What would you like to do?
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)
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.
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.
Nature versus Nurture is a popular debate about whether our genetics, or environmental influences "mold" more of who we are. An example is whether you get your out-going perso…nality because of your DNA, or because you grew up in an environment that made you out-going. Nature is your genes, Nurture is environmental influences. Hope this helps!
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
This theory is concerned with whether behavior is detemined mainly by genetic inheritance "nature" or by environment and experience"nurture"
The "nature" part is your intrinsic characteristics ... the part that's predetermined by your DNA.
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.
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.
Questions constantly arise about the origins of various types of behavior or other characteristics. Let us say that a person likes to eat pickles. Does this person have a gene…tic basis that predisposes him or her to like pickles? Probably. Does this person also have life experience, probably in the form of the food that he or she was fed as a child, that predisposes him or her to like pickles? That is also probably true. Which influence is greater, genetics or experience, nature or nurture? That can be very hard to figure out.
Nature means something inherent in the person. It is just how they're born. It's in their 'nature'.
It is the question whether personality is determined by nature, as in your genes, or nurture, the environment that you grew up in.
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
Nature is the behavioral genetics we inherit from our relatives whereas nurture is the values we are given and boundaries set by our parents. Each individually affects the way… we behave and interact.
The pros and cons of nature versus nurture are quite varied. Disagreement is perhaps the biggest con, or debate. Some researchers think inherited traits are in the genes, …while others think that traits are inherently learned.
\n. The question is, are children the way they are because they were born that way (nature), or is it the way they were brought up (nurture).
What was Piaget theory on nature vs. Nurture?