The Nature Nurture debate is one of the oldest debates in the psychology world. This debate is about to agree if our talents and personalities come from our parent or environment. The coding of genes in each cell in humans determine the different traits that we have, more physical attributes dominance like ear size, eye colour, height, hair colour and other traits. However, it is still unknown whether our abstract attributes like sexual orientation, intelligence, preferences, personality are gene-coded in our DNA. Therefore, this essay is going to analyse the nature vs nurture debate from a Behaviourism and Biological perspective.
Biological (Nativists) adopts a hereditary perspective. They believe the characteristics that make us human are …show more content…
Take example of the genetic disorder PKU. This genetic disorder is a genetically inheritance of two recessive genes. A person living with PKU will be unable to break down the amino acid phenylalanine that may causing brain damage. However, if on the first 12 years, a child living with this disease is place on a low-protein diet, he will beat this serious disease. The disorder PKU is a (nature factor) did not grow because of a low diet which is an (environmental or nurture factor). One could also argue that nurture + nature = who we are today, since both of them play a very significant part in our development of personality. Nature sets a limit; it builds a cup, but the nurture that fills up the cup to achieve its potential. Donald Hebb once said, "Which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?" and this is exactly how I picture nature verses nurture, it is a mix of both elements. The nature vs nurture debate still goes on. It is a fact that there are some traits that are predetermined by our genes, but as we travel through our lifetime we can still choose who we want to …show more content…
For instance, in a study concern the intellectual development of children. Piaget use his own kids and his colleague’s ones as a research sample. Secondly, he underestimated children’s abilities because some children possess abilities an earlier age than he believed. Some children can view others perspective, not egocentric. Some children belong in more than one stage. Thirdly, he mixed performance and competence. As seen in the Bowe and Wishart study (1972) demonstrate that searching was the problem and not objects permanence. Fourthly, not only some of his instructions were complicated, but also some of his tasks were unrealistic. AS shown by Hughes (1975) in his more manageable and realistic alternative study to the 3 mountain tasks. Finally, he was been criticized for failing to emphasize the role of the social environment. As shown by Dasen (1994) in his studies with aboriginal children. Dasen show that the environment could help or hinder certain cognitive
Biological (Nativists) adopts a hereditary perspective. They believe the characteristics that make us human are …show more content…
Take example of the genetic disorder PKU. This genetic disorder is a genetically inheritance of two recessive genes. A person living with PKU will be unable to break down the amino acid phenylalanine that may causing brain damage. However, if on the first 12 years, a child living with this disease is place on a low-protein diet, he will beat this serious disease. The disorder PKU is a (nature factor) did not grow because of a low diet which is an (environmental or nurture factor). One could also argue that nurture + nature = who we are today, since both of them play a very significant part in our development of personality. Nature sets a limit; it builds a cup, but the nurture that fills up the cup to achieve its potential. Donald Hebb once said, "Which contributes more to the area of a rectangle, its length or its width?" and this is exactly how I picture nature verses nurture, it is a mix of both elements. The nature vs nurture debate still goes on. It is a fact that there are some traits that are predetermined by our genes, but as we travel through our lifetime we can still choose who we want to …show more content…
For instance, in a study concern the intellectual development of children. Piaget use his own kids and his colleague’s ones as a research sample. Secondly, he underestimated children’s abilities because some children possess abilities an earlier age than he believed. Some children can view others perspective, not egocentric. Some children belong in more than one stage. Thirdly, he mixed performance and competence. As seen in the Bowe and Wishart study (1972) demonstrate that searching was the problem and not objects permanence. Fourthly, not only some of his instructions were complicated, but also some of his tasks were unrealistic. AS shown by Hughes (1975) in his more manageable and realistic alternative study to the 3 mountain tasks. Finally, he was been criticized for failing to emphasize the role of the social environment. As shown by Dasen (1994) in his studies with aboriginal children. Dasen show that the environment could help or hinder certain cognitive