Nature Vs Nurture Debate
A DEBATE FOR THE AGES
Nature Versus Nurture
Jason Walter
Liberty University
Psych 101
The nature versus nurture debate is one of the most enduring in the field of psychology. In the 17th century the French philosopher René Descartes set out views which held that we all, as individual Human Beings, possess certain in-born ideas that enduringly underpin our approach to the world. The British philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, on the other hand, took a more empirical approach emphasizing the role of experience as fully contributing to behavioral development.
The nature versus nurture issue has been around for ages, and scholars have still not concluded which of the two has a greater effect on a person. Nature, referring to …show more content…
heredity, and the nurture, referring to the environment, are two very reasonable explanations to why we are the people we are today. This debate over whether nature or nurture has a bigger effect on us has been argued and supported very well for both sides. Each side stresses very important details and good explanations for why nature, or nurture, controls how we develop. Experimentation and research has been conducted on these two sides, and each is supported with good theories as to why nature or nurture is the important influence on us.
There have been many theories formulated to explain why humans behave the way they do.
The surviving theories for behavior derive from physiological and sociological explanations. However, the two explanations have not always been compatible with each other. The famous nature versus nurture debate over human behavior resulted from conflicting views between proponents of the physiological (nature) and sociological (nurture) explanations. Throughout history, research has swayed popularity back and forth between the theories. Yet, theorists have broken down the line separating nature and nurture. As of today, people utilize both explanations to explore human behavior. The nature versus nurture debate isn't without its controversies. Some of the issues that have stirred conflict in the debate include homosexuality and obesity. While some scientists strongly believe that both sexuality and weight are inherited, many think that both are shaped, at least in part, by our …show more content…
environment.
Although the nature versus nurture debate has been a hot topic for hundreds of years, researchers have never been able to come up with a definitive answer. What we do know, however, is that both heredity and environment play a role in shaping our personalities and behaviors. We have yet to determine how much each factor contributes.
To study the influence of genetics and environment on humans, scientists often turn to twin studies. By comparing sets of identical twins who were raised apart and those who were raised in the same environment, scientists can view the impact of nature and nurture. Identical twins have the same genetic makeup. Thus, by studying twins who were raised apart and who were raised in the same household, we can see the influence of both genetics and environment. Twin studies often show us that while genes greatly determine who we are, our environment also plays a large role in our development. In order to disentangle the effects of genes and environment, behavioral geneticists perform adoption and twin studies. Behavioral geneticists do not generally use the term "nurture" in order to explain that portion of the variance for a given trait (such as IQ or the Big Five personality traits) that can be attributed to environmental effects. Instead, two different types of environmental effects are distinguished: shared family factors (i.e., those shared by siblings, making them more similar) and non shared factors (i.e., those that uniquely affect individuals, making siblings different). In order to express the portion of the variance that is due to the "nature" component, behavioral geneticists generally refer to the heredity of a trait. With regard to the Big Five personality traits as well as adult IQ in the general U.S. population, the portion of the overall variance that can be attributed to shared family effects is often negligible.
On the other hand, most traits are thought to be at least partially heritable.
In this context, the "nature" component of the variance is generally thought to be more important than that ascribed to the influence of family upbringing. In her Pulitzer Prize-nominated book The Nurture Assumption, author Judith Harris argues that "nurture," as traditionally defined in terms of family upbringing does not effectively explain the variance for most traits (such as adult IQ and the Big Five personality traits) in the general population of the United States. On the contrary, Harris suggests that either peer groups or random environmental factors (i.e., those that are independent of family upbringing) are more important than family environmental effects. Although "nurture" has historically been referred to as the care given to children by the parents, with the mother playing a role of particular importance, this term is now regarded by some as any environmental (not genetic) factor in the contemporary nature versus nurture debate. Thus the definition of "nurture" has been expanded in order to include the influences on development arising from prenatal, parental, extended family and peer experiences, extending to influences such as media, marketing and socio-economic status. Indeed, a substantial source of environmental input to human nature may arise from stochastic variations in prenatal
development.
