The Psychological Debate of Nature vs. Nurture Essay

The psychological debate of nature vs. nurture is one that has been considered and contradicted for many years. This debate is so controversial because although it is fact that genetic makeup does play a major role in developing a person, the nurture and environment in which a person is brought up in is also an important factor.The Psychological Debate of Nature vs. Nurture Essay

The psychological debate of nature vs. nurture is one that has been considered and contradicted for many years. This debate is so controversial because although it is fact that genetic makeup does play a major role in developing a person, the nurture and environment in which a person is brought up in is also an important factor.The Psychological Debate of Nature vs. Nurture Essay

The nature versus nurture debate is one of the most convoluted in the field of psychology. In the 17th century, a French philosopher, René Descartes posited that “we all, as individual human beings, have certain innate ideas that enduringly underpin our approach to the world” (Crawford, 1989 p 64). The use of the terms “nature” and “nurture” henceforth has referred to the roles of heredity and environment respectively in human development. Some scientists believe that human beings behave as they do in response to genetic predisposition. This is known as the nature theory of human behavior and is the view espoused by naturalists (Scott, 1995). Other scientists think otherwise; that people think and behave in certain ways because they are taught to do so. This is known as nurture theory of human behavior and is the view of empiricists. Presented in the paper are the theories of nature vs. nurture, elucidation of perception, intelligence and personality within the debate. In addition, the paper discusses eevidences in favor of nurture and the influence of environment on behavior and morality. In exploring the nature versus the nurture debate, the writer presumes that nature endows human beings with inborn abilities and traits while nurture takes these genetic tendencies and molds them as humans learn and mature.

According to naturalists, personality is natural. This group believes that personality is a result of evolutionary process. Human beings, it believes, inherit behaviors due to a complex interaction of genes. As such, genes control their behaviors. They believe that form and characteristics measured with personality tests remain stable throughout human life. They further believe that human beings may sharpen their types or personality but can never change them altogether. Darwin’s Theory of Evolution led naturalists such as George Williams, William Hamilton, and many others to the idea of personality evolution. They proposed that physical organs and personality is a result of natural selection (Herschkowitz, 2002). Human beings do as their genes dictate. In support, Steven Pinker (2004) includes conservativeness, religiousness and liberalism as gene related traits. William Paley, in agreement, believes cognitive capabilities, temperaments, and cheating behaviors are inheritable.

There are however various assumptions about nature. Evolutionary psychologists believe that behaviour is a result of natural selection in the environment of evolutionary adaptation (EEA). Interpersonal attraction therefore can be explained as a consequence of sexual selection – men and women select partners who enhance their reproductive success (Crawford, 1989).

Arguments for the supremacy of nurture posit that personality is nurtured. This group argues that one does not get personality from inheritance. They argue that the mind is a blank slate at birth. The definition of nurture has extended to influence of development that emanates from prenatal, parental, peer influence and extending to the role of media, marketing and socio-economic status (Scott, 1995). They dispute that types and characteristics measured with personality tests change incessantly throughout one’s life. Harvard psychologist B. F. Skinner’s, experiments, produced birds that could dance and play tennis. Today, known as the father of behavioral science, Skinner ultimately went on to prove that human behavior could be conditioned in much the same way as animals. If environment did not play a part in determining an individual’s traits and behaviors, then identical twins should be the same in all respects, even if reared apart. However, a number of studies show that they are never exactly alike, even though they are remarkably similar in most respects (Michaels, 2001).

Assumptions about nurture are also present. Radical psychologists such as Skinner and Watson, for instance, claim that all behaviour can be described in terms of experience alone. Skinner (1957) suggested that acquisition of language by a child could be explained entirely in terms of rewards and shaping. The double bind theory of schizophrenia, for instance, suggests that schizophrenia developed in children who frequently received contradictory messages from their parents.

Nature vs. Nurture – Perception

Two main theories of perception are advanced to explain the debate about nature versus nurture. Gibson (1979 as cited by Cardwell and Flanagan, 2004. P 262) [1] argued that perception is innate because the sensory array is sufficiently rich in information for perception to take place without any additional cognitive input. Gregory (1972) on the other hand pointed to the ambiguous and fragmentary nature of most sensory input, which must thus rely on expectations (derived from experience) to complete the perceptual process (Michael, 2001).

