Nature Versus Nurture Argument Term Paper

Introduction

Most philosophers like, Galton, among others, have had different views on the impact heredity and environment have on the traits of a person. They have found it difficult to concur on the factors influencing the social careers of human beings. Historical evidence has shown that education, the environment of wealth, and privileges based on social status are mostly passed inherently through offspring. This has raised rigorous debate on the relationship and differences that occur between nature and nurture; In addition, philosophers have tried to look at whether the two sources work together to build a person’s behavior. The debate focuses on the inherent qualities of a person and those that he/she acquires from the environment (Myers, 2009, p. 12). People convey different traits and behaviors, which are significant in meriting them. Some thoughts are of the view that people acquire their full traits from nature, that is, inherent while others think that they acquire most of their behavioral traits from nurture. This paper will attempt to define Nature and Nurture, its history, its characteristics, and my thoughts on the course of the argument.

My thoughts on Nature versus Nurture

Nature is derived from heredity and describes knowledge sourced from genetic information that controls human behavior while, Nurture is that knowledge gained from experience, for instance, from the environment in which a person lives. The debate has been on whether nature or nurture has more influence on a person’s behavior. I believe that the nature versus nurture argument is very complex and tries to define which of the two is more dominant in people. This is because whatever is dominant in a person defines his/her behavior as it controls how the person judges everything. When we observe behaviors associated with gender we find some differences, the male is always firm in their judgments, while females are usually soft. This is something inborn and besides, they both acquire different traits in life as they grow which again points to nurture. It is therefore quite significant to study the relationship between the two points of argument. I would therefore say that both nature and nurture contribute to a person’s behavior but in different proportions, which is up for debate (Westen, 202, p. 112).

History

Over the years, and especially in traditional settings, it has been a historical notion that nature is not only hereditary by ordained by the divine. This has, over centuries put some communities to be inferior to others throughout their lives. An example is Africans who are thought to be inferior to the other races. The view was rampant in the early ages, although the modern intellectuals seldom take it. Studies of Attribution of differences in classes, races, and gender to nurture or socialization started in the middle ages instead of their former view of association to nature. The Nazi’s propaganda on the human concept of nature based on one race followed in the 20th century, different from communists, who took to Marx’s view, which presented humans to be defined by social structures and not nature. Scientists also came up with different theories, one based on evolutionary psychology while the other on sociobiology (Myers, 2009, p. 12). These have led to controversies that have opened up the debate on the subject.

Characteristics

The most essential parts of this debate have been on the estimation of heredity, IQ, personality traits that are inclined on myths, and philosophical views. Biology has discredited the fact that genes are the only determinant of most complex traits, opening ways for arguments; this gives evidence to some traits, but not all and especially those about complex traits (Bouchard, 1998, pp. 257-279). Interactions between genes show that in very few cases are traits found to be either completely from nature or nurture. Again, this does not account for most of the traits raising more debate. In addition, IQ evidence only relates environmental family factors in childhood to have effects on the child; however, this does not happen after adolescence, or even at adulthood, furthering the arguments. Personality traits have often been studied on twins and then compared to other siblings. This has shown that it is hereditable to some extent, but again, not fully. Philosophical views have also raised the debate by questioning whether traits are measurable. All these have been central in fuelling these arguments (Meaney, 2004, p.321).

Conclusion

Numerous suggestions have been raised on nature versus nurture.

What is quite clear is the fact that not all traits are acquired from either of the two sources. It is, however, important to note that both, influence the development of human beings. I would conclude that, as much as people acquire traits during their lives, there are foundations, which are genetically sourced and that help them judge information. This attributes to the difference in people’s behaviors despite being put under the same conditions and environment. It is an observable feature in families, where brothers from the same setup acquire completely different traits, although they have some similarities. Nature is, therefore, to me, of more dominance in people than nurture, although they all work together in building people’s behaviors.

Reference List

1. Bouchard, T.J. Jr. (1998). Genetic and environmental influences on adult intelligence and special mental abilities. Hum Biol.70 (2):257-279
2. Meaney, M. (2004) The nature of nurture: maternal effects and chromatin remodelling, in Essays in Social Neuroscience, Cacioppo, JT & Berntson, GG eds. MIT press. Web.
3. Myer, G. D., & Straub, O.R. (2009). Psychology Study Guide. Worth Publishers. Web.
4. Westen, D. (2002) Psychology: Brain, Behavior & Culture. Wiley & Sons. Print.