|
Post by Mrs. Deily on Feb 17, 2016 13:45:28 GMT
The issue of nature vs. nurture, is widely debated within the psychological community. Which do you believe is stronger, nature or nurture? Craft a response in which you take a side. You should support with evidence from what we have already learned and your own experiences. You should also constructively respond to 1 of your classmates' posts.
|
|
|
Post by Christina Concilio on Feb 17, 2016 18:19:58 GMT
I believe that nurture is stronger than nature. Nature refers to genes. Nurture refers to environmental factors. While certain traits and impulses are inherited, I believe that almost everything can be learned and taught. People are influenced more by their experiences and surrounding environments than DNA. All people are born with specific DNA that distinguishes them from anyone else. While it may be coded in a person's DNA for them to have blue eyes, it isn't set in stone based on genetics that since they inherited DNA from their parents, they will grow up to have the same characteristics and values of their parents. If the child grows up around their parents and their influence however, they may begin to exhibit similar characteristics and beliefs as their parents. This could be confusing to the whole nature vs. nurture argument as you cannot necessarily distinguish which factors the similarities came from. Nonetheless, when you look at adopted children, many exhibit the characteristics and beliefs of their parents who they grew up around. However, the children do not share any DNA with these parents. I think nurture is definitely stronger than nature because people learn from their experiences and mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Feb 17, 2016 18:24:12 GMT
While nurture plays a significant role in early childhood development and determining self-identity, human nature is the largest contributing factor to the inherent way in which we behave. Humans often depict themselves as moral and giving individuals, but the fact that humans share 96% of their DNA with their primate counterparts (who are often regarded as “animals”) supports human nature. As Steven Pinker points out, the Mallifert twins were separated at birth, yet years later, still have nearly identical personalities and characteristics. This proves the fact that despite having no nurture together, chemical and DNA distinctions have a very significant impact on a person's life.
|
|
|
Post by Katie on Feb 17, 2016 18:25:21 GMT
I believe that Nurture is greater than Nature because the experiences a person has in their life are more important that the instincts that a person is born with. Of course Nature does contributes greatly to a person's temperament and characteristics, and Steven Pinker described how identical twins who were separated at birth still had many of the same characteristics. I think that a person is born not with a clean slate but with a many instincts set within his/her DNA. However, the characteristics that make a person unique and shape his/her opinions on life are due to the experiences he/her have had in their life. Many people share their parents views on the world because that is the way they were raised. Living in a certain area changes the way a person can speak with different accents and the slang and terms used. National identities are caused from where a person grew up, which can change his/her view on the world. All people's opinions are formed from their very personal experiences, and in my opinion, these experiences are more important than natural instincts because they last longer to form a unique individual.
|
|
|
Post by Josh Brandle on Feb 17, 2016 18:28:20 GMT
While basic talents as well as the similarities seen between fraternal twins do support the side of nature, I believe that, through ideas such as Watson's infant experiment, parenting, and personal experience, nurture holds a greater hold over our personality traits and behavior. With this, though, I still do believe that nature holds some grasp over our abilities, talents, and traits as infants and shape our early years.
|
|
|
Post by Angelica Maldonado on Feb 17, 2016 18:31:39 GMT
I stand with the belief that nurture overpowers nature. Yes, you inherit certain characteristics and other biological factors and that has a major say in who you are biologically/physically as a person, but it is those experiences, circumstances, and adaptations that really shape you into the person you become. For example, you could raise a child in a loving home that rewards good deeds and manners and the chances are high that that child will grow up, holding onto those traits and portraying those traits to others. Meanwhile, a child raised in a home that doesn't display any affections or praise and is consistently disciplining the child in violent ways could result in a higher chance of the child becoming a cold and violent person. Genetics do play in as a factor in both situations, but it is the circumstances the child is put under that really determines that overall outcome.
