Essay On Nature Vs Nurture

Nature Vs Nurture
The debate on nature versus nurture is an old philosophical issue in psychology. Nature involves all
genes as well as hereditary factors, which influence who we are. These range from the physical
appearance to the personality features of a person. Nurture involves all environmental variables,
which determine who we are: experiences during early childhood, how one is raised, the surrounding
culture, and one's social relationships. Biological psychology today insists on the significance of
genet is as well as biological influences. When it comes to behavioral psychology, the most important
thing is how the environment affects behavior. Unlike earlier when debates on relative contributions
of the concept took a one–sided approach, experts currently
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

Nature vs. Nurture Essay
Nature vs Nurture
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.
When looked up in the dictionary the term nature means the universe and its phenomena or one's
own character and temperament. When discussed with these philosophers it is meant as one's own
character revolved around the universe for which they live in, basically they're surroundings. At the
same time when I looked up the word nurture it said the upbringing,...show more content...
Not because we were taught those things but for the fact that they are instincts embedded in our
minds for survival. For nurture the psychosexual development is due majorly because of nurture.
From oral to anal–retentive these are all due to expressive characteristics that are given or raised
from birth. The one that has the most effect is the structural model. Reasons for me stating this is
because the id is the primitive part of the mind that is basically a natural instinct. At the same time
the ego is also because of natural instinct simply because of the reality principle. Freud even went as
far as stating, "..adults ego–feeling can't have been the same from beginning. It must have gone
through a process of development"(13). The part where it changes is the superego, which is the only
form of nurture in the psychoanalytic perspective, which is because the superego only developed
because the child began to incorporate parental values and also operates according to the raising and
discipline of the parents.
Now if you look at Plato's point of view Plato supports nurture more than nature. The only points
that Plato made that would seem to support nature is the point he made for example is when he
talks about female guards. The reason for this is also because he feels that women should be given
lighter

Essay on Human Development: Nature vs. Nurture
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, thenature 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...show more content...
Based on these conclusions made by the study, it is acceptable to infer that there is a greater
difference in intelligence that can be attributed to hereditary factors. The results also show what a
drastic change that hereditary factors can impose on intelligence; I found this quite interesting as I
previously thought that environmental factors would influence studying patterns and etc. Though
the study was conducted in a professional manner, the theory of possessing more intelligence based
on hereditary conditions would need to be researched more. There are ongoing studies on the
nature–nurture and intelligence question.
Another study on intelligence has shown:
"A definite tendency for children in homes of higher socio–economic status, especially those with
more highly educated parents, to make above average scores after two years of age, whereas
children whose parents have less education make lower scores" (Bayley).
Based on this and the aforementioned study, we can see where controversy can occur. Both studies
claim to have taken into account environmental factors, but the second study concludes that
environmental factors do play a role in the development of intelligence of children. The two differing
viewpoints are what cause the debate. According to Kendra Cherry, "The majority of experts believe
that behavior and development are influenced by both nature and nurture..." If this were proven to be
true, both

Essay on Nurture versus Nature
Nurture versus Nature
The human brain is a portion of the central nervous system and serves as the control center for
movement, sleep, hunger, and virtually everything else vital and necessary to survive. Not only that,
but the brain also controls all human emotions from fear and love, to elation and sorrow. It also
receives and interprets countless signals from other parts of the body and the outside environment.
Summarily, the brain makes us conscious, emotional, and intelligent. It's no wonder that with
everything going on in the brain, so much emphasis is placed on its development. We now know,
from scientific research, that the brain grows at a rapid rate within the first years of an infant's life.
With this information in mind,...show more content...
The structure of the brain is delicate, especially during the maturation years of development. If the
brain is traumatized in any such way within the first years of childhood, those traumatic events will
shape the brain as it would have they been jovial ones. These events change the structure of the brain
in numerous ways. Though these changes are internal, they have a tremendous outcome on behavior
as well. "Trauma elevates stress hormones, such as cortisol, that wash over the tender brain like acid,
as a result, regions in the cortex and in the limbic system are 20 to 30 percent smaller in abused
children than in normal kids." (Begley, p.20) This 20 to 30 percent difference generates enough
anxiety to induce spouts of stress hormones at the slightest thought or reminiscence of a previous
traumatic situation. This kind of reaction often causes problems with attention, concentration, and
impulsive behavior. The ability to learn can also be altered via early childhood trauma. It is from this
trauma that neurotransmitters, "that play a key role in telling growing neurons where to go and
what to connect to" (Begley, p.32), are matted and cause insufficiency in learning capabilities.
"Only in rare cases of extreme isolation is it possible to observe concretely separated two factors in
the development of human personality which are always otherwise only analytically separated, the
biogenic and the

