Earl Pomerantz's Theory on Nature vs. Nurture

The ongoing debate within psychology in regards to the affect of nature vi nurture in shaping a person’s personality has finally been solved. The omniscient Earl Pomerantz has settled years of scientific questioning and debate surrounding the matter of nature v. nurture in the matter of 5 words: “Nature is everything, Case closed,” Not so fast Earl, you don‘t mind if we reopen the case for cross examination, right? Let’s start with definitions. Nature as Pomerantz states, implies something that is a “‘Chip off the old block.

’ Literally, (S)he’s just like me.” Not exactly your Webster’s definition but nevertheless true. “Nature” is described as genetic and biologic factors that contribute to ones personality and human traits. Oddly, Pomerantz did not provide a clear example for what nurture implies as he did for nature. Instead he describes nurture in reference to a line from the musical.

West Side Story, “I’m depraved on account of I’m deprived.

” In lieu of a concise definition, “Nurture” is described as environmental and cultural experiences that contribute to one’s personality and human traits. With the two ideas being so interdependent on one another one can understand why there is such a huge debate on which attributes to our human traits. However, in modern science the debate has focused less on “which attributes to our human traits” and more on which has more of an impact over human traits, This is why Pomerantz’s stance on this particular issue is so outlandish.

Get quality help now

Doctor Jennifer

Verified

Proficient in: Nature

5 (893)

“ Thank you so much for accepting my assignment the night before it was due. I look forward to working with you moving forward ”

+84 relevant experts are online

Hire writer

With absolutely no factual evidence to back up his claims, Pomerantz definitively believes nature is the underlying factor to humanistic traits (“Case closed”).

According to the David G. Meyers 7‘h edition Psychology book, however, “In contemporary science the nature- nurture tension dissolves: Nurture works on what nature endows” (pg 11), Basically this means our genetics determine what we are innately capable of doing, and our environment depicts how far we push our capabilities, thus explaining why both ideas are interdependent In attempt to aid his defense, Pomerantz introduces case studies involving identical twins separated at infancy and their striking similarities to their biological siblings, As Pomerantz described, “Identical twins raised apart” serves as the quintessential Petrie Dish, You have the “nature” component, represented by the identical twins’ matching genetics, and the “nurture” component, supplied by their having been raised in differing environmentsnn They raise one, and the other one grows up in the South, And yet, the similarities between identical siblings who have never met are often quite astonishing.”

“Astonishingly” both twins disliked cantaloupe and they both broke out in hives after eating the wretched fruit, Here lies the one piece of factual citing that has been presented by Pomerantz thus far; unfortunately two twins being allergic to cantaloupe has little to do with their innate human traits and more to do with their medical disposition. But that is not the debate; it is undisputed that one’s medical disposition will be passed down to their offspring because traits like that can be traced to a specific gene that comes from a specific parent; there is concrete evidence to support that. Attitude traits however, cannot be concretely traced to genes bttt can be traced to environmental factors To be fair, Pomerantz could have picked a better example, Studies have shown that on more than one occasion identical twins separated at a young age, grew up to have striking similarities in things one might think impossible.

In the case of Jim Lewis and Jim Springer, they both had high blood pressure due to smoking, they both suffered from migraines, they both chewed their nails when anxious, they even both named their dog Toy! This all means nothing, however, according to Bouchard critics who claim that if two strangers were to sit and compare life stories, the similarities would be just as shocking. Furthermore, separated twins share an environment for the first nine months of their life, and adoption agencies tend to send separate twins to similar homes thus creating a similar environment (Meyers p.110). Bearing this in mind, identical twins case studies offer up only circumstantial evidence. Pomerantz feels that he does not need evidence to support his claims because he does not have the patience to look for evidence, Why? Because it’s “in his nature” to feel that way, he says. While this lack of evidence might suffice for him one might think Pomerantz is so inappropriately arrogant because his genetics or nature taught him to be that way. One might think he’s so inappropriately arrogant because he’s influenced to behave that way, or nurtured. It doesn’t matter what one might say and what the other thinks, science is all that matters and science says it‘s both