lasting effects on the way children behave” (Begley, p. 56). Heredity, she says, is what makes a child act out about or during a divorce. The fact, though, is that the unstable situation of the family causes a child to act out (Edwards, p. 31). For a child, friends, pets, teachers, and others important people may come and go.

Parents and their family, however, should always be there for them. When parents divorce, a child may feel lost and may not know how to handle it (Edwards, p. 31). Acting out is one way of showing anger and hurt. Parents, although they don’t realize it, are shaping their child’s personality. Whether it is by acting out or holding it all in, children are influenced by their parent’s actions. Kids will be kids. It’s a common phrase. Everybody uses it, but not everybody understands it. Parents often feel that, despite their efforts, their children will do what they want.

They’ll smoke and drink and party. They’ll cuss and cheat. They’ll go against their parents wishes. Why? Because human behavior often follows cultural norms (Pinker, p. 94). If the parents did their job well, the rebellion will only be a stage that the child will grow out of. If parents didn’t do their job right, the stage may set the mood for the rest of the child’s life. Parents are the most influential “environmental” factors in a child’s behavior. A special bond is shared between children and their parents. As Roger Rosenblatt put it, “We do what we can as parents, one child at a time.

We take what we get in our children, and they take what they get in us, making compromises and adjustments where we are able, making rules and explanations, but for the most part letting things happen. . . ” (Rosenblatt, p. 90). Genes may determine the possibilities of personality available, but it is the parents that make those possibilities possible. Parents matter. Bibliography: Arkinson, Rita L. “Psychological Development” Introduction to Psychology. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Inc. , 1993. Begley, Sharon. “The Parent Trap,” Newsweek, (September 7, 1998). p. 52-59. Edwards, Randall. Divorce Need Not Harm Children. ” in Child Welfare: Opposing Viewpoints. Bender, David and Leone, Bruno, Series Editors. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, 1998. Kevles, Behhyann H. and Daniel J. “Scapegoat Biology. ” Discover, (October 1997). p. 58-62. Pinker, Steven. “Against Nature. ” Discover, (October 1997). p. 92-95. Pool, Robert. “Portrait of a Gene Guy. ” Discover, (October 1997). p. 51-55. Rosenblatt, Roger. “A Game of Catch,” Time, Vol. 152 (July 13, 1998). p. 90. Sapolsky, Robert. “A Gene For Nothing,” Discover, (October 1997). p. 40-46. Waldman, Steven. “Divorce Harms Children. ” in Child Welfare: Opposing Viewpoints.

Read more

Nature vs nurture Argumentative Essay

Whereas nurture is the environment around us that can influence our upbringing and it is the society around us that affect the way we think or do certain things. It refers to a person’s childhood and how they were brought up and what they learn. Nature vs. Nurture debate does not have a firm conclusion to say which one has more value as it is a debate that has been discussed between philosophers to identify which one has more influence in our lives. Some philosophers argue that the nature is most influential in our lives as it is part of our genetic makings, something that we cannot change even if we want to.

Others argue that nurture is more influential as it determines our personality and our perspective of things, the way we view things. For example, a teenager wanting to be a doctor when they grow up is not part of our nature, it goes more towards nurture because it is the way we are brought up that influences our decisions in life. If a child had a parent who is a doctor and they watch their parent making people feel becoming well, then they might want to do the same as they might get fascinated by it. This decision that the child made to become a doctor is the doing of nurture because the child was influenced by what he saw around him.

Nature on the other hand is nothing that can be fixed or change at any cost. For example, if a child was born with illness such as Cystic Fibrosis then this is something that they cannot recover from, they might get medication to help them survive but it is not something that they can get well from as it is part of their genetic making. Furthermore, some people argue that nurture has more influence in our lives because a serial killer does not become a murder because it is in his genes, but because they are influenced by what they see around them.

Some philosophers claim that a person’s development is influenced by both nature and nurture. For example, if a person is born with blonde hair and blue eyes, this is something natural that they cannot change, however, if they live in a posh area, then their accent would be posh; this is something that is nurture is responsible for because the community a person lives in Wool_sld determines the accent they would have. Dry Money and the boy with no penis is the story of David Rimes who was turned in to a girl when he was baby due to his Penis being burned off during circumcision.