Intelligence and Personality- Nature vs. Nurture

Evidence in favor of nature has been reinforced by hypothesis on IQ that has been tested on twins and adoptees. Monozygotic twins raised apart are highly similar in IQ (0.74), more so than dizygotic twins raised together (0.6) and much more than adoptive siblings (~0.0) (Crawford, 1989). In other studies done in Harvard, identical twins reared separately exhibited likeness in the timing and pattern of development and maturation. Further was a likeness in some of the foundations of temperament and behavior, from sensitivity to activity to emotional response (Westen, 2002). This denoted that the personality of twins was influenced by their genetics than the environment they were raised.

Environment on the other hand does play a role in the formation of who we are and does effect the development of our personality and intelligence. By altering the environment in which a person is raised, there can be some effect on the person’s developing intelligence and personality. While this is true, the results of the twin studies cannot be ignored (Westen, 2002). These studies show that our genetics have a stronger influence than our environment. Across a variety of traits, including IQ, personality indicators such as political conservatism, conviviality, and even religiosity, homosexuality, and neuroticism, identical twins are more similar to one another than are fraternal pairs. This indicates that genes affect these aspects of personality. Gene – mapping studies (Crawford& salmon, 2004) have identified individual genes associated with high IQ. There is strong evidence for the effects of nurture, for example, the fact that IQs all over the world have increased as much as 20 points over 30 years.

No matter where human beings are raised, it cannot completely change the genes that they are born with. These studies have produced substantive evidence of heritability. What varies from study to study is the quantity that can be attributed to heritability. Indication suggests that family environmental factors may have an effect upon childhood IQ, accounting for up to a quarter of the variance. On the other hand, by late adolescence this relationship disappears, such that adoptive siblings are no more similar in IQ than strangers are (Westen, 2002).

Evidence in Favor of Nurture

John Watson in 1924 attempted to challenge nature beliefs by asserting that if given a dozen of healthy infants and his own world to nurture them, he would be able to take each infant and train them to be any type of specialist he might select-doctor, lawyer or even a thief. This became a famous quote in the heyday of behaviorism, when the child was considered a ‘tabula rasa’ (blank slate) onto which anything could be sculpted through environmental experience. This would be a 100% environmental view, but virtually no psychologists would accept such an extreme position today (Crawford& salmon, 2004).

Influence of the Environment on Behavior and Morality

A variety of explanations might account for this. From a biologic or developmental perspective, one might argue that pre-homosexual children are more likely to be targets for molestation. In a sociological perspective, children who have pre-homosexual experiences are most likely to experience confusion over their sexual identity and later define themselves as homosexuals. From the perspective of the moral environment, one may argue that a society with a progressively more neutral outlook of homosexual behavior will grant fewer and weaker checks on those who associate early homosexual experience with a homosexual identity (Scott 1995).

Levy, a psychologist, examines the roles played by nature and nurture in the origin of moral dispositions. He asserts that evolution gives human beings a precondition of morality. However, he states that Evolution gives us the preconditions of morality, but it is only as a result of the cultural elaboration of this raw material that we come to be moral beings. He further states that human beings are animals and can never free themselves of their biological heritage. He states that human beings have no need since it enables flexibility, rational and caring behavior which they could want and allows them to seek to become more moral beings (Carlson, 2005).

Conclusion

Researchers on all sides of the nature vs. nurture debate concur that the link between a gene and a behavior is not the same as cause and effect. While a gene may increase the likelihood that you will behave in a particular way, it does not make people do things (Scott, 1995). This means that we still get to choose who we will be, when we grow up. Social scientists gradually understand the extent of the interactions that take place between nature and nurture. The presence of genes does not by solely ensure that a particular attribute will be evident. Genes require the suitable environments for natural tendencies to be fully articulated. These “proper environments” consist not only of natural environs but also of individuals’ social and symbolic setting (Westen 2002). But even for intermediary heritabilities, a trait is always shaped by both genetic dispositions and the environments in which people develop, merely with greater and lesser plasticities associated with these heritability measures. All in all nature relies on nurture and vice versa and hence both coexist together.

