Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Nature / Nurture Debate
Debate between nurture and nature
Nature versus nurture debate
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Nature / Nurture Debate
The question of "nurture or nature?" is a frequent visitor in the thoughts of parents, philosophers, and scientists alike. What is it that shapes the human brain? Is each child molded by the culture of their family and the surrounding area (nurture) or are they simply born with a set of beliefs and values firmly established in their minds (nature)? For Piscine Molitor Patel (Pi) in Yann Martel's Life of Pi, it is a little bit of both nurture and nature that shapes him. Some of the beliefs Pi holds dear are so different from those of his family that the only logical conclusion I can draw is that he was born with them. On the other hand, Pi's childhood in Pondicherry, India also left him with a few lasting ideas that he later made his own. Pi’s …show more content…
belief in the wild, inhuman nature of animals led, ultimately, to his survival, his belief in the ability of religion to help a person find peace led him to have hope, and his belief that all animals are worthy of love and respect led him to find a companion in a tiger. As Mr. Santosh Patel, Pi’s father, was the founder and owner of the Pondicherry Zoo, Pi spent much of his childhood in India around animals of all different kinds. He grew to know and love the colorful orang-utans and the zebras with perfect stripes, along with the hundreds of other species that resided there. But there was one animal colored a fiery orange that instilled a sense of fear inside of him, all because of a gruesome experience orchestrated by his father and patronizingly dubbed “a lesson.” It was a Sunday morning, and Pi was only eight years old. He and his brother, Ravi, were called to the zoo and subsequently taken to the home of a tiger. They were forced to watch (though Pi hid his face away) as a goat was placed into the cage and attacked with incredible ferocity by the hungry animal, all so that Mr. Patel could make the point that tigers were formidable creatures and should be avoided at all costs. Mr. Patel said in explanation, “Every animal is ferocious and dangerous” (38). On a larger scale, he was essentially ingraining in Pi the belief that animals should not be personified or mistakenly thought to be cuddly or harmless because they, put simply, are not. Pi noted, “Father believed there was another animal even more dangerous than us…the redoubtable species Animalus anthropomorphicus, the animal as seen through human eyes” (31). The people who visit the Pondicherry Zoo are a reinforcement of Pi’s father’s lesson and further push this belief upon Pi: when they transform the animal they see in front of them into something human, something with a name and a collection of complex feelings and thoughts (the concept of Animalus anthropomorphicus) they are often obviously penalized in one way or another by the animal they once thought was cute. As a result of the lesson his father fixed in his mind, Pi was quite afraid of Richard Parker, the tiger, at the beginning of his time on the lifeboat. Any of us would be, of course, but Pi’s natural, relaxed attitude toward animals was canceled out by this by this belief. Pi even admitted, “With a tiger aboard, my life was over” (135). As time moved on, Pi realized that he must conquer the problem of Richard Parker, because, as he stated, “If he died I would be left alone with despair, a foe even more formidable than a tiger. If I had the will to live, it was thanks to Richard Parker” (164). But even though Pi called the tiger by a human name and actually began to see him as a companion, he never made the mistake of thinking Richard Parker was harmless, or had thoughts beyond thirst and hunger. He knew that the tiger was an animal, and must be treated as one--which meant indicating himself to be as the leader, the one not to be questioned or messed with. So, just as he had firmly established himself as “Pi” and not “Pissing” in his secondary-school years, Pi established himself as the alpha tiger. After his first attempt at taming the tiger, Pi noted about Richard Parker: “He backed off and dropped to the bottom of the boat… It was a resounding