Nature Vs Nurture Essay
Zachary Hobbs Sheen Cowper Psychology 200 20 October 2017 Nature vs Nurture In today's
society, it has become common to question what exactly makes us human. There are many questions
to ask that pertains to the idealism of mankind, but the most important would be, "what shapes us
into who we are?" The debate of whether nature or nurture molds the character of our being has been
an exhilarating question throughout the history of time. Though this matter is only answered
through individual perception, with nature being genetics and nurture serving as the environment in
which an individual is raised from birth to adolescence. For centuries the argument between nature
and nurture has brewed, yet it can be inferred that nurture has more of an...show more content...
Just as morality, beliefs are molded by the environment that a given individual is raised. In a
study performed, children who were primed with a picture of santa claus, the more likely they
were to share candy. While this is the case in America, a child who lives in India would have no
clue who santa claus is or anything about the Christmas holiday. Fears are important to
acknowledge as well. A study in 1960 tested the depth perception of children between the ages of
six months to a year and two months, in an attempt to see how the children would react to heights
and loud noises. In the study, children were placed on a platform with plexiglass set at the end,
which could be walked on, though wasn't due to the fear of falling off of the platform, while also
showing evidence of what neuroscientist Seth Norrholm of Emory University states as an
individual 's, "...acoustic startle reflex." (kunang) "You're going to duck your head due to loud
noises being startling," (kunang) says Norrholm. The learning of fears can also be evident from the
Little Albert experiment, in which a baby by the name of Albert was introduced to animals,
accompanied by a loud noise that made him cry. After countless times of repeating this process, little
Albert began to not only fear animals, yet anything that had any close relation to fur. The two fears
of falling and loud noises are the only natural, instinctive fears in the human

Essay on Nature vs Nurture Debate
Nature vs Nurture Debate
Nature versus Nurture is the issue of the degree to which environment and heredity influence
behavior and development. In this issue nature can be defined as, behaviors due to heredity. Which
means behaviors are based on the genetic makeup of an individual and is an influence of the
individuals' growth and development throughout life. On the other hand nurture are causes of
behaviors that are environmental. Which means the influence is from, parents, siblings, family,
friends and all other experiences to which the individual is exposed to.
Throughout my childhood, I didn't grow up free of environmental influences nor did I develop
without being affected by my inherited genetic makeup. I think...show more content...
In reading stories about identical twins my point of view is easily understood. Various types of
psychologist have analyzed the study of identical twins. It shows that individuals with the same
genetic make–up can be totally different, when it comes to personality. Nurture promotes the twins
to grow up as separate individuals. Its a lot better if a twin has his or her own personality rather
than the same exact personality of the other half. I think this great debate weighs heavier on the
nurture side. As a child my parents, and sibling overshadowed my genetic make–up. No matter how
much I thought my physical traits made me behave. It did not affect me more than the things that I
had seen and been exposed to. The more things that I had seen around and experienced made me the
person that I am today. If my genetic make–up was totally different, to a certain extent, I am sure
that I?d behave the same way that I do presently. There are exceptions to that. For instance if I
were six foot five and one hundred and ninety pounds, I?d most likely be in the NBA and be really
rich. I think if I was really rich and in the NBA I wouldn?t have the same worries that I have
today. Even if before I were in the NBA I would have lots of attention and have a lot more
confidence. So to an extent I would change a little if my genetic make–up were different. In a sense,
genetic make–up is just a competitor to the environmental factors