When David was born he was called Bruce and his twin brother was called Brian. Dry John Money was a sexologist; he debates about sex changes operations on transsexual. When Brace’s penis was burned off, his parents Janet and Ron Rimes were very upset over and did not know what to do. When they found out about Dry Money, they finally found hope, knowing that he would be able to help their child. Dry Money believed that nurture can win out nature anytime. For example, he believed that a boy can be turned in to a girl and they would be able to live a happy normal life like every other person.

When Brace’s parents contacted Dry Money, he found a way that he could prove his theory. He wanted to show the world that if a twin boy’s sex was changed and he was turned into a girl and treated like one, then that boy would be able to live a normal life as a girl. When he found about Bruce, he advised Bruce parents to treat him like a girl and not let her know that she was a boy. As Bruce did not have a penis, his parents thought that it was the perfect solutions for their son. Therefore, Brace’s sex Was changed and he was turned into a ‘she’ and was called Brenda.

Brace’s twin brother Brian was rough up as a normal boy and he believed that he had a twin sister called Brenda. Brenda grew up believing she was a girl and her parents bought her pretty dresses to wear and dolls to play with. Everything was going smoothly and Brenda had regular visits with Dry Money to see how her life was going. Dry Money was convinced that his theory was working and that a child born as a boy can be turned in to a girl and lives a normal life and that nurture can win out nature.

However, his theory was not really working because Brenda was not behaving like a girl, instead she did not like playing with dolls and wearing reuses. She became a tomboy and thought she was going crazy because she felt like a boy. She did not have any friends as girls did not want to play with her because she acted like a boy and boys did not want to play with her because she was a girl. Brenda was unhappy with her life. When she went to visit Dry Money again with Brian, he wanted her to understand the difference between a girl and a boy.

He told her that girls have flat and boys have ‘sausage’. He wanted to convince Brenda so badly that he made both Brenda and Brian takes their clothes off and took pictures. He also tried to convince Brenda to have a vagina construction. Dry Money also introduced Brenda to a transsexual, who was born as interest (with both a vagina and a penis) and decided to become a female. Dry Money thought that the transsexual would be able to convince Brenda to go through the vagina construction. However, Brenda was very upset over it and run away from his office.

When she went home she informed her parents that she did not want to see Dry Money again and that if they forced her to go then she would commit suicide. Her parents were shocked over how Brenda was reacting and decided to stop sending her to see Dry Money. When Brenda turned 13 her parents could see how unhappy she was and that is when they decided to reveal the truth to the twins. When Brenda found out that she was a boy, she was very happy about it. However, her twin brother was not happy, instead he was very angry and upset to know that he was not the only boy in the family and to take his anger out he broke a window.

On the other hand, Brenda decided to have an operation and get a penis and decided to call herself David. Now that he is a boy, David was very happy with his life. It seems that Dry Money theory about nurture winning out over nature was rang because it is clear that even though Brenda did not know she was a boy, she still felt like one and acted like a boy. She did not like things that girls like, this indicates that no matter how you are brought up, you cannot outrun the nature and you cannot change the way you are born.

Therefore, it is nature can win nurture anytime because nature has more importance in a person’s life as it is something that is natural and not manmade. It can be clearly identified that even though David was brought up as a girl, deep inside he felt like a boy. His physical, emotional, social and intellectual development as affected because of it. Physically David did not like playing with dolls and wearing pretty dresses, instead he preferred to play video games and toy cars. Dry Money forced Brenda and her twin her brother Brian to take their clothes off and took picture of them.

Intellectually Brenda thought she was going crazy because she felt like a boy and did not act like a girl. She wanted to commit suicide because she did not want to see Dry Money anymore. Due to the events happening in her life, Brenda was not doing so well in school. She was not able to concentrate in her school work and she was bullied by there children because Of the way she acted. When Brian found that Brenda was in fact a boy that his twin sister was a boy, he was very upset over it. Later on he developed schizophrenia and died.

When David found out that he was a boy he was very happy about it as he thought he was going to crazy before because he did not feel like a girl. David felt lonely all lonely because he did not have any friends and he did not like visiting Dry Money as he felt uncomfortable with. David emotionally suffered from what had happened to him in the past and finally felt like he fit in once he found out that he was in fact a boy. David later on got married to Jane and was happy with her. When Jane asked to be have separate time away from David, he was upset about it and he did not have a job to support him.

