Nature Vs Nurture
Nature Vs Nurture
Introduction
When discussing human development, the debate on the effects of nurture and nature always rises. Renowned philosophers such as Plato always stated that there are certain elements that are inborn or occur naturally with any environmental influences. Other philosophers introduced the theory of tabula rasa by and stated “ the human mind begins as a blank slate” (McLeod, 2007). According to the theory of tabula rasa everything that makes man and forms the basis of knowledge is acquired through experience.
Nature vs. Nurture: Analysis
A clearer definition is provided by McLeod, (2007) who states the debate of psychology focuses on “ which aspects of behaviors are genetic and which are learned.” What McLeod is saying is that nature is that which is inherited. This means that man is not in a position to alter nature as it is genetic. Examples of characteristics on nature include hair color, height, skin pigmentation etc. Nature is based on heredity, and it is this impossible for individuals to control various aspects in his life. As a result of nature, an individual can be born with a certain tendency that he cannot change as it is in born. Elements of nature are evident in an individual’s peculiar habits such as the tendency to violence and susceptibility to certain diseases (McLeod, 2007). On the other hand, nurture is the environmental influences that lead to the acquisition of certain characteristic. Nurture can be alters and differs from person to another based on environmental experience and exposure. The environmentalists (nurture) hold the views that psychological and behavioral differences that are witnessed from infancy through to childhood are due to learning. These environmentalists states that “ it is how one is brought up that governs the psychological significant aspects of development” (McLeod, 2007).
Psychologists have used the elements of nurture and nature to determine various behavioral tendencies in individuals. According to Smithstein (2010) “behavior such as sociopathy, initially attributed to nurture, is biological”. This means that while some individuals are incapable of demonstrating empathy due to their upbringing in traumatizing situations, those conditions do not lead to their lack of empathy. These findings indicate that the assumption that children are born good and neutral in terms of feelings I wrong. Sometimes the upbringing of the child does not contribute to his behavioral development. Smithstein (2010) also reviews a study by Dr. Nancy Segal in 2000. The study, involving an analysis of twins raised together and those raised apart, indicated that genetic influence (nature) affects most human characteristics e.g. IQ, sociability, personality, and job preference. Smithstein (2010) winds his article by stating “ it may time to accept sometimes in nurture, sometimes it both nature and nurture…it just is the way things are going to turn out” (Smithstein, 2010). This statement demonstrates how difficult it is to separate nature and nurture when discussing human development. It is also an indicator that the question of nature vs. nurture in relation to human development may never be answered accurately.
In conclusion, psychologists have failed to determine a clear cut differentiation between nature, and nurture in human development. Psychologists thus seek to understand the relationship between nurture and nature in shaping an individual. Many genetically ingrained characteristics(nature) are triggered and manifest themselves as a result of environmental stimuli(nurture). In isolation, it may difficult for an inborn characteristic to be recognized. An individual requires, and external stimulus to bring out the genetic characteristics.
Reference
McLeod, S. (2007). Nature, nurture in psychology. Retrieved from http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html
Smithstein, S. (2010). Nature vs. nurture: the debate goes on. Psychology today
Is this your assignment or some part of it?
We can do it for you! Click to Order!
