In this critical essay, I will be discussing the historic and contemporary nature versus nurture (nativist vs empiricist) debate that has been shaped as a discussion on human nature for centuries, even now. In many researchers, scientists and experimenters have argued that it is the crucial role of environment and on the other hand philosophers have argued that it is the biological beginnings, now each side of these have good arguments that make it hard to decide whether a person’s development is because their DNA or it is manipulated by their life experiences and their environment. Nevertheless, we now know that Nature and Nurture play a big role in human development, but not sure whether it is developed because of nature or due to nurture.
…show more content…
These kinds of questions are what lead people to the great debate of nature vs. nurture. Now in your understanding if you deliberate that you were with personality already, then you take the side of nature, and if you deliberate that your personality developed based on the influences of childhood then you believe in nurture. It is believed that these two different theories make us who we are. Despite this, the debate continues to be evident in many aspects of the psychological literature. Some have argued that this debate serves as a distraction (Spencer et al., 2009), others argue it offers a rich source of insight (Spelke & Kinzler, 2009), whereas others have proposed “alternatives” (Karmiloff-Smith, …show more content…
This article focuses on to two opposing statements. Spencer argues that any statements of innateness are meaningless. `However, in their debate of their examples they argued that specific claims of innateness are not logically incoherent but false, and they support it with evidence that “children learn to recognize their caregivers, navigate through the environment, and speak their language”, (Spencer et al.’s, 2009). But if learning is a consistent and a useful concept in these fields, then a statement of innateness are also consistent, useful and is compulsory to explain the tools that underlie the basic learning. Spelke & Kinzler (2009) article “Innateness, Learning, and Rationality”, could question Spencer et al.’s specific explanations of development in the above areas, but such a discussion is undermined more radical claim because the nativist- empiricist (nurture) discussion is a meaningless use. Nevertheless, contemporary researchers claim for a new theoretical perspective on the “developmental process”. In contrast, historians of science have posed theoretical perspectives in multiple ways. Firstly they
These kinds of questions are what lead people to the great debate of nature vs. nurture. Now in your understanding if you deliberate that you were with personality already, then you take the side of nature, and if you deliberate that your personality developed based on the influences of childhood then you believe in nurture. It is believed that these two different theories make us who we are. Despite this, the debate continues to be evident in many aspects of the psychological literature. Some have argued that this debate serves as a distraction (Spencer et al., 2009), others argue it offers a rich source of insight (Spelke & Kinzler, 2009), whereas others have proposed “alternatives” (Karmiloff-Smith, …show more content…
This article focuses on to two opposing statements. Spencer argues that any statements of innateness are meaningless. `However, in their debate of their examples they argued that specific claims of innateness are not logically incoherent but false, and they support it with evidence that “children learn to recognize their caregivers, navigate through the environment, and speak their language”, (Spencer et al.’s, 2009). But if learning is a consistent and a useful concept in these fields, then a statement of innateness are also consistent, useful and is compulsory to explain the tools that underlie the basic learning. Spelke & Kinzler (2009) article “Innateness, Learning, and Rationality”, could question Spencer et al.’s specific explanations of development in the above areas, but such a discussion is undermined more radical claim because the nativist- empiricist (nurture) discussion is a meaningless use. Nevertheless, contemporary researchers claim for a new theoretical perspective on the “developmental process”. In contrast, historians of science have posed theoretical perspectives in multiple ways. Firstly they