Nature Vs. Nurture free essay sample

Is human development primarily the result of nature (biological forces) or nurture (environmental forces)? These are two theoretical controversies that this paper seeks to compare and contrast. These are two of the most heated theories because of their opposing viewpoints: First,   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"Heredity and not environment is the chief maker of man†¦Nearly all of the misery and nearly all of the happiness in the world are due not to environment†¦The differences among men are due to differences in germ cells with which they were born (Wiggam, 1923, p. 42). The second one states, â€Å"Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I’ll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might selectdoctor, lawyer, artist, merchant, regardless of his talents. Thus, this concept maintains that there is no such thing as an inheritance of capacity, talent, temperament, mental constitution and behavioral characteristics (Watson, 1925, p. If nature is the dominant factor in defining dispositions and traits, then should society continue to pour time and resources into those individuals who are the â€Å"afflicted†? Does it not better serve society to use these resources to better those with â€Å"natural† strengths? What about the penal system? Should it be reassessed and geared toward keeping the â€Å"afflicted† out of society versus trying to rehabilitate and correct behavior? If nurture is the dominant factor should prisons incorporate more programs and services to correct and alter behavioral patterns? Nature According to the psychological debate of nature vs. nurture, genetic makeup plays a major role in developing a person but the nature or environment in which a person is brought up is also very important. Nature influenced each person in terms of development of their appearances and certain personality traits. A person’s physical traits such as eye color and blood type are genetically determined. It is proven that personality is to some extent heritable. Each person comes from different backgrounds. External facts such as peer pressure, media exposure, diet and nutrition are some of the specific external facts that can affect people. Research have shown that children are more socially and intellectually advanced if their parents were more involved in their lives. Despite genetics coding there are multiple environment factors that influences a person differently. â€Å"Using a sample of the statistics on more than 1,500 pairs of twins and siblings from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, Elizabeth Stearns and I investigated children’s differential opportunities to achieve their genetic potential for cognitive development. † (Guo) Studies such as these are the most common studies conducted on Nature v. Nurture involve twins. Twin studies provide evidence that genes determine humans’ traits and behaviors. For example, schizophrenia is found to run in families. According to Guo one twin in an identical pair will suffer from schizophrenia. The study also suggests that genes influence such traits and behaviors as height, weight, depression, cognitive development and educational and economic attainment. Many human traits and behaviors result from both genetics and environment factors. Genes â€Å"interact with the environment. † Genes provides the potential for a trait but environment conditions heavily factor whether that potential will be realized. In different environments, the same genetics code can be expressed at different level. (Guo) This realization that environment is a secondary factor in how a natural trait or behavior can be either suppressed or nurtured, is rooted in the idea that Nature is the dominant factor in defining our humanity. Becoming a musical prodigy is not possible for anyone, however a musical prodigy needs to be nurtured to maximize his or her potential. (Psych Essay Nature vs. Nurture) Nurture Kansas State recently compiled many surveys, demographical, medical and psychological studies from the National Institution of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism into a concise report on the nurture aspect in alcoholism. In this Kansas State University report it was estimated that â€Å"50 – 60% of the risk of developing alcoholism can be attributed to genetics. † (KSU Drug Alcohol and Other Drug Education Service, 2011) This is not very overwhelmingly convincing that a natural disposition is the major factor in one becoming an alcoholic. In another study listed in the report it is stated that children of alcoholics are 3 to 4 times more likely to become afflicted than those without alcoholic parents. The accessibility and exposure to alcohol at a young age definitely increased the odds of alcoholism. It is suggested that 47% of children under the age of 14 who drank were alcoholically dependent at some point in their life. Where as, only 9% of those who drank at a later age of 20, were equally afflicted. This seems to suggest it is the environmental upbringing that has a larger play in the disposition than genetics. (KSU Drug Alcohol and Other Drug Education Service, 2011) Scientists are yet to identify a certain personality type that is prone to alcohol dependency. However, those suffering from phobia, depression or anxiety are more likely to show alcoholic tendencies. This again strengthens the argument that alcoholism is a product of external environmental or social pressures rather than a natural disposition. Another study suggested a higher incidence of alcoholism (50%) in individuals who had friends or family that drank heavily. (KSU Drug Alcohol and Other Drug Education Service, 2011) Although the KSU report also provided evidence of the nature theory, it definitely provided much more evidence nurture theorist would find beneficial to their argument. It did not deny the notion that nature or inherency is a factor in the disposition of people, however, the research it reflected definitely supported much more of the nurture theory. Both reports/studies were willing to accept that neither nature nor nurture was the sole and independent factor in deciding the disposition or behavior or an individual. However, there were definite distinctions in the research of each. Guo can be considered a Nature theorist, as the research presented reflects such. Guo speaks genetics and inherent traits as the dominant factor in people’s traits, dispositions and behaviors with environmental factors having minimal impact. Whereas, the KSU report also acknowledges the genetic factor, it does suggest that the environment and external factors are a stronger and more dominant factor in the physical, emotional, and social disposition of people. Perhaps both reports have truths and questionable assumptions. Perhaps it is safer to accept that the humanity has evolved over time and with that evolution nature and nurture cross from black and white to areas of gray.