|
|
|
Post by Christina Concilio on Feb 17, 2016 18:32:43 GMT
While nurture plays a significant role in early childhood development and determining self-identity, human nature is the largest contributing factor to the inherent way in which we behave. Humans often depict themselves as moral and giving individuals, but the fact that humans share 96% of their DNA with their primate counterparts (who are often regarded as “animals”) supports human nature. As Steven Pinker points out, the Mallifert twins were separated at birth, yet years later, still have nearly identical personalities and characteristics. This proves the fact that despite having no nurture together, chemical and DNA distinctions have a very significant impact on a person's life. While I still believe that nurture is stronger than nature, Ryan makes some good points. The twin study does seem to point to nature as a determining fact for identity development, however, this is just one study. I think that even though humans share so much DNA, like anything, there can be many different interpretations of this. I definitely believe that while DNA plays a role in someone's identity, the experiences and surroundings a person experiences are ultimately what shape them into who they eventually become.
|
|
|
Post by Mrs. Deily on Feb 17, 2016 18:34:06 GMT
While basic talents as well as the similarities seen between fraternal twins do support the side of nature, I believe that, through ideas such as Watson's infant experiment, parenting, and personal experience, nurture holds a greater hold over our personality traits and behavior. With this, though, I still do believe that nature holds some grasp over our abilities, talents, and traits as infants and shape our early years. Can you further explain your beliefs?
|
|
|
Post by Josh Brandle on Feb 17, 2016 18:35:05 GMT
"As Steven Pinker points out, the Mallifert twins were separated at birth, yet years later, still have nearly identical personalities and characteristics. This proves the fact that despite having no nurture together, chemical and DNA distinctions have a very significant impact on a person's life." While this does support your theory, it does not prove that nature has a very significant impact on a person's life.
|
|
|
Post by Cami Spina on Feb 17, 2016 18:37:46 GMT
Although evidence points to support both sides of the argument, I find myself believing that human nature shapes us more as people more so than nurture and past experiences. I think traits and ideas are inherited where as lifestyles and cultures are experienced. I believe that although environment may shape a human they still acquire traits that were inherited. I think it is just a matter of whether one utilizes their traits in every day life or one chooses not to. They are still there. Experiences play into this choice. Like the Ted Talk discusses, identical twins who are separated for a majority of their life are no different than identical twins who are not. This shows that traits are in fact inherited however nurture and experiences may allow a human to choose whether they want these traits to represent them as people within this world.
|
|
|
Post by Ryan on Feb 17, 2016 18:38:18 GMT
Christina: I am still inclined to believe that nature is stronger than nurture because genetic makeup is the defining characteristic in the human body and determines almost every aspect of our life. For example, nature and genes is what distinguishes a human from a banana, not the experiences each organism has had. While this may seem like a trivial example, it shows the extreme differences between nature and nurture. I believe that nurture is stronger than nature. Nature refers to genes. Nurture refers to environmental factors. While certain traits and impulses are inherited, I believe that almost everything can be learned and taught. People are influenced more by their experiences and surrounding environments than DNA. All people are born with specific DNA that distinguishes them from anyone else. While it may be coded in a person's DNA for them to have blue eyes, it isn't set in stone based on genetics that since they inherited DNA from their parents, they will grow up to have the same characteristics and values of their parents. If the child grows up around their parents and their influence however, they may begin to exhibit similar characteristics and beliefs as their parents. This could be confusing to the whole nature vs. nurture argument as you cannot necessarily distinguish which factors the similarities came from. Nonetheless, when you look at adopted children, many exhibit the characteristics and beliefs of their parents who they grew up around. However, the children do not share any DNA with these parents. I think nurture is definitely stronger than nature because people learn from their experiences and mistakes.
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Feb 17, 2016 18:38:40 GMT
I believe that nurture is stronger than nature. I believe this because many people grow up and exhibit traits that were learned instead of traits that were inherited. DNA, while important, can only go so far to create who somebody is. Through conditioning, people can learn right from wrong even if their instincts would say otherwise. For example (just an example don't judge!) if somebody grows up watching their parent be an animal abuser, as a child they may feel it is wrong, but they can also grow up to be one because it was taught. Another example could be addiction. Many people believe that addictive personalities can be inherited, but if a child grows up with a parent that is a drunk, that child may grow up and not drink very much. This is because of a taught behavior that they disagreed with. I feel that DNA is important to create a person, but I don't feel that it has much influence over who a person will become.