Do you know how much your personality is the result of your genetic makeup, and how much is the
result of the environment? The "nature–nurture" question is one of the oldest issues in psychology.
This question is applicable to identical twins. They are the same age, same–sex, have the same
genes, live in the same house, share same stuff, given identical presents, so in other words, they
share the same environment from birth. The researcher tends to know if identical twins really share
the same personality.
In Individual Psychology of Alfred Adler, each person is an integrated whole, striving to future goals,
and attempting to find meaning in life while working harmoniously with others. There are four areas
of individual psychology, the...show more content...
There are levels or structure of the psyche (mind) and one of it is the Archetype, the primeval
content of racial unconscious consisting of inherited ideas and predispositions, and the universal
images, thoughts, ideas, or symbols that contain a large element of emotion. There are five main
archetypes, and one of them is the persona. It the mask adopted by the person in response to the
demands of social convention and tradition and it is the role that a person acted. Carl Jung considered
many psychological types that emerge from the union of two (2) basic attitudes, the introversion and
extraversion. Introversion is the orientation of the psychic energy inward while the extraversion is
the tendency to direct the personality outward.
The research is also associated with the theory of Albert Bandura, the Social Cognitive Theory, in
which postulates that the portion of an individual's knowledge acquisition can be directly related to
observing others within the context of social interactions, experiences, and outside media influences.
Based in this theory, behavior is the product of continuous interaction of an individual to his
environment. People respond to environmental events, and certainly they often learn characteristic
behaviors as the result of rewards and punishments.
The Trait Theory of Gordon Willard

Argumentative Essay On Nature Vs Nurture
Nature vs. Nurture is one of the oldest and most debated subjects in psychology and life. The
controversy deals with whether our human traits develop through experience or if they are present at
birth. Nature states that our human traits are genetic and include biological factors that we have had
since birth. Nurture states that our human traits develop through our environment, which can include
anything from how our parents raised us to the geographical location we live in. Recent studies in
twins have shown that nature may be a bigger component in this debate. A Minnesota study of twins
from 1979 to 1999 observed 137 pairs of twins, both identical and fraternal (Lewis, 2014). They
found that identical twins who were raised apart felt a stronger connection to their sibling than their
best friends, which could mean a...show more content...
It showed the nurture perspective and discussed how all children need a stable and caring
environment or else it would cause a lack of brain development in caring behaviors and cognitive
capacities (Perry, B. D., 2002). Nurture has also been associated with children's behaviors and
personalities because of the environment they grew up in. For example, if a child lived in a more
caring home, they are more likely to be a joyful person than someone who grew up in an abusive
setting. Although this is a common debate, most people agree that nature and nurture end up
working together. In the words of author David G. Meyers, "Nurture works on what nature
endows". In cases like intelligence, it could be argued that it is hereditary because it is passed down
to children and environmental because parents are teaching their kids and their influence is a large
factor. Instead of debating on which subject works more in humans, both of these terms should be
used to figure out environmental and genetic behaviors that are present in

Essay on Behavior: Nature vs. Nurture
For centuries psychologists have argued over which plays the larger role in child development,
heredity or environment. One of the first theories was proposed in the seventeenth century by the
British philosopher John Locke. Locke believed that a child was born with an empty mind, tabula
rasa (meaning "blank slate") and that everything the child learns comes from experience, nothing is
established beforehand. Years later, Charles Darwin brought forth histheory of evolution, which led
to a return of the hereditarian viewpoint. With the twentieth century, however, came the rise of
behaviorism. Behaviorists, like John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner, argued that a child can be made
into any kind of person, regardless of their heredity. Today,
...show more content...
She claims that after the parents contribute an egg or sperm filled with DNA, their job of
"creating" a child is complete. Her book is backed by some 750 references, but most of her
conclusions come from the observation of her own two daughters; one her own and one adopted
(Begley, p. 53).
Parents, however, do play an important role in childhood development. For the purposes of this
essay, her theory that parents have no lasting effects on a child's personality will be argued. The
following contains supporting scientific evidence.
The DNA structure of a human, the genes, determines the height a person will reach, whether an
individual's eyes will be green or brown, and if a person's hair will be straight or curly (Saplosky,
p.44). Research has also found that genes are 30 to 70 percent responsible for personality traits
such as aggression, passion, shyness and intelligence. The other 30 to 70 percent of a person's
personality develop from the environment (Pool, p. 52).
Genes, however, are not what produces a behavior, an emotion, or even a thought. Instead, genes
produce a protein that contains hormones, which carry messages between cells, and
neurotransmitters that carry messages between nerve cells. The protein also contains receptors that
receive the hormonal and neurotransmitter messages as well as enzymes that read the messages. So
what does all this have to

