Paste your essay in here…Psychologist Francis Galton said, “Nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world; Nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth”. The debate about whether our nature or nurture has the biggest influence on our behaviour has been around for centuries. Psychologists who believe in natures influence think that all human behaviours and actions come from our genetics whereas psychologists who believe that nurture is more important think that we are most strongly influenced by our environments, experiences and the people around us.
Psychologists who believe in the nature side of the debate (often referred to as nativists or biological psychologists) say that all human behaviours and characteristics come from our inherited genetics, as well as biological influencers such as hormones and chemical neurotransmitters in the brain. The first evidence of the nature argument comes from Plato, a Greek philosopher who lived between 380 and 300BC. He believed that people are born with all information, and that the environment only reminds us about what we already know and doesn’t teach us anything new. Even though Plato’s views are widely disregarded today , his ideas are the foundation for the nature side of the debate because they say that everything we are is innate and results from our unique combination of inherited genetics. The nature point of view continued to evolve into the 18th century when Francis Galton coined the phrase “nature versus nurture” and asked the question whether our heredity or our environment impacts our lives more. Galton was influenced by naturalist Charles Darwin’s publication Origin of Species which referred to his concept of natural selections role in evolution. Galton built on this to create his theory of eugenics – the selective breeding of people to increase the occurrence of desirable genetics and characteristics . Galton was a strong nativist and believed that all of our human features were a result of genetics and inheritance and has nothing to do with how we are raised or our experiences which is why his theory of eugenics relates so well to the nature argument. In 1969, John Bowlby proposed his theory of attachment, that states every child has an inborn need to attach to one main figure . This figure is usually the mother, and Bowlby says that prime reason for the attachment is for survival, not emotional connection. If this connection does not happen or goes awry, the consequences can include delinquency, aggression or depression. This theory is part of the nature argument because Bowlby theorises that the connection children experience with the parents has evolved as a biological necessity for survival and nothing else.
One strength of the nativist approach is that it is very scientific and observable. This is a strength because means that the theories can be proven and explained using true scientific methods and our inherited traits can be explained. A weakness of the nature approach is that it doesn’t take into account any of the other factors in life that influence people. This is a weakness because there are so many other aspects of life that make people who they are such as family, friends, education and their culture.
Empiricists or nurture psychologists believe that when children are born, their minds are a tabula rasa, or blank slate, that is filled as a result of experiences and learning. In this approach, people are also influenced by the people who they form an attachment with – usually parents. In a similar way to the nature side, the nurture side of the debate also has its roots in ancient Greek philosophy with Aristotle. He was the first to introduce the idea of empiricism – that all knowledge is gained through experiences and the senses. Aristotle believed that people are born mindless and everything about you is gained after you are born through your own unique experiences in and perspectives of the world. This relates to the nurture argument because it is the first idea of how knowledge is not inborn, and people grow as they learn more about the world. Aristotle’s views align with psychologist John Locke’s theory of the human mind as a “tabula rasa”. This theory states that when a child is born, their mind is a blank slate, or tabula rasa, where our experiences imprint knowledge . In 1689 Locke published An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. In this work, he rejects the view that knowledge is innate, and that people are born with ideas in their heads. He believes that children are born with no knowledge at all and justifies this idea by acknowledging how different other cultures are and reasoning how we can’t be born with knowledge and still grow up to be so different . Locke’s ideas about the mind being a tabula rasa relate to the nurture debate because it explains how children are influenced by the experiences they have and the people that are around them when they are growing up. Another theorist who agrees with the nurture argument is Albert Bandura. In 1977 Bandura created his Social Learning Theory which says that people learn not just by observing behaviours but by imitating them as well, and that this learning can de direct or indirect. Bandura believes that people are much more likely to learn a behaviour from a role model, or person they identify with. A role model can be someone with similar characteristics as the observer or be someone of a higher status. This theory relates to the nurture argument because it explains how we learn our behaviours from watching and copying other people that we identify with.
One strength of the nurture debate is that it considers all the different influences that combine to make us who we are such as family as well as our own thoughts and beliefs. One weakness of the nurture argument is that it is only observable rather than physically provable like the nature argument is. Although there are lots of theories pointing to the mind being a tabula rasa when we are born, there is no way to scientifically prove it.
Over time, the debate about whether nature or nurture has the biggest influence on people has changed drastically. Throughout the years, there are times when nature has been accepted as the truth, and other times when nurture has been more popular. Greek philosophers were the first people to consider whether our heredity or upbringing were more important in determining what type of person we would become. Between 380 and 300 BC, Plato postulated that humans are born with all information and the environment doesn’t impact the type of person we become, but only helps us remember things we already know. This was a strong nature point of view, and people continued to agree with this until the late 1600’s when John Locke generated the idea that the mind at birth is a tabula rasa, or blank slate, and our environment and experiences imprint on this blank slate. This was the first major change from nature to nurture. As science continued to develop in the 18th and 19th centuries the scale tipped once again towards the nature side. Francis Galton introduced the terms nature and nurture in his book English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture . The world had recently been introduced to the ideas of evolution and natural selection by Charles Darwin, which fit in well with the nature side of the debate, because the theories were all about how genetics have been inherited. The consensus began to change towards the nurture side in the first half of the 20th century when John Watson pioneered behavioural psychology. He believed that all behaviour was learned from the environment and was not inheritable like genetics. Sigmund Freud’s theories of psychoanalysis were also on the nurture side of the debate at this time. As science continued to develop, scientists started to think that both nature and nurture contribute to the type of person we become, and the two sides of the debate interact with each other. Psychologist Donald Hebb said, “What contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?”. This quote shows that when trying to figure out what influences human behaviour, nature and nurture are inseparable and both need to be considered to see the whole picture. People are born with certain tendencies and characteristics that are not always evident at birth. Through the environment, these characteristics and tendencies are developed. For example, if a person has the genetics to become tall by having good nutrition and health from the environment, their full genetic potential can be achieved. The environment can also have a negative impact on people. If the same child with the genetic potential to be tall never has enough food and doesn’t have good nutrition, they will never grow as much. Studies conducted with identical twins who were raised apart have shown how much of our personality is nature and how much is nurture. Identical twins are used for the studies because they are genetically identical, so any differences must be the result of the environment.