Nature Vs Nurture Debate: Analysis Scientific Articles
The nature vs. nurturing conflict is one of the most contentious scientific issues. The debate centers on whether genes are responsible for shaping who we are today or if we were shaped by our early environments. Scientists have debated this idea for years. There is no right and wrong answer. Both sides can be proven to be correct by a lot of well-researched information. But is one more right than the other. This paper will discuss the issues and then relate them to contemporary 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 says that a young soccer player might view his soccer team as his peer group or group who share one or more of their interests. The influence is still in the one aspect of their life, but it’s not as much as with sports. Family is with us all year, and they influence us in many areas of our lives. While the article highlights the importance of the nurture and nature sides of the conversation, it is missing the reverse. 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 who is more likely to have a left brain-oriented upbringing. The family can’t change or predict this trait, it was born. It’s important to talk about the impact of our genes on 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 likely to be responsible for our current identity. My belief is that memory and the different processes it involves can have an impact on our individuality. We learned that memory is “the retention or endurance of information over time.” In class, this was defined as memory. It is obvious that no two people will be the same so it makes sense that not all people have identical memories. 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 environmental and biological influences”. Michael Meany, author of Nature, Nurture, & Disunity of Knowledge, makes a similar point. Meany details how a Journalist asked Donald Hebb (psychologist) whether it was the nurture or nature side of his question. His response was that “posing this question was like asking whether the length or width contributed more” This is yet another proof that psychologists have agreed that both stances play an important role in one’s development of personality 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 as faculty, rotations, specialties, or other aspects. Experts have shown that both topics are equally important and how they can be applied in everyday life.
The role of gender and mental health is something that was not mentioned in the original article. 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 is no scientific reason why people identify in the way that they do.