|
|
|
Post by Katie on Feb 17, 2016 18:40:15 GMT
While nurture plays a significant role in early childhood development and determining self-identity, human nature is the largest contributing factor to the inherent way in which we behave. Humans often depict themselves as moral and giving individuals, but the fact that humans share 96% of their DNA with their primate counterparts (who are often regarded as “animals”) supports human nature. As Steven Pinker points out, the Mallifert twins were separated at birth, yet years later, still have nearly identical personalities and characteristics. This proves the fact that despite having no nurture together, chemical and DNA distinctions have a very significant impact on a person's life. Ryan: While I also believe that nature holds a great deal of control over a person's instincts and life, I believe that determining self-identity and becoming a unique person are shaped by nurture and discovering the kind of person you want to be is more important than the instincts you have from birth. Identical twins may have similar characteristics because they have the same DNA, but it's hard to relate this information to the average twin-less person. People may have the same characteristics as their family simply because they grew up together. As you pointed out humans share 96% of their DNA with animals, so how is it that anyone is very individualist without their personal experiences?
|
|
|
Post by Cami Spina on Feb 17, 2016 18:41:02 GMT
While basic talents as well as the similarities seen between fraternal twins do support the side of nature, I believe that, through ideas such as Watson's infant experiment, parenting, and personal experience, nurture holds a greater hold over our personality traits and behavior. With this, though, I still do believe that nature holds some grasp over our abilities, talents, and traits as infants and shape our early years. Do you maybe think that traits are perhaps inherited most definitely but perhaps maybe nurture affects the decision and choice on whether to utilize these traits?
|
|
|
Post by Melissa on Feb 17, 2016 18:41:23 GMT
While I do not think that humans are born with a completely blank slate, I think that nurture shapes a person's behavior more than nature. Humans are born with some basic instincts, character traits, and temperament that are inherited by parents, but I think the way a person is raised and the environment in which they are raised is what really shapes a person's moral sense, beliefs, and character in general.
|
|
|
Post by Cami Spina on Feb 17, 2016 18:43:16 GMT
While nurture plays a significant role in early childhood development and determining self-identity, human nature is the largest contributing factor to the inherent way in which we behave. Humans often depict themselves as moral and giving individuals, but the fact that humans share 96% of their DNA with their primate counterparts (who are often regarded as “animals”) supports human nature. As Steven Pinker points out, the Mallifert twins were separated at birth, yet years later, still have nearly identical personalities and characteristics. This proves the fact that despite having no nurture together, chemical and DNA distinctions have a very significant impact on a person's life. I think you make a very good point discussing the idea that humans share 96% of their DNA with their primate counterparts. It illuminates examples in which human nature is prevalent within our society. A concept that I agree with.
|
|
|
Post by Megan Palmer on Feb 17, 2016 18:44:27 GMT
Although I believe nurture plays a significant role on an individual's personality and mannerisms, I feel nature has a greater impact. I think someone's natural instincts and genes that they have from birth have a greater influence on one's personality than the environment they were raised in. Children are raised by parents that share genes with them, and genes could contribute to a way a child is raised. Steven Pinker talks about two identical twins that were separated at birth, but after studying them both they had strangely similar behaviors. Pinker also explains in his TED talk that adopted sibling that grew up in the same environment will not tend to exhibit similar behaviors, even after being nurtured in the same way. This shows that genes have a greater impact than environment in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Kylee Schwind on Feb 17, 2016 18:44:53 GMT
I believe that Nature is the greater factor in development. While Nurture most certainly does play a role in some cases, our genes are the one that plays a bigger role. No matter how hard your parents might try to shape what you like, do, say or feel, they can't take that violent streak out of a boy who can't control it. As Steven Pinker said in his TedTalk with the twin study, the twins had astonishing similarities in personalities and characteristics even when they were separated from birth; the same similarities that they would have had if they had been brought up together, as well. I believe that all genes, DNA, and all that goes on inside of you are the things that last the longest and truly shape who you are. Experiences and your environment only last so long; you could move out of town, state or country at any age and change your way of life, but who you are and which characteristics and personality traits you have developed will forever be embedded.
