The Effects of the Nature vs. Nurture on Psychology

Since ancient times, humans have been fascinated by the minds Where do our thoughts come from? Why do we think what we think? Starting with debate by great philosophers like Plato in Ancient Greece and continuing with investigation by psychologists in the modern era, those interested in answering these questions have tried endlessly to garner a complete understanding of the concept of human thoughtr Spurring from this speculation came forth one of the most widely recognized psychological debates: the nature vs.

nurture argument. The debate split the scientific community between two sidesithose who believe humans have certain innate ideas clue to “nature” and those who believe all thoughts come as a result of what kind of environment has ”nurtured” an individual. While psychology propositions a large range of views on the origin of thought, many arguments can be divided along these lines.

However, rather than help give a better understanding of the origin of human understanding, the nature vs. nurture argument has created a competition between two views that should be seen as interconnected, instilling ignorance in the public and exacerbating social problems.

To begin, the nature vs. nurture debate is the opposition of two views: nativism and empiricism. The theory of nativism works off the idea that the most significant human ideas are innate knowledge. According to Stanford University’s Encyclopedia of Psychology, Nativists believe that basic concepts—for example, the ability to learn a language—are ingrained in the human mind from birth due to genetics. Even before psychologists were able to study the human brain directly in order to prove these concepts, nativisrn prevailed for years in the teachings of Descartes—a philosopher who propositioned that humans have a distinct “soul” apart from the body that holds a set of hard-wired, distinctly human ideas (Descartes) Descartes’ theories, which were heavily religious in philosophy, were further expanded by metaphysicists like.

Get quality help now

Doctor Jennifer

Verified

Proficient in: Mind

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

Immanuel Kant who, in his book A Critique ofPure Reason, used a more rational analysis to establish the idea that humans must have some sort of inborn knowledge a priori (before) we are able to make sense of our environment (Kant). These views provided the basis of the modern “nature” argument and have served as important predecessors to a number of the modern sects of psychology—such as psychoanalysis, which, according to the American Psychological Association, was formulated by Sigmund Freud in the early 20th century as a means to help troubled people better understand their unconscious impulses in order to better their mental health. in direct opposition to nativism is the theory of empiricism, or the belief that “all knowledge is based in experience.” (Stanford) Empiricists believe that everything a person learns can be credited to his or her environment. in 1690, philosopher John Locke championed this theory in his.

An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, a direct attack on his day’s “nature” based teachings. In the book, Locke makes the first argument for “nurture,” comparing the mind to a “white paper void of all characters, without any ideas,” simply waiting to be furnished by outside sources. Like Descartes and Kant views did for the nature argument, the views of Locke and his successors helped formulate the nurture side of the argument, a view which has since shaped social sciences like behavioral psychology—a modern branch of psychology fathered by psychologist B.F. Skinner who, in his bookAbout Behaviorism, explained his theory of how the outside world affected the human mind. Not only have they spurred one of the greatest philosophical debates in recent centuries, these ideas have helped shape the field (and subfields) of psychology.

According to Saul McLeod, a graduate assistant for The University of Manchester and founder of study-help website SimplyPsychologycom, this abundance of opinions about the origin of thought has influenced psychology by allowing for a broad range of psychological disciples ranging from cognitive psychology to biological psychology, all of which employ these ideas in their founding principles, This mix of allows for a blend of different opinions in attempts to help as many people as possible in as many possible ways. Certainly, this could be seen as a good effect of the discussion surrounding nature vs, nurture. The problem, however, is that neither side of the nature vs, nurture provide a comprehensive answer to the question of where thoughts come from, ultimately trivializing the purpose of a competition between two sides. Rather, a combination of both is thought to help explain human thinking.

According to the University of North Florida, “the roots of all behavior and cognition are to be found in both our biology, due to genetic inheritance (nature), and in experience, due to our environment (nurture),” Neither nature nor nurture proves to be a singular answer to the question of the origin of thought. Instead, both work in tandem. For instance, the University of California Santa Barbara Sociology Department uses intelligence as an example for why this is true. While types of intelligence can be inherited, genes alone would not make a child smarter unless they grew up in a healthy environment that allowed for proper development and mental stimulation. (UCSB) Furthermore, because only one viewieither nature or nurture; tells a portion of the story of the mind, so to speak, it is ”misguided to ask whether some behavior or ability is inherited, i.e., instinctual, or whether it is learnediin other words, whether it is biological or psychological,” (UNF)