David felt overwhelmed with everything and committed suicide by shooting himself. Socially David always felt alone because he never really fit in as he did not have any friends to stay With. As he was depressed over his life, David did not like going out much. It can clearly be identified that in Dry Money was wrong about Nurture out being more significant than Nature as we can see that in Davit’s case nature overthrew nurture. It can be identified as David was born as a boy he always felt like a boy even though he was brought up like a girl and he was never even aware of his real gender.

This is a perfect evidence to argue that nature can win out nurture anytime because no matter how David was brought up, his true feelings about himself and how he viewed the world was not false. His feelings could not be changed regardless of how or the way he was brought up. 18 years old Emily was born with Down syndrome and she attends public school with all the other people and she is doing well in her school work. SSH?s ridden pony from the age of four and takes part in the competition with everyone in the local riding club.

Emily has a boyfriend and her own group of friends who she loves spending time with. She is now in college, finishing her A-levels and she also works. Having Down syndrome has affected Emil)/s physical, emotional and intellectual and social development. Email’s physical development has been affected by Down syndrome as her appearance is different from other individuals. Her nose has flat nasal bridge and she has a small mouth. Her eyes are smaller than other people in her Emily. When she talks her tongue gets in the way as it is bigger than average.

Furthermore, her eyes are smaller normal people and her hands are small and fingers are broad. When Emily was born, her weight and length was below average. She is susceptible to illness; therefore, she is able to catch cold very quickly. Emily emotional development has also been affected by Down syndrome as she might find it difficult to cope and accept the fact that she is different from other children and that her physical appearances is also different from other peers or her sister. She might feel frustrated as she cannot do regular activities like normal people her age.

Furthermore, she might also feel happy over the fact that she can spend time with her horses, looking after them make her feel proud of herself. Also Emily has a boyfriend which might make her feel good about herself, knowing that she has someone who loves her for who she is, having a boyfriend might also make her feel pretty and beautiful. Moreover, Emily also has a job which might also make her feel proud of herself as she can do regular job like other people and she would not feel left out. Although Emily might also feel alone and isolated from the rest of the world as she has difficulty talking, this might make her feel bad about herself.

Emily seems happy with her life and she has a supportive mum who is always there for her so that might make her feel full and happy. Emily also attends college and has friends which may make her feel happy, knowing that she has people who care for her and are there for her. Although there might be days where she might wonder if people only stay with her and like her because they feel sorry for her due to her illness, or is it because they really like her as person. She might feel depressed and stressed out because of those thoughts.

However, so far, Emily seems to be accepting her illness and feel positive towards life. The intellectual effect of Down syndrome in Email’s life is that she has no sense of danger like other people her age. For example, as her mum has explained, when Emily was young she did not know what danger was, I. E. , she would cross the road without waiting for the cars to stop and let her pass because she was not aware of harm as other children her age were. Emily suffers from learning disabilities, therefore, at school; she requires learning assistance as she has difficulty understanding school work.

Furthermore, Emily has good knowledge of taking care of horses as she has her own pony that she regularly spends time with. Therefore, intellectually, she would be very good with looking after and caring for animals. Email’s life is socially very active as she has friends that she goes out and spends time with. She also has a boyfriend who she also spends time with by going on dates. Furthermore, as she likes riding horses, and has her own pony, she would most likely spend time with her horse every day.

Also, she has a job; therefore, she would meet new people during her shifts, she would be able to socialize with them which would make her feel happy. Riding horse and looking after them helps Emily stay active and strong. Moreover, her parents meet up with other parents whose children also suffer from Down syndrome like Emily; therefore, she gets to meet with people that are like her. She would be able to open up to them and share her feels and spend time with them as they would be more understandable towards her due to the fact that they share the same illness as her.

Read more

Nature and nurture shape our personalities

Each person is unique and a person of worth under his/her own right. This statement defines who a person is, one s endowed with the faculties to exist and be a contributing member of society. However, how a person develops certain characteristics and traits have aroused the curiosity of the scientific and academic community. Even parents want to know how personalities are developed so they would be able to rear their children in the proper way and become adults who have a well rounded personality.

The questions remains, how do people develop their personalities and what factors influence it. Although some people believe that personalities are influenced by nurture while others believe that personalities are influenced by nature, but it is a combination of both nature and nurture that shape our personalities. The nature-nurture controversy has led to the different perspectives on how an individual’s personality develops.