success” (166). The fact that Pi can so expertly take off the rose-colored glasses most people put on when looking at animals proves his discipline and true interest in animals--had I not known of his belief, I may have assumed he was heartless based upon his actions toward Richard Parker. Despite the fact that animals are obviously not humans and should never be personified, Pi strongly believes that they are worthy of love and respect. The atmosphere Pi grew up in is the main reason behind this uncommon belief: not only was Pi born to the owner of a zoo, but he was also born in a country where the majority of the population sees cows (along with other animals) as sacred, as this is part of the Hindu religion. This belief is obvious not only from the display of vigor and extensive knowledge with which Pi argues that animals are better off in zoos than in the wild, but also from the almost reverent way he refers to animals. He commented: “I spent more hours than I can count a quiet witness to the highly mannered, manifold expressions of life that grace our planet. It is something so bright, loud, weird, and delicate as to stupefy the senses” (15). Pi is also a vegetarian--from this I can conclude that he has enough respect for animals that he chooses to avoid the temptation of plump, juicy steak or pork ribs drenched in sweet barbecue sauce. Pi may have managed to continue being a vegetarian for sixteen years in Pondicherry, India, but on a lifeboat in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, he barely managed a couple of weeks before he was forced to give in to eating fish, despite his belief that all animals are worthy of love and respect. What made his belief apparent was the way he went about killing his first fish. Pi described, “The idea of beating a soft, living head with a hammer was simply too much… I was appalled. I gave up a number of times… Tears flowing down my cheeks, I egged myself on until I heard a cracking sound… I wept heartily over this poor little deceased soul… I never forget to include this fish in my prayers” (183). Pi also frequently fed Richard Parker on the lifeboat, and even expressed his love for the tiger long after the ordeal was over. Overall, it seems that Richard Parker became more of a companion than a threat to Pi. Anyone who did not know Pi held this belief would think he was overly sensitive for crying about a dead fish, or perhaps even suicidal for feeding a tiger. But because I knew of Pi’s belief that all animals are worthy of love and respect, I understood Pi’s personality a bit better--he simply cared about animals a lot. Over the course of the sixteen years he spent in Pondicherry, India, Pi was fortunate to meet three mentor-like individuals, each so infatuated with his own belief system that he was willing to share it with whoever would listen. There was Father Martin, a Christian, Mr. Kumar the baker, a Muslim, and Mr. Kumar, the science teacher. Each taught Pi of the ability about the ways belief systems help people find peace, refuge, and most importantly, hope, even in the face of great adversity. Father Martin, an acquaintance Pi made when visiting a hill station in Munnar, India, told him the Story of Jesus, and taught Pi to have faith in God--God may make decisions you do not understand at first (such as allowing Jesus to die on the cross) but, Father Martin repeats, everything He does, He does out of love. And, simply by introducing Pi to the ways of Islam, Mr. Kumar the baker taught Pi the peace in prayer and showed him the spiritual rewards it brings. Pi said, “I sometimes came out of that bakery feeling heavy with glory… The presence of God is the finest of rewards” (62-63). Lastly, Mr. Kumar the teacher may have been an avowed atheist, but his belief system was just as well-formed as any of the other religions: it was science. He taught Pi that knowledge is light, and light, logically and metaphorically speaking, will always guide you through even the darkest of times. Mr. Kumar explained, “Everything is here and clear, if only we look carefully… Reason is my prophet” (27-28). The teachings of each of these individuals may not seem important in Pi’s story--Pi’s main concern is surviving, not pledging his dedication to a belief system in a church, a mosque, or a laboratory.