Nature vs. Nurture
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 acombination 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...show more content...
Researchers have also found out that, even though a person may have a certain behavior–controlling
gene, it is not always active. This research puts the responsibility for actions back on the individual.
Humans do have free will, and they can choose if they want to let their body or their mind control
them.
Another question is, if an individual does not have the "bad gene," but they commit a crime, are
they more responsible. To look at this issue from another perspective, judges determine
responsibility for actions by something called blameworthiness. This acknowledges a person of
their actions and their consequences. If a person does not know what they are doing, such as a
mentally ill person who commits a crime, or they are not aware of the consequences, such as a
child who plays with a parent's gun, then they cannot be legally held responsible. This would
answer the previous question with a firm no. Blameworthiness makes no mention of genes, so if
you had the "bad gene" and you committed a crime that you were fully aware of doing and you
knew the consequences if you got caught, you would be fully responsible for your actions. From
my standpoint, all healthy individuals are responsible for their actions. I believe that genes control
our physical characteristics, but have a small role in controlling our behaviors. As I mentioned
before, some people have a certain genes, but they are not active in their bodies. This could mean

Nature vs Nurture Essay
Nature or Nurture?
The Determination of Human Behaviour
The nature versus nurture debate has spanned over decades, and is becoming more heated in the
recent years. Following the mapping of the human genome, scientists are pursuing the possibility of
controlling human behaviour such as homicidal tendencies or insanity through the manipulation of
genes. Is this possible for us to ensure that humans behave in certain ways under certain
circumstances in future?
This is highly doubtful, as the determination of human behaviour depends not only on genes (nature),
but also on the environment (nurture). It is usually the "joint product of genes and environment",
one of the first principles in Leda Cosmides and John Tooby in "Evolutionary...show more content...
Behaviour genetics include twin studies, family studies and adoption studies. Adoption studies
focused on how people with different genetic make–up, brought up in a similar environment may or
may not share similar behavioural patterns and family studies on people with the same genetic
make–up. The results are not conclusive, although it is found that the possibility of people who are
genetically similar, sharing similar behavioural traits is higher.
Twin studies remain our interest. Identical twins have 100% identical genes and the same
shared–environment (same home, same parents, same siblings, etc) , and thus any differences
between them will be the non–shared environment (individual friends, own perceptions).
Fraternal twins share about 50% of their genes and the same shared–environment. Studies made by
comparing behavioural traits in these twins are once again not conclusive: about 40% of the
variance in these traits are genetic, 35% non–shared environment and 5% shared environment.
("The Nature/Nurture Controversy, Frank Fujita. Attached)
The chances of similar genes creating similar behaviour is never 100 percent. The one thing that can
be concluded, therefore, is that it takes a combination of nature and nurture to create behavioural
patterns as adherent to our thesis. To make it more evident that nature alone cannot determine human
behaviour, we

Different personality traits make us who we are today. There are many factors to our
personalities and each aspect illustrates a bigger picture of who we are and how we came to be.
Openness to experience is a factor of the Five Factor Model (FFM) that describes my personality
and is an essential part of who I am in this society. Openness utilizes active imagination,
attentiveness to inner feelings, intellectual curiosity, interest in variety, and interest in aesthetics. It
is used to display a general appreciation for creative ideas, imaginations, and the arts. Due to a
sufficient amount of psychometric research, it is valid to say that openness is viewed as a global
personality trait that is comprised of a set of specific habits,...show more content...
Although, they were traditionally Korean in the sense that they craved discipline and enforced
good morals on me, they were also understanding of the imaginative world. Also, my parents are
true believers of being open to all types of art. However, not only are they true believers of this
openness, it is apparent that is in them that they are open to experience. Ever since I was five, I
have played the cello. This driving force behind the pursuit of music stems from my parents' broad
outlook on the arts and their thoughts on how important it is to learn about the arts. These evidences
display that openness to experience carries a genetic component. Not only in my immediate family is
it apparent that there is a genetic component to openness to experience, but in my extended family
it is evident as well. Another prime example of the "nature" quality of openness is illustrated
through my twin cousins. I have twin cousins, who were raised in drastically different
environments. However despite the different environments, both of my cousins have the same
FMM trait: openness to experience. One of the twins named Yuri was sent to boarding school in
America at an early age while my other twin cousin Nari stayed in Korea. Yuri was raised by my
aunt and uncle in New York City and lived a very liberal and non–traditionally Korean lifestyle. On
the other hand, Nari remained in Korea and was raised in a very culturally