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Feb 17, 2016 18:45:24 GMT
Although our opinions and thoughts may come from being exposed to our parents' opinions, I feel that Nature is more powerful than nurture. As a baby, we are born with the incredible knowledge of how to find a breast or how to cry for our parents, so we are not a completely "blank slate". In addition, the twins also demonstrated how strong nature can be by the habits that they have even though they were raised separately.
|
|
|
Post by Jen on Feb 17, 2016 18:46:38 GMT
I believe that nurture is stronger than nature. Nature refers to genes. Nurture refers to environmental factors. While certain traits and impulses are inherited, I believe that almost everything can be learned and taught. People are influenced more by their experiences and surrounding environments than DNA. All people are born with specific DNA that distinguishes them from anyone else. While it may be coded in a person's DNA for them to have blue eyes, it isn't set in stone based on genetics that since they inherited DNA from their parents, they will grow up to have the same characteristics and values of their parents. If the child grows up around their parents and their influence however, they may begin to exhibit similar characteristics and beliefs as their parents. This could be confusing to the whole nature vs. nurture argument as you cannot necessarily distinguish which factors the similarities came from. Nonetheless, when you look at adopted children, many exhibit the characteristics and beliefs of their parents who they grew up around. However, the children do not share any DNA with these parents. I think nurture is definitely stronger than nature because people learn from their experiences and mistakes. I agree with what you said. Originally, I was thinking about adopted children as well. It is far more likely that an adopted child with show personality traits similar to an adoptive parent than to a biological one. DNA plays an important role in creating us, but it does not define us. I agree with what you say when you state that everything can be learned and taught. I think you show a valid argument. People can be conditioned to have certain responses and certain traits and I think that can be a more powerful influence than DNA.
|
|
|
Post by Megan Palmer on Feb 17, 2016 18:53:11 GMT
While nurture plays a significant role in early childhood development and determining self-identity, human nature is the largest contributing factor to the inherent way in which we behave. Humans often depict themselves as moral and giving individuals, but the fact that humans share 96% of their DNA with their primate counterparts (who are often regarded as “animals”) supports human nature. As Steven Pinker points out, the Mallifert twins were separated at birth, yet years later, still have nearly identical personalities and characteristics. This proves the fact that despite having no nurture together, chemical and DNA distinctions have a very significant impact on a person's life. I agree that nature is stronger than nurture, and I also feel the Mallifert twins are a significant example of this. Since they shared DNA they ended up being very similar, if nurture was the greatest influence on their personality they would have lead totally different lives since they grew up in different environments. Even though nurture plays a role in developing and growing up like you mentioned I still feel genes have the greatest impact.
|
|
|
Post by Hannah Bernhardt on Feb 17, 2016 18:56:43 GMT
I would argue that nurture is stronger than nature. In sociology I remember talking about how if you were to clone the brain of Albert Einstein and put it in someone elseś body, that does not necessarily mean that the other person will turn out to be a genius like Albert Einstein, because the other personś environment is going to affect the way that they turn out. If the person is not ever taught how to do science in the first place, how can they achieve the same amazing feats that Einstein did? That relates to what John Watson is saying about how ¨he can be able to train a baby randomly chosen in a group of 12 infants, to become any type of specialist he wants. He could train him to be such regardless of the child's potentialities, talents and race.¨ So, just because the person would have the potential to become a great scientist like Einstein, that doesnt necessarily mean he will become one.
|
|
|
Post by Sydney Shands on Feb 17, 2016 18:57:30 GMT
I believe that nurture plays a stronger role than that of nature when developing a human's personal traits. Although I agree with the fact that ones genes do contribute to a person's behaviors and intellect, the way that one is brought up and the environment in which they live in greatly influences their way of life. Specific things like eye color and hair texture are directly correlated with someone's parents, but the way one acts, I believe is not. Unless one is born from a women with brain damage and/or drug related circumstances, a human's personality is shaped on their own. I have two siblings, one 14 years of age and another 25. My sister is about 7 and a half years older than me, and for most of her high school years she went to a boarding school in Connecticut and then went off to college at Princeton in New Jersey, both states in which my family and I did not live in. She is labeled the "holy child" because she always obeyed, got good grades, married a pastor, and had beautiful twin baby girls. The environment that she grew up in was completely different from mine. As she became an adult, I was still a child. Also, a lot of her teen years and adult years were spent not in my home. My label in the family is the "trouble child". I get good grades and have other creative advantages, but I also got in trouble a lot and have not committed to the religion my family practices. I grew up in a completely different environment, and because of it, my personality is different. I am more vocal about my opinion, I am more hard-headed, I am more creative in both the artistic and literature realms. My brother as well is completely different due to my parents dealing with my problems, he is sometimes forgotten. They deliberately parent him in a way that protects him from ending up with the problems I have. Because of this, he is quieter and it is hard for him to explain how he feels. It has become a domino effect. My family dynamic has influenced and shaped how I and both of my siblings operate.
