In this Nature vs. Nurture essay example, we will offer topics, titles, an outline, and what it takes to make a great paper. We begin with a strong introduction and thesis statement, followed by body paragraphs that offer in depth analysis of the topics as well as current evidence. We end the essay with a succinct recap of everything under the conclusion section. In critical essays, the main thing to focus on is development of a strong perspective to offer readers a unique and interpretive analysis of a text or topic(s).

Titles:

What came first, the chicken or the egg? Is Nurture more influential than Nature?

To be or not to be: Nature versus Nurture

The Eternal Debate: Nature versus Nurture

Selected Title: Understanding Origins: Nature versus Nurture

Topics:

Background on the Debate of Nature vs. Nurture

Heritability Estimates

Interaction of Genes and Environment

Personality Traits and Genetics

Outline:

I.  Introduction

II.  Body

     A.  Background

     B.  Nature

     C.  Nurture

     D.  Middle of the Road

III.  Conclusion

Introduction:

The nature versus nurture debate has existed for thousands of years. Although the phrase was coined in 1869 by Francis Galton, an English polymath, humans have wondered what determined a person’s behavior and actions. While many believe a human’s behavior and personality are formed via a mixture of both nature and nurture, some have taken the side of ‘nature’, while others take on the side of ‘nurture’. Those that feel the nature side shapes people, contend that genotype and DNA determine personalities and traits. Those on the nurture side contend that humanity is born with a ‘blank slate’. Interactions and learning experiences thus shape a person’s understanding of life, allowing a person to acquire various attributes.

Essay Hook:

The age-old debate of nature versus nurture is nothing new, except now that humanity has a better understanding of genes and genomes, such knowledge has paved the way for new exploration of an archaic topic.

Thesis Statement

Whichever side people choose, there is merit to nature and nurture in helping form a better picture of what makes humans, human; this essay will explore nature and nurture and provide a potential ‘middle of the road’ interpretation, representing modern perspectives on the topic.

Background

The nature versus nurture debate first came into the spotlight via ancient Greek philosophers through their examination of nature versus nurture in child development. (Rutherford) When the topic was raised again in the early modern era, developmental researchers sought to explore nature and nurture further, by using empirical research that provided context via theories. This is when they tested hypotheses and chose sides. Some became Nativists (those that support ‘nature) and others became Empiricists (those that support nurture). “Nativists believe that aspects of human development such as intelligence and personality are determined by genetic make-up. Empiricists however, believe that there are acquired.” (Conkbayir 186)

Notable Empiricists like John Lock made popular the Latin phrase: tabula rasa. This phrase means ‘black slate’. The child’s mind serves as a blank slate from which learned experiences and interactions can form a child’s personality later and into adulthood. When Empiricists examine child development, they aim to look for how the child was raised, who they interacted with, what traumatic experiences they endured. They then base their conclusions on what they can gather from the child’s past.

Nativists demonstrated their beliefs from the nature perspective through examples like Chomsky’s 1965 Language Acquisition Device. Chomsky believed “the ability to understand and reproduce language was innate in all humans due to an existing mental capacity and the requisite vocal mechanisms.” (Conkbayir 187) Certain aspects of human personality like anger, flight or fight, or language can be interpreted as ‘nature’ driven developments. Chomsky and those with similar perspectives, provided strong evidence supporting the idea that genes can impact how a person behaves as he or she develops.

Nature

When examining the debate from the nature perspective, language appears to be the best direction to further understand this side of nature versus nurture. Chomsky believed human beings possess an innate ability to develop language. Although children can imitate and form habits, thus allowing nurture to provide some role in language acquisition, it is the potential predisposition to acquire competency and speech in language that... According to Chomsky, children can map language.
There is, I believe, good evidence that a generative grammar for a human language contains a system of base rules of a highly restricted sort, a set of grammatical transformations that map the deep structures formed in accordance with base rules onto surface structures, and a set of phonological rules that assign phonetic interpretations, in a universal phonetic alphabet, to surface structures. (Chomsky 150-151)

Modern technology has dispelled much of nativist thinking in relation to certain aspects of language development. However, new research into genetics has reopened the nature side of the argument. Genetics has been used to better understand the criminal mind as well as the origins of mental illness. Robert Plomin in his article, “Beyond Nature versus Nurture”, refers to nature as inheritance. People inherit from their parents’ certain predispositions that may make them more inclined to be aggressive, depressed, alcoholic, and so forth. “… cognitive ability and scholastic achievement, several recent studies found genetic effects overlap completely. For behavior problems, similar results indicating genetic overlap have been reported for major depression and generalized anxiety disorder, major depression, and phobias, and major depression and alcoholism.” (Plomin 30) When people are analyzed and evaluated for their behavior, some of it can be related back to family history and genetic predisposition.

If humans inherit some aspects of their personality, then the idea that certain things that make people human come from pre-determined information seems plausible. Although genetics cannot account for every part of a human being’s personality and behavior, it can account for some of it. A good example of this is schizophrenia. Researchers are still unsure of the number of genes responsible for development of schizophrenia, but they believe it to be an inherited mental disorder. (Plomin) People who have schizophrenia have the tendency to have a relative who also developed it at one point during their life.

Schizophrenia can manifest early in life or very late in life. The prevalence of very late-onset schizophrenia is low affecting roughly 1% of the population. However, those that are affected experience auditory and visual hallucinations. The most common cause of the development of this form of the disorder is family history. (Plomin) Although a genetic link cannot be established, those with family history of schizophrenia are more likely to develop it than others with no prior family history. Because family history plays a role in developing schizophrenia, it can be used in the nature argument. Meaning, people born with a specific problem stemming from family genes could result in mental health problems or disordered behavior. Although people with a family history can become schizophrenic, the potentiality for development is not 100%.

Saying Schizophrenia is inherited does not automatically denote certain development of the disorder. However, genetically speaking, a predisposition makes the brain more vulnerable to environmental stressors that allow for formation of this mental disorder. The same can be said of alcoholism. Not everyone with alcoholism in the family will become alcoholic, but when exposed to drinking these people may be more predisposed to developing an addiction to alcohol than other people. Environmental stressors are another part of the nature versus nurture debate and represent the ‘nurture’ side of the argument.

Nurture

Empiricists see the environment as playing a crucial role in the development of a child. As an infant, the person experiences according to the empiricist, a ‘blank slate’ mentality where nothing has influenced his or her thought processes. From there, various experiences and interactions begin to form the identity and behavior of the person. “Empiricists assert that there is no endowed knowledge at birth. Instead, all knowledge comes through the senses, and mental development reflects learned associations. They argue that external stimuli naturally provoke sensations.” (Bornstein, et al. 3) Furthermore, through association, individual raw sensations meld into what is considered, ‘meaningful perceptions, creating a personality and behavior.

For example, two siblings with the same mother and father are raised in different households. They both have a genetic predisposition to depression but only one sibling is exposed to physical and verbal abuse. Later in life, the sibling that experienced abuse develops depression, while the sibling that grew up in a loving, stable home is active and happy. Although both siblings have a brain more vulnerable to depression, only one develops depression due to the environment that sibling grew up in. Empiricists feel the personality and behavior of an individual is learned as he or she ages rather than having these attributes be innate.

A strong proponent for environmental learning, John Watson believed he could train infants (chosen randomly), to become any kind of specialist he wanted. He believed a child’s talents, race, or potentialities had no impact on what the child could become because the environment dictated how the child develops. Watson proposed that most “emotional reactions are the result of learned associations…