The old question about nature versus nurture has made a lot of different opinions in the world. Some
people think that everything that they are, is because genetic. However, other persons think that the
environment makes who they are. In my opinion nature and nurture make people's life different,
depending what factor people take to develop the differences between nature and nurture, it can
explain if all human behavior are learned or is part of it inherited. Nurture is defined by the society
and environment people live in. Most people take their personality or talents from the place where
they use to be. The environment influences people's life. The society can see how the personality of
a person is by knowing who are the people around...show more content...
This research gives a good explanation about how the different environments change the
personality of the twins. They have the same genes but their personalities have changed in a big
way. Besides, the author describes the two twins. ABC claims that "Lily has no siblings; Gillian
has two. Lily's family is Presbyterian; Gillian's is Catholic. Lily's neighborhood is ethnically
mixed; Gillian's is not. Lily's family celebrates some Chinese holidays and plans on sending her to
Chinese educational classes; Gillian's family does not, instead wanting her to become part of
Canadian culture" (ABC NEW). The twins' environment is totally different. It makes that their
personality, way to talk, and express show as they weren't twins. Nurture is described by the
environment that people live in. Depending the place where a person is, can affect or benefit him.
Nature emphasizes in how people acquire things by genetic, hereditary tendencies and biological
factors. Some people use to copy or obtain different characteristics from their family. In many
families, people make hereditary tendencies to the next generations year by year. In addition,
children acquire many things from their parents. Such as, gender, psychological disorders, eye color,
hair, lips, dimples, curled toes, eating habits, and stress. The web site ThoughtCo provides a briefly
explanation of nature using homosexuality as support. Crossman claims that "Homosexuality is
considered a genetic result rather than a

Differences Between Nature Vs Nurture Essay
Throughout this paper, we will be comparing similarities and differences between our seven
members based on the Big Five Inventory test results to our Zodiac sign attributes. Each member
of Psychology 101 Group 14 was required to take the OCEAN Big Personality Quiz, and then
compare the results to the other members of the team. Then after looking at the results individual
members compared their scores to their Zodiac signs to see if they could identify similarities. To
begin, while looking at our comparatives scores of the OCEAN Big 5 Personality quizzes, we
found that a few group members were similar, although there was many differences in the group
too. For example, Gabe and Damon were similar in Openness, with a score of 41 and 35
respectively. On the other hand, Socoro and Vivianna were outliers in the group, with Vivianna
having a score of 5, and Socoro with a score of 59. We believe while the scores are closely related,
our reasons for being close together in Openness value more shows the debate between nature vs
nurture. Gabe's belief on being in the 35th percentile is how he was raised throughout his family
environment similar to Kaitlyn in the 41st percentile, while Damon's belief for being in the 41st
percentile was more so being born into the statistic rather than recalling any events that contributed
to his score. Rachael scored in the 16th percentile, which indicates a preference of a more regular
schedule. She believes that this is because of how she

Nature Vs Nurture
In the world of psychology, nature and nurture have great meanings as to how it affects an
individual. It is argued on which one affects someone's personality, behavior traits, and thought
process the most. Nature is somebody's genes, physical traits, and biology and nurture is how
someone was raised and how they live including their family, their culture, and the environment in
which they are surrounded with. I agree that both nature and nurture have a great impact on many
things in a person's life. I know that in my own personal life I have been impacted by both in
particular ways. I do know that genes play a part in my personality and thought process in small
ways however, I believe that I am more affected by environmental factors. My reason for that
conclusion is because, if I were to examine both my father and mother's personality, behavior, and
thought process, I would find that my own traits are different in vast ways. It might be argued
that I am a good mixture of both but, I just do not see this to be true. I move, think, and act at my
own pace and in my own ways that are very different from either my mother or my father. If I were
to even go back one more generation, I would still see the many differences between my mother and
her parents or my father and his parents....show more content...
For example, in some cultures, children are expected to start working and doing tasks at a
younger age than in other cultures and it influences their thought process and behavior as well as
their personality and ambitions. In my own personal life I have grown up in a culture where
technology is very involved in everyday life. I first had access to the internet from age twelve and
have had access ever since. I have become almost dependant on using it for everyday things. The
world that I am growing up in is a technological one and it is greatly different from the world ten,
twenty, or even thirty years

