Nature vs. Nurture

Introduction

For some time now there has been an ongoing debate in the psychology field on whether Nature or Nurture plays a bigger role in the shaping of ones life, and although researchers have had many debates, the verdict is still out among many. Some believe that nature is responsible for dictating how one enters into life and sets the stage for what develops; others look at evidence indicating the impactful role of nurtureof environments that help the person to grow and develop. For the record, Nature refers to the genes or hereditary factors that come from the parents influence who that child is, and Nurture refers to what's going on around them and how they were raised. Even though nature might play a big role, there are many reasons for one to highlight the role that nurture plays in shaping a child into an adolescent and then an adult. It is not unreasonable to believe that ones environment and/or culture have a more significant role when it comes to how a child may act growing up. However, since the evolutionary age of Darwin, scientists and academics have latched onto the idea that it is nature that determines ones ultimate traits, behaviors, and that predicts ones development. This paper will show that when it comes to nature and nurture it really should not be thought of as an either/or situation: the fact is that nature and nurture work together to shape an individual over time. Without nurture, there is nothing to form and direct nature. Without nature, there is nothing to be nurtured. Thus, one should view them as on the same developmental teamnot as contestants in an academic zero sum game where only one may survive. The development of every human being is determined both by nature and by nurture.

Why Nature

The idea that nature is responsible for all development is not new, and was not new when the Darwinian movement of evolution got going in the 19th century; however, it was helped along substantially by the atheistic, materialistic doctrine of the evolutionists, who posited that there is no intelligent design or creative intelligence at work in natureonly an evolutionary by-product of natures need to survive. Nature was highlighted as the driving force of all human development by Darwin and the Darwin school that followed. Galton was one of the main advocates of the idea that the human faculty and its development was wholly based upon nature. The notion of evolution and of natural selection was important to Galtons theory because without God in the picture to serve as the sustainer of life, there was no reason to believe that a nurturing aspect made any difference: all human beings were merely animals that evolved out of tadpoles in Darwins cosmology, and all of nature was determined by an instinct...

Whatever characteristics or traits a human being developed over time were developed only because of the innate need to adapt and survive. If one failed to adapt and evolve, then one did not survive. The weaker links in the species inevitably would be bred out of of existence because they would not pass on their genes. Nature thus determined all things in this viewpoint (Stigler).

Why Nurture

As the 20th century progressed, other researchers began to explore the realm of behavioral psychology and human development and they emphasized the role that nurture played in the development of the human mind, the cognition of a person and his physical abilities. Even if God did not enter into the framework, these researchers nonetheless were able to conclude that nurture was necessary in order to move the development of the human being forward. Skinner showed how species can be conditioned to act in certain waysi.e., how their environment programs them to act in different manners. While some argued that this was merely nature acting in a nurturing manner (Herrnstein), other researchers, like Bandura, showed that human beings are highly susceptible to their environments, including what their peers, groups and media are communicating to themall of which fosters their cognitive processes. In other words, the way people think makes a difference in terms of how people act and grow.

Erik Erikson developed a theory for the 8 stages of psycho-social development, which explained that every human being passes through 8 stages of development, normally, and that in each stage there is a conflict that has to be overcome before the person can pass on to the next stage of development. In each stage, some degree of nurture is needed, particularly in the formative early stages of a childs life, wherein the parents play a very central role in making the child feel safe, secure, loved, and giving the child a sense of right and wrong (Munley). If the nurturing agent is not there, the child cannot move forward in the right way to face the challenge and overcome it. Instances of children left in extreme isolation have shown this to be the case. When children who have been in extreme isolation are given the right care, they are able to successfully overcome behavioral and physical obstacles that have impeded up to that point their development (Soutter). Thus, although nature if left to itself will progress in a way, nurture is necessary to guide the process and help one to develop.

Why Both

Proponents of nature or of nurture have their reasons for wanting to advocate for one or the other. Darwinians, for instance, like the idea of nature being in control and of natural selection being the dominant process by which development of the species goes on. Psycholoists and in particularly the humanists tend to focus on the individual experience and show that cognitive development does not transpire unless there is some form of human interaction and support: children who are isolated are not given any nurture and as a result they can experience mental handicap or retardation or they can become like wild animals (Soutter). To help children develop, parents have to play a part, as Erikson explained. However, one can bring nature and nurture advocates together under one umbrella, which is the human…