Relevant materials:

The nature perspective says that a person comes into this world with a certain traits and characteristics which make him/her predisposed to behave and think in a certain way. The nature perspective is largely biological and genetic; wherein it is thought that personality is often passed from parents to offspring and that a child may inherit the traits of the parents (Carlson & Buskist, 1997) just as they inherit their father’s eyes or their mother’s skin. Moreover, the biological perspective has said that a child is already born with certain personality traits that are enduring and stable over time.

If a child has a difficult temperament as a baby, it can be expected that as an adult, that child would still be moody and temperamental. Finally, the nature perspective says that personality types are based on the gene pool of the individual, they say that aggression or predisposition to violence is genetically based, some people are just born to have the violent gene and that there is nothing that can be done to change this (Friedman & Schustack, 2006). The nature perspective may seem to be deterministic and narrow, once a person is said to be shy or timid, then that person will always be shy until the end of his/her life.

The nurture perspective was borne out of the reaction and revolt against the nature perspective, the proponents of the nurture perspective found the biological view close and incomplete, it was not able to account for the concept of choice and free will and that each person has the capacity to change and become better persons. The nurture perspective advocated that individuals are fundamentally good and that each person can be trained and influenced to be a better person or have positive personality traits (Friedman & Schustack, 2006).

Therefore, a person may come from a family of criminals or psychotics but with the right nurturing environment and love and care the child can grow up to become morally upright and compassionate. The nurture perspective places greater importance to the quality of care and the kind of environment that a child receives during his/her early years can affect the child’s personality and will form his/her characteristics and traits.

The nurture perspective does not allow for any biological influence, in fact John B. Watson in his famous declaration has been known to say that he can train children to become whatever he desires them to be (Friedman & Schustack, 2006). The nurture perspective is more positive as compared to the nature perspective when it comes to personality change. The perspective holds that each person with the right support and guidance will be able to change his/her personality traits for the better.

As the nature-nurture debate wore on, scientists and philosophers were finding evidence that suggested that personality development is not solely nature nor nurture, but a combination of both perspectives. Relying on the nature perspective alone does not present a complete picture of how personality is developed. They say that personality traits are not observable and one cannot identify which gene carries what trait therefore the perspective lacked credence as traits are not adequately labeled. At the same time, saying that the environment alone is the sole influence that affects personality development is wrong. There is always the continued interplay between nature and nurture and in reality; personality is molded by the combination of these two conflicting views.

Personality traits and characteristics are developed and molded by both nature and nurture factors wherein the individual finds him/her self. It is true that one’s biological traits affect the individual and can be used as basis to predict the behavior of the child in the future as well as what kind of personality he/she will have. Personality traits that are expressed through emotions have been found to be affected by the endorphins and the hormones that a person has (Carlson & Buskist, 1997).

For example, men and women differ in their personalities because women have more estrogen which activates the body into being more emotional and easily affected by feelings and situations while men who have a very low estrogen levels are hardier, more composed and calm than women.

The physiology of the human brain also influence the personality of the individual (Carlson & Buskist, 1997), those who have a more developed language area are more vocal, more able to express their emotions while those who have more developed logical area are more rational. Moreover, intelligence which is a key ingredient of a person’s personality is also genetically based, those who are highly intelligent will be more critical, more resilient and more introverted while those who are more socially adept will tend to be extroverted.

The influence of the environment over the personality of the individual has been demonstrated by the number of cases of wherein the child has been brought up in a positive environment despite being borne in a dysfunctional family grew up to be straight and proper. In the earliest experiments of human contact which tackles the issue of nurture it was found that monkeys reared alone and without a nurturing mother was cold, lifeless and unable to relate with other monkeys.

On the other hand, a monkey which was reared together with a mechanical monkey displayed more positive behaviors than the first monkey (Westen, 2003). This showed that a nurturing environment is important for the developing child, in a similar light; it was found that those children who were exposed to aggression also imitated the aggressive behavior that was shown to them (Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski & Eron, 2003). These underscores the double edged sword that nurture is because a positive environment may lead to positive outcomes while a negative environment may also be a threat to the development of the child.

However, taking both of the perspectives explains far more completely how personality is developed and formed. A child’s genetic make-up provides for the predispositions that a child has, while the kind of environment that he/she grows up in will also form part of his/her personality. Personality tests have often found that personality traits are stable and enduring (Westen, 2003), a child may be stubborn in his/her younger age may mellow down and with the societal influences and an environment that promotes respect and obedience may tame the stubbornness, but in the end, his/her stubbornness may prevail when placed in a difficult situation or when she has to cope with a certain issue or problem.

