Category: Nature vs Nurture

Introduction

Human growth and development is an important aspect in human life. Conventionally, it describes the physical, emotional, or psychological and cognitive transformation in human life. In addition, it is a complicated process controlled by both environmental and genetic aspects (Bronfenbrenner 3).

Throughout human history, research has continually debated on several aspects of human life and development aiming at identifying the influence of genetics and the impact of environment on personal human development bringing nature and nurture terms into regular controversies.

According to McGue and Bouchard, adoption and twin studies have significantly indicated that behavioral traits are transmissible (1). On the other hand, Bouchard argues that environmental factors have also been influential in the development of humans, though such factors are most effective in individual intelligence quotient (148). However, both are essential.

These endless debates on human development have important inferences on theories and researches that are encompassed in psychological studies with human behavioral traits becoming the focus. Therefore, this essay seeks to examine whether human development and behavior are due to nature or nurture.

Nature: genetic influence on personal development

Nature has dominated several prospective studies on its influence on human growth and development. In this context, the word nature simply stands for the ways in which biological phenomena influence personal development and behavior (Gottesman and Hanson 10.6). Hereditary aspects of human beings are associated with behavioral characteristics in human beings.

Heredity simply describes how individuals acquire characteristics through a biological process involving genes. Different projects, including the Human Genome Project, demonstrate that DNA components found in human beings are identical to all humans with an estimated percentage of 9.9 percent resemblance. Gottesman and Hanson assert, “Factors that influence DNA methylation are huge and include such things as developmental processes, diet, and viral infections” (10.5).

Due to this DNA sharing aspect, biological studies, including famous theories conducted on evolutionary propositions have some evidence that almost all animals share similar characteristics with their respective ancestors. With studies and theories carried out to examine the impact of nature on the personal development and personality traits, heredity is an important factor in the development.

Behavior genetic studies and nature

In several occasions, human biology and psychologists have concentrated on what aspects allow human beings to have similar characteristics. Based on the focus of this study, gene, which is a biological component of growth, influences behavioral characteristics in human beings. In specific attention to genetics perspective, genes are natural elements that shape hereditary.

Genes pass on from one generation to another, with the likelihood of offsprings adopting traits embedded in their blood relation (Bouchard 149). Scientifically, genetic influences on personal traits and development resulted from studies of two twins, commonly known as behavior genetic studies. Behavior genetic studies were initiated by Jim Springer and involved separation of two twins, namely Jim and Lewis after five weeks of their age for a considerable number of years.

Thereafter, Springer reunited the boys after thirty years of their separation. However, during the course of their observation, the twins had similar behavioral mannerisms ranging from their hobbies, emotions, thinking and even dislikes. This study concluded that nature is automatic and biological phenomena influence behavioral traits.

Several years ago, behavioral genetic studies conducted by Tyron in the year 1940 also formed the basis of discussion of the influence of biological phenomenon on behavior. Tyron took an approach of selective breeding animals. The researcher identified two rats with certain similarities coupled with their performance on maize (Thompson, Cannon, and Toga 34). Tyron mated the rats according to their brightness in color with the bright mating the bright and the dull, vice versa.

After repetitively carrying out this procedure for at least twenty-one generations, Tyron had two rats so different from each other. Tyron later tested their performance on maize and realized that their performance was similar to their initial offsprings. The science of Tyron can be significant in explaining how human beings adopt some behavioral characteristics from their parents (Thompson, Cannon, and Toga 34).

Based on several observations made on the academic performance of pupils compared to that of their parents, it is clear that genetics influence the growth and behaviors of individuals. Under these practical behavior genetics studies, biological phenomena affect the development and consequent behavior of beings, which are human beings.

Studying family traits and behaviors is also a common way of identifying how genetics affects the behavioral traits of individuals or population. In family studies, researchers attempt to estimate generic impacts between individuals by comparing close relatives to examine how they resemble each other on particular distinctiveness. According to Gottesman and Hanson (10.7), through studying families, researchers have concluded that there are certain traits that are eminent in families.

Estimates reveal that about 25 percent of the grandchildren examined in studies have traits resembling those of their grandparents. In their research, Lenroot et al. assert that, to examine the relationship between genetics and behavioral traits, “quantification is possible by examining covariance patterns between family members of different levels of genetic relatedness” (164).

Through family studies, genetic influence on personality traits is eminent in talents and abilities possessed by individuals. In several cases, there are possibilities of offspring sharing similar human skills, including artistic or musical talents and sportsmanship.

Genetic influence in is also commonly examined in hereditary factors that are passed through DNA sequences. Scientist has studied several hereditary diseases and concluded that genetics consequently influence personal behavior traits. Psychologists have also studied this relation and identified that generic influence on behavior traits account to about 40-50 percent through heritability.

Bouchard asserts, “Schizophrenia is the most extensively studied psychiatric illness, and the findings consistently suggest a very high degree of genetic influence (heritability of about 80), mostly additive genetic influence, with no shared environmental influence” (149). Apart from schizophrenia, hereditary factors of genetic are also eminent in diseases such as phobias, panic disorders, depression, heart diseases, and even cancer.

Thompson, Cannon, and Toga assert, “Heritable diseases and behavioral traits arise from DNA variations passed on from parents to their offspring” (524). Therefore, by studying hereditary diseases, evidence-based research depicts that genetics influences human behavior bypassing behavior traits from one generation to another in close blood relationships.

In a bid to delve further into the nature issue, the twin studies comprehensively used to examine how heredity and environment affects human development play essential roles. According to Gottesman and Hanson (10.13), genetically tested experiments and data analysis of twins brought up together in a similar environment give an important view on the impact of nurturing on personal development and behavioral characteristics.

