A great amount of controversy revolves around the theory of Nature vs. Nurture. Many believe that the two are one or the other but in all reality, it should be known as nature AND nurture because they go hand in hand. Nature is often referred to as traits and qualities that are in our genes. Nurture refers to the traits and qualities that we learn from our environment. The debate is between those who believe that we are solely composed of genes and DNA and those who believe we are products of who we are raised by.
Parents are often viewed as the main source of environmental influence. They make the decisions on what the child may be allowed to do and children base their behaviors of those that they see their parents do. The home environment is an example of nurture because the child is influenced by the parent’s behaviors and characteristics. An example of nature is someone who is predisposed to epilepsy not being able to interact or engage in the same environment as someone without epilepsy. For example, someone with epilepsy may have an induced seizure at a rave whereas someone without epilepsy can experience that same environment and not have the same reaction.
Personally, I don’t see how some can believe that humans are not influenced by both genetics and environment. Nature vs. Nurture is still constantly debated but they have yet to find an actual answer. One can only make assumptions based on the scientific facts they perceive. According to Saul McLeod, there are solid facts on both sides of the debate but there are not enough facts to lean towards just one side. In many cases, the debate now discusses how much of an influence hereditary and environment has on a person.
As I continue this course I would love to research more and learn the different views of those who feel strongly about one side. I am sure I will update this post further into the semester with more detailed information on both sides. Where do you stand on this theory, nature, nurture, or both?