1 Nature vs. Nurture ( Which is Dominant?)

According to Wikipedia,

The nature versus nurture debate concerns the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities ("nature," i.e. nativism, or innatism) versus personal experiences ("nurture," i.e. empiricism or behaviorism) in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits.

"Nature versus nurture" in its modern sense was coined[1][2][3] by the English Victorian polymath Francis Galton in discussion of the influence of heredity and environment on social advancement, although the terms had been contrasted previously, for example by Shakespeare (in his play, The Tempest: 4.1). Galton was influenced[4] by the book On the Origin of Species written by his cousin, Charles Darwin. The concept embodied in the phrase has been criticized[3][4] for its binary simplification of two tightly interwoven parameters, as for example an environment of wealth, education and social privilege are often historically passed to genetic offspring.

The view that humans acquire all or almost all their behavioral traits from "nurture" was termed by philosopher John Locke tabula rasa ("blank slate") and proposes that humans develop from only environmental influences. This question was once considered to be an appropriate division of developmental influences, but since both types of factors are known to play such interacting roles in development, most modern psychologists and anthropologists consider the question naive—representing an outdated state of knowledge.[5][6][6][7][8]

In the social and political sciences, the nature versus nurture debate may be contrasted with the structure versus agency debate (i.e. socialization versus individual autonomy).

What is Nature vs Nurture?

It has been reported that the use of the terms "nature" and "nurture" as a convenient catch-phrase for the roles of heredity and environment in human development can be traced back to 13th century France. Some scientists think that people behave as they do according to genetic predispositions or even "animal instincts." This is known as the "nature" theory of human behavior. Other scientists believe that people think and behave in certain ways because they are taught to do so. This is known as the "nurture" theory of human behavior. Fast-growing understanding of the human genome has recently made it clear that both sides are partly right. Nature endows us with inborn abilities and traits; nurture takes these genetic tendencies and molds them as we learn and mature. End of story, right? Nope. The "nature vs nurture" debate still rages on, as scientist fight over how much of who we are is shaped by genes and how much by the environment.

The Nature Theory - Heredity

Scientists have known for years that traits such as eye color and hair color are determined by specific genes encoded in each human cell. The Nature Theory takes things a step further to say that more abstract traits such as intelligence, personality, aggression, and sexual orientation are also encoded in an individual's DNA.

• The search for "behavioral" genes is the source of constant debate. Many fear that genetic arguments might be used to excuse criminal acts or justify divorce.
• The most debated issue pertaining to the nature theory is the exsistence of a "gay gene," pointing to a genetic component to sexual orientation.
• An April, 1998 article in LIFE Magazine, "Were You Born That Way" by George Howe Colt, claimed that "new studies show it's mostly in your genes."
• If genetics didn't play a part, then fraternal twins, reared under the same conditions, would be alike, regardless of differences in their genes. But, while studies show they do more closely resemble each other than do non-twin brothers and sisters, they also show these same striking similarities when reared apart - as in similar studies done with identical twins. 

NATURE VS. NURTURE

Shady Guirguis
April 26, 2004
NE 24

The nature versus nurture issue has been around for ages, and scholars have still not concluded which of the two has a greater effect on a person. Nature, referring to heredity, and the nurture, referring to the environment, are two very reasonable explanations to why we are the people we are today. This debate over whether nature or nurture has a bigger effect on us has been argued and supported very well for both sides. Each side stresses very important details and good explanations for why nature, or nurture, controls how we develop. Experimentation and research has been conducted on these two sides, and each is supported with good theories as to why nature or nurture is the important influence on us.

Nature is believed to be what determines our personalities, looks, and other things because it's all genetically passed down. Any matter concerning traits relies upon the concept of inborn biology. Many American parents believe that any bad trait that their child has obtained is because of bad parenting, but it may be more a matter of biology, and genes that run through the family. It has been concluded that a newborn doesn’t have a blank slate of personality, but does have a set of inherited traits. Tests have been done at the University of Wisconsin to show that temperaments of an infant are influenced more by biology than experiences with their siblings.