Twins’ studies, which are commonly referred as Minnesota personality studies, examined over 217 pairs of monozygotic (MZ) twins, meaning that the twins resulted from an ovum fertilized from one sperm cell and about 114 pairs of dizygotic (DZ) twins, meaning that they were born of separate sperms fertilizing separate eggs, grew together.

On the other hand, 44 MZ and another 27 DZ pairs grew separately (Thompson, Cannon, and Toga). Researchers on this study observed that heritability in these twins provides an average of almost 48 percent. After undergoing several discussions and argument, this study concluded that genetic factors contribute significantly to people within a given group

Nurture: Environment and personal development

Nurturing or fostering affects personal development and behavioral traits. How a person grows through different experiences consequently determines the outcome of personal behavior. According to Bouchard (148), behavioral interconnections are eminent within societies or communities with environmental connections among individuals, families, or even groups, particularly in political influence and economic power.

Nurturing as used in several kinds of literature denotes a process by which individuals grow. Behavioral traits found in parents are most likely to be eminent in children through adoption. Cultural aspect is among the many ways through which researchers conclude that nature affects an individual’s behavior.

Culture has significant power to determine a person’s behavior depending on the parental influence and extent of their adoption to culture. Taking an example of a community that strictly observes religion or certain rituals, offsprings in this society are likely to adopt the culture and the sequence continues. Bouchard asserts, “Membership in a specific religious denomination is largely due to environmental factors” (151).

Environment has been so influential in personal traits and development. However, in most cases, environment influences an individual’s life in the early ages up to almost 20 years. Factors including cultural backgrounds, social affiliations, and physical environment become important aspects that help in examining the impact of environment on personal behaviors.

In the study undertaken by Lenroot et al., “environmental factors may be causes of downstream behavioral and cognitive function and may become more prominent relative to genetic factors as socioeconomic conditions worsen” (170). As human beings develop, they expose themselves to different environmental factors that tend to impact on their behavioral traits.

According to Emde and Hewitt, this scenario is quite eminent in children who adopt behaviors found in their parents (23). It is common to find children taking alcohol due to the influence of their family members/parents or close relatives having the tendency of alcohol taking and very common to find children becoming religious following their parental roots.

Behavior Genetics Studies and Nurture

In the context of nurture, the twin’s studies contain a vital but hidden massage that researchers normally ignore. According to McGue and Bouchard, data acquired from this study provides significant evidence in the impact of environment on personal development and behavior traits (10).

The pro-nurture conclusion hinges on two main observations. Despite carrying out several studies with regard to hereditary impact on personal development and personal traits, researchers have not considered the fact that genetic differences contribute to about 50 percent or even less. This aspect automatically implies that environmental factors are entirely responsible for the remaining percentage. On the same note, it is possible to find family members having different traits, despite coming from the same blood.

Researchers commonly observe this aspect in some children who grow together and possess extremely different characteristics. Based on the evidence drawn from this argument, it is common that regardless of their relationship, there are no possibilities that two siblings live together throughout their lifetime.

Therefore, in the process of separating and living in different environments, people’s surroundings are most likely to be responsible for their differences in their behaviors.

However, culture is a powerful aspect in determining growth and development; thus if brought up under the same environment sharing the same culture, they are most likely to have similar traits (Lenroot et al. 165). Probably, siblings living together in a shared environment including having the same parents, attending the same schools, living in the same home, taking the same meals, and even attending similar functions possess different traits.

On the other hand, siblings might live in a non-shared environment including being raised differently by their parents, occupying different environments, or even having different sportsmanship and finally differ in their behavior traits (Bouchard 149). This scenario definitely explains how the impact of the environment to human behavior is unique with people adopting different traits based on their environmental experiences.

Complications between nature and nurture

As researchers struggle to identify the transparency between nature and nurture, the complication between the two aspects still exists. Several prospective studies carried out on the subject are making the complication worse. Contrary to other studies carried out, Urie Bronfenbrenner and his colleague Stephen, in the year 1994, proposed a bio-ecological model to stretch the argument on the aspects of nature and nurture.

According to Bronfenbrenner, at birth, mothers bestow newborns with genetic predispositions (6). The predispositions only have the ability of influencing the behaviors of the children later in their old age with life experiences playing an important role on the behaviors at that age.

These predispositions have a component of intelligence. Taking into account the realities of life, some children are raised in poor families and thus, they undergo stress and frustrations, which might limit them from realizing their potential. On the other, hand some children are raised in stress-free homes with many opportunities to explore their abilities. Finally, one only wonders how these predispositions can prove genetic influence on human behavior.

Conclusion

The nature vs. nurture debate has been unique in its arguments between natural development and environmental influence on human development and personality traits. However, both nature and nurture have a portion to share in human development, especially in determining personal traits of individuals, though studies reveal that their influences are non-independent (McGue and Bouchard 6).

Based on nature, scientists and psychologists have continually examined the influence of genetic factors on the development. Scientifically, genetic influences on personal traits and development resulted from studies of two twins.

The studies provided a significant proof about the hereditary factor with the possibility that offsprings adopt behavioral traits from their parents naturally (Thompson, Cannon, and Toga 523). On the other hand, scientists, philosophers, and psychologists still argue that environment or nurturing aspect has a greater influence in development of human behavior characteristics.

The argument on nurturing aspect is that, if all genetics prove that it is responsible for human behavior, then why does it only cover 48 percent on genetic influences. Family studies propose that there exist possibilities that children can never live together in their entire life, and thus changes observed in them is due to environmental influences. However, as prospective research continues to dominate, probably controversies between the two aspects might never end.

Works Cited

Bouchard, Thomas. “Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits.” American Psychological Society 13.4 (2004): 148-151. Print.

