Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The nature vs nurture debate
Debate on nature vs nurture
Nature vs nurture debates
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The ongoing debate on whether nature or nurture is responsible for intelligence seems to be a never-ending argument. There will probably be no definite answer to this argument any time soon, but answers such as Dr. Bigot's prove how intolerant of other opinions people can be. To say intelligence is entirely based on genetics, or one's environment, for that matter, is utterly extremist. An interaction of both nature and nurture is responsible for intelligence. Professor Bigot argues that intelligence is only influenced by nature, meaning it is entirely based in genetics, and that one's environment or surroundings can't influence it. However, Dr. Bigot's argument does have some truth to it. With the purpose of investigating the role of genetics in intelligence, researchers have approached twin studies. According to Bouchard and McGue (1981), the closer the biological relationship, the higher the IQ correlation is. This idea was the result of a meta-analysis of 111 studies of IQ correlations between siblings from research studies on intelligence. The Minnesota Twin Study (Bouchard et al. 1990) studies identical twins raised together and identical twins raised apart. Bouchard et al (1990) concluded that 70% of intelligence is associated to genetic inheritance. Therefore, 30% of intelligence may be attributed to other factors. Although the Minnesota Twin Study has been one of the most impressive twin studies carried out, there are several criticisms that test its validity. One of its greatest criticisms was the "equal environment assumption", which states that it can't be assumed that twins reared together are exposed to the same environment. The other side to this controversial debate is the idea that intelligence is influenced ... ... middle of paper ... ...tation of an individual to an environment. Meaning that we are all born with a genetically inhertied and evolved mental structure, on which all following learning and knowledge is based. What would be the use of having genes linked to intelligence, but no where to develop them and put them to use? Due to brain plasticity, increased practice and effort can lead to increase in intelligence levels. The poverty crisis Honduras is facing, is mostly due to ignorance and lack of education. Education is key to the development of the country. 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.
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 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)
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.
...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.
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.,
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...
...ctors, not environment. Nomothetic approach suggests that this is because everyone is generally the same. Yet intelligence is poor when environment is poor - idiographic explain this as it stress social influence, but nomothetic would ignore this factor.
interpreted as being caused by genetic or environmental differences among groups? A strong promoter of the belief that there is undoubtedly a racial difference in intelligence is Phillippe Rushton. As a professor of psychology, he argues that there is irrefutable scientific evidence of difference...
The human intelligence. The definition of intelligence is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. Every human in the world has intelligences, however with different developed level. Intelligence is important because it play a role as the human basis of survival. If there is no intelligence, all the money, communication and technology in the world won’t help, it will be like a dead world. If we human live in this world without
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.
Most researchers believe that we are born with a certain intelligence or potential intelligence. They also believe that the intelligence we are born with is difficult to change. Psychologists use short-answer tests to assess one’s intelligence (Gardner papers). It was believed that intelligence was a single inherited thing. Human beings start out initially as a blank slate and could be trained to learn anything, provided that it was presented in an appropriate way (Multiple Intelligences and Education). Currently an “increasing number of researchers believe the opposite. Gardner defined intelligence as: “the ability to create an effective product or offer a service that is valued in culture; a set ...
Sir Francis (Galton, 1869) believed intelligence was inherited, and saw conceptualised general mental ability as a largely inheritable trait, and very much like physical traits, having a normal distribution in the population. Biologically, siblings share genes, and evidence shows that (Schacter, Gilbert & Wegner, 2012) intelligence test scores of siblings to be much more similar than the intelligence scores of unrelated people. Identical twins(monozygotic) share 100% DNA and studies show
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...
Visser, B. A., Ashton, M. C., & Vernon, P. A. (2006). g and the measurement of multiple intelligences: A response to Gardner. Intelligence, 34(5), 507-510.