Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Which influences more nature or nurture
Importance of social interaction
Implications of nature/Nurture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Which influences more nature or nurture
For many year’s people have been trying to determine if nurture has a bigger impact on individuals or if nature does. Many people cannot decide because both aspects play a role in making us the person we are today. Nurture is the ability for us to be loved and given the opportunity to grow and develop. If we did not have nurture in our lives we would not be able to grow, and we would not be able to understand the concept of caring or loving someone. This is a key part of child development. Nature is the ability for are biological traits to influence who we are as a person. This is why many people believe that nature plays a bigger role. Until we understand which characteristics come from what we will never be able to understand which is more …show more content…
Although nature gives us the genetic material to be able to grasp certain knowledge; we first have to be taught by peers and mentors before we can actually understand. As humans we have to learn from others, whether that means we are in a school setting or a work setting. Without learning from others we would not be able to teach our future kids the ways of life. This is why many people argue which is more important nature or nurture but after figuring out what traits and genes come from what it is easy to tell that nurture is what we need every day. Although without nature we would not be able to be the person we are today, it does not prepare us for the problems that we are going to have to handle in the future. It is obvious that we need both to survive because without genetics we would not be living, and without social interaction we would be depressed. Therefore, we need some type of interaction with humans to fill the void of being alone. This interaction helps others find their true self because of the lessons they learn from their peers and the rules their parents teach them. As a result, to have a flourishing life others must have some type of interaction so they can be taught how to act, to speak, and to treat others. It is proven that when babies are born they need the interaction so they can start to develop a sense of the language. If we did not have nurture, we would be left with no culture and language. In order to have an identity we need to be in culture and to have a culture we need people to teach us the ends and outs about life. In the end, we need both, but nurture affects us every day because we interact with others whether that be talking face to face or scrolling through the
The nature versus nurture theory is a way to distinguish whether certain traits or characteristics of individuals are impacted more by biological means or environmental means. What the “nature” part signifies in the the theory is that we are more impacted by heredity and biological effects of our personality and what defines us as a person. What “nurture” signifies is that environmental factors have a more powerful impact on our lives and personality. As we mostly know, most things aren’t black and white, and so it’s hard ro determine which type of factors is more effective. Most people believe that it’s a blend of both nature and nurture that makes us who we 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.
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.
Nature, which is also known as hereditary, is the genetic makeup (DNA) that an individual carries from birth until death. Hereditary characteristics are different in each individual, group and humans in comparison to other species. Nurture on the other hand refers to environmental factors and similar to nature, an individual is also exposed from birth until death. These factors involve elements such as physical environments (prenatal nutrition) and social environments (media and peer pressure). (Social Issues Referencing, 2007)
The nature vs. nurture debate: the nature side, are those such as biologists, psychologists and others in the natural sciences, argue that behavioral traits can be explained by genetics. Those taking the nurture side are sociologists and others in the social sciences, they argue that human behavior is learned and shaped through social interaction. This argument should be dismissed because you don’t have to look far to see that both genetics and our environment, plays a role in who we are and our behaviors. (Glass). The point is there is a complex relationship between nature and nurture, either one alone is insufficient to explain what makes us human. (Colt). Our heredity gives us a basic potential,...
In a study conducted in 1983, researchers studied more than 350 pairs of twins in order to research if human personality traits were largely inherited or learned. Daniel Goleman, author of “Major Personality Study Finds that Traits are Mostly Inherited,” shares with his audience the parameters and results of this elaborate twin study. Goleman introduces his reader to Auke Tellegen, a psychologist and principal researcher on the long-term study, performed at the University of Minnesota, discovered that the human traits most strongly determined by heredity were leadership, obedience to authority, and even traditionalism. He would surely argue that heredity, more than influence of experience, is more responsible for development in human traits. Tellegen may have substantiating facts that nature is more predominant in a mere handful of traits, but what about the several other traits he failed to test? It is possible for a person who shows leadership and obedience during one part of their life to have an experience in which their obedience and leadership is thwarted. The study Tellegen conducted could not have been without environmental influence. Every single one of the participants, whether a twin or not, had environmental experiences separate from the others. Since every person experiences and responds to environmental stimuli differently, how can several prior years of experience be measured in order to present an unbiased result in this study? Unquestionably, it is impossible. Just as this particular study failed to take into consideration a persons’ prior experiences, it also failed to consider the probability of future environmental factors that could affect the traits Tellegen focused on in his study. Although difficu...
...t shown physically, it plays a much bigger role. However, nature does not overpower the role of nurture, which is essential in establishing our behavior. Our genes and our experiences make us the people we are today. Both nature and nurture interact in a way that makes us unique. They are designed for each other. Nurture cannot work without nature, and nature cannot thrive without nurture.
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.
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).
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.
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 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.
Nature by itself can affect a child’s development. If the child is born with a disease or mental illness, they may develop at a slower pace. For example, if a child is born with Asperger’s syndrome, the child will have a difficult time with social skills and understanding emotions. Nurture deals with the environment. If a child was raised in a hostile environment, that child is more likely to be hostile when they get older. Environment may play a larger role in most cases due to everyday lifestyle, from the city you live in to the way you are raised. If one was raised in a healthy house hold, someone who lived in a toxic household may behave differently.
The nature versus nurture debate is an old issue within the field of psychology. “The nature-nurture issue is a perennial one that has resurfaced in current psychiatry as a series of debates on the role that genes (DNA) and environments play in the etiology and pathophysiology of mental disorders” (Schaffner) The debate is essentially about what is inherited (nature) and what is experienced by environmental factors (nurture) and how they affect human development. Naturally, the nature versus nurture debate relates to many controversies such as intelligence, gender identities, violent behaviors, and sexual orientation. There are countless studies on whether intelligence is an inherited trait or if it is influenced by environmental factors.
The nature vs nurture debate is the questioning of whether nature or nurture affects your personal life the most. Nature is when genetics or human nature affects who you are and nurture is when human behavior shapes you as a person. Speaking of myself, nurture has the biggest impact in my personal life. My social environments have played an important role in my life.