Bronfenbrenner, Urie. Making Human Beings Human: Bio-ecological Perspectives on Human Development. New York: Sage Publishers, 2004. Print.

Emde, Robert, and John Hewitt. Infancy to Early Childhood: Genetic and Environmental Influences on Developmental Change. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Print.

Gottesman, Irving, and Daniel Hanson. “Human Development: Biological and Genetic Processes.” Annu. Rev. Psychol 56 .1 (2005): 10.1–10.24. Print.

Lenroot, Rhoshel, James Schmitt, Sara Ordaz, Gregory Wallace, Michael Neale,

Jason Lerch, Kenneth Kendler, Alan Evans, and Jay Giedd. “Differences in Genetic and Environmental Influences on the Human Cerebral Cortex Associated with Development during Childhood and Adolescence.” Human Brain Mapping 30.1 (2009): 163–174. Print.

McGue, Matt, and Thomas Bouchard. “Genetic and Environmental Influences on Human Behavioral Differences.” Annu. Rev. Neurosci 21.1 (1998): 1–24. Print.

Thompson Paul, Tyrone Cannon, and Arthur Toga. “Mapping genetic influences on human brain structure.” Annals of Medicine 34.8 (2002): 523- 536. Print.

Background

Alcoholism can have an effect on anybody. It has massive outlays as it relates to cultures. Even though we have some idea on alcohol, all we don’t know is the exact root of this dilemma. Some researchers are repeatedly looking for answers to the long-standing nature versus nurture debate.

Dissimilar scrutinies are slit between a biological and a psychological example. (Thomas, et al, 2003, p.1939)The analysis done on the abuse of alcohol alone shows that more than $100 billion dollars are spent annually. It is also believed that, every body in America pays up to $1000 annually to cater for the outlays of unnecessary health care, vehicle accidents, crime and mislaid output resultant from alcohol abuse. (Rutter, 2002, p.997)

This research paper tries to relate alcoholism-nature vs. nurture debate to physiological psychology. To start with, “Physiological psychology is the study of the physiological basis of how we think, connecting the physical operation of the brain with what we actually say and do”. (Masters, 2001, p.346) The analysis on physiological physiology regarding alcohol shows that, alcohol displays feelings of superiority and fearless behavior and also, it reduces an individual’s fear.

Alcohol reduces an individual’s fear

Some researches done shows that alcohol serves up to reduce an individual’s echelon of self-awareness. In his article, Jay proves that alcohol leads to the rising of acceptance and reliance.

In one his quotes, “Jay adds to say one who experiences the painful reality of a death in their family may find the experience too difficult to deal with, and the feeling produced by alcohol assists in the coping process”. (Jay, 1981, p.587) Jay adds to say, alcohol helps in reducing the fear of facing some difficult issues. Finally, he concludes by addressing that alcohol helps in relieving some stressful events such as job loss, divorce among others. (Jay, 1981, p.589)

Alcohol displays feelings of superiority and fearless behavior

In his research, an author by name Rutter quoted that, “when people take in alcohol to the point of intoxication, they display feelings of superiority and fearless behavior”. (Rutter, 2002, p.998) Rutter, proved that males who take alcohol show higher levels of violent behavior than females. The violent behavior brought by alcohol gives them the boldness of resisting any kind of fearful act.

Summary

In summary, the alcohol abuses and alcoholism have an effect on every body. It is said to have the highest outlays in the world. The analysis done shows that no one clarification appears to be greater than the other.

The research that has already been done shows that by the help of Physiological psychology, alcohol has been proved to have some benefits in ones life. It is believed that, Alcohol displays feelings of superiority and fearless behavior as well as reducing an individual’s fear. The two are among the analyses on alcohol that have contributed a lot in boosting someone’s life.

References List

Jay, H. (1981). A self-awareness model of the causes and effects of alcohol consumption. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90(6), 586-600.

Masters, R. (2001).BIOLOGY AND POLITICS: Linking Nature and Nurture. Annual Review of Political Science, 4(1), 345-369.

Rutter, M. (2002).The Interplay of Nature, Nurture, and Developmental Influences. Arch Gen Psychiatry, 59(1), 996-1000.

Thomas, S, Randall, C, &Carrigan, M. (2003). Drinking to Cope in Socially Anxious Individuals: A Controlled Study. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 27(12), 1937–1943.

Introduction

The human race has elicited many unrelenting controversies concerning the different aspects of its existence. These controversies often yield debates that sometimes develop from simple arguments aimed at understanding individual behavioral differences to become politically motivated disputes over distributive justice and societal power (McLeod par. 12).

A prime example of this nature of debates is the debate on whether nature or nurture has a greater bearing on the development of the diverse individual behavioral differences that exist. This age-old debate neither shows any indication of ending soon nor identifying which of the two factors has more influence on behavioral differences.

Researchers and scholars have conducted numerous studies over the same, but the have not settled this debate. This paper seeks to explore this debate in the light of a recent article that appeared in The Wall Street Journal, “Nature vs. Nurture: New Science Stirs Debate How Behavior Is Shaped; Who’s an Orchid, Who’s a Dandelion”, in a bid to establish what it adds to already existing body of literature on this controversy.

A Synopsis of the Article

The article in question, Nature vs. Nurture: New Science Stirs Debate How Behavior is Shaped; Who’s an Orchid, Who’s a Dandelion, featured in The Wall Street Journal on September 16, 2013 with Jonathan Rockoff as the author.

The article opens by noting that researchers are moving closer to explaining how nature rather than nurture has more influence on human behavior as the extent of individuals’ sensitivity to external influences varies based on the biological composition of their nervous system (Rockoff par. 3). As such, some individuals are more susceptible to external influences than others are. Individuals that are more susceptible are termed as ‘orchids’ while the less susceptible types are termed as ‘dandelions’ (Rockoff par. 3).