Nature vs. Nurture It is a matter of concern whether human behaviors and characteristics are
determined by nature or nurture. If a person's behavior is inherited directly from the genes of his/her
parents or other biological factors, then it is the nature that determines his character. But if the
environment that a person grew up in, affects his behavior, then it is the nurture that determines his
/her character. It became a great matter of controversy among scientists, psychologists and
sociologists. Previously, many people believed that human behavior was instinctive. It can neither be
taught nor learned. But later some psychologists came to the conclusion that human behavior is
learned throughout the lifetime which is not instinctive....show more content...
This may not be because of particularly being a black man, but because of the culture he has
adopted since his childhood. Here he somehow takes the side of nurture. Many black people are
assumed to be criminals. People judge them just by their appearance and the impression black
people have made in today's world. But this does not always mean that every black people are
criminals and it's their biological factor that makes them do crimes. We can take the example of
Brent Staple. Even though he was an educated and good person, many people and especially
white women fear of him. But he was neither an uneducated person nor a criminal. He was brought
up in a good family and properly nurtured by his parents. Therefore, nurturing became the factor for
his behavior. Similarly, there are examples given by another author Amy Cunningham in her essay,
"Why Women Smile". Although she focuses primarily on a smile, she tends to explain the actual
cause of one's behavior. She explains that a smile or particularly a women's smile comes from both
natural happiness as well as the hope of people living around them, "The behavior seems to be an
equal blend of nature and nurture" (Cunningham 190). She further explains that both a normal baby
and a blind baby smiles, although it may take a little longer for the blind one. It means that the
smiles are natural and should not be taught in all cases. However, there are situations where

Essay on Nature vs Nurture
Nature vs. Nurture
M. B.
Liberty University
Psychology 101
Nature vs. Nurture There has been extensive debate between scholars in the field of psychology
surrounding the Nature vs. Nurture issue. Both nature and nurture determine who we are and
neither is solely independent of the other. "As the area of a rectangle is determined by its length
and its width, so do biology and experience together create us."(Myers, 2008, p. 8) Carl Gustav
Jung, and leading thinker and creator of analytical psychology, believes: "Human behavior is
influenced both by individual experience and also by an innate "collective unconscious" that vests
all of us with certain proclivities and tendencies."(Hayes, 2000, p. 7) From my personal life
experience...show more content...
History
The history of the Nature vs. Nurture began with Darwin's theory of evolution and natural selection.
At one time, entire cultural groups were considered to be inferior or superior by nature and ethnicity.
During the late Middle Ages, philosophers began to recognize differences among groups dependent
on their socialization or nurture. Nature vs. Nurture began to be controversial in the 20th Century
when the Nazis began to destroy humans of a certain nature to develop the perfect human race. This
prompted psychological debate on whether human identity was by nature or subject to socialism by
nurture. (Prien, Pitts, & Kamery, 2003, p. 51)
Characteristics
The characteristics of nature vs. nurture are quite different. Nature is those qualities about a person
that are deemed genetic. Such genetics heritability includes a person's color and gender. Nature is a
person's biological determinism. Characteristics of nurture include environmental variation and
external influences. These characteristics are dependent on such factors as social status and
education and the influence these factors have on a person's character. In my opinion, both nature
and nurture uniformly determine of person's personality and intelligence. This opinion is widely
debated but not debunked.
Concluding Thoughts
John Tooby and Leda Cosmides, two highly respected and influential people in the nature vs. nurture
study state, "Evolutionary psychology is not just another

Nature vs. Nurture
When we look at the world around us today, we are struck by the amazing diversity that we see in
people. There is a vast diversity in the characteristics of people that are immediately obvious: short,
tall; fat, thin; Asian, Caucasian; and many other characteristics. Each person as an individual is
unique, be it in physical outlook or character. How is it that of the 6 billion people on Earth, there
are no 2 individuals who are exactly alike? Every persons physical and psychological characteristics
are determined by many factors, and these can be divided into 2 main groups: our genes and our
environment, or nature and nurture.
What are our genes? Genes are the chemical blueprint unique to each person. Different...show more
content...
This shows that even in similar environments, differences will still arise regardless of their genetic
constitution, i.e. minor variations will result in large differences in phenotype regardless of genotype.
Human behaviour is a complex interaction between genes and the environment. In its more
advanced forms, behaviour is not determined by genes. For example, the most common behaviour
found in adults of any race is the use of language, whereas in newborns, language must be taught. If
it was genetically determined, then the baby should be able to speak once born: the tongue and
throat would not have to distort into positions they are not used to. Primitive behaviour is more
likely to be genetically programmed into an individual. For example, the sucking and grasping
reflexes of a newborn infant are present even in the womb, before any interaction with the
environment is possible. These behavioural traits may involve reflex arcs present only in newborns
because after some time, the individuals no longer behave in this manner. Perhaps cultural influences
cause an inhibition of the neural pathway (such as the mother telling the infant to stop sucking it's
thumb). The majority of behavioural traits are acquired later in the development of an individual.
Most people go through very strange behavioural changes in the course of their development,
especially during