Moreover, a child may be overly active and vocal since childhood but through experience and social forces may transform the child into an adult who excels in sports or who are activists and leaders. This is also true for the other side of personality, the evil and dark side. Some children are evil and these can be observed in their behavior towards other children or other creatures, and sometimes they grow up to be criminals and sociopaths (Westen, 2003). In a same vein, children who have experienced abuse and traumatic events tend to develop personality disorders that affect their quality of life and relationships.

Lastly, it has been reported that injuries to the brain have often resulted to a change in personality (Westen, 2003) and these had adverse effects to the individual and his/her family. The person’s behavior becomes erratic; he/she may have mood swings or may even portray a personality that is completely uncharacteristic of him/her.

Without a doubt, personality is shaped by one’s biological predispositions and environment, each one of us have heard a small voice inside of us that shares our thoughts and feelings, while the most important persons in our lives have influenced and inspired us to dream and fulfill our ambitions in life. In the past the nature versus nurture debate was intensely championed by both sides, but at present it has been realized that acknowledging both the nature and nurture aspect of one’s development and personality provides a more complete and accurate picture of human nature.

References

Carlson N. & Buskist W. (1997). Psychology: The Science of Behavior 5th ed. Boston: Allyn and

Bacon.

Friedman, H. & Schustack, M. (2006). Personality: Classic theories and modern

Research 3rd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Huesmann, L., Moise-Titus, J., Podolski, C.  & Eron, L. (2003). Longitudinal relations

between children’s exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977-1992. Developmental Psychology, 39, 201-221.

Westen, D. (2003). Psychology: Brain, Behavior, and Culture. New York: Wiley & Sons.

Read more

Nature vs. Nurture Critical Essay

The relative role of nature versus nurture in the shaping of living systems is a central issue in many areas of biology. There are two schools of thought. One side would argue that all idiotypic specificities are encoded in the germline genes of the gonads, implying that antigenic experiences over eons of time have allowed […]

Read more

Nature vs. Nurture Persuasive Essay

The debate between what shapes who a person will become has been around as long as scientists have been around to contemplate it.  The biologists with their need to find a genetic link for everything use such genetic diseases as Down’s syndrome and Hemophilia to explain how nature develops the human adult.  The psychologists are […]

Read more

Nature or Nurture Controversy

Table of contents Developmental psychologists tell us that development is caused by two very extensive intermingling factors: heredity or nature, and environment or nurture. Often determining the demarcation line between these two factors, which directly or indirectly influences our biological and psychological constitution, is not an easy task. Nature speaks of the transmission of traits […]

Read more

Nature vs. Nurture Controversy

The nature versus nurture debate concerns the relative importance of an individual’s innate qualities (“nature,” i. e. nativism, or innatism) versus personal experiences (“nurture,” i. e. empiricism or behaviorism) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits. The phrase “Nature versus nurture” in its modern sense was coined by the English Victorian polymath Francis Galton in discussion of the influence of heredity and environment on social advancement, although the terms had been contrasted previously, for example by Shakespeare (in his play, The Tempest: 4. ). Galton was influenced by the book On the Origin of Species written by his cousin, Charles Darwin. The concept embodied in the phrase has been criticized for its binary simplification of two tightly interwoven parameters, as for example an environment of wealth, education and social privilege are often historically passed to genetic offspring. The difference being that wealth, education and social privilege are not part of the human biological system, and so cannot be directly attributed to genetics.

The view that humans acquire all or almost all their behavioral traits from “nurture” was termed tabula rasa (“blank slate”) by philosopher John Locke, and proposes that humans develop from only environmental influences. This question was once considered to be an appropriate division of developmental influences, but since both types of factors are known to play such interacting roles in development, most modern psychologists and anthropologists consider the question naive—representing an outdated state of knowledge. In the social and political sciences, the nature versus nurture debate may be contrasted with the structure versus agency debate (i. e. socialization versus individual autonomy). For a discussion of nature versus nurture in language and other human universals, see also psychological nativism.

Read more
OUR GIFT TO YOU
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat
Close

Sometimes it is hard to do all the work on your own

Let us help you get a good grade on your paper. Get professional help and free up your time for more important courses. Let us handle your;

  • Dissertations and Thesis
  • Essays
  • All Assignments

  • Research papers
  • Terms Papers
  • Online Classes
Live ChatWhatsApp