A baffling finding is that orchids will perform very poorly in adverse environments, but they will thrive under optimum conditions in contrast to dandelions (Rockoff par. 5). This observation was confirmed by a 2010 study in the Journal of Child Development, which showed children performing poorly under fighting parents, but became best performers under a happier home life.

A study by the National Academy of Sciences also supports this position by asserting that under adverse economic conditions, environmentally sensitive mothers (orchids) were very harsh with their children, but under better economic circumstances, they parented their children better than non sensitive mothers (dandelions) (Rockoff par. 7).

These findings have escalated the nature-nurture debate once again, but even so, a lot remains unknown over environmental susceptibility, and thus it is tentatively arguable that people have both orchid and dandelion traits to varying degrees. Critics have faulted the evidence provided noting that a more rigorous study is necessary.

However, despite such calls from critics, an analysis of 15 studies, which incorporated up to 1200 children as conducted in 2011 by Dr. Van IJzendoorn among others, confirmed that dopamine production in an individual had a bearing on environmental susceptibility (Rockoff par. 20).

An Analysis of the Article

This article, like other literature on the nature-nurture debate, explicitly outlines the dilemma that researchers and other experts in the field of psychology find themselves in over the issue.

Proponents of each side conduct their studies and attempt to pitch their side as the most influential on behavioral development. However, every time a researcher does this, critics find gaping holes in the explanations offered just like in this article. Eventually, the debate remains hanging in the balance without a clear concept of the side that has more influence on behavioral development.

This article argues in favor of biological determinism by presenting empirical evidence from several studies, which seems to make it reputable, but critics refute it on the grounds of the credibility of the evidence presented. For instance, it is noted that orchids are susceptible to environmental influence, but the type of influence they are susceptible to is not specified.

Assuming that they are susceptible to every form of influence that comes their way would be erroneous as noted by one of the critics (Rockoff par. 17). Personally, I do not agree with the research findings in the article because even though the studies were conducted, they do not present adequate ground for researchers to make the conclusions they made.

It is true that dopamine might influence environmental susceptibility as concluded in the article. However, the study also needed to specify the kind of susceptibility it influences because without this element, it follows that all orchids in the same surroundings are supposed to manifest identical traits. Concisely, the findings of the studies are incomplete and are thus unacceptable.

The significance of this article insofar as the field of psychology is concerned stems from the fact it stimulates the minds of researchers towards an idea that might have eluded them for a long time. It points out the significance of dopamine in influencing environmental susceptibility among individuals.

Though this point does not comprehensively explain how biological determinism plays a bigger role in dictating behavior, it begins to outline how the genetic code of an individual affects how s/he interacts with the environment. In essence, it begins to indicate that nature does not influence behavior, but it determines how the individual interacts or s/he is affected by the environment. In this sense, both genetic composition and the environment interact to determine behavior.

This perspective concurs with studies conducted by Evans (423-51) to determine the influence of the physical environment on behavior. The studies were conducted to find out the influence of noise, crowding, and the quality of housing and neighborhood on the behavior of children. The study of the influence of noise on behavior revealed that children’s reading abilities and cognitive development are adversely affected by noise through delays in the ability to read and interfering with long-term memory respectively.

The studies also found out that teachers in noisy environments become more exhausted, irritable, and impatient with learners, thus affecting the cognitive development of learners. These studies clearly indicate that the physical environment has a significant bearing on the behavioral development of an individual.

This assertion stems from the fact that noise had an effect on the students as well as teachers and crowding had an effect on both the child and the parent. The effect of these environmental factors on the child is magnified by the fact that the child is subjected to the direct influence of the factors coupled with the indirect influence that come from the influence of these factors on the teacher or parent.

It is noteworthy to point out that though several children may be subjected to the same noise levels and same extent of crowding, their behavior patterns cannot turn out to be exactly similar. This observation implies that even though the environment may influence behavior as established by these studies, it can only do so depending on every individual’s unique personal characteristics.

The effect of the environment is the same on all, but the behavior of every individual will remain different even if there were some similarities. This assertion means that the influence of the environment combines with an individual’s unique trait to yield a certain behavior pattern. This aspect points to the flaws in the study by Evans (423-51) because it fails to consider that the same environmental factors can still yield different behavior patterns within a group.

Conclusion

This paper sought to explore the article on Nature vs. Nurture by Rockoff in a bid to find its placement within the body of literature on this debate in the field of psychology. The article endeavors to pitch biological determinism as being superior to environmental influence insofar as behavioral development is concerned. A 2010 study in the Journal Child Development and a study by the National Academy of Sciences both espouse the idea that some individuals are more susceptible to environmental influence than others are as aforementioned.

The article, like other literature on this subject, only adds to the confusion that already exists since critics of the studies that were cited in the article rightly refute the findings on the grounds of their credibility and authenticity. A careful consideration of the ideas espoused by the article and opponents of such ideas shows that the environment acts on an individual’s innate abilities to produce a unique pattern of behavior for every individual.

Works Cited

Evans, Gary. “Child Development and the Physical Environment.” Annual Review of Psychology 57(2006): 423-451. Print.

McLeod, Saul. Nature Nurture in Psychology – Simply Psychology,2007. Web.

Rockoff, Jonathan. Nature vs. Nurture: New Science Stirs Debate – How Behavior Is Shaped; Who’s an Orchid, Who’s a Dandelion, 2013. Web.

There is an assumption that individual’s intellectual and physical characteristics are, first of all, predetermined by their nature. Innate skills point to genetic code that a person inherits from his/her relatives. However, experience that an individual gains in the course of life shapes his behavior, outlook, and life position.