Nature vs Nurture Essay
Nature vs Nurture
The issues pitting nature against nurture are exceptionally significant for the gamut of discoveries
that attribute an increasing proportion of traits and behaviours to one's genetic makeup. The
resulting variety of physical shortcomings and limitations in each person has, for centuries, been
countered by endeavours to improve or interfere where necessary, and every individual is
consequently the product of a delicate middle path of balance between the two.
The importance of nurturing is nearly boundless, and there is no better evidence than the oft–cited
case of identical twins who, despite identical nuclear genomes and mitochondrial DNA, will duly
differ in physique and behaviour if raised (i.e., nurtured) in...show more content...
It follows that the quality – or lack thereof – of a person's genetic makeup may impose physical
barriers and limitations on the upward mobility implicit in the concept of nurturing. Persons
disadvantaged by the misfortune of hereditary conditions such as thalassemia, sickle cell anemia and
phenylketonuria are testimonies to the importance of the genome, and it is for want of a certain
quality of life, that intervention is necessary. Furthermore, as Theodore Friedmann writes in Gene
Therapy, the fundamental cause of many diseases has been traced to genetic defects responsible for
"setting up a condition of increased susceptibility to either infectious or damaging agents in the
environment" (70). The genetic component in a broad range of afflictions, including cancer, indeed
cannot be over–emphasised.
Hence the urgency to remedy the very root of the condition, bordering on an attempt to nurture even
nature itself. MIT scientist David Baltimore is quoted elsewhere in the same volume as
commenting that while the pharmacological treatment of diseases has "ameliorated conditions
and... dealt with symptoms... it has very rarely solved the underlying problems and very rarely
provided... a normal life for the individuals who are afflicted" (57). Much headway has since been
made in areas such as recombinant DNA gene transfer and in gene fixing –

Nature vs. Nurture
The dubious history of the heredity environment controversy can be easily traced as far back as the
start of the present century with at least some historical evidence placing the roots of this dispute in
the time of John Locke.
This controversy has continued despite continual reiteration that the critical question is not how
much of a trait is due to heredity and how much is due to environment, but rather how environment
transact to influence development." (
Wachs , 1983, p. 386).
This paper will focus on the nature/nurture controversy and the extent to which an individuals
intellectual level is determined either by inborn intelligence or by environmental factors.
The relative powers of nature and nurture have been...show more content...
Among these elements are some of the most relevant issues pertaining to this subject including:
twin, adoption, family, orphanage life, IQ, and race studies. It is to these studies we will now turn
our attention.
TWIN STUDIES
The importance of twin studies is evident if we look at the studies objectively, if intelligence is
basically hereditary, identical twins who have the same genetic legacy, should be concordant for that
trait than are fraternal twins, which are no more alike genetically than other siblings.
Burt's (1958) famous study show that the intelligence test scores of identical twins, whether reared
together or apart , display considerably higher correlation than the scores of fraternal twins.
Burt's work is currently viewed with caution due to the manner in which he gathered and interpreted
his data (Vernon, 1979). However, Burt's research provides an important foundation for this research.
Jone's study (1946) shows that there is a modest difference in the intelligence test scores of twins
reared apart, and the more divergent the environments, the greater the difference.
"While environmental factors are important in raising or lowering a child's level of intellectual
performance, these studies demonstrate that they only do so within limits set by heredity." (Mussen,
Conger, and Kagon, 1963
p.52)
The Louisville Twin Study (Wilson, 1983) showed that environmental considerations such as
characteristics of home and the

Essay On Nature Vs Nurture

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Papers Writing Service

More from Papers Writing Service (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Essay On Nature Vs Nurture