|
|
|
Post by Mrs. Deily on Feb 17, 2016 19:01:17 GMT
"As Steven Pinker points out, the Mallifert twins were separated at birth, yet years later, still have nearly identical personalities and characteristics. This proves the fact that despite having no nurture together, chemical and DNA distinctions have a very significant impact on a person's life." While this does support your theory, it does not prove that nature has a very significant impact on a person's life.[/b] Josh, you need to explain WHY...
|
|
|
Post by Kylee Schwind on Feb 17, 2016 19:03:18 GMT
While basic talents as well as the similarities seen between fraternal twins do support the side of nature, I believe that, through ideas such as Watson's infant experiment, parenting, and personal experience, nurture holds a greater hold over our personality traits and behavior. With this, though, I still do believe that nature holds some grasp over our abilities, talents, and traits as infants and shape our early years. Do you maybe think that traits are perhaps inherited most definitely but perhaps maybe nurture affects the decision and choice on whether to utilize these traits? I am definitely agreeing with this statement Cami. While I do hold elements of Nature of Nurture, this made me think. Just because you have these certain traits doesn't mean you necessarily act on them. These traits can be suppressed, for example;violent behavior. Or depending on an environment, they can be extraordinarily prevalant in certain situations. So maybe the actual act of developing the traits are Nature, but unlocking and opening the door for them to be commonly used as a trait is more of a Nurture thing?
|
|
|
Post by Sydney on Feb 17, 2016 19:03:58 GMT
I see that you use the points of baby's finding a mother's breast as well as how to cry for parents, but what about the things that we can't get from knowledge. For example, why do people get scared when they see a man with a gun, why is it hard for some people to open up about their feelings, why is it that people get addicted to drugs and alcohol, why is it that some guy lashes out so aggressively in a situation? It can't all be from science.
|
|
|
Post by Alex Pantaleo on Feb 17, 2016 19:04:35 GMT
I think it is nurture, because my parents teach me a lot of stuff that my parents taught me that I hold to this day. But also I can see the nature point of view. I can see both sides of it, because Tv, social media, and friends impact your life as well.
|
|
|
Post by Mrs. Deily on Feb 17, 2016 19:07:14 GMT
I think it is nurture, because my parents teach me a lot of stuff that my parents taught me that I hold to this day. But also I can see the nature point of view. I can see both sides of it, because Tv, social media, and friends impact your life as well. Can you expand??
|
|
|
Post by Hannah Bernhardt on Feb 17, 2016 19:07:48 GMT
While I do not think that humans are born with a completely blank slate, I think that nurture shapes a person's behavior more than nature. Humans are born with some basic instincts, character traits, and temperament that are inherited by parents, but I think the way a person is raised and the environment in which they are raised is what really shapes a person's moral sense, beliefs, and character in general. I would agree with you, Melissa. I dont think that humans are born with a completely blank slate, either, because like Mary mentioned, babies know how to find the breast without being taught anything. I wonder why humans have some instincts built in already when they are born, but not others. Why do we need to be taught how to do certain things and not others?
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Feb 17, 2016 19:13:36 GMT
While I do not think that humans are born with a completely blank slate, I think that nurture shapes a person's behavior more than nature. Humans are born with some basic instincts, character traits, and temperament that are inherited by parents, but I think the way a person is raised and the environment in which they are raised is what really shapes a person's moral sense, beliefs, and character in general. I agree with you to an extent because a lot of our feelings or opinions to certain things were shaped by events that happened to us, but I think that certain tendencies in people's personalities are caused by nature, not nurture. For example, the twins mentioned in the video had similar habits and tendencies because of their genes.
|
|