The new socially constructed patterns constantly change over time as soon as a new experience is obtained. Therefore, innate qualities could be modified to develop new perspectives and visions on various aspects of life, including health. Indeed, there are serious debates on to what extent heredity and environment influence our health and physical wellbeing.

On the one hand, heredity can affect our future endeavors and possibilities in life while considering such aspects as genetic history and predispositions for various diseases. On the other hand, individuals’ decision to smoke, eat vegetarian food, or go in for sports also change their health condition.

The nature side of the discussion focuses on innate characteristics and emphasizes how humans reveal biological qualities. At this point, genes can provide a solid foundation for individual’s aptitude to stand various diseases, such as heart problems, cancer, or allergy to various external stimuli. For example, multiple studies on obesity and predisposition prove the genetic heredity has a direct impact on obesity development (Li et al., 2011; Shengxu et al. 2010).

Specifically, Li et al (2011) assert that genetic information relates to the development of obesity and its influence on other disorders, such as type 2 diabetes. Additionally, Shengxu et al. (2010) examine the genetic susceptibility in relation to obesity to define that the physical exercises can attenuate the disorder.

From the nurture perspective, health conditions largely depend on external factors, including ecological situation, individual’s occupation, and his/her life habits. For instance, a person who smokes has an increased risk of lung cancer whereas a person who goes in sport will have a stronger physical fitness.

At this point, Kelsey et al (2012) insist that health conditions are largely predetermined by environment, public relations, and activities in which an individual is involved. Additionally, Yang, Matthews, and Shoff (2011) suggest that individual’s health can be significantly improved as soon as recent health care systems are rebuilt. As a result, people should be more concerned with the external environment possibilities to change their previous health conditions for the better.

Health disparities among races and nationalities are important issues that undermine the nurture side of the debate. Bar-Haim et al. (2008) focus on the relation between race characteristics and health conditions.

The scholars explain that Caucasians living in an alien environment experience challenges in terms of cultural and society, which leads to the assumption that own-race environment is preferable for comfortable existence of one race. To support the issue, Fotaki (2011) reveals that both genetic information and external environment are equally important for individual’s physical and mental wellbeing.

In conclusion, the debates on nature versus nurture reveal that both innate health conditions and external factors shape the outcomes for physical and mental wellbeing of an individual. Specifically, genetic heredity predetermines the initial conditions under which a person react to an environment whereas nurture issue defines further actions that can help an individual to adapt to a new setting and develop new aptitudes. Therefore, it is highly important to strike the balance between these two driving forces.

References

Bar-Haim, Y., Ziv, T., Lamy, D., & Hodes, R. M. (2008). Nature and Nurture in Own-Race Face Processing. Psychological Science (Wiley-Blackwell), 17(2), 159-163.

Fotaki, M. (2011). Agency versus structure or nature versus nurture: When the new Twist on an old debate is not that new after all. A commentary on Angel. Social Science & Medicine. 1-4.

Kelsey, J. L., Procter-Gray, E., Hannan, M. T., & Wenjun, L. (2012). Heterogeneity of Falls Among Older Adults: Implications for Public Health Prevention. American Journal Of Public Health, 102(11), 2149-2156.

Li, S., Zhao, J., Luan, J., Langenberg, C., Luben, R., Khaw, K., &… Loos, R. (2011). Genetic predisposition to obesity leads to increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia, 54(4), 776-782.

Shengxu, L., Jing Hua, Z., Jianan, L., Ekelund, U., Luben, R. N., Khaw, K., &… Loos, R. F. (2010). Physical Activity Attenuates the Genetic Predisposition to Obesity in 20,000 Men and Women from EPIC-Norfolk Prospective Population Study. Plos Medicine, 7(8), 1-9.

Yang, T., Matthews, S., & Shoff, C. (2011). Individual health care system distrust and neighborhood social environment: how are they jointly associated with self-rated health?. Journal of Urban Health: Bulletin of The New York Academy Of Medicine, 88(5), 945-958.

Introduction

The nature versus nurture controversy can be perceived as the roles played by heredity or inheritance as well as the environment in the development of human beings. The behavior of human beings is thus attributed to genetic predisposition, a phenomenon commonly referred to as the nature theory of human behavior (Keltner, James, Darling, Findley & Oliver, 2001).

The nurture theory attributable to human behavior can be defined as the innate personal experiences which make people behave in a certain way as they have been taught to behave.

However, nature and nurture theorems have been the center of focus by many studies which major in the field of human psychology. The following essay will focus on the controversy of “nature” versus “nurture” and how it affects our understanding of child development.

Children development

Keltner et.al argues that some behaviors are hereditary and thus are inborn while others are attributed to environmental effects (Keltner et.al, 2001). On one hand, the mind of a child can be considered as a blank slate at the beginning of his/her development and is then shaped by the environment around the child. On the other hand, it can be argued that the behavior of a child is inborn and thus hereditary.

As such, there is no clear explanation of what really influences a child’s behavior. For instance, academic excellence is sometimes attributed to genetics and the level of education of the child’s parents. However, environmental factors also make a large contribution on the child’s academic success.

For instance, a child born of a rich family stands a high chance of receiving quality education compared to on e born of a poor family. Additionally, a child born of intelligent parents might also perform poorly should he/she be educated in a school with poor quality of education.

Although psychologists agree that the two controversies have some influence in the development of a child, many are hesitant to buy the extremes of these arguments. This is due to the fact that there are various other factors that affect children’s development today.

