The Nature vs Nurture Debate
The nature versus nurture debate is about which part of a person is more important-their inherited qualities, which includes genes, or their personal experiences, and the way they were brought up. For years, scientists have tried to find out what causes people to have different personalities, behaviors, and characteristics.
The nature versus nurture debate poses a very complicated scientific question how do scientists figure out which one plays a greater role in the development of a person? Many scientists study twins that have separated at birth to answer this research question. Scientists use twins because they have identical genes, so it makes it easier to observe the effect of a person's environment. Do you think twins raised in different homes will grow up to have the same personalities?
The view that humans acquire all or almost all of their behavioral traits from "nurture" was termed tabula rasa, Latin for "blank slate," by philosopher John Locke. This idea proposes that humans develop only from environmental influences. One example of a person's trait that is completely determined by their environment is the native language. Studies show that children, regardless of where they're born, can learn any language with equal facility.
The term "nurture" has historically been defined as the care given to children by the parents, with the mother playing an important role. Now, this term is regarded by some as the environmental (nongenetic) factor of a person's environment. This new definition of "nurture" has been expanded to include, not just a person's family upbringing, but also everything else they experience in daily life including advertisements, media, education, peer influences, and home environments.
Some scientists have concluded that a person's nature-meaning the traits they got from their parents-have more power in determining a person's identity than how they are nurtured, or raised. Inherited traits are traits that are developed before birth.
Some genetic traits are highly heritable, such as eye color. Some disorders or diseases are also heritable. However, environments are still influential in how that disease affects a person's life; for example, people who are born with a disease may live a long time depending on how they are cared for. There are also some non-genetic factors that are highly heritable. For example, wealth and social status are two non-genetic factors that are generally passed down from family.
Some people criticize the whole concept of "nature versus nurture." They claim that it is an overly simple way to think about a person's identity. Perhaps the answer is not as simple. Are there other factors beyond genes and environment that make us who we are?
The nature versus nurture debate poses a very complicated scientific question how do scientists figure out which one plays a greater role in the development of a person? Many scientists study twins that have separated at birth to answer this research question. Scientists use twins because they have identical genes, so it makes it easier to observe the effect of a person's environment. Do you think twins raised in different homes will grow up to have the same personalities?
The view that humans acquire all or almost all of their behavioral traits from "nurture" was termed tabula rasa, Latin for "blank slate," by philosopher John Locke. This idea proposes that humans develop only from environmental influences. One example of a person's trait that is completely determined by their environment is the native language. Studies show that children, regardless of where they're born, can learn any language with equal facility.
The term "nurture" has historically been defined as the care given to children by the parents, with the mother playing an important role. Now, this term is regarded by some as the environmental (nongenetic) factor of a person's environment. This new definition of "nurture" has been expanded to include, not just a person's family upbringing, but also everything else they experience in daily life including advertisements, media, education, peer influences, and home environments.
Some scientists have concluded that a person's nature-meaning the traits they got from their parents-have more power in determining a person's identity than how they are nurtured, or raised. Inherited traits are traits that are developed before birth.
Some genetic traits are highly heritable, such as eye color. Some disorders or diseases are also heritable. However, environments are still influential in how that disease affects a person's life; for example, people who are born with a disease may live a long time depending on how they are cared for. There are also some non-genetic factors that are highly heritable. For example, wealth and social status are two non-genetic factors that are generally passed down from family.
Some people criticize the whole concept of "nature versus nurture." They claim that it is an overly simple way to think about a person's identity. Perhaps the answer is not as simple. Are there other factors beyond genes and environment that make us who we are?