But survival is not simply oriented around physically continuing to live: it is also about staying mentally sane. Physical survival depends on mental survival--how can you possibly make good decisions about rationing supplies or even remember to feed yourself if you don’t have your wits about you? And mental survival, in turn, depends on faith of some sort. As a result of the teachings of Father Martin and the two Mr. Kumars, Pi had faith in religion and in science. As for religion, Pi demonstrated this belief quite obviously when he said, “So long as God is with me, I will not die” (148). Pi also demonstrated his belief in religion when he described his daily schedule, which involved prayer five times a day. And, as for science, Pi essentially put his life into the hands of science when he relied on the knowledge he had of animal behavior to tame Richard Parker, a large, extremely dangerous tiger. Faith in multiple belief systems gave Pi hope that someday he would be saved, and this shaped him into a fighter, into someone determined to live no matter his situation. Pi remarks, “I discovered at that moment that I have a fierce will to live… Some of us give up on life with only a resigned sigh. Others fight a little, then lose hope. Still others--and I am one of those--never give up” (148). Overall, it would be difficult to understand how exactly Pi survived 277 days on a lifeboat with a tiger without knowing Pi’s strong belief in religion and its power to help him find hope in the face of adversity--it may even deter you from believing in Pi’s story in the first
place. The statement “Geography is destiny!” frequently flows from the mouth of social studies teachers, and is quickly followed by a flood of passion in the form of words. This statement is a river, and the expectation is that anyone who hears the reasons behind it will be swept into the current. I must admit: it sounds childish at first, perhaps even silly. But I, too, have been pulled into the current. Take the case of Pi Patel, for example. Pi believes in the naturally inhuman nature of animals, and so he treats them accordingly, all because he essentially grew up in a zoo. He believes in the power of religion to illuminate a path to peace, and so he finds hope in even the darkest of times, all because he grew up in a town with many mentor-like, religious individuals. And he believes that all animals are worthy of love and respect, so he becomes friends with a tiger, all because he grew up in India, where he was surrounded by a Hinduism-oriented culture. And who determines our geography, or where we spend our lives? Some may say, God does. Maybe, as Francis Adirubasamy so eloquently stated, Life of Pi truly is a story to make you believe in God.
For this debate as you know already, I am totally on the Nurture side. I think kids are born and influenced by the environment. Even though some kids are born and are not influenced by their surroundings, that is usually a rare case. Like all of this, my personality has been changed as I have been just like identical twins have many differences. So with all of this to wrap it up, studies show that Nurture is more dominant and overpowers Nature. When you have children remember how they are raised will affect them in the long
The nature vs. nurture controversy is an age old question in the scientific and psychological world with both camps having evidence to support their theories. The controversy lies in which is more influential in the development of human beings. While there is no definitive answer for this, it is interesting to look at each of them separately.
“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 argument of nature vs. nurture is a long-standing one in the psychological and social worlds. It is the argument about whether we are ruled by our genes or our upbringing. It is my thought that neither is true. It is nature working with nurture which determines our personality and our lifestyle.
Since the beginnings of psychology the debate of nature verses nurture has been going on. Certain psychologists take the position of the nature perspective. They argue that people are born with predispositions towards certain personalities, traits and other characteristics that help shape them into the people that they become later in life. Meanwhile multiple other psychologists argue the nurture perspective. They believe that people are born as a blank slate and their experiences over the course of life help shape their personalities, traits, and other characteristics.
Nature vs nurture has been an ongoing debate for many decades among some of the greatest minds in psychology. Everyone is trying to figure out the source of human personality. Does our personality develop primarily by genetics, known as nature or is it based off of our environment and the way we were raised, nature? I believe it is a bit of both, but in my opinion nurture plays a bigger role.
His love and understanding of zoology was the reason he survived on the life raft. Even though Pi went against his morals and ate meat, Pi saw it as necessary to survive. His will to survive and to eliminate all personal boundaries allowed him to do what ever deed needed to survive. And finally using his knowledge of animals as a means of maintaining a psychological level of sanity, which kept him motivated and sane throughout his time at sea. With the extreme circumstances that Pi lived through, and the means he used to cope with them, it is obvious that his choices were
“All living things contain a measure of madness that moves them in strange, sometimes inexplicable ways. This madness can be saving; it is part and parcel of the ability to adapt. Without it, no species would survive” (Martel 44-45). Inside every human being, there is an extremely primal and animalistic trait that can surface when the will to survive becomes greater than the morals of the person. This trait allows humans to overcome their fear to do things which they wouldn’t normally be able to do in order to survive when they’re in extreme peril and in a do or die situation. Throughout the book, Life of Pi, survival is a dominant and central theme. The will to survive changes people and this includes the main character of the story, Piscine Molitor Patel. Survival will even change the most timid, religious, and law-abiding people. Yann Martel, using Pi as an example, tries to explain that all humans must do three things in order to survive a life threatening event: one must give up their morals, one must find a way to keep sane, and one must be ready to compromise and sacrifice.