As such, the extent to which nature and nurture affect children’s development is thus considered as the point of focus in the debate. Both factors are believed to interact in various different ways thus, none can be said to be the ultimate influence of a child’s behavior (Dehaene-Lambertz, Hertz-Pannier & Dubois, 2006).

While the genetic composition can be said to influence the behavior of an individual, it does not always compel someone to behave in a certain manner. This implies that an individual is solely responsible for his/her choice of behavior as one grows up. Consequently, a child’s behavior cannot be viewed as solely attributable to the genetic composition of the parents and the hereditary characteristics.

For instance, identical twins have been observed to develop different behavior aspects when exposed to different environments. As proposed by the nature theory, there should be no observable difference in their behavior as they have the same genetic composition (Dehaene-Lambertz, Hertz-Pannier & Dubois, 2006). Therefore, hereditary genes can only have an effect to a child’s behavior only to some extent.

Conclusion

From the above argument, the behavior of children during their development cannot be narrowed down to either as a result of “nature” alone or “nurture” but rather, as a result of the two factors. Therefore, the society should not generalize the behaviors of children and attribute them to their genetic composition or the environment in which they have been brought up. With these considerations in mind, the development of a child can therefore be based on both hereditary characteristics as well as the environmental effects.

References

Dehaene-Lambertz, G. Hertz-Pannier, L. & Dubois, (2006). Nature and nurture in language acquisition: Anatomical and functional brain-imaging studies in infants. Trends in Neurosciences, 29(7), 367-363.

Keltner, N. L., James, C. A., Darling, R. J., Findley, L. S., & Oliver, K. (2001). Nature vs. Nurture: Two Brothers With Schizophrenia. Perspectives In Psychiatric Care, 37(3), 88-94.

Marotz, L.R., & Allen, K.E. (2013). Developmental Profiles: Pre-Birth through adolescence (7^th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning.

Introduction

Written by Colapinto, As Nature Made Him: the Boy Who Was Raised as a Girl, scores high in sexuality matters. It talks of one David Reimer, whom after a bungled circumcision and eventual emasculation, lived as a girl; Brenda, until age fifteen. Tackling different issues on sexuality, this book offers the reader the opportunity to think critically, evaluate sexual information contained in it, and postulate future research areas.

Colapinto arouses many questions concerning the popular thought that circumcision makes someone better. Being a journalist, Colapinto highlights sexuality issues from an objective point of view, something that a sexologist would not do. He gives facts about Brenda’s case without bias, something a clinician or a sexologist would find hard to accomplish. He provides useful analysis of this aspect of personality by making convincing arguments.

Synopsis

In 1965, Janet Reimer, wife to Ron Reimer gave birth to twin boys, Bruce and his brother. After eight month, these couple took their babies for mundane circumcision. Unfortunately, Bruce lost his penis to an electric burning machine. This tragedy left Bruce critically damaged such that his parents did not know what to do.

Fortunately, one night as they were watching television in 1967, the Reimers saw Dr. Money explaining how successful he had carried out sexual surgery in the past. Dr. Money indicated that he had helped people change their sexuality and their response was compelling.

Given the fact that Bruce had lost his penis, Ron observed that it would be better for him to face life as a girl than face manhood as a man minus penis. Therefore, the Reimers contacted Dr. Money for an operation. However, this operation brought more problems than solutions to baby Bruce and the family as they were caught in culture wars that prevailed in the 1980s.

Brenda grew up a shy and reluctant girl. She never associated with any girlish play things like dolls; no, she found her comfort and joy in trucks, which she shared with her brother.

In spite of these growing masculine behaviors, Dr. Money insisted that the Reimers should continue treating Brenda as a girl. Unfortunately, Dr. Money turned out to be a pervert. He would ask Brenda and his brother to play sex; at one point, he asked the Reimers to have sex in front of the children though they refused. Unwittingly, the Reimers continued following Dr. Money’s suggestions; however, the worst was still to come.

Emotional and behavioral issues began to arise; Brenda could not go to school with ease; Ron became alcoholic while Janet developed depression problems. Fortunately, at the age of thirteen, Brenda started seeing another therapist who convinced the Reimers to explain to Brenda what had really happened. In March 1980, the Reimers explained to Brenda her misfortunes and renamed him David.

Analysis

As aforementioned, the author of this book provides useful analysis of this aspect of personality. For instance, as the book opens, the author makes it clear that, “no dialogue or scenes have been invented for the purposes of `narrative flow,’ atmosphere,’ or any other quasi-novelistic purpose” (Colapinto, 2000, p. ix).

This proves the credibility of the analysis given. Most of the information contained in the book came from different psychologists who interacted with Brenda during her childhood and adolescence. Brenda’s family played key role in writing of this book for they offered primary information about Brenda’s case. Therefore, from these grounds, the book is authentic.

Colapinto offers useful analysis by using credible sources to write this book. Bearing in mind that he is not a clinician but a journalist, he involves clinicians to authenticate his claims. For instance, he analyses John Money’s views on pedigrees of sexual individuality development, which differs with the views of Milton Diamond. Colapinto notes that these differences have been a point of contention amongst psychologists and clinicians.

By offering this factual analysis concerning this aspect of personality, the author provides the reader with in-depth analysis concerning the same. As aforementioned, this book presents important information about critical thinking and provides rich grounds for exploring the relationship between clinical practice, research, and theory.

According to Kaplan (2009), “the book illuminates the fact that the sociopolitical zeitgeist exerts a tremendous influence not only on how research questions are answered and how those answers translate into policy and practice, but on the very questions that are asked.”

Continuing with the analytical element of this book, there emerges critical information about sexuality. For instance, the author points out that Dr. Money vulgarized his “neutrality-at-birth” hypothesis. According to John Hopkins’ studies, Colapinto notes that, Dr. Money overlooked important issues in concluding that sexuality is acquired, not innate. More sexuality issues arise because of Dr. Money’s beliefs as presented in the book.

