Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Nature vs nurture theories
Nature vs nurture theories
Nature vs nurture theories
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Nature vs nurture theories
Nature vs. Nurture
Is your behavior more influenced by genetics or environmental influences? Society dictates who we are and what we are to do and it also teaches us to act a certain way. Society makes us humans. Sociologists believe that people behave like they do due to sociological upbringing, rather than biological predispositions. This can be known as, the “nurture” theory for the human behavior. Sociologists think that people behave the way they do because, of the social environment, in other words genetics are influenced by social factors.
Both sociologists and psychologists think that genetics have very little to do with our personality traits. It’s our surroundings that teach us to become who we are. According to Saul McLeod, author of "Nature Nurture in Psychology" from Simply Psychology, "At the other end of the spectrum are the
…show more content…
They raised 2 baby monkeys in isolation. They each gave a monkey 2 arifitical mom. One mom was a wire frame with a wood head, it had a baby bottle (nipple) and another mother which didn't have a bottle and was only covered with soft terrycloth. The wired mom was the one who had the food which was the baby bottle. The purpose of this experiment was to see if the monkey wanted nurturing or food. The baby monkey wanted to be with the terrycloth mother and when it was hungry it would only go with the wired mother for food at certain times. The terrycloth mother gave the monkey warmth love and social development. The monkeys that were with the terrycloth mother were more active and happy rather than with the wired mother. Little babies don't develop naturally into social good adults. Without friendly warm interactions we can’t bond with others. We don't become friendly or cooperate with others. We are who we are because we are constantly in human contact. We learn to be members of the human community. Socialization makes us
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.
The issue of whether or not criminal or aggressive behavior and violence is caused by biological or environmental factors has proven to be one that has caused a dispute for many years now. The biological or genetic factor of violent/criminal or aggressive behavior is certainly a much talked about topic. The idea that certain individuals could be predisposed to violence is something definitely deserving of doing research about. The nature vs. nurture topic has been a continuing debate for many aspects of human behavior, including aggression/violent behavior and criminal behavior. There have been many studies indicating that chemical relationships between hormones and the frontal lobe of the brain may play a key role in determining aggressive behavior as well as genetics, while other studies have explored environmental and social factors that have been said to control patterns in human aggression. Aggressive/violent behavior can’t be answered directly if it is caused by either nature or nurture; instead it is believed that both cause it.
...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.
What makes us who we are? Does the answer lie in our genes, our environment, or in the way we are raised? For years, there has been an on-going debate between nature and nurture. T.H. White, author of The Once and Future King, explores the debate through many of the book’s characters. The issue clearly appears in the relationship of Queen Morgause and her sons, the Orkney brothers. The debate caused people to pick a side, to pick nature over nurture, or nurture over nature. However, it does not have to be one or the other. Nature and nurture work together to determine who we are.
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.
One of the great controversial debates in Psychology is determining if characteristics and behavior are primarily due to genetics or the environment. We can now readily accept that genes determine our eye color, height, blood type, and other biological factors. Do these same genes that determine anatomy also determine our tendency towards traits such as violence, homosexuality or alcoholism? Some Psychologists, such as Freud, will argue that the home environment is primarily responsible for molding personality, while others cry genotype. There have been countless studies to find out if our destiny is written in our genes or determined by circumstance. Attempting to ascertain whether people are genetically programmed to be good-natured or prone to violence, sober or alcoholic, homosexual or heterosexual has perplexed man since the beginning of history. Nature vs. nurture purists believe that we are either molded entirely by our surroundings or our genetic make-up, however, it is not necessarily so black and white. Characteristics such as homosexuality, alcoholism, and violence are determined by both environmental and genetic factors.
The quote from the famous psychologist John B. Watson essentially sums up behaviourism. Behaviourism refers to the school of psychology founded by Watson, established on the fact that behaviours can be measured and observed (Watson, 1993). In behaviourism, there is a strong emphasis that the acquisition of learning, or permanent change in behaviour, is by external manifestation. Thus, any individual differences in behaviours observed was more likely due to experiences, and not by the working of genes. As the quote suggest, any individuals can be potentially trained to perform any tasks through the right conditioning. There are two major types of conditioning, classical and operant conditioning (Cacioppo & Freberg, 2012).
