More handpicked essays just for you.
Examine the effect of nature and nurture on personality development
Influence of nature vs nurture on the development of a person
The effect of nature and nurture on personality development
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
It was several weeks ago, that the class discussed the polarized concept of nature vs. nurture, by which nature refers to one’s inclination to rely on natural instinct or self-interest to determine their future as opposed to nurture in which one relies on the care and influence of family. Dr. Miller challenged us to consider the ratio in which nature and nurture determine our actions. I self-concluded a rough 3:1 ratio where the nurturing effects by friends and family determined a majority of my actions. I now realize that for a majority of my life my choices were heavily influenced by those closest to me with only rarely taking a moment to know what I wanted. In my childhood I took great influence from my older brother by going into the same …show more content…
It was my chemistry teacher that influenced me into majoring in Chemistry. In my freshmen year of college, when my roommates asked if I wanted to go somewhere or do something my typical response was “Sure, I don’t care.” I had almost always let others choose my actions. After reading the AFAM 2000 autobiographies this semester, I realized the weakness behind such reliance on outside influence. From the readings, it was typically a forced disconnect from family and childhood friends, or a willful disconnect in the case of Anne Moody, that set a future path to reliance on their own nature. Reliance on self and natural instinct allowed their path for truth and equality to be determined by themselves and themselves only. Such a reliance, more developed by experience, proved to be a powerful force in their quest for mass influence. In the words of Kendrick Lamar, "I spent the first twenty-three years of my life searching for answers, till one day I realized I had to come up with my own." I realize now that though the influence of friends, family, teachers might be beneficial in progressing my life, I must not make it what they are a part of
On October 9, 1968, a set of twins were born, but separated at birth and ultimately, put up for adoption. The decision to separate the twins came from the adoption agency who wanted to conduct a nature versus nurture experiment; however, the experiment was conducted in secret. However, for unknown reasons, the experiment never developed to fruition. Unaware the child they adopted was a twin; both sets of parents raised a singular child. Thirty-five years later, one twin began a search for her biological mother through the adoption agency, only to find out that she was born a twin. Upon learning her identity, she reached out to her twin and they began the journey of getting to know one another by comparing characteristics that appeared similar such as temperament and mannerism. They even discovered that they both held positions as a film critic and enjoyed almost identical movies.
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 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.
“What’s Eating Gilbert’s Grape” directed by Lasse Hallstrom delves into elucidating the various effects of third development concepts: how genetics are correlated to mental disabilities, how environmental influences can affect a person’s lifestyle, and the effects of developmental influences, such as puberty, on young adults and adolescents. Michael Rutter, in his article, “The Interplay of Nature, Nurture and Developmental Influences,” further emphasizes the interplays between nature, nurture and developmental influences to elaborate the multifactorial interconnections effects of influences on childhood development.
...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.
Today, many scientists accept that behavior and personality are determined by both nature and nurture. However, there is still the debate about the extent that biology or environment has to do with shaping a person. Nativists think that genes play the greatest role on what causes human’s to act certain ways, while empiricists believe the human mind is born free and is filled with likes, dislikes, and goals based on their environment. Overall, people are born with likelihood to act a certain way and have a predestined fate due to the way they grew up. They may be genetically predisposition to like certain things, but are still capable of changing based on outside influences. These thoughts are all part of the Naturalistic belief that nothing
As an adolescent, there were countless times that I disagreed with my parents. Ninety-Nine percent of the time I argued with my parents, just for the sake of an argument. I know that after almost every argument I can remember muttering to myself, that I will never treat my kids as my parents did. To fulfill this teenage fantasy I will need to overcome two giant hurdles. First, my nature or genetic makeup comes from my parents. Also, the environment that I’m raised in or nurtured in is solely with my parents. In the following, I will discuss my views on how nature and nurture both contribute to who I am.
For the past five weeks we have studied three different but influential people in our perspective on human nature class. They are Freud, Plato and Tzu. The main discussion between all of them is nature versus nurture. I will discuss the difference between nature and nurture and then I’ll apply to each of these philosophers and how they react to it.
According to some, parents do not truly make any difference in children's lives. According to Judith Harris peers are who shape teens lives, David Rowe genetics, Judy Dunn and Carol Kendrick the siblings are who shape each other’s lives. In contrary Jerome Kagan argues that parents are who shape children's lives. You never hear an author giving credit to peers they always give the credit to their parents, same for singers or actors.
The debate whether nature or nurture determines who a person is has been going on for quite some time now. The nature side believes genetics and biology play a huge role in who we are, where the nurture side believes people are basically blank, and are shaped by their environment and the experiences around them. There are some traces in nurture however our genetics and biology factor into who we are, every human is created a different way, and nobody is exactly alike. Genetics factor into how a person is made up and some traits are more dominant than others.
Through time, psychologists have argued over whether only our genes control our behaviors in life or if the environment and the people surrounding us have any effect in our lives. This is called nature versus nurture. We do not know what dictates our behavior, or if it is a combination of both. One question is, if genes control our behavior, are we really responsible for our actions? I think that if we can make choices we are responsible for our actions. While or genes influence various aspects of our personalities, there is no denying that our environment has some effects too. Our genes make us, but our experiences and our surroundings shape the way we behave as people. The people we grow up with, especially our parents teach us ways of acting and thinking that we keep for the rest of our lives.
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.
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.
In 1874, Francis Galton said, “Nature is all that a man brings with him into the world; nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth”. The human body contains millions upon millions of cells and each of these cells contains hereditary information and DNA. However, there is no proof that the information carried in these genes predetermines the way in which we behave. I believe it is our life experiences and what we see and are told that shape the way in which we behave. Therefore, it appears to me that nurturing plays a far more governing and dominant role in a human being’s development rather than nature.
Development across the lifespan is one of the most interesting areas of psychology. The word development refers to human development which can be defined as “the scientific study of changes that occur in people as they age from conception until death.” (Ciccarelli, & White, 2009)Psychologists study this developmental change over time through several different methods. The book highlights three: Longitudinal design, cross-sectional design and cross-sequential design. Longitudinal design is a research design “in which one participant or group of participants is studied over a long period of time.” Cross sectional design differs from longitudinal design because cross-sectional designed research studies “several different age-groups of participants are studied at one particular time.” (Ciccarelli, & White)Cross-sequential designed research is a combination of the other two types; the cross-sequential research design studies participants by means of a cross-sequential design but they are also followed and assessed for a period of time no more than six years. A controversial topic associated with development across the lifespan is the theory of “Nature versus Nurture”. Nature versus nurture refers to the relationship between development and heredity and environmental factors. The answer lies on a spectrum between environmental factors and heredity. Psychologists on the environmental side are called empiricists. Empiricists believe that human development is fully influenced by a person’s environment. On the opposite side of the spectrum are the nativists. Nativists are psychologists that believe a person’s development is based completely on genetic factors. The facts are divided in relation to the two theor...