Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Nature vs nurture debate answered
Nature vs nurture debate answered
Nature vs nurture debate answered
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The nature versus nurture debate is an old issue within the field of psychology.
“The nature-nurture issue is a perennial one that has resurfaced in current psychiatry as a series of debates on the role that genes (DNA) and environments play in the etiology and pathophysiology of mental disorders” (Schaffner)
The debate is essentially about what is inherited (nature) and what is experienced by environmental factors (nurture) and how they affect human development. Naturally, the nature versus nurture debate relates to many controversies such as intelligence, gender identities, violent behaviors, and sexual orientation.
There are countless studies on whether intelligence is an inherited trait or if it is influenced by environmental factors. A study was conducted with adopted children and non-adopted children to see if a conclusion can be made based on the influence of hereditary and environmental intellectual variation (Leahy). The study was conducted with strict standards to make it valid. For example, the adopted children that were studied were young; they also were brought up in similar backgrounds as the control children. Parents’ occupation was also similar, as this would affect the results if the parents had varying occupations (Leahy). The results from this study showed that:
“Variation in IQ is accounted for by variation in home environment to the extent of not more than 4 percent; 96 percent of the variation is accounted for by other factors” (Leahy).
“Measureable environment does not shift the IQ by more than 3 to 5 points above or below the value it would have had under normal environmental conditions… The nature or hereditary component in intelligence causes greater variation than does environment. When nature an...
... middle of paper ...
...lic School Publishing Co
Cherry, Kendra “What Is Nature versus Nurture?” Accessed February 20, 2014.
http://psychology.about.com/od/nindex/g/nature-nurture.htm
Ellis, L. 1987 Psychological Bulletin. Neurohormonal Functioning and Sexual Orientation: A Theory of Homosexuality-Heterosexuality
101(2); 233-258
Gallup, G 1977 Homosexuals in America. Gallup Opinion 147
Hettena, Seth “Study Questions ‘Sex Reassignment’” Accessed February 20, 2014.
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/HopkinsStudy.html
Leahy, A.
1935 Genetic Psychology Monographs. Nature-Nurture and Intelligence.
17(4); 241-305
Reif, A
2007 Neuropsycopharmacology. Nature and Nurture Predispose to Violent Behavior: Serotonergic Genes and Averse Childhood Environment
32 (11); 2375-2383
Schaffner, K.
2001 Current Opinion in Psychiatry. Nature and Nurture.
14(50); 485-490
In his article, “None of the Above: What IQ Doesn’t Tell You about Race” journalist Malcolm Gladwell refutes the notion that intelligence is based on genetics and argues that IQ is not just based on an individual’s level of thinking but also on the location where an individual resides. In 1984, James Flynn discovered that over the years, the IQ of people around the world had been increasing by three points per decade. This is now known as the Flynn effect. The IQ fundamentalists around the world believe that IQ score shows an individual’s level of thinking and it is based on genetics. However, Flynn effect disproves this
General intelligence tends to relate to various degrees with each other (Cohen 2012). An example of this is that if an individual is good in math, they may also be good in spelling. In this weeks reading we reviewed several different models of measurement of intelligence. In regard to these theories and general intelligence (g), the theories are various but have commonality and overlap. The Spearman's two-factor theory is if a test has high correlation with other test than the measurement of g is highly saturated (Cohen, 2012). The greater the importance of g on a test, the better the test is believed to predict intelligence
The bioecological model of intelligence, introduced by Stephen Ceci, concentrates on the potential abilities, environmental influence and internal motivation. To perform well in an intelligent test a person must have the necessary abilities, be in a positive environment and be motivated (Comer et al.,
Albert Camus once said, “Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is.” But what makes man what he is? Is it his sheer genetic makeup, or is it the way he was raised? The nature vs. nurture debate has raged on for centuries, but neither side has been able to prove their point indefinitely. Even today we see displays of the contrast between genetics and learned behaviors, some of which are athletics, intelligence, medical histories, etc. Every person is completely unique, a combination of genetic makeup and environment make an individual who they are.
Reif , A., Rosler, M., Freitage, C., Schneider, M., Eujen, A., Kissling, C., Wenzler, D., & Jacob, C. (2007). Nature and nurture predispose to violent behavior: Serotonergic genes and adverse childhood environment. Neuropsychopharmacology, 32(11), 2375-2838.
Loehlin, John C., Lindzey Gardner, and J.N. Spuhler. Race Differences in Intelligence. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company, 1975.