In a way, our nature is our genetic gift, which gives us physical traits such as hair color, eye color, and form of the body. It does also determine the kinds of emotions and motivations we will experience, which can be endless. Any new emotion is not possible to experience unless there is change to our genetic material. So in a way, genes give us certain traits or behavior characteristics; but it’s all a matter of whether or not we carry out our certain inherited qualities. And our environment (nurture) can sometimes make that choice for us.

The other side of the debate claims that nurture is the cause to our behavior as well as characteristics. Even though genes are what give us that certain spunk to our personality, the environment has the power to alter it and make us into the exact opposite, as some say. Even the way that certain children are brought up can change how they turn out.

One comparison of how much the environment affects a child's development was done on tomatoes. Tomato seeds have certain genes in them, but what they grow into will be the same no matter what, and because of those genes in each seed, one may be destined to grow better than others. But if random seeds with different genes were split up into two groups, with different environments, it is likely that the quality of the tomato would differ. One group would have all the benefits to help them grow better, such as water, sunlight, good soil, and extra care. Whereas group two would be given bad soil, not enough sunlight and water, and no extra care. These differences in their environment would definitely change the outcome of the tomatoes because group one would turn out a lot better than those in group two. It's a matter of what kind of influence they receive to turn out a certain way. "Bad soil" can alter how something may develop, such as humans.

Different ethnicities have different expectations of how their child is to perform in school. We are perfect examples of the tomatoes because we all aren’t in bad soil, but some of us have higher expectations and environments, so we turn out differently than others. Asian families have higher expectations of their children when it comes to schoolwork. They are automatically expected to do well and excel academically at everything. This higher rate of expectations, and their environment with their parents, ultimately may lead to higher success for them in the near future. The way that Asian kids can be more successful, or even less because of all the pushing that they receive, is different from how other children turn out due to lower standards expected.

Along with having standards set for us in our environment, family surroundings can also affect a child. The family a child comes from is crucial to their development, thus, giving the nurture argument another reason why environment is important. Some authors know this, such as one who wrote this statement: "Children who grow up in a household with only one biological parent are worse off, on average, than children who grow up in a household with both of their biological parents, regardless of the parents' race or educational background, regardless of whether the parents are married when the child is born, and regardless of whether the resident parent remarries."

As our nature is a type of genetic endowment, nurture is the experience we have during our lifetime. But it's a little different from a regular experience because it resonates with our motivations and emotions, and acts like our inner eye. This draws us to certain experiences and ignores others that occur. Society is the influence in our environment that may tell us to act a certain way, but if our inner eye does not motivate us to act that way, we most likely will not. It can control and motivate us to act how society wants us to.

Nature and nurture are tied in together in ways that many of us do not see, and it's an ongoing confusion as to which one creates a person's personality, looks, etc. I have an eclectic view and say that nature and nurture are both important influences to a person as they are developing their traits. Our genes are important because what we have inherited is essentially the basis of what kind of person we are, but the environment can alter and develop a person even more.

Twin studies have been made to determine whether hereditary is the leading factor, or if it’s the environment. The results have shown that it's basically an even amount of influence on a person. The twins shared common interest in spicy food, struggled in math, while playing sports, and have similarities in temperament, tempo, and ways of doing things. The differences that they showed were in their working habits, and thoughts; whereas one brother was liberal, the other was very traditional. They had similarities due to heredity, but they did have differences because they grew up in two very different environments. They had their share of common things, as well as differences.

Nature and nurture are both important to acquiring or altering traits in a person. One or the other doesn't work dominate; there needs to be both heredity and environment to answer this long debate.

It seems that this battle between nature and nurture will go on forever because both sides can be easily backed up with supporting information as to which is more important. Some psychologists agree that nature and nurture are both major influences to the development of behavior. Psychologist Robert Plomin said, "…. But the genetic influence on traits and behaviors is only partial: Genetics account, on average, for half of the variance of most traits. That means the environment accounts for the rest." We receive genes from our family, but our environment and nurturing can alter that if strong enough, as an influence. Whether we notice it or not, nature and nurture are mixed in with each other, influencing traits of everyone.

