The debate between nature versus nurture is one that can be described as ongoing and controversial. The two issues at the center of the enduring debate are whether human behaviors, feelings, and ideas are innate or learned. Those who are in favor of the “nature” side of the debate argue that science determines what personality traits we acquire, while advocates of the “nurture” side argue that our personality traits are derived from our experiences and perceptions. Although it is valid to believe in both sides of the argument, one cannot overlook the fact that one side has a heavier influence on human behavior than the other. I support the proposal that all humans are born with a blank slate, meaning that we have no knowledge at the time of …show more content…
In other words, they are a social construction. Our personality traits both shape and are shaped by the environment we live in and are developed through communicating with others. One cannot have the debate of nature versus nurture without touching on points originated from the study of society itself. George Herbert Mead, a sociologist and founder of symbolic-interactionism, “was particularly interested in how the human self develops through communicating with others via language and other symbolic behavior” (Korgen, White 20). Mead turns his focus on the influence that the social environment has on human behavior by recognizing that it is developed through interaction. We are not born knowing the nature of right from wrong. These are things that we learn from the environment or society, if you will, that we grow up in. For example, we live in a society where the color blue is representative of a boy, and the color pink is representative of a girl. Growing up we learn that toys such as racecars, action figures, building tools, and video games are categorized as boy toys, whereas toys like Barbie dolls, doll houses, domestic toys like easy-bake ovens are toys for girls. These are ideas that nature was not responsible for creating, yet they have great influence on our human behavior. This social norm is an example of how our personality traits …show more content…
He believed that the environments purpose was to remind people of what they already knew. If this was the case then all the instruction that one receives throughout a lifetime would not be considered learning but instead remembering. I cannot find myself to agree with this idea even slightly. According to (The Big Questions Book) “Plato was a student of Socrates and the leading spokesman for Socrates’ ideas. He was shocked by Socrates’ execution and dedicated his life to developing and spreading his philosophy.” Furthermore, The Apology is Plato’s version of the speech given by Socrates as he defended himself in court. In this speech Socrates mentions that he questioned men who thought themselves to be wise, and then he exposed their false wisdom as ignorance. In turn, Socrates’ reveals the following about himself: “I do not think I know what I do not know” (Plato 163). Given this evidence, I don’t believe that Socrates’ would side with Plato in that our knowledge is due to innate factors. Socrates’ would probably expose Plato of having false wisdom and being ignorant in believing that humans have all knowledge at the time of birth. To say that all knowledge is present at birth is extreme because how much an individual actually knows is unique to each person. Some are
In the well-received novel “Pudd’nhead Wilson,” Mark Twain skillfully addresses the ancient argument about the origin of one’s character and whether it’s derived from his nature or his surroundings. We can best see this battle between nature versus nurture by inspecting the plot lines that follow the characters Thomas a Becket Driscoll, Valet de Chambre, and Roxana the slave. Thomas was born into a wealthy white family while Roxy birthed Chambers into a life of slavery. It seemed as though each would have gone their separate ways into opposite walks of life, but Roxy secretly swapped the children, which destined each to their counterintuitive fates. Through their words and actions, Tom, Chambers, and Roxy have proven the idea that one’s behaviors and desires are a result of his upbringings and the environment he lives in rather than by his innate nature.
A Comparison of Psychodynamic and Social Learning in Regards to the Development of Personality "No Works Cited" “Psychologists define personality in many ways, but common to all of the ways are two basic concepts, uniqueness and characteristic patterns of behaviour. We will define personality as the complex set of unique psychological qualities that influence an individuals characteristic patterns of behaviour across different situations and over time.” (Psychology In Life, Phillip .G. Zimbardo, page 509)
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.
...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.
When it comes to the debate of Nature vs. Nurture I consider myself to be the middle man. I feel that our behavior, physical development and our identity is not only the result of our genealogical makeup but our interactions, and decisions that we encounter on a daily basis as well as our family structure. First I would like to give a brief summary of the two topics.
