Nature vs. Nurture: A Biblical Perspective

When examining human development, the universal idea of conflict between nature and nurture often arises. The argument presented by the “Nature vs Nurture” debate is extremely controversial and has been discussed and critiqued for decades. “Nurture” is cited as being a combination of elements from one’s environment and experiences that shapes a person and their life, whereas “Nature” is cited as being a combination of genetic and hereditary aspects that dictates who a person is and will become. The controversy surrounding the argument most directly stems from the differences of views on whether or not nature or nurture affects a person’s life more. Historians, scientists, psychologists, and everyday philosophers have all studied this uncertainty, and many of whom have developed countless theories. Among these is the

From the earliest stages of life, a human being is always taught the binary oppositions of right and wrong, and how to distinguish them. The guidance of parents, or any dominant figure, is crucial in this period, as nurture is sometimes believed to be the reason behind the life choices a human being will make in the future. The debate nature versus nurture has been going on since the Elizabethan era, yet scholars from both the fields of philosophy and medicine have not reached a solid agreement on this issue. The only thing most scholars could agree on is that the behavior of a human being is determined by many factors, varying from genetics to their upbringing, and the factors company each other rather than being polar opposites.

There is a debate occurring in the world of psychology revolving around the way people’s behavior is based on either nature or nurture. Both of these, again, deal with psychology and are both aspects of behavior that are products by one of two realms. One being inherited through genetics and the other

For example, individuals who have a predisposition are not into crime scene. People who are born with genetic disorders tend to be more controlled by therapists and medications. On the other hand, nurture is more focused on the impact of “behavior, education, society and environment” (Karen Hart), it is the final determinant of how our genes are expressed. A person’s development is formed more by nurture. For example, in the case of Ethan Couch, lawyers defend their client as not being taught right from wrong.

One of the oldest, most prominent topics of academic debate is the Nature vs. Nurture argument. Nature vs. Nurture is a largely psychological term, in which the Nature aspect places more significance on genetics and personality; our innate predisposition to various circumstances tell us a great deal more about who we are. On the other side, the Nurture aspect places more focus on our environment and stresses the salience of the majority of what we do in our daily lives have been “learned” We see a wide array of examples of this specific argument in literature, popular culture, and even in our everyday lives. While no one can deny that both sides have extremely valid points, it would be very naive to assume that one had more of a dominant factor;

Throughout the history of human existence, there have always been many questions that have plagued man for centuries. Some of these questions are “what is the meaning of life” or “which came first, the chicken or the egg.” Within the last 400 years a new question has surfaced and has caused an enormous controversy which takes our minds to much further levels. The controversy is whether inherited genes or the environment influences and affects our personality, intelligence, behavior, development and abilities. This controversy is most often recognized as the “Nature vs. Nurture” conflict. Some people believe that it is strictly genes that affect our ways of live and how we are, while others believe that it is the environment that affects

I chose this topic because there is an issue of homophobia around the world. I find it interesting as to why people are homosexual, and if there is a gene responsible for this or if it can be developed later in

In psychology, it has long been debated whether nature or nurture influence human behaviours more extensively. This has captured the interest of many psychologists as determining an answer can improve society. For instance, if it is proven that nurture significantly impacts human development greater than nature, we can nurture children to abstain from violence and drugs, resulting in a decrease of crime in society. Nurture refers to the environmental factors and thus the experiences and upbringing of people were studied to see how it affected their development. For example, the Zimbardo Prison Study, Harlow’s Monkey Experiments, and Genie are all exceptional examples of how nurture affects cognitive development and behaviors. Conversely, nature refers to the genetic factors that affect human development. To support this argument that genetics play a more significant role in human behaviours and development, psychologists focused on studying siblings and children. More specifically, The Boy With No Penis, the Jim siblings, and Sandra Scarr’s observations were studied to further understand the heritability of certain behavioral traits and the undeterring quality of nature. By examining these experiments and studies, a possible answer can be reached.

On the other side of the debate, people will argue that a person’s environment causes them to act a certain way” (Access Jesus). This debate is a closed discussion that not only does not allow for the fact that both nature and nurture are a part of each other and combined influence a person, but also excludes the reasoning that God Himself shapes people and has a plan for them that does not include the human nature to sin. Christianity and God are very important in contributing to nature, nurture, and how a person develops overall, but even simple wildlife can show that to nurture is actually part of a natural

The nature vs. nurture debate has been a long and bloody battle for the longest time for psychologists. Some believe that we are the products of our environment, meaning that we become who we are as a result of our upbringing, social influences, and schooling among other factors. On the other hand, the naturists believe that outside influences have nothing to do with how we turn out; it all depends on our genes. One psychologist, however, has made the attempt to bridge these two sides together. Robert Plomin’s work in genetics and psychology has helped people understand the roles the environment and genetics play in areas such as education, behavior, and development.

In the nurture side of the debate we believe that genes have nothing to do with the child's behaviour and it is all in the choices the kid makes. I was told of a specific case in the Nature versus Nurture debate, in the studies a set of twins with an alcoholic mother that could care less about her children and a father that was hardly around. One twin grew up to be an amazing mother and go on a completely different path then he was taught when he was younger, the other twin followed exactly in the footsteps of his mother. By gathering this research we can conclude that it is all in the child’s choices and how that child would like to live the rest of his or her life.

‘Nature v. Nurture’ is the psychological term that questions whether genetic factors or environmental factors affect human psychological development more. This short essay will cover three main topics. What does ‘nature vs. nurture’ mean? The discussion of ‘nature vs. nurture’ classifications. Also, the controversy of ‘nature vs. nurture’.

One of the oldest debates in the history of Psychology is about Nature versus Nurture. Today, we know that both play a significant role in human’s life. Some people believe that it is genes which affects our way of life and some people believes that it is none other but our environment that greatly influences our lifestyle and some believe that both has tremendous impact on one’s way of life. Indeed in certain cases both our nature (our genes) and our environment roughly play an equal role in human life.

Through history, the idea of nature vs. nurture has been a hotly debated issue. Nature, or genetics is often believed to be the most important aspect of a persons’ upbringing, as nature is something intrinsic to any one person. However, many debate that nurture, or the care and encouragement of any human life, trumps nature. The earliest evidence and rebuttals of these theories have been honed and developed over time by specific psychologists and educational theorists – all who hoped to prove their own ideas as fact at one time in history.

“You inherit your environment just as much as your genes.” (Rich, 2015) In 1869, the phrase “nature vs. nurture was coined by an English polymath named Francis Galton. There are two sides to this debate, each with their own pros and con’s. Nature is the side that argues that the DNA and genotype humans are born with determines who they are and what personality and traits they will have throughout their lifetime. Whereas the nurture side of the debate argues that humans are born with sponges as minds, and through interactions and experiences while we grow, the knowledge and understanding of life is gained and this is how our personalities are sculpted. Many people have studied this debate through multiple schools of thoughts; each with their own arguments to which side they believe prevails. Yet, to this day, there is no proof to say which side of the debate if correct. Based on the psychological, sociological, and epigenetic schools of though, it can be validated that when it comes to the nature vs. nurture debate, nurture will always prevail and remain most relevant.