Greatness is a concept of a state of superiority affecting a person, object, or place. Greatness can also be referred to individuals who possess a natural ability to be better than all others. The concept carries the implication that the particular person or object, when compared to others of a similar type, has clear advantage. As a descriptive term it is most often applied to a person or their work, and may be qualified or unqualified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greatness What Makes a Leader? – … This personality trait is one of the most important for leaders to have. As a leader you should be charming and convincing, someone who others are willing to follow, you can lead if you have no one following you. No matter what cause your leading you must be able to get other to not only follow but believe in you and your cause. Although, that is the definition of leadership is important, the characteristics that make a person a leader are just as important.The Psychological Debate of Nature vs. Nurture Essay

A leader must be inspiring, they must be able to invite and welcome others. They need to make those around feel like they can get things done and that they know the right way to get these things done. This personality trait is one of the most important for leaders to have. Richard Leonard Kuklinski was born in the projects in Jersey City, New Jersey to Stanley and Anna Kuklinski in 1935. Stanley was a severely abusive alcoholic who beat his wife and children. Anna was also abusive to her children, sometimes beating them with broom handles. Richard Kuklinski, in his own words said “My mother was cancer she just destroys you, she broke a broom on me a couple of time.” His mother believed that raising with strong religious beliefs. Richard Kuklinski was raised Catholic and was even an altar boy in his church. As a child he witnessed the murder of his younger brother at the hand of his father by a brutal beating.The Psychological Debate of Nature vs. Nurture Essay

His mother covers it up by testifying the he had fallen down a staircase. By the age of ten Kuklinski starred hurting animal. He was bullied as a kid and was not only getting beaten by his parents but also his peers. By age of 14 he committed his first murder. The abused had become the abuser. He said he felt bad at the beginning, because he did not intend to kill. But later he felt good because he was no longer getting abused. He noticed that good guys do finish last; and that if you really hurt somebody they will leave you alone. ”Is better to give then to receive a beating I mean” he said later in an interview. We could call this the beginning of his career as a killer, By the age of 20 he had killed over 20 people. As he got older he got better at what he did. Kuklinski got the name “The Ice Man” because of one of the many murders he committed. He was paid to kill a man but was told to hide the body. He kept the body in a freezer for about 2 years then took him out and left that body in woods. When the authorities found the body the coroner noticed that although it was hot day, the inside of the body was frozen.The Psychological Debate of Nature vs. Nurture Essay

Richard had many ways of killing people. He even said he got some of his methods from cartons. He said “Tom and Jerry had really good ideas on how to torture and killed.” Richard was an expert in using cyanide (the same chemical used in gas chambers) to poison people. He would get it in liquid form and put it in their drink or merely dump it on them in a bar, where it would go through their pores and into their bloodstream, eventually killing them. His methods of disposing of bodies consisted of putting them in cars that were crushed, sides of roads, park benches, steel drums, and body’s water. Over the course of 37 years, Kuklinski (a.k.a. The Ice Man), ended the lives of several hundred people usually premeditated hits ordered by many of the East Coast crime families. Sometimes through spontaneous stranger killings resulted when personal conflicts revealed a dreadfully bad temper. He was the number one problem solver for organized crime.The Psychological Debate of Nature vs. Nurture Essay

He became so great at what he did that he was the number one guy. He was respected in his environment as a paid killer. Kuklinski was paid from $10,000 up to $100,000 for his services. He was clean and reliable, and in his business that is the best quality. After a few years he became a worldwide contractor going all the way to Germany. Miami was also a place where he did many Jobs. His wife and children had no idea of his real occupation and to outsiders they seemed like a perfect family. He hated traveling and returned as soon as he could to be with his family as much as possible. He made sure that his family was never given the same horrible experiences that he had endured during his own childhood. He was fascinated by the loving environment he experienced with his family since he had never known such love before. Unbelievably, his family found out about his criminal life when he testified in court. He was finally caught in that mid-1986 when he was in his mid-50s. That is when authorities really got to know how bad, ruthless and cruel this human being was.The Psychological Debate of Nature vs. Nurture Essay

