Nature vs Nurture, is one of the biggest ongoing debates in the psychology world. Originally termed and defined by, Sir Francis Galton, it was and still is one of the basic concepts of study for psychologist-to-be. The concept of Nature Vs Nature, debates in itself, whether or not, either nature or nurture dictates a person’s mind. While Galton himself favored nature over nurture, even the “Father of behavioral genetics” work has been challenged by many world renowned psychologist. In this essay, I will compare, and contrast the two, and give supporting evidence for each.
A theorist, Erik Erikson (1963) believed that psychologists must use a “triple bookkeeping” method to understand an individual at any given time. One must track biological events together with the psychological experience and also the historical and cultural context all at one time. There are many different schools of thought or perspectives within psychology. A perspective also known as a school of thought is a broad way of understanding psychological phenomena including theoretical propositions, shared metaphors and accepted methods of observation.????? Behaviour is the things we do and as behaviour can be observed it can therefore be measured.
They both have the same shortcoming of beeing more descriptive than explanatory. The two have their sets of charateristics what an authortarian personality defines. But the explanation of the development of authorianism through psychoanalytic theory or social learning didn't include the environmental factors which play an important role in personality development. Besides that they did not explain in what circumstances this behaviour occurs. Understanding results of scientific studies always require critical examinations of certain points, like the background the aims and objectives of the researcher, the methods used.
My task today is to convince you that nurturing has a greater effect on a person 's personality than nature. The nurture vs. nature debate has been a great controversial subject to most psychologists for a very long time. A lot of psychologists argue that a person 's characteristics can be influenced by both nurture and nature. The writer 's belief is that nurturing has a greater influence on shaping one 's personality. Although nature (genetics) plays a vital role in the process, its impact is not as evident.
Nature vs. Nurture Extra Credit The debate in psychology whether and to what extent our aspects of behavior are either genetic or learned characteristics has been going on for a long time. Genetic is the nature side of the argument. Learned refers to the nurture side of this long debate. Some people are so caught between the two extremes that they say it is both, but the argument of which is more important is still relevant. The first person to question this idea was Francis Galton.
In modern psychology there exist many different psychological approaches studying human behavior with each one focusing on specific aspects to study, employing differing methodologies. Two major approaches (perspectives) are the psychodynamic and behavioral perspectives. Both perspectives attempt to decipher human behavior, but they examine it from quite different views. The behavioral perspective explicitly considers psychology as a science and employs scientific and objective methods of investigation. It assumes that behavior, good or bad, is learned and the environment is the primary factor affecting learning.
1. Which methods of research are appropriate for the study of different behaviors? There are multiple methods of research in psychology. But two that are most appropriate to study behavior is naturalistic observation and longitudinal studies. Naturalistic behavior is a research method in which psychologist study and observe the subject in a normal environment without interfering with the subject.
Scientists, till today, create theories to doubt the other side. Both sides of the argument have numerous studies to support but are considered inconsistent. Those who support the nature side in depression would rather prove how genes play a role by family, twin, or adoption studies. On the other hand, cognitive processes play a role in the nurture view of depression. The question should be rephrased to the extent in which that study is beneficial in the argument rather which side does it align with.
Facing this other is a constant game of mirror and reflection, revealing the contrast between I am not what I am and I am what I am. The concept of transcendence-facticity is the basic makeup of bad faith according to Sartre. To sum up, the unique duplicity within human reality expresses a reciprocal relationship to being-for-itself and being–for-others. Thus showing that authenticity in many ways can be difficult to attain since humans use bad faith (inauthenticity) to put oneself out of grasp, creating an
While the other approaches could be considered taxonomical, Eysenck attempts to identify causality of traits. Eysenck believes, variability in cortical arousal is responsible for the development of extroversive traits (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2011). Eysenck’s use of strict and rigorous methodology as well as empirical evidence throughout his approach strengthens his findings, however an argument can also be made against his approach. Critics believe that Eysenck’s theory is overly simplistic and fails to account for all human behaviour. Another criticism is that perhaps introversion and extraversion are both opposite ends of one dimension rather than two separate dimensions, as Eysenck would have us believe.
Two major approaches when studying bystander behaviour are discourse analysis and experimental method. Latané & Darley and Levine have contributed to psychological study into this matter, using these different methods of experimentation to reach conclusions regarding the bystander effect. This essay will begin by describing the different uses of evidence in both methods. Furthermore, it will discuss what these methods have in common, for they equally attempt to understand why bystander behaviour occurs, and the reasons that they differ. It will examine why each method is a useful way of analysing human behaviour, and the similarities in the limited demographics used by these particular psychologists.
How I feel and what I think about the work Zimbardo did in this experiment. First of all, let me make sure we are on the same conscious level as I begin to answer these questions in regards to Professor Zimbardo, and his master craft being a psychologist. Surely you agree his results are sketched primarily in his experiences in social psychology. Establishing human relations and the grounds of united we stand, one of the most important significant developments is the influence of behavioral science. Behavioral science focuses on the why in human behavior and sometimes the answers could be hard to believe.
What is the Nature vs. Nurture Controversy? The controversy that has been debated for many years is whether or not development is primarily influenced by nature or by nurture (Stantrock, 2013). Nature refers to the biological inheritance or an organism, while nurture is how the human responds to their individual environmental experiences. There is no doubt that both are contributing factors to human life development. The nature side of the historic dispute says that we all come from somewhere, and that somewhere is the gene.
Physical features, although unique in some measure, are proven to be acquired from the biological parents of any organism. The Nature v. Nurture debate relates to humans and how they develop their unique behavioral habits. Many who support the Nature Theory endorse essentially that a person’s intelligence, personality, aggression, and sexual orientation pertain primarily to their DNA stemmed from their biological parents (Powell). For example, if someone’s parents are depressed or violent, the Nature Theory supporters conclude that their offspring will also bear these negative these traits. However, the Nurture Theory presents that these behavioral aspects are originated predominantly from the environmental factors of our upbringing, which