What would you like to do?
What is the meaning of nature vs nurture?
Nurture is when you gain your intelligence entirely from your surroundings and everyone has a base intelligence to start. Nature is that some are born smarter then others.
The meaning of Nature in the "Nature against Nurture" argument is that Nature is how you are born, that you act the way you do because of the Genes you inherit from your famil…y. However Nurture, is where you act a certain way because you were taught that way.
Nature vs nurture is a debate that has gone on for years between psychologists. If you believe in the nature side of things, you believe that we are the way we are because of …genetics. If you believe in the nurture side of things, you believe that we are the way we are because of our upbringings.
Ahh, the ancient philosophical question. 'Nature versus Nurture" is the idea that a person's surroundings, upbringing, and general environment mean more to that person's perso…nal development than the genetic or racial background. For example, if you took someone born in poverty in a society where he or she would not have much chance to better themself, and gave him or her a good education, a loving family life, and the opportunities to become a 'better citizen', that nurturing would overcome the 'nature' of that person. Most social scientists now believe that NURTURING can overcome any negative natural forces. See the Eddie Murphy/Dan Ackroyd movie "Trading Places" for a Hollywood-ized version of this idea. The upshot of the argument is that no one is "born" a criminal or a bad person - that, given the right surroundings and environment, anyone can grow to be a 'good' person. Answer: I beg to differ. While the first answer makes the argument for the "nuture" side of the equation, the term itself refers to a dichotomy that mankind has been asking about for a very long time: Which affects a human's behavior more; genetic or "natural" traits including instinct, or their experiences once the individual has left the womb. Over the years, the pendulum of opinion on this question has swung both ways. Notably, in Victorian England, the thinking was that a man carried "foreknowledge" as a result of the circumstances prior to birth. These included such ideas as a the "criminal type" which could (supposedly) be determined by inherited factors, intelligence as manifested by the shape of the skull, etc. In the later half 20th century, the pendulum had swung the other way and, as late as the 1960's the general opinion was that man actually had no instincts (only animals had those), there was no criminal type and no physiological aspect to criminality, anti-social behavior was not a disease in the classic sense, but purely the result of behaviorism, etc. Nowadays (early 21st century), the pendulum has crept back towards the middle. We believe there may be genetic components at work in cases of voilent offenders, schizoform disorders, etc. and that some of these factors are therefore inherited. But even now, we don't rule out the very potent effects that a person's environment will have on their behavior and health. The ultimate test was thought to be bringing up two identical twins, one is a very positive environment and the other in a highly negative one. Students of Ethics will understand why this experiment is not acceptable in practice. And at this time, we start to surmise that the answer has always been: Both.
Psychologists don't know why people grow up to have the personalities they do. Some argue nurture, which is saying that a child's personality will form based on how they were …raised and their experiences in life. Nature is the theory that each person will grow up to have their same personality no matter what situations they're put in. It's like when someone asks you what you think they'd be like if they grew up in another time/place. If you thought that they would think the same way, have the same opinions, etc. (and just dress and maybe talk a little differently), then you would believe the nature theory. If you thought that it wouldn't even really be them and that they would be a different person entirely, then you would argue nurture. By the way, most psychologists have their beliefs somewhere in between these two. I hope this has helped you. :D
Nature vs nurture can definitely affect the moral development of children. Stereotypically, the nurtured child will have a greater sense of moral development than the chil…d raised by nature, because the child raised by nature will be exposed to the harsher realities. However, this can backfire with a nurtured child missing out on moral development from lack of experience, and the nature child developing a much keener sense of morals. When it comes to nature vs nurture, things are always subjective.
Nurture is the effect the people in your life had on you growing up. An example would be the values your parents taught you. Nature is the genetics you received, like eye colo…r.
Erikson, like Freud, was largely concerned with how personality and behaviour is influenced after birth- not before birth- and especially during childhood. In the mature vs nu…rture debate Erikson was firmly focused on nurture and experience. This can easily be seen in his stages as they are all linked to relationships.
This theory is concerned with whether behavior is detemined mainly by genetic inheritance "nature" or by environment and experience"nurture"
Some believe that people are simply the way they are because of their genes, or biology. Others feel that ones environment makes them who they are.
It is the question whether personality is determined by nature, as in your genes, or nurture, the environment that you grew up in.
"nature" refers to heredity and "nurture" refers to contact with others.
You got your green eyes from your mother, and your freckles from your father. But where did you get your thrill-seeking personality and talent for singing? Did you learn these… from your parents or was it predetermined by your genes? While it's clear that physical characteristics are hereditary, the genetic waters get a bit more murky when it comes to an individual's behavior, intelligence, and personality. Ultimately, the old argument of nature vs. nurture has never really been won. We do not yet know how much of what we are is determined by our DNA and how much by our life experience. But we do know that both play a part.
the nature V's nurture debate is concerned with to what extent our development is the product of heredity (nature) and the product of environment (nurture)
The commonly accepted answer by psychologists of this time period is a combination of both. Our circumstances play somewhat of a role, but there are also biological influences…
Nature constitutes inherited traits, genetic predispositions carried in the DNA: height, eye color, hair color, predisposition to certain diseases or deformities. Beyond t…hat, the argument rages whether alcoholism and other forms of addiction or dependency have a genetic predisposition. Apparently sexual orientation is genetically determined, or at least the tendency is genetically influenced. Behaviorists are the Nurturerers. They believe that environment and experience determine behavior. In fact, it is likely that Nature determines predispositions and Nurture determines the exact form that the predisposition takes.
Nature versus Nurture is a comparison discussing which has a stinger impact on a Child's life. Nature: the nature of the child, it's just how they are born and not anything wi…th what you do as a parent or community. Nurture: how the child is raised; parents siblings support school emvironment influences