Over his lifetime, he claimed to have killed over two hundred people. He said that he feels no remorse for murdering people, but probably wouldn’t do it if he could live life over again. He says that he doesn’t think about his actions because they do bother him if he thinks about them enough. He regrets being a hit man since he now feels that he could have done something better. When he was interviewed in 1991 for a documentary, he showed little emotion, except when asked about the impact on his family, at which point he began tearing up. Kuklinski died at age 70 at 1:20 a.m. on March 5, 2006. He was in a secure wing at St. Francis Medical Center in Trenton, New Jersey at the time, although the timing of his death was labeled suspicious. Till this day his death is consider a mob related death. The question of whether or not man is predetermined at birth to lead a life of crime is a question that has been debated for decades.The Psychological Debate of Nature vs. Nurture Essay

Are serial killers born with the lust for murder, or are their desires developed through years of abuse and torment? Many believe it is impossible for an innocent child to be born with the capability to commit a horrible act such as murder. But at the same time, can corrupted society hurt or impact so much as to turn an innocent child into a homicidal maniac? I believe that Kuklinski became a great serial killer or human predator, as so professional have referred to him, killing more than 200 people before he was ever looked at as a person of interest. It safe to say the Anna and Stanly kuklinski were the most awful parent, especially for a child with a learning and behavior disability. Bad parenting and terrible interaction with other kids and adults led him in this horrific path.The Psychological Debate of Nature vs. Nurture Essay

The present studies have come to conclude that nature and nurture are inextricable. Both nature and nurture a reciprocal complement to do all the work of determining development. It is extremely unlikely that there are no human being without genetic material to shape the growth and cell differentiation before conception. This means that genetic effects are not only pervasive but necessary. However, it is hard to describe that all process of genetic modification is dominated by genetic influences. Because, environmental factors are inextricably relative with shaping organization as well as affect organization to survive. Both reciprocal genetic and environmental factors influence on individual heritability as well as cognitive ability (Bouchard & McGue, 1998).

In human behavioral perspective, multifactorial human traits and psychiatric disorders such as autism and schizophrenia are good evidences to explain the relationship the genetic with the environmental sources. A parent which have undergone disrupt family function are highly prone to their child to have the risk of developing antisocial traits. The reason is that the parent’s genes bring out environmental risks, and these risks contribute to a child to expose to risky environments either directly or indirectly. In other words, their offspring genes that were genetic-environment correlated may cause a psychological characteristic to rise and a nurtured environment for that characteristic to develop further (Bouchard & McGue, 1998). Behavioral scientist can be understand most psychiatric disorders using this approach, but it will require more psychosocial researches that manifest close correlation between both genetic-environment and human traits through the multidisciplinary association and, particularly for geneticists and psychosocial researchers (Bouchard & McGue).

Recent most psychologists tend to accept the idea that nature and nurture can act mutually and both of them influence on heritability. However, in the beginning of nature-nurture concept, Francis Galton carried his thesis that intellectual ability is largely genetically rather than environmentally determined and that the parent’s genius transmit their offspring was the result of a natural superiority through his book, Hereditary Genius (1869) (Mcleod, 2007). By an examination of a large group of eminent people in different fields, Galton attempted to survey their relatives in order to reveal their relatives how many of them were superior for enough stars. He calculated the rate of eminent people in various degrees of similarity to the initial famous people. These findings were showed human breeding were able to manipulate to produce superior people as well as eliminating or excluding biologically inferior people were necessary for improve quality of the human race.

His thesis has unassailable weaknesses that his findings were overly influenced by the British practice of primogeniture and by his inclusion of People who can define Well-thought-of as geniuses (Rothenberg, 2005).His researches were limited to comparing offspring from different families, largely due to a lack of available data. Furthermore, his hypothesis of direct hereditary transmission of eminent genius was over interpretation; because that hereditary genius was close not a matter of certainties but possibilities of a judge. Even in the biologically superior society that he hoped for, consequences could not be expected with certainty for individual cases. It is also possible that he had already exposed the lack of accuracy study due to Galton’s lack of interest in natural history. Nevertheless, he was a first pioneer who not only defines the modern conception of the “nature-nurture” dichotomy but established both the theoretical and statistical science foundations of behavior genetics, and promoted the idea and potential value of intelligence testing (Fancher, 2009).

In the present Rothenberg study (2005), he verified the still-influential statistical studies of Frances Galton on the inheritance of genius as well as surveyed the family background factors in order to evaluate empirically the hypothesis of hereditary transmission of genius or creativity. He collected family background occupational data from the group of 435 Nobel laureates were engaged in natural science fields such as chemistry, physics, medicine and physiology from 1901 through 2003. These for same parent-offspring occupations were compared with a matching group of 548 eminent people with noncreative occupations and also with 560 outstanding non prize winners for general population occupation. The study revealed that both family back ground genetic and environment factor are less likely to influence Nobel laureates in the natural sciences. Instead of direct inheritance of creativity from their parents, the effort and desires of the parent influences on Nobel laureates’ motivation to achieve creative accomplishment in their science filed (Rothenberg, 2005).

The limitation of Rothenberg’s study is based on similarity criteria between parent and offspring behavior, of behavioral genetics rather than on a gene-transmission approach. For all that, his thesis is seems to obviously controverts the Galton’s idea of direct hereditary transmission of eminent. Rothenberg’s study takes into account for derived from a wide cultural and ethnic range as well as from the extended time period of the 20th and 21th centuries, his findings is more reliable then Galton’s and weight in an idea that a genius or talent is born when the relationship between nature with nurture is reciprocal.

This concept of interaction between nature and nurture can be adjusted and useful in the daily life. From relationship parents with their problematic children, as change parents’ idea, they can be found a breakthrough. Parents complain of raising their difficult children who are self-absorbed, rebellious, inattentive, and violent. They could not understand their children as well as struggle to find an effective solution to their problematic children. The parents have tried to find a proper solution for handle their hard to handle children from many researches and books, but they could not find it. The approach stance on nature-nurture will suggests a possible solution to parents who have been suffering from their problem children

Parents should know why their children are hard to handle before solve the problem. Babies come into world with unique traits in physical makeup. Even in the fetus period, babies can expose individual differences in the workings of their motor systems and in specific sensory perceptions (Inal & Yıdız, 2012). Some babies are born with overly sensitive and over reactive or under sensitive and under active. When give a stimulus to them, overly sensitive babies may be taking in and decoding information in a certain sense, otherwise, another may have undergone difficulty with comprehending information through that sense (Inal & Yıdız). If a child with over sensitive receives a fearful stimulus, he or she may rapidly increase rigid traits to become a problem child. Many children who have suffered that experiences can make a vast difference according to their parents how to relative to them.

After analysis and understand their children’s natural characteristics, parent are able to solve their problem through three ways. First of all, it is important that their parents have made an effort to read their children’s physical makeup and signals as well as to support them learn new ways to cope. Secondly, Parents give the right sense of security to their children. When their children are aggressive and overwhelmed, parents console them by using gentle gesture and comfortable verbalizing for they will be comfort themselves by their feelings. Lastly, parents gradually show them how to take charge of their own environment. A child with fixed temperamental characteristics can be significantly adjusted his or her behavior and personality by early caregiving experiences (Slatcher & Trentacosta, 2012). In a nutshell, when parents are trying to recognize their children’s personality and traits as well as set their behavior for their children’s temper, their children can remove a tag as difficult children of themselves.

During the second half of the 20th century, there has made steady progress on the effects of nature, nurture, and developmental processes. Therefore, we are able to understand many of the mechanisms of human gene, behavior, multifactorial human traits and psychiatric disorders (Rutter, 2002). Nature and nurture are not only indivisible but also reciprocal each other. Parent’s natural specific characteristics such as or genius and creative traits can be influence on their offspring. However, environmental factor also need to fulfill a complete condition.

In the front head, genetic and psychosocial research are forecasting to find more strong gene-environment correlations and interactions through the multidisciplinary association studies. Similarly, other fields without direct relative of psychological study will be also expected to lead them developing their research ideas and also to help with funding applications.

Contribution to his life were the deficiency of love, positive attention and shortage of minimal respect, and having to grown up in an area [Jersey City, New Jersey] that was saturated with crime. It was easy for him to see it, know it, and get caught up in it. Richard did not have a chance. He was abused at home. He learned to murder and get away when his father killed his brother. He learned that it is better to abuse then to get abused at home and when he took to the street thing got worse. I believe it was a combination of both nature and nurture. We could only speculate of what he could have become. But to me he became a diabolic ruthless, cold-blooded killer with no remorse or shame. His environment and disabilities and parents were all problematic.The Psychological Debate of Nature vs. Nurture Essay