What are the implications of truly believing that one's behaviors are due to uncontrollable genetic impulses? Caught philandering or stealing? Instead of saying "the devil made me do it" I guess you can now argue that "it runs in the family." But what happens when people are no longer held accountable for their actions? Is society even possible if its rules cannot be observed? This issue underlies not only philosophical debates over free will and determinism but also the current trend toward our becoming a no-fault no-risk culture (Did you get caught shooting at the President? Argue temporary insanity. I, in personal opinion based on research conducted am in side with nurture. I feel this in that I believe whole heartedly that circumstances in a persons life define the needs they have. I like to use the acronym C.O.F.F.E, conditions, opinions, facts, feelings and emotions. We each as a human species with or without desire have various circumstances in our lives. I believe that it is the experiences we face through C.O.F F.E that through a course of time develop up into to who we are in that moment of time.
Reference Page
Associated Content Staff. (2005). The childhood development nature vs. nurture debate continues. Retrieved October 13, 2010 from the Associated Content Web site: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/16572/the_childhood_development_nat ure_vs.html?cat=25.
Bouchard TJ Jr. Genetic and environmental influences on adult intelligence and special mental abilities. Hum Biol. 1998 Apr;70(2):257-79
C. S. Hall (1951) The Genetics of Behavior, in Handbook of Experimental Psychology, by S. S. Stevens (Ed.) New York, NY, USA: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 304-329
Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. Free Press, ISBN 978-068-484409-1.
Harris, J. R., & Liebert, R. M. (1984, 1987, 1991). The Child: Development from Birth through Adolescence. Prentice Hall, ISBN 978-0-131-31046-9
Schmid, R. (2009). Nature vs. nurture begins in the womb. Retrieved October 12, 2010 from the Discovery Channel Web site: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/02/03/nature-nurture.html.
Nature Versus Nurture
Jason Walter
Liberty University
Psych 101
The nature versus nurture debate is one of the most enduring in the field of psychology. In the 17th century the French philosopher René Descartes set out views which held that we all, as individual Human Beings, possess certain in-born ideas that enduringly underpin our approach to the world. The British philosophers Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, on the other hand, took a more empirical approach emphasizing the role of experience as fully contributing to behavioral development.
The nature versus nurture issue has been around for ages, and scholars have still not concluded which of the two has a greater effect on a person. Nature, referring to …show more content…
heredity, and the nurture, referring to the environment, are two very reasonable explanations to why we are the people we are today. This debate over whether nature or nurture has a bigger effect on us has been argued and supported very well for both sides. Each side stresses very important details and good explanations for why nature, or nurture, controls how we develop. Experimentation and research has been conducted on these two sides, and each is supported with good theories as to why nature or nurture is the important influence on us.
There have been many theories formulated to explain why humans behave the way they do.
The surviving theories for behavior derive from physiological and sociological explanations. However, the two explanations have not always been compatible with each other. The famous nature versus nurture debate over human behavior resulted from conflicting views between proponents of the physiological (nature) and sociological (nurture) explanations. Throughout history, research has swayed popularity back and forth between the theories. Yet, theorists have broken down the line separating nature and nurture. As of today, people utilize both explanations to explore human behavior. The nature versus nurture debate isn't without its controversies. Some of the issues that have stirred conflict in the debate include homosexuality and obesity. While some scientists strongly believe that both sexuality and weight are inherited, many think that both are shaped, at least in part, by our …show more content…
environment.
Although the nature versus nurture debate has been a hot topic for hundreds of years, researchers have never been able to come up with a definitive answer. What we do know, however, is that both heredity and environment play a role in shaping our personalities and behaviors. We have yet to determine how much each factor contributes.
