Nature Vs Nurture Debate: Analysis Scientific Articles

The conflict between nature and nurture is one of science’s most contentious. This debate is about whether genes can control our personality or how our early environment shaped us. Scientists have debated this idea for years. There is no right and wrong answer. Both sides are supported by a lot of well-studied information. But is one more correct than the other. This paper will address the various issues in the debate and link them to current-day problems.

Kayla Guo’s article was the first thing I read and analysed. Our culture and our way of living have been influenced by our family. Our closest family members are the ones we first meet and have the most in common. Our lives are influenced daily by more than just our family. While we meet other people as we grow up, our family is the most important. Guo refers to Jenna Breuer, a psychologist who makes a great point. Breuer uses the example that a soccer kid could use to describe his “peer team”, which is a group of people who share one or more interests. The influence is still in the one area of their life, and that is sports. Family, however, is always there for us and has a huge impact on our daily lives. Although the article is excellent at explaining the nurture side of things, it doesn’t address the nature aspect. There are many other possible explanations as to why we are who we are. First, each person’s body functions differently. One person born to a family with a dominant “right brain” might be a person with a heavy left brain. The family can’t change or predict this trait, it was born. It is crucial to discuss our genetic influence when discussing this topic. Humans have many pairs of DNA-containing chromosomes in their bodies. DNA is composed of different nucleotides, which code for different traits and genes. These genes and the traits that make us human are probably responsible for our current identity. My belief is that memory and the different processes it involves can have an impact on our individuality. We defined memory in class as the “retention of information over a period of time” or “the endurance learning.” This means that we retain information at all ages. It’s evident that no two individuals are alike. So it’s only natural that memories of different people might not be identical. What we consider important will stay with us forever and have an impact on who we become. While the article is a good overview of how our environment affects us, it does not give an exhaustive view of the whole picture. Almost all articles agreed that there is no right or wrong side. Matt Bradshaw said, “We believe that higher religiosity in women is probably due to both biological and environment influences.” Michael Meany, author of Nature, Nurture, & Disunity of Knowledge, makes a similar point. Meany includes the story of a journalist who asked Donald Hebb, psychologist, whether the nurture or nature aspects were more important. His answer was that he didn’t know which factor contributed more to the rectangle’s area: its length or width. This is yet another proof that psychologists have agreed that both stances play an important role in one’s development of personality and/or behavior. Another article discussed how the argument of nature vs. nurturing can be applied to different areas of one’s life. One researcher shared how nature and nurture can be compared to physicians’ preferences for practice. He stated that nature could be defined as factors such as a candidate’s background, special preference, and demographics. This may influence the selection of rural practice-oriented candidates. In terms of training, nurture could include curricula as well faculty and rotations. Experts have shown that both topics are equally important and how they can be applied in everyday life.

It was not covered in the original article. However, it is worth mentioning when we talk about the nature/nurture debate. How can someone who grew up in a Christian family change their views on sexuality? This is also true for mental health. If they don’t live in a supportive and loving family, how can someone who has been raised to be happy and healthy fall prey to depression? Since there is no scientific explanation for homosexuality, it’s difficult to identify the source of these traits. Wendy Wood and Alice H. Eagly, researchers, concluded that science regarding gender and sexual differences is in the ability to overcome ideological and identity biases as well as formulating theories that integrate principles of nurture and nature into interactionist approaches. The gender debate doesn’t necessarily favor one side. There isn’t any scientific reason why people identify in the way that they do.