It is important that this is realized because misunderstanding in regards to these facts can be detrimental. One of the worst effects to spur from this error is public miscommunication. Because the nature vsi nurture argument is one of the most widely known topics in modern psychology, it is unfortunate that wrong ideas about it are still abound, According to Timmo Hammay, Managing Director for the Digital Science division of Macmillan Science & Education and former Publishing Director for Nature.com, ”’nature versus nurture’ creates a corrosive blend of conceptual falsehood and political potency” among politicians, journalists, and the public, When the public grasps only a lukewarm understanding of the scienceiieq that either nature or nurture alone must be true— controversy abounds For instance, in the political landscape, the argument can create confusion and evoke further controversy on hot—topic issues.

In a specific example given in Hammay’s analysis, he elaborates on how the publication of an education plan mentioning the heritability of intelligence lead to upset in the UK. This small mention of “nature” as a factor effecting school performance lead to a whirlwind of controversy as to whether claiming heredibility downplayed the need for a reform of the academic environment, The fact of the matter is that, in Hinnay’s words, ”inheritability is not the inverse of mutability, and to say that the heritability of a trait is high is not to say that the environment has no effect because heritability scores are themselves affected by the environment” Because of the governments disconnect on these facts, politicians were distracted from the real political issues at hands. To rely on a bit of “pop psychology” about nature and nurture rather than contemplate the facts only continues to make these problems more common.

This was just one example of how an elementary understanding of the psychology of nature and nurture has created conflict. While focus on nature vs. nurture can stir up politics, the issue has also brought about a miasma of social debates between psychologists and people that thrive off misinformation, According to Sana Halwani and & Daniel Brian Krupp, law clerk to the Supreme Court of Canada and doctoral student in Psychology at the McMaster University respectively, the idea of a “criminality” gene coming from the nature side of the argument has led to upset between scientists and the law While lawyers may try to use the heredibility of violent tendencies—something proven by science but not the only factor to criminal behavior—a true as a cop-out for criminals, Halwani and Krupp state how it perpetuates both the idea that humans are slaves to their “innate thoughts,” totally disregarding the facts about how the social environment can lead to people to make bad choices.

Additionally, views like this in regards to law can single out vulnerable peoples—another social problem that spurs from the debate, In their 2007 report on the psychology of blame, Dri’s Mairi Levitt and Neil Manson, professors at Lancaster University and University of Mississippi respectively, discuss the implications of the nature view in regards to the aforementioned “criminality gene.” According to their research, while genetics have been found to detect inheritable behavior problems, the idea that criminals should be tested may make social tensions worsei Unless some sort of comprehensive genetic testing on the population to detect who is an “at-risk” individual is enacted, testing on criminals would present a skewed result since minority groups like blacks and Hispanics, as well as men, are overrepresented in the criminal justice system.

If a “nature-driven” criminality is created without a regard for both environmental factors and prejudice, the two argue, it is possible that problems could persist. Regardless, some argue that debate is not a negative. Is it not good to have a differing of viewpoint within a field? Would science ever benefit if there was never disagreement on a subject? While one might have agreed with these statements fifty-some years ago when psychology was still at its dawn, there is enough research to debunk the idea that “nature vsi nurture” is still a question that needs to be answered The nature vs, nurture split is not “healthy debate,” but rather a dangerous ultimatum that gives a faulty impression of psychology and will cause further confusion in students and the public. In fact, psychologists today have already began correcting this misunderstanding Going back to the works of BF Skinner, George

Graham PhD, a professor at Georgia State University, states that contemporary behavioral scientists l’wish to dissociate themselves from some of [Skinner’s] main ideas” due to the outdated nature of so called “radical behaviorism”, a field which puts too generous of a focus on the “nurture” argument as motives for a subject’s behavior rather than contemplate other contributing factors The same conclusion comes from historically nativist fields as well, especially in the case of modern day psychoanalysts, While these nativists, according to the American Psychoanalytic Association, “still appreciate the persistent power of the irrational in shaping or limiting human lives,” psychoanalysts insist that “ferment, change, and new ideas have enriched the field, and psychoanalytic practice has adapted and expanded” this field.

The most obvious conclusion to the topic at hand is that, if psychologists are trying to distance themselves from this kind of nonsensical debate, the population as a whole should realize that the feud between nature and nurture has not been beