One of the long-running controversies in psychology has been about the proportional contributions of nature vs nurture. Those who advocate for the nurture side of the argument contend that the environment has the biggest influence on behavior. The biological viewpoint emphasizes the value of nature. It points out that many traits are inherited, so genetics play a role in how people act.
Both views are partially correct. Nature does contribute to human behavior, but culture also plays a role. Some things you do because it's social norms, others because you were taught by parents or teachers.
Here's an example of how nature and nurture impact our daily lives: If you have blond hair and blue eyes, you're more likely to be called "blondie" or "blue eyes." That's natural. But if you were called "blondie" or "blue eyes" as a child, then you'd probably think it was your fault. This is because people have shown you from an early age that having blond hair and blue eyes is desirable. So you try to copy what you see around you, even if you have no way of knowing if you're going to succeed.
Now here's an example of culture impacting human behavior: Many cultures believe that women should not work outside the home. This is natural since there would be no way for them to earn a living.
For decades, the nature versus nurture argument has raged in the area of psychology. Theorists have long debated whether nature or nurture impacts development. Today, most scholars believe that human behavior is a result of a combination of nature and nurture. The 19th-century concept of "blank slates" was popularized by psychologist Francis Galton, who argued that people are born with an equal chance of being good or bad.
Later theories proposed that certain behaviors are inherent to certain individuals, such as Edward Thorndike's law of effect and B.F. Skinner's teaching machines. These concepts are no longer popular among psychologists who now believe that behavior is influenced by both genetics and environment.
In conclusion, modern theorists believe that behavior is a result of a combination of nature and nurture. Whether one's personality is shaped by genetics or environment depends on the situation.
The nature versus nurture argument concerns the extent to which specific features of behavior are the result of inherited (i.e., genetic) or acquired (i.e., taught) effects. Nature is pre-wiring, and it is impacted by genetic inheritance and other biological processes. Nurture refers to experiences during development that influence a person's behavior afterward.
In philosophy, the nature-nurture debate concerns the relationship between nature and nurture as factors in human activity. The term "nature-nurture" was first used by Sir Francis Galton when he contrasted the effects of hereditary traits with those of environmental influences. He argued that since many people with identical genes differ greatly in appearance and temperament, environment must play a role in shaping who we are. Today, the nature-nurture debate remains central to discussions of free will, moral responsibility, and genetics.
Modern scientists generally agree that experience plays an important role in shaping how individuals think and act. Some behaviors may be influenced by one's genetic makeup, while others may be learned through interaction with the world around us. It is also believed that different parts of the brain are responsible for different behaviors. For example, studies have shown that people who suffer from Parkinson's disease tend to behave according to their emotions rather than their logic because areas of the brain responsible for controlling reason fall victim first to the disease's damage.