Using data from a long-term survey, The Bell Curve purports to show that IQ is a far better predictor of adult success than childhood socioeconomic status. But the authors used an extremely limited number of social factors as the basis for their calculations. By taking into consideration a greater number of social factors (to make the study resemble a more complete picture of real life), sociologists have been able to show that social factors, not IQ, are a much better predictor of future success.
The nature- nurture debate has many different case studies, which often questions environmental and hereditary aspects of the nature- nurture debate. A tangent which is focused on in this essay is how the case studies of schizophrenia and IQ, specifically affect twin and adoption studies. This essay will firstly, give a brief outline of the nature-nurture debate and the definitions of twin and adoption studies. Secondly, it will illustrate two main case studies, which are IQ and Schizophrenia studies. Thirdly, will contrast and compare the two and research’s impact on the case studies in regards to nature vs. nurture and finally, will conclude with the impact of the nature-nurture debate and twin and adoption studies.
Recent information collected showing an increase to our IQs have many asking the question, are we smarting than our ancestors? Unlike our predecessors, we live in a time that poses a greater range of cognitive problems than our ancestors encountered, and as a result we've developed new cognitive skills and the kinds of brains that can deal with these problems. So in a way we are getting smarter throughout history, though it is widely debated if this is due to our environment or genes. Since IQ tests have been standardised many times over the last one hundred years, scientists have participants take a test designed for a previous age and record the results. What (Flynn, 1994) unearthed was that new test takers score much higher than those of the older generation. Flynn and his colleagues guessed that the difference in scores was due to improving modern environments. To them IQ is part heritable and part environmental- provide a child with opportunities to learn and they're likely to have a higher IQ later in
The researchers measured IQ by classifying twins into high and low similarity groups based on four different environmental measures: age of separation, reunion in childhood, rearing by a relative, and similarity in social environment. Each twin was placed into two groups for all the measurements. The classification of groups entailed (in order), twins that were separated before and after six months of age, reunion before and after testing, reared by family or non-family member, and
On the ‘nature’ side of the debate is the psychometric approach, considered to be the most dominant in the study of intelligence, which “inspired the most research and attracted the most attention” (Neisser et al. 1996, p. 77). It argues that there is one general (‘g’) factor which accounts for intelligence. In the 1880s, Francis Galton conducted many tests (measuring reaction times to cognitive tasks), (Boundless 2013), in order to scientifically measure intelligence. These tests were linked to the eugenic breeding programme, which aimed to eliminate biologically inferior people from society. Galton believed that as intelligence was inherited, social class or position were significant indicators of intelligence. If an individual was of high social standing, they would be more intelligent than those of a lower position. However he failed to show any consistency across the tests for this hypothesis, weakening his theory that social class correlated with intelligence. Nevertheless, his creation of the intelligence test led many to continue to develop...
The demographic used for the study is described as “highly advantaged children (middle-class whites with IQs of at least 135)…” (Gallagher). An IQ of 135 or higher is a very selective group and less than 1% of the entire world fits that criteria (“What Goes Into the Making of a Genius?”). With an IQ at or over 135, these children are more susceptible to anxiety, stress, and relationship issues among peers (“Social and Emotional Issues”). These troubles could directly impact their happiness and have a large effect on their lives if the issues persist. The results are even more limiting when the other factors such as race and financial background are taken into account. The lives led by these children are by no means typical and having access to certain advantages and a greater susceptibility to certain conditions can have an impact on the results. When 99% of the world is exempt from this study and the results are being applied to such a broad spectrum, it is not an acceptable application of the provided
In 1874, Francis Galton said, “Nature is all that a man brings with him into the world; nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth”. The human body contains millions upon millions of cells and each of these cells contains hereditary information and DNA. However, there is no proof that the information carried in these genes predetermines the way in which we behave. I believe it is our life experiences and what we see and are told that shape the way in which we behave. Therefore, it appears to me that nurturing plays a far more governing and dominant role in a human being’s development rather than nature.
Psychologists have debated the argument of nature vs. nurture for years on end. Although more evidence is being discovered, the topic is still very arguable. The debate started back in 1869, when Francis Galton was the first to use the phrase, “Nature vs. Nurture” (ORIGINS). The debate circles around whether people are who they are from their genes, or if their environment impacts their actions and personality. Most psychologists believe it is a one or the other decision, however there are still a few who believe both are right.
As numerous research and studies' findings have shown, both nature and nurture work together. These shouldn't be considered as separate, but instead intertwined, as they both interact and depend on each other. An interaction of genetic and environmental factors are responsible for influencing and determining intelligence levels.