To study the influence of genetics and environment on humans, scientists often turn to twin studies. By comparing sets of identical twins who were raised apart and those who were raised in the same environment, scientists can view the impact of nature and nurture. Identical twins have the same genetic makeup. Thus, by studying twins who were raised apart and who were raised in the same household, we can see the influence of both genetics and environment. Twin studies often show us that while genes greatly determine who we are, our environment also plays a large role in our development. In order to disentangle the effects of genes and environment, behavioral geneticists perform adoption and twin studies. Behavioral geneticists do not generally use the term "nurture" in order to explain that portion of the variance for a given trait (such as IQ or the Big Five personality traits) that can be attributed to environmental effects. Instead, two different types of environmental effects are distinguished: shared family factors (i.e., those shared by siblings, making them more similar) and non shared factors (i.e., those that uniquely affect individuals, making siblings different). In order to express the portion of the variance that is due to the "nature" component, behavioral geneticists generally refer to the heredity of a trait. With regard to the Big Five personality traits as well as adult IQ in the general U.S. population, the portion of the overall variance that can be attributed to shared family effects is often negligible.
On the other hand, most traits are thought to be at least partially heritable.
In this context, the "nature" component of the variance is generally thought to be more important than that ascribed to the influence of family upbringing. In her Pulitzer Prize-nominated book The Nurture Assumption, author Judith Harris argues that "nurture," as traditionally defined in terms of family upbringing does not effectively explain the variance for most traits (such as adult IQ and the Big Five personality traits) in the general population of the United States. On the contrary, Harris suggests that either peer groups or random environmental factors (i.e., those that are independent of family upbringing) are more important than family environmental effects. Although "nurture" has historically been referred to as the care given to children by the parents, with the mother playing a role of particular importance, this term is now regarded by some as any environmental (not genetic) factor in the contemporary nature versus nurture debate. Thus the definition of "nurture" has been expanded in order to include the influences on development arising from prenatal, parental, extended family and peer experiences, extending to influences such as media, marketing and socio-economic status. Indeed, a substantial source of environmental input to human nature may arise from stochastic variations in prenatal
development.
What are the implications of truly believing that one's behaviors are due to uncontrollable genetic impulses? Caught philandering or stealing? Instead of saying "the devil made me do it" I guess you can now argue that "it runs in the family." But what happens when people are no longer held accountable for their actions? Is society even possible if its rules cannot be observed? This issue underlies not only philosophical debates over free will and determinism but also the current trend toward our becoming a no-fault no-risk culture (Did you get caught shooting at the President? Argue temporary insanity. I, in personal opinion based on research conducted am in side with nurture. I feel this in that I believe whole heartedly that circumstances in a persons life define the needs they have. I like to use the acronym C.O.F.F.E, conditions, opinions, facts, feelings and emotions. We each as a human species with or without desire have various circumstances in our lives. I believe that it is the experiences we face through C.O.F F.E that through a course of time develop up into to who we are in that moment of time.
Reference Page
Associated Content Staff. (2005). The childhood development nature vs. nurture debate continues. Retrieved October 13, 2010 from the Associated Content Web site: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/16572/the_childhood_development_nat ure_vs.html?cat=25.
Bouchard TJ Jr. Genetic and environmental influences on adult intelligence and special mental abilities. Hum Biol. 1998 Apr;70(2):257-79
C. S. Hall (1951) The Genetics of Behavior, in Handbook of Experimental Psychology, by S. S. Stevens (Ed.) New York, NY, USA: John Wiley and Sons, pp. 304-329
Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. Free Press, ISBN 978-068-484409-1.
Harris, J. R., & Liebert, R. M. (1984, 1987, 1991). The Child: Development from Birth through Adolescence. Prentice Hall, ISBN 978-0-131-31046-9
Schmid, R. (2009). Nature vs. nurture begins in the womb. Retrieved October 12, 2010 from the Discovery Channel Web site: http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/02/03/nature-nurture.html.