Nature Versus Nurture - Admission/Application Essay Example

 Nature vs. Nurture The nature verses nurture debate is about a person’s native influences as compared to the changes and attributes he adopts from his environment. It is an age old debate yet it’s still going on. The attributes of behavior one is born with, i.e. inherited, is called the ‘Nature Theory of Human Behavior’, where as the behavioral traits we learn from environmental influences is called the ‘Nurture theory of Human Behavior’. We can easily understand that the color of our hairs, skin, and eyes are all hereditary but what we can’t answer for sure that is our intelligence hereditary too? The way we make decisions and respond in a certain manner is that all hereditary or we have adopted it from the environment we live in? We are well aware that some of the traits of our physical traits are hereditary, and that, that Nature and Nurture both plays a part in human’s behavior and personality. What we don’t know is ‘how much’, what is the share of nature or nurture in shaping our personalities. That is why this debate is still going on, because in some cases we would like to take credit for our attributes which can both be nature or nurture, and sometimes we wish to blame our behaviors on any one of them. Let us first examine what these two are in details before bending towards anyone of them. Let’s keep them in balance and analyze (McLeoud, 2007) In psychology there are two extreme groups, one in favor of each, nature and nurture, there are the ‘nativists’ and ‘empiricisits’. ‘Nativists’ are the people whose school of thought suggests that the humans are essentially what they are born with, the differences among them is all part of evolution and everything a person will become is already encrypted in their genetic code. The emergence of any behavioral trait at any early age is part of his inherited characteristics. They also believe that personality traits, behavior abilities and mental attributes are already present in our genes when we were born (Colt, 1998). On the other hand, the environmentalists also known as ‘empiricisits’, believe that we become what we perceive from our surroundings and environment. Their basic belief is known as ‘tabula rasa’ which literally means ‘blank slate’ which states that our minds are like a blank slate and we fill it with our experiences. This is also known as ‘behaviorism’ in psychology which strongly narrates the tabula rasa theory and suggests that there is no free will; a person’s behavior is determined by his environment alone. Based on this belief the human psychological characteristics and behavioral character that emerges right in the infancy are all because of the way he is being brought up .i.e. nurture (McLeoud, 2013). There have been various studies and experiments over the past years, in favor of both the extremes. In order to formulate an understanding, we need to dig deep in to the matter to gain a clear view (Cherkas, 2000). Nature: It has been an understanding that the simpler physical traits as eye color or height are hereditary and are encrypted in our genes at birth, but the believers of the nature theory of behavior goes a little further in stating that more complex aspects of a person’s behavior, like; intelligence, personal choices, moods, and even sexual orientation is encoded in our genes. Based on this theory, which is of course controversial, people would be able to justify their wrong doings like physical abuse and divorce and can even get an excuse on their criminal acts. George Howe Colt, in his special report in the Life Magazine in 1998, suggests that ‘it’s all in our genes’; the way we are brought up has little or no influence at all on our personalities. He also narrates in his paper that in 1993 scientist have successfully found the evidence that genes plays a strong part in sexual orientation and it implies that homosexuality is natural. Noam Chomsky, who strongly believes in the nativist theory, emphasize on this theory by his ‘concept of a language acquisition device’. According to this theory children at birth have ability by nature to adopt and learn new languages. Similarly nativists theory was further highlighted by Francis Galton, who was a relative of Charles Darwin, in the late 19th century was convinced that genius genes runs in the family and intelligence is mostly inherited. Because of this particular theory many psychologists’ experimented in order to understand whether intelligence is an inherited trait or not. Several studies were done on identical twins living in separate environments and adopted children living in one household. These studies remarkably suggests that identical twins behaves more closely when they are apart then the adopted kids living together, strongly advocating that intelligence is inherited (Simply Psychology) Nurture: The believers of the nurture theory or the ‘empiricisits’ advises that no matter what is written in genes it does not matter much because the human personality and behavior is a relative term and can be molded with the environmental and external influences. The studies conducted on infants, in order to influence their behavior, speaks volumes in this regard. The most famous of such an instance is the case of ‘The Little Albert Experiment’, through this experiment; the behaviorist John B. Watson suggested that human emotions can be classically influenced by external forces (Cherry, 2012). The father of behavior sciences B.F. Skinner narrated that human behavior could be conditioned in the same way as the animals. A study was conducted and later published by faculty at the Twin Research and Genetic Epidemiology unit at St. Thomas' Hospital in London in 2000 concludes in their paper ‘Happy families; a twin study of humour’ that sense of humour is a learnt skill rather than a genetic trait. The test was conducted on identical twins, siblings, and adopted kids alike but it opposes that intelligence is genetic in nature in fact in can be incorporated in our behaviours through environmental influence (Powell , 2013). A very good example of this empiricist theory is the Albert Bandura’s “Social Learning Theory”, according to which people get influenced by the people around them. It gives this theory a social angle in which people learn from their environment and the people that reside in that environment. He believed that people learn lots of behaviour by observation and by making someone his role model, he also suggests that for this kind of learning a person’s own mental health and acceptance level is important (Bandura, 1977). It is also learned over the years that the a number of characteristics influences the environment, such as, the way a child is being brought up, it distinguishes a child behavior, and teaches him a lot about the world around him and moulds his personality and mental abilities in the environment he lives in (Wastons, 1920). Conclusion: Thus it is understood from the above debate that bending towards one view point is not wise. On one hand modern psychologist and anthropologist believe that this topic of nature vs. nurture is much hyped about, and on the other hand there are too many facts in favor of each of these views. Thus it would be wise not to take sides because there is no neat way of unraveling these complicated and qualitative traits of human behavior. In today’s world people are smart enough not to take the nativist or empiricisits extreme approach, in fact they have come with ways of suggesting that both the views have a significant influence on human behavior and biology as well as environment do make a lot of difference on our personalities. Behavioral Psychologist Donald Hebb was once asked the same question; ‘which is more important nature or nurture in the human personality’ he replied by asking a simple question in return “which side of a rectangle contribute more in its area, length or width?” And so the controversy lingers on (Kaufer and Francis, 2001). References Bandura. K. (1977) Social Learning Theory, MacMillan ,Print Colt. G. (1998) Nature vs. Nurture controversy, special report, Life Magazine 1998. Print Cherkas. L. Hochberg.F,(2000) Happy Families: a twin study of humour, Twin Research and Genetic Unit, London Hospital UK, 2000 MacMillab Publisher. Ltd. Print Skinner. B.F. (1953) Science and Human Behavior. New York: Macmillan, Print Watson, J. B. & Rayner, R. (1920). Conditioned emotional reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 3, 1-14. Print Powell, K. (2012), Are we really born that way, Web. Retrieved 8th May, 2014 Cherry, K. (2013), The Little Albert Experiment, Web. Retrieved 8th May, 2014 McLeoud, S. (2007), Nature Vs. Nurture in Psychology, Web. Retrieved 8th May,2014 McLeoud, S. (2013), Behaovirsm, Web. Retrieved 8th May, 2014 Kaufer, D. and Francis, D. (2001), Beyond Nature vs,Nurture, Web. Retrieved 8th May, 2014 Read More