Society is made up of genetic beings, and it formed because people have a genetic impulse to group together. If you were to be away from a group, and feel loneliness, that is a genetic behavior, as are all emotions. Culture is also an expression of our common trend as individuals. So it is safe to say that society, at a certain level, is a complex genetic creature, which sends messages to the other individuals, which are also in part genetic. It shows that nature can influence nurture, and vice versa, because an inherited behavior can change as time progresses. "… it is a fallacy to believe that any behavior that is genetically inherited cannot be modified over a lifetime."

Nurture has a larger effect on us than does nature. Nurture is the characteristic builder that we gain as we grow up. It is what defines our nature and makes us who we are. Nurture cultivates our nature, and it is the main regulator of our being.

Bibliography

www.trinity.edu/~mkearl/socpsy-2.html

www.objana.com/frog/natnurt.html

www8.utsouthwestern.edu/library/consumer/naturenurture.htm

home.att.net/~xchar/tna/ledoux.htm

home.att.net/~xchar/tna/comment1.htm

NATURE VS. NURTURE:
HOW MUCH FREE WILL DO REALLY WE HAVE?

In the summer of 1994 Time magazine's cover story featured a scientific tale about the genetic underpinnings of human infidelity. In case you missed the punch line, it goes something like this: Individuals' most basic drive involves insuring that their genetic codes survive death, that motivations to make a billion bucks or to be the most wonderful person in the world are really attempts to attract the "right" person with whom to transfer genes into the next generation. Men and women are by nature supposedly fairly promiscuous apes. As is the case among species where males' body size is greater than females,' men are innately polygynous (87% of the 1154 known human societies allow multiple wives) with the more "successful" males broadly spreading their genetic code (the last Sharifian Emperor of Morocco, Moulay Ismail, sired more than 1,000 children). Women, on the other hand, limited by their ability to generally bear but one child a year, will do whatever it takes to guarantee the survival of their offspring, including tricking supportive men into raising the another male's child.

This is but the latest controversy surrounding humans' bestial origins and traits, an issue underlying the gap between the "humanities" and the "sciences." Remember the public outcry against Darwin's thesis--as recently as 1993, more than half the American public still believed that the idea of humans developing from earlier animal species was probably or definitely not true! Nowadays its successor, sociobiology (along with such variants as psychobiology--see Paul Kenyon's "Biological Bases of Behaviour" page--and evolutionary psychology) haunts the social sciences as it tilts the nature-nurture equation of human fate toward natural explanations. See Al Cheyne's (University of Waterloo) Psychology, Culture & Evolution website.

What are the implications of truly believing that one's behaviors are due to uncontrollable genetic impulses? Caught philandering or stealing? Instead of saying "the devil made me do it" I guess you can now argue that "it runs in the family." But what happens when people are no longer held accountable for their actions? Is society even possible if its rules cannot be observed? This issue underlies not only philosophical debates over free will and determinism but also the current trend toward our becoming a no-fault no-risk culture (Did you get caught shooting at the President? Argue temporary insanity. For an inventory of some of the most frivolous lawsuits see the Stella Awards.) Click here for PBS's A Science Odyssey series on how twentieth century's theories of human behavior have alternated in the primacy given to nature and nurture.

What does free will mean to you? How much free will do you think you have? In the wake of the 1997 suicides of members of Heaven's Gate in Rancho Santa Fe, California, the largest mass suicide in the United States, the question was again raised. Were these 39 people acting on their own volition or were they brainwashed by their wild-eyed leader, persuaded by a sustained psychological regimen, or perhaps ensnared in some lethal groupthink dynamic? Click here to see international rates of agreeing that "we each make our own fate." What, if anything, happens when people believe that their fates are predetermined, whether by genes, their environments, or by God?

Such questions are far from academic musings. The role of genetics versus environment, of nature versus nurture, underlie such public debates as gender roles, homosexuality (see PBS's Frontline edition on "Assault on Gay America"), and individuals' proclivity toward violence. Society depends upon people being responsible for their actions (hence it does not punish those who commit deviant acts but who either didn't know better, were mentally ill, or had no alternatives to act in non-deviant ways). And from the perspectives of individuals, those who sense having no control over their lives, who believe that there is no relationship between what they do and how things turn out, run the risk of becoming fatalistic or victims of learned helplessness.

source:http://www.trinity.edu/mkearl/socpsy-2.html