Sociality is part of normal development and its triggered in us before birth. If a child is non-stimulated or locked up it can be socially deprived. At critical stages the child can be neurologically stunted and incapable of empathy meaning they cannot share the feelings of other people. In Monkeys, Apes and Man, Harlow did several experiments with rhesus monkeys, one of which involved having a young monkey choose between a wire mother that had nourishment and a cloth mother that had comfort and security. He also raised a group of monkeys together and raised a monkey alone. After some time, he put them together to see what psychological effects of being secluded had on the lone monkey. The monkey showed signs of being socially stunted but Harlow determined that they can be rehabilitated if they are young enough when social deprivation ended. (Monkeys Apes and Man) In the case of the Romanian orphans they were kept in rooms having no maternal contact, no sounds or toys and they grew up with an array of impairments such as autism and other social
Nature vs. Nurture Debate The controversy over what determines who we are, whether it is Nature. (hereditary, our biological makeup) or Nurture (our environment) is taking a new. shape. The sand is a sand. Over the past decades, psychologists have developed different theories to explain the characteristics of human beings; how we feel, think and.
...onsequence of her having zero interaction with other humans, this child was not aware of any social qualities. From the example of feral children, we can reasonably infer that socialization and nurture are key ingredients in a child’s development.
... have come to the conclusion that genetics is very important for the development of personality but even they have to determine how these genes are investigated for the purpose of determining a particular personality. “What scientists have found is that there does not appear to be a single gene for a particular trait, but that genes show their effects by working together in complex combinations. For example, there is no single gene for dancing or music. Whether a child will be musically inclined will be determined by the way that child's genes interact with one another. Some parents would like to believe that by creating an environment rich in music while the child is young will develop the child's talent towards music. However, despite assumptions like this, there is no evidence that shows long term effects of growing up in a particular environment” (Pinker, 2003).
Height, hair color, eye color and sex are just a few examples of ways our DNA has shaped us. But could it be possible that our DNA also effects the way we behave in society. It is possible that genetics effect us is more ways that we may have imagined. Dr. Peter B. Neubaur believes that shyness, eating disorders, obsessive behavior and psychological illness can all be traced back to our genetics. Sexual orientation is also believed to be derived from genes in our body which determine what sexual preference we prefer. Violence and other types of crimes can be linked back throughout a person’s lineage to witness that other family members have been committed similar crimes without ever meeting one and other.
Nature vs nurture debate is an old argument, I believe that nature and nurture both work together. Your genes are something that you are born with but your experiences and how you were raised also make you the person you are today. Experiences and opportunities help you develop your personality. It also provides a valuable training ground for later life. Human culture, behavior, and personality are cause primarily by nature and nurture not nature or
“We have been very conditioned by the cultures that we come from and are usually very identified with the particular gender that we happen to be a member of.” This quote by Andrew Cohen explains partially how gender identity develops, through the conditioning of our environments. The most influential factor of gender development, however, is still a very controversial issue. An analysis of the gender identification process reveals two main arguments in what factor most greatly contributes to gender development: biology differences (nature) or the environment (nurture).
Developmental Psychology is an area which studies how we as humans change over the period of our life span. The majority of the focus is broken into three categories: cognitive, physical and social change. The creation of who we are today comes down to the everlasting debate of nature versus nurture. This ongoing debate of what makes us who we are and which one is the driving force in development may be so simple that it’s complex. Rather than it being a conflict of nature “versus” nurture, it is very well possible both play an equal part in the development of us as humans. In the beginning, we start off as single cell in the form of a zygote. In that moment, where the DNA begin to form and the first seconds of life take place, the zygote is already experiencing interaction with the womb. In the process of determining why we are who are it is better to look more at the interactions of nature and nurture, analyzing how both have shaped us.