The debate on nature versus nurture has been a contentious topic in psychology for quite a while. Despite cornucopia studies and researches on this topic, it has not put a stop on if nature is superlative to nurture or vice-versa, or if both of them are equally important when talking about child psychology and development. The main purpose of this text is to provide a reaction to the article The Nurture Assumption Why Children Turn out the Way They Do authored by Judith Rich Harris by using four of the eight essential guidelines to critical thinking. The four critical thinking tools that will be used are: examine the evidence, define your terms, ask questions; be willing to wonder and analyze assumptions and biases.
The main point of the author …show more content…
I think both nature and nurture are equally important factors in making who we are. We behave the way we do because we act in accordance with our instinct that are determined by our genetic component. The argument on nature and nurture presented by the author has provided a new dimension on how the subject matter should be viewed. Also, I believe that our behavior and personality are influenced by the environment we are raised during our prenatal, childhood, and adult stage. Our behavior and personality are also influenced by our early experience, culture, gender and peer …show more content…
Her curiosity of human behavior led her to wonder why children turn out the way they do. She examines several published studies on nature and nurture and faulted the nurture/nature ideation. She carefully pinpointed the flaw in the widely believed assumptions that parents are vital in the development of children’s personalities. “How children are raised – in day care or at home, with one parent or two, with gay parents or straight ones, with an employed mom or one who stays home – has little or no influence on children’s personalities” (Tarvis, 2011, p.36). Even though I understand the angle of the author, I however do not fully agree with the aforementioned notion. As argued by Maccoby, “other studies show that a given parenting style can have different effects on children with different temperaments. The result is that parenting can function to make children in the same family different rather than alike” (Azar,
The main point of the author …show more content…
I think both nature and nurture are equally important factors in making who we are. We behave the way we do because we act in accordance with our instinct that are determined by our genetic component. The argument on nature and nurture presented by the author has provided a new dimension on how the subject matter should be viewed. Also, I believe that our behavior and personality are influenced by the environment we are raised during our prenatal, childhood, and adult stage. Our behavior and personality are also influenced by our early experience, culture, gender and peer …show more content…
Her curiosity of human behavior led her to wonder why children turn out the way they do. She examines several published studies on nature and nurture and faulted the nurture/nature ideation. She carefully pinpointed the flaw in the widely believed assumptions that parents are vital in the development of children’s personalities. “How children are raised – in day care or at home, with one parent or two, with gay parents or straight ones, with an employed mom or one who stays home – has little or no influence on children’s personalities” (Tarvis, 2011, p.36). Even though I understand the angle of the author, I however do not fully agree with the aforementioned notion. As argued by Maccoby, “other studies show that a given parenting style can have different effects on children with different temperaments. The result is that parenting can function to make children in the same family different rather than alike” (Azar,