Compare And Contrast Nature Vs Nurture

A child that grows up around drug addicts has a good chance of becoming addicts themselves. A child that grows up in a family full of doctors may be interested in the medical field. Why? Which one is more important to a human’s growth and development? This age old question has been debated over and over again. The “vs.” in between nature and nurture suggests that one side has to come out victorious, when truly there is no clear winner. Both have adequate research and logical explanations that support claims of one being better than the other.

During a personally conducted interview with my peer, Yulissa Morales, I asked what she knew about nature versus nurture. Her response was, “Nature is outside; what surrounds you. And nurture is how you are being cared for; if it is good or bad.” She was half right. Nature refers to a person’s DNA and inherited factors that influence who we are, from

Behavioral scientist Val Curtis declares, “Our minds come pre-equipped with structure that allows us to learn to behave adaptively.” Curtis believes humans were created to live in such habitats with scarce resources; like hunter-gatherers. She speculates that in the imaginary experiment, the test subjects would be able to adapt, without the presence of nurture, due to the brains ability to learn so quickly.

On the other end of the spectrum, R. Grant Steen, in his book DNA and Destiny: Nature and Nurture in Human Behavior, argues that genes, chromosomes, and DNA are not the only important component of development. He suggests that providing a safe environment is not enough to ensure a child’s healthy growth. Steen acknowledges that infants “must be loved, touched, cleaned, kept warm and free of disease, and given adequate stimulations.” (51) Steen also proposes, “care be provided by someone sensitive to the needs of the