One of the greatest questions that readers get answer from this book is the question of nature vs. nurture in sexuality matters. Dr. Money popularized the notion that at birth, children are sexually neutral and they could be nurtured to be of any sex. This was contained in Dr. Money’s theory of neutrality-at-birth.

This explains why the Reimers were quick in trusting this self-proclaimed ‘sex missionary’ with Brenda’s problem. Moreover, this book is strongly analytical given the nature of its elaborate analysis of empirical studies on sexuality, especially Diamond’s studies.

Colapinto utilizes “Concepts such as experimental controls and analogue designs providing students with an excellent framework for understanding the underlying logic of the famous twin study, one method used by researchers to tease out the relative contributions of nature and nurture” (Kaplan, 2009). Hence, this book stands out as a pedagogical tool in different areas of sexuality studies.

Concerning the issue of ethics, this book arouses the question of just how and to what extent, should professionals like Dr. Money be involved in growth of inter-sex children. As the book ends, Colapinto talks of Intersex Society of North America, giving its objectives and its future role in society. This information is critical concerning this aspect of sexuality.

This book “provides a wealth of material related to research ethics in a broad sense, including how, when, and where research findings are published in scholarly journals and the manner in which these findings are disseminated to the general public” (Kaplan, 2009). Moreover, readers get to understand that science or research does not take place in vacuity; however, for a publication to be made there has to be a process of reviewing and ascertaining the subject under study.

The authors argument is convincing looked at, from two different perspectives. First, the authenticity of the argument evidenced by the extensive consultations of primary sources makes Colapinto’s argument convincing. Secondly, given Colapinto’s nature as a journalist, he makes compelling arguments with well-constructed sentences that bring flow in the story making it enjoyable to read.

He describes characters figuratively, something that makes the reader draw a mental picture of what is happening. For instance, he describes Dr. Money and Diamond as, “suavely charismatic individual … with the long, elegantly cut features of a matinee idol….Diamond is a very objective, reasonable, almost mild-mannered scientist…” (Colapinto, 2000, p. 18).

This is very convincing and it makes Kaplan (2009), to note that, “it is in Colapinto’s exploration of Money’s and Diamond’s respective characters that As Nature Made Him reads more like a juicy novel than an objective report. John Money…a truly chilling figure; unabashed hubris, is matched only by his Machiavellian need for power, control, and recognition.” This journalistic nature of the story makes it convincing and compelling.

Nevertheless, few areas can be addressed in future research. For instance, there is need to explore a balanced and accurate understanding of sex research on ethical concerns raised by this book.

Conclusion

Colapinto explored different issues on sexuality in his book; As Nature Made Him; the Boy Who Lived as a Girl. Bruce suffered a sexual tragedy in the process of circumcision after which he lived as a girl for fifteen years. Dr. Money’s theories coupled with the Reimers gullibility kept Bruce as a baby girl named Brenda for fifteen years before telling him the truth.

The author provides useful analysis about sexuality by using credible sources and referring to research to expound sexual issues presented in Bruce’s case. Given the fact that, the author is a journalist, he uses compelling language to convince the reader about his arguments. The ethical issues raised by the author of this book offer rich grounds for future research.

References List

Colapinto, J. (2000). As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised As a Girl. New York: HarperCollins.

Kaplan, B. (2009). As Nature Made Him: The Boy Who Was Raised As A Girl By John Colapinto. Transgender Mental Health. Web.

Nature is the influence of genetics or hereditary factors in determining the individual’s behavior. In other words, it is how natural factors shape the behavior or personality of an individual. In most cases, nature determines the physical characteristics which in effect influence the behavior of an individual. Physical characteristics such as physical appearance, type of voice and sex which are determined by hereditary factors influences the way people behave.

Nurture on the other is the upbringing of an individual according to the environmental conditions. That is, the way individuals are socialized. Basically, nurture is the influence of environmental factors on an individual’s behavior.

According to this paradigm, an individual’s behavior can be conditioned depending on the way one would like it to be. Often, individuals’ behaviors are conditioned by the socio-cultural environmental factors. It is because of socio-cultural environmental conditions that the differences in the behavior of individuals occur.

Nature determines individual traits that are hereditary. In other words, human characteristics are determined by genetic predispositions which are largely natural. Hereditary traits are normally being passed from the parents to the offspring. They include characteristics that determine sex and physical make up. According to natural behaviorists, it is the genes that will determine the physical trait an individual will have. These are encoded on the individuals DNA.

Therefore, behavioral traits such as sexual orientation, aggression, personality and intelligence are also encoded in the DNA. However, scientists believe that these characteristics are evolutionary. That is, they change over time depending on the physical environment adaptability. Evolutionary scientists argue that changes in genes are as a result of mutations which are caused by environmental factors. Thus, natural environment determines individual characteristics which are genetically encoded in the DNA.

Conversely, individuals possess traits that are not naturally determined. These are characteristics that are learnt rather than being born with. These are traits which largely determined by the socio-cultural environmental factors or the way the individuals are socialized within the society depending on the societal values.

These traits are learnt as an individual develops and can easily be changed by the socio-cultural environment where the individual is currently staying. These characteristics include temperament, ability to master a language and sense of humor. Behavioral theorists believe that these traits can be conditioned and altered much like the way animal behavior can be conditioned.

From the discussion it can be deduced that individuals’ traits are determined by hereditary genes and at the same time can be natured. There are those traits that cannot be changed in an individual no matter what condition the person is exposed to. These traits are inborn and embed within the individual hereditary factors.

