Nature v Nuture

1998 Words8 Pages
Nature V Nurture by Deborah Kane The term ‘nature versus nurture’ is used to refer to a long-running scientific debate. The source of debate is the question of which has a greater influence on development: someone's innate characteristics provided by genetics, or someone's environment. For example, when a person achieves academic success, was this because they are genetically inclined to be successful or is it a result of an enriched environment? Does the child of actors become an actor because of genetics, or because he or she is raised in a home where amateur dramatics is encouraged? Late 20th century studies on the nature versus nature debate seemed to suggest that it is both. Historically, though, some people believed that innate nature played a significant role in development. People were born to be poor, athletic, or any number of other things, and nothing could change this eventual fate. Other people believed that the way in which someone was raised was the critical factor, and that people raised to be politicians, for example, would become politicians. People who believed that nurture was the primary influence were sometimes referred to as proponents of the “tabula rasa” or “blank slate,” referencing the idea that they thought everyone had the same potential at birth. Today, the majority of experts believe that behaviour and development are influenced by both nature and nurture. Some behaviour more than others suit either the nature or nurture view more appropriately. The evolutionary approach explains behaviour as a result of nature. Bowlby (1969) suggested that attachment behaviours are displayed because they ensure the survival of the infant. It is also instinctive of the parent to make this attachment. By making attachments infants are set-up for later life increasing their chance of reproduction, thus extending there genes. (Pound 2005). “Bolwby
Open Document