I believe that people are a byproduct of both their inherited and inborn characteristics, as well as their environment. The nature versus nurture debate has long been a hot debate in the psychology world with evidence supporting both sides of the argument. It is hard to determine whether nature or nurture has more of an influence on our behaviors. For instance, you have a child who is a bully in a classroom. The question is then raised, is this child a bully because his genetic makeup created him to be more aggressive and less empathetic? Or is this child a bully because his home life fosters and rewards him for being aggressive? Or is his home life one where the parents are negligent and aggressive towards the child? If all of the above scenarios were true, then it would be relatively easy to state that the child’s bullying behavior is a byproduct of both his nature and his nurturing. Now let’s look at a professional athlete. Some say a person is born with the skill, hence the phrase natural born athlete. Now a child could be born with the innate aptitude to be an all-star athlete, however, no skill can succeed without practice. Therefore, that would bring to reason that a child could not have any skill to begin with, but with practice they become an all-star athlete. Both of these examples (the bully and the athlete) portray the interconnected and complex ideal of nature versus nurture, with neither providing substantial evidence that
We cannot be absolute when it comes what shapes us, yes indeed we come to this world which specific characteristic, our genes make us who we are but do not determine our future and our possible potential. Our cultural influence and our interaction with our environment make up our experience and step by step build our schemas and our perception regarding the world around us. Nature gives us the first tools in order for us to service, give us the information from generation to generation to overcome the possible obstacles. Then, nurture’s takes over, through the interaction with the averment, base to our cultural norms and rules we shape our beliefs; values; attitudes and behaviors. We learn how to behave, how to interact and how to communicate with the people around us. Thus, the answer between what side to choose, nature or nurture, I personally believe that the answer lies between the two of them. As we say, especially in the field of psychology, it depends. Yes, we born into this world we some innate information, but this information is interpreted from the stimuli we gather through the interaction we have with the
One of the hottest debates is and has been nature vs nurture for years, but what is the difference between the two? Nature is what people think of as already having and not being able to change it, in other words, pre-wiring (Sincero). Nurture is the influence of experiences and its environment of external factors (Sincero). Both nature and nurture play important roles in human development. Scientists and researchers are both trying to figure out which is the main cause in development because it is still unknown on which it is. The best position to side with is nature. Nature is also defined as genetic or hormone based behaviors (Agin). Regardless of the involvement in everyday life, or nurture, this argumentation centers around the effect genes have on human personalities. Although it is understandable on reasons to side with nurture, nature is the better stand in this controversy. Reasons to side with nature is because of genes and what genes hold. Genes is what
In the book the Life of Pi by Yann Martel, religion plays an important role in Pi’s life. When on the lifeboat, Pi used his faith as a way to motivate himself to live. Without his religious beliefs, there is no way to guarantee he would have made it off the lifeboat.
One of the most well-known debates in psychology is nature versus nurture. Nature is pre-determined traits, influenced by biological factors and genetics. Physical characteristics such as height, hair color, and eye color is all determined by the genetics we inherit. Nurture is the influence of environmental factors. Nature and nurture affects the physical, emotional, and social development of a child.
First of all, religion is a key component in Pi’s survival because it leads Pi to believe that he has to coexist with other creatures and they are all one entity. When Pi struggles with the storm on the lifeboat, he has the opportunity to abandon Richard Parker, but he doesn’t: “I could see his head. He was struggling to stay at the surface of the water. ‘Jesus, Mary, Muhammad and Vishnu, how good to see you, Richard Parker! Don’t give up, please. Come to the lifeboat. Do you hear this whistle? TREEEEE! TREEEEE! TREEEEE! You heard, right. Swim! Swim!’” (Martel p.121). Although Richard Parker
When it comes to nurture versus nature, the topic of personality development can be very complex. Nature involves physical, genetic history, neuroscience, and biological vulnerability. To nurture is to care for and encourage development. In my opinion, I believe nurture has more important factors when it comes to personality development. Three of the most important factors include parenting, character, and environment. These three factors come together and play important roles when it comes to developing a personality.