In most cases, they constitute the physical characteristics of an individual. They also determine the physical behaviors such as walking style, physical appearance and eating habits. At the same time there are learned characteristics which are normally being conditioned by the socio-cultural values. Individuals learn these traits from the way they are socialized within the immediate social or cultural environment. In other words, such behaviors are conditioned by the cultural values encouraged by the immediate society.

In conclusion, nature vs. nurture debate still remains controversial. However, all agree that nature and nurture play a crucial role in determining an individual’s behavior. Nature is associated with heredity roles in determining the individuals characteristics where as nurture is associated with the role of socio-cultural environment in determining the individuals behavior.

The debate on the impact of heredity and environment on the growth and development of human beings has been going on for a long period of time now. Researchers have traced this ageless debate to as long a time ago as the 13^th century. This implies that human beings, particularly researchers are yet to reach a consensus on the significance of nature and nurture on human development.

Those who support the role of nature in human development argue that all behaviour is dictated by genetic or hereditary predispositions that are encoded from the time of conception (Plomin, Corley & Defries, 2007 443). The proponents of the role of nurture in the development of human behaviour emphasise the role of environment in which they are brought up in (Gopnik, 2004 1).

The essay seeks to explore the nature versus nurture debate in relation to the provision of appropriate learning experiences for children. It will then conclude that much of a child’s learning is influenced by both environmental as well as heredity factors.

Psychological researchers have been engaged in an unending debate on whether a child’s development is directly influenced by heredity and other biological factors or it is by the environment in which the child is born and raised. Both sides have advanced undisputable evidence to support their respective sides.

Of much concern among modern researchers is the determination of the degree of influence of nature and nurture on the development of a child and the provision of learning experiences (Gopnik, 2004 3). We shall focus on the impact of both sides of the debate on the child’s learning.

The advocates of the nature theory of human behaviour argue that a child is born with inherent genetic traits that play a central role when it comes to the general development of the child.

They propose that nature provides the child with the necessary capabilities and capacities required for meaningful learning (Plomin et al., 2007 444). According to Gopnik, a renowned professor of psychology, it is by nature that a child is able to learn and influence the environment and interact with it as well (2004).

She argues strongly against the proposal by John Locke who said that a child is born with a blank mind known as “tabula rasa” on which experiences write on it (Plomin et al., 2007 449). Some of the qualities that have been identified as hereditary include; a persons height, behaviour, and intelligence quotient (IQ), among others.

Investigations conducted by nature theorists on twins who were raised in different environments revealed that they could still exhibit notable similarities. The findings further indicated that measures of personality as well as that of temperament, leisure-time and occupational preferences, and attitudes towards social life were much similar among the twins (Plomin et al., 2007 451).This study, therefore, supports the argument that nature plays a great role in child development.

To contrast, another study was conducted on adopted children who shared the same family environment but no genetic relationship. The findings revealed very minimal similarities among the children, but significant similarities with their actual parents (Gopnik, 2004 23). This emphasises the role of genetic factors in the growth and development of human persons.

With the revelation of the key role that nature plays in child development, educators are enlightened on the appropriate learning experiences that they should provide to individual children (Plomin et al., 2007 453). Understanding the child’s background is therefore crucial in ensuring that the child is exposed to the proper experiences as well as detecting any disabilities that may hinder learning. This knowledge helps teachers and parents in designing appropriate learning experiences for each child early enough (Gopnik, 2004 437).

On the other hand, the role of the environment in shaping human behaviour has received as much support as that of heredity. Scientists have established that the way a child is nurtured can help in determining the child’s general personality/capabilities and behaviour (Plomin et al., 2007 454). They have concluded that most behaviours and habits can be learned from the surrounding in which one is brought up.

The diet that a child is given, for instance, has been demonstrated as influencing the development of some capabilities. A study conducted by psychological researchers where some children were given food enriched with vitamins and minerals revealed significant impact of nutrition on intellectual development (Gopnik, 2004 56). The children scored higher on the same nature of intelligence tests that had been given before.

A group of children who had been put on diet which had not been enriched recorded no meaningful improvements on the same intelligence tests (Plomin et al., 2007 455). Apart from enhancing intellectual capabilities, the researchers noted that it was logically correct to conclude that nutrition impacts on the physical capabilities as well.

Nurture theorists further illustrate that if a child is brought up among wild animals, the child would never develop normally when eventually brought back to live among human beings (Plomin et al., 2007 457).

This argument points to the fact that social behaviour is learned from interaction with other people. For educators, the knowledge of the role of environment in shaping behaviour helps them in developing an environment that is conducive for learning in order to facilitate meaningful development (Plomin et al., 2007 458). John Locke, a renowned advocate of the nurture theory regarded a child’s brain as a blank slate where experiences were to be written upon.

This theory also notes that skills like listening, attentiveness, and following instructions are learned from the environment and determines success in school. Hence, educators have realise that a child must be provided with proper experiences that will facilitate the acquisition of crucial qualities that will in turn enhance learning (Gopnik, 2004 87).

The essay has focused on the two sides of the nature/nurture debate and how each plays a role in the development of human behaviour. It is clear that some qualities are inherent in an individual and are independent of environmental influence. On the other hand, some qualities can be enhanced by the exposure of a child to an appropriate environment.

With these considerations in mind, educators must appreciate the role of both genetic as well as environmental factors in child development. Appropriate learning experiences that enhance both of these need to be provided right from childhood.

Reference List

Gopnik, Alison (2004) Understanding nature vs. nurture. University of California Press, 1-91

Plomin, Richard P., Corley, David R. & Defries, John C. (2007) Nature vs. nurture: cognitive development. [Peer Reviewed Article]. Journal of Psychological Sciences, 8 (3), 443-458