Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Biological factors which probably are related to personality are
The nature vs nurture debate
Debate over nature or nurture
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Genetic Theories at War The human body consists of twenty- three chromosome pairs, that hold our DNA and genes. Both recessive and dominant alleles come to express who we are physically and emotionally. But, whether they’re recessive or dominant genes, they can be very misleading due to the two theories: “The Nurture Theory,” and “The Nature Theory.” The Nurture theory regards how individuals feel entitlement and the need to obtain success. To add on, this theory explains how an individual’s personality is created and adapted over time, based off of the people and environment surrounding them. One example of The Nurture Theory, is the Affluenza accident. Not too long ago in Texas, a sixteen year old boy killed a family of four, due to the consumerism of alcohol. During trial, the sixteen year old boy claimed to be innocent, precisely because of him and his family’s erosion of affluence. “Whether affluenza is real or imagined, money really does change everything, and those of high social class usually do see themselves much differently than others. Wealth (and the pursuit of it) has been linked with immoral behavior,” excerpt from “Money Changes the way we think and behave.” To clarify, the boy’s immoral behavior, lack of empathy, and necessity to entitlement, was caused by the simplicity of the way he had been nurtured. …show more content…
When talking about the nature theory, genetics make us the way we are. In the article “ The science of Success,” the writer describes two types of different people, “Dandelions,” being people who can succeed and and take root in almost any situation, and “Orchids,” being fragile and vulnerable. “This new theory suggests that it’s a mistake to understand so-called “bad” genes only as liabilities, which has been the dominant theory of research psychologists and other scientists for years,” and excerpt from “ The Science of
more influential in determining the outcome of any individual's development ” ( “ Nature vs nurture”). The nurture argument is based on how a person was raised and nature is the argument. that a person was born that way. Gacy’s father was an abusive alcoholic and unreachable. expectations.
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 his well known piece, Guns, Germs and Steel, Jared Diamond proposes that the differences between populations of different continents is not due to differences in the people, but of the environment. There are, of course innumerable differences to be found among the environments that each continent has to offer, however, Diamond stresses only a few. They include: wild plants and animals native to the area- which affect a society’s surplus thus allowing the society to move beyond their basic need- a group 's ability to travel and/or migrate both intercontinental and to other continents- this would allow for trade and access to other goods, and exposure to alternate philosophies and illness- and the size of the continent and population allowing for more potential inventors, competing societies, and groups to exchange with (Diamond, 1999). Diamond’s theory lends to the concept of how our environment shapes us. It’s the nurture of Nature vs Nurture on the large scale. There are countless things that we cannot control about ourselves, where
Ideally, the theory bases its argument on the economical disadvantages social classes in a society claiming that lower class neighborhoods cause stress, frustration, and disorganization that motivates individuals to commit crimes. For instance, children raised in lower class families face hardships, which in return, creates strains. In the event they succumb to the strains, any slight opportunity to commit a crime, like stealing, is quickly utilized. In addition, children raised in upper class neighborhoods are prone to criminal offenses that are associated with influence. Research by Einstadter, Werner & Stuart (2006) says that criminal offenses, such as drug abuse, are more common to people raised in wealthy families. Therefore, the social backgrounds in which a person is brought up influences the type of criminal acts they engage in. Moreover, social structure influences individuals to commit some crimes and not others. As put forward by Robert Marton, the theory views crime as way of responding to existing conditions that limit one’s ability to achieve economic success in
The nature vs. nurture controversy has been one of the oldest and most incessant debates throughout history. The disputation of this debate has generated numerous hypotheses, and explorations by various researchers, however, it has not been clearly determined as to whether a person is biologically determined or whether they are shaped by the environment. Nature’s theory holds that a person’s mental ability is sustained by what he or she is born with genetically. Conversely, the argument that a person’s environment plays a large role in his or her mental aptitude is nurture. Despite the numerous and overwhelming experiments that have been fulfilled by theorists who support the nature theory, I strongly believe that the environment around a person, on the other hand, is ever-changing and offers more opportunities for growth and variation.
A common dispute that has left people speechless for years is the debate between nature and nurture. Are humans influenced by their environments or their genetic make-up? This theory has not gone unnoticed while many theorists attempt to sway the opinions of their audience. Nature is comprised of our genetic and biological components that make us who we are while nurture is founded on the principle that humans are influenced by experience. I believe nature and nurture fall on a spectrum. Within the spectrum environmental, cultural, and genetic influences comprise a person’s unique
...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.
J. R. Harris, a well known contradictor, explains how Bowlby theory of attachment is false because of the nature versus nurture ruling. Nature is the genetics passed down from the parents, but nurture is the way parents bring the child up. Harris believes that most psychologist misuse nurture for environment rather than parental guidance. She believes, along with genes, parental upbringing can determine how you will later develop. For instance, if a child grows up in a bad neighborhood, but was brought up nicely by his parents then the overwhelming sensation of fitting in would lead him down the wrong path. In Bowlby’s theory the well- trained parents would be to blame, but it is evident that the pressure from peers are at fault. Harrie’s argument contradicts the findings of
Every individual has a biological influence on their development; two individuals combine their genetic information to create a new organism, carrying biological predispositions that will shape their expressed behaviors and characteristics. However, Susan Griffin, author of the essay “Our Secret,” argues that while genetic influences are significant, they are not the sole contributors to an individual’s development. Throughout her essay, Griffin reveals to her readers that the presence of external, uncontrollable factors from an individual’s environment can be equally influential as they diverge the individual off of the predetermined path of life created by biological factors.
Firstly, in order to compresence the complexity of our debate, we have to take in mind the definition of nature and nurture. Yes, is true that some of our characteristics are inherited by our ancestors, most of our physical characteristics, such as hair color and type; the pigmentation of our skin, those are a product of our genes thus our DNA (Jewel, 2007).
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.
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.
Physical characteristics of humans are mostly influenced by multiple genetic variables. For example, according to research, height was determined as a relatively large genetic component (Child Psychology). Hereditary can be accountable for most human physical characteristics, however genetics get a bit more tricky when it comes personality, intelligence, and behavior of individuals. Individual personality traits are affected by the environment and genetics. Whether human nature is born or made is an ancient issue discussed by both
Humans are unique and highly-intricate creatures, and DNA is what makes individuals who they are; it is the code for our physical being. Physical features, personality, and even intelligence are all decided by our unique DNA. Some people say that the nature has the largest hand in human development. They believe that who we are is decided by who our parents are. we are products of our predecessors. Each and every person was created by God, and He puts uniqueness to each individual. To better understand the power of the nature we should think about it. For example, my father has aggressiveness in his genes he could have passed aggressive tendencies on to my brother. my brother and I are very alike, physically speaking. We have the same skin color, eyes color, and tall identically to our parents. But the reality is we are totally different people, like opposite poles. He likes the street life while I do not. I like to study but he does not, and so on. When people have the chance to meet us; they get really surprised because of the way I am. People start to be more respectful with me than my brother because they can see the difference right away between my brother and me. I always wondered why he is like that and I am what I am. Several times I asked to my mother why he and me do not have anything in common, except the physical appearance, but she does not
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