Nature Vs Nurture Debate

The nature versus nurture debate has been the most common psychological topics for centuries. Many psychologists argue upon whether or not human interactions and communications are either biological or environmental. Nature is the genetic make-up within a human being. It describes things that are innate, or what’s naturally from inside. Nurture is the way human beings interact by what’s environmental, or by our surroundings. A person’s behavior, personality, DNA, and genes are determined by what is learned. This is what makes the nature vs nurture debate interesting because, we as individuals are all different and times are constantly changing. And this is what causes different psychological perceptions on what is nature and what is nurture.

Those, such as, hair color, eye color, and even some diseases, may be passed down to offspring from their parents. According to Bowlby’s (1969) theory of attachment, this theory views the bond between mother and child as being an innate process that ensures survival (McLeod, 2007). Psychoanalyst, John Bowlby, believed that behaviors are instinctive. In his theory, he suggests that children are born biologically pre-programmed to form attachments to others. By this, it will help a child survive. I definitely can say that there is much truth about Bowlby’s theory. When a child is born, that child inherits many things from the mother. A child may have the exact similarities and differences as the parent. Things, such as, the child’s looks, their talk, their walk. Even things, as far as, facial expressions and cries. While in the womb, a child adapts to everything its mother does. So, when it is born, the child is already biologically pre-programmed and is ready to take on new life, until it is ready to take on the world. Which would then become,