How adoption and twin studies have influenced the “nature verses nurture debate” has been a focal point for many researchers and people around the world which has caused controversy and many views regarding the topic. “Twin studies look into behaviour in identical and none identical twins and adoption studies separate the effect of nature from nurture, or at least do more successfully than twin studies.” ("The Usefullness of Twin Studies and Adoption Studies | psuea7", 2011, p.1) These studies are used to provide plenty of strong and reliable evidence that and positively influence the Nature vs. Nurture debate. “The Nature vs. Nurture debate is the scientific, cultural, and philosophical debate about whether human culture, behaviour, and personality are caused primarily by nature or nurture. Nature is often defined in this debate as genetic or hormone-based behaviours, while nurture is most commonly defined as environment and experience.” (("Nature vs. Nurture", 2014, p.1) Many controversial debates have surrounded this issue and many researchers are trying to find evidence to justify if twin and adoption studies have an effect on the nature vs. nurture debate. Twin and adoption studies have had a positive influence on the nature-nurture debate because research and evidence has identified different issues and quality information to help the nature-nurture debate evolve. This essay will outline these positive influences and will elaborate on the research and evidence that has helped the nature-nurture debate. The three influences of twin and adoption studies that will be discussed are the influence of researching the affects of behavioural issues such as schizophrenia, the influence of undergoing research on the drinking affects an...
For this first analytical essay, I have decided to have a go at analyzing the Nature Vs. Nurture using my own viewpoint as a sibling. No doubt this is a topic that has been debated to mental death already, but I think it is something I will benefit from thinking about. Also, at the end of my main topic, I will quickly address a topic brushed on in the book.
There will never be an end to the debate over nature and nurture. Having examined different philosophers and studies it is clear that there are legitimate arguments for both sides. Locke believed that we furnish our minds with experience; Hobbes thought that human trait and behavior are determined at birth, and finally Bouchard concluded that it is a mixture of the two. It is this writer’s conclusion that neither nature nor nurture causes the evil tendencies, for it is a combination of the two that truly shapes a mankind. There are no rules. Who we become due to our nature and our nurture can only be decided on a case-by-case basis.
The nature and nurture debate has been studied for many years. Years ago many people thought that human behavior was “instinctive, simply our nature” (Macionis, 2008). Are people born with a predetermined plot of what their life will hold? Many researchers have done numerous studies that have proven that human behavior comes from how a person was nurtured after birth. Biology and nature mean the same thing, and we are biologically programmed at birth to do certain things. For example, at birth a person’s heart beats on its own, and a baby knows how to suck instantly. This shows the nature side of humans. How a child was nurtured at birth has a direct bearing on his or her future.
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.
People can get their blue, hazel, or brown eyes from one of their parents, and their freckles from the other. But where does their talent for singing, or knack for craftsmanship come from? In other words, what makes individuals who they are? Is it predetermined in their genes or was it taught to them by family or friends? My General Psychology instructor recently explained this contest of nature and nurture as won by neither side. “The nature versus nurture debate is one of the oldest issues in psychology. The debate centers on the relative contributions of genetic inheritance and environmental factors to human development.” - (Kendra Cherry). So far the evidence collected from years of research and data suggests a resolution of equal importance between the two factors as fifty/fifty.
Nurture is constituted by the influence of millions of complex environmental factors that form a child's character. Advocators of nature do not believe that character is predetermined by genes, but formed over time. Although often separated, nature and nurture work together in human development. The human conscience is neither innate from birth or entirely shaped through experience, instead, genetics and environmental influences combine to form human behavior, character, and personality traits that constantly change and develop throughout life. The debate on nature versus nurture has existed for thousands of years.
Nature vs Nurture is a very long living debate that has been on the minds of many who study motor development. This can be a very difficult topic to choose a side to argue for because both Nature and Nurture have very strong points which prove they influence the development of a person. Nature refers to the genetic makeup and genetic relations an individual has linked to their birth parents. Nature is strictly about the genetics and the way these genetics make up and influence the way a person develops, behaves and lives their life. Nature refers to heredity and the traits an individual will obtain from their parents that have been passed down from generation to generation. Nurture refers to the environment one lives in and the experiences
Personality is a subfield of psychology. Personality generally refer the total behavior of the person, where in layman’s custom it typically relates to the socially or external oriented facets of behavior and to the way other people is affected, Cervone, D. & Pervin, L.A. (2013). It has been stated that people say to other people that their personality is good or may have said they have an unacceptable personality and to ovoid them. Several people view individual personality and summaries, guides, and keeps them uncheck. Some factors of personality and traits make up individual demeanor. Sex differences are possibly the most voluntarily discernible genetic phenomenon. Each individual inherits the body
The distinctive characteristics and qualities of any one person is one way to define personality. According to Feist & Feist (2009) personality is described as a pattern of relatively permanent traits and unique characteristics that give both consistency and individuality to a person’s behavior. These traits are the precursor of behavior as per individuality, and that of behavior that is consistent throughout life. Although a person can argue the fact that traits is a disposition of genetic predisposition of certain characteristics, the pattern in which these are characterized are different. Each person’s anatomy, intelligence, and temperament are differently and each owns a unique personality, different from parents, grandparents, and any other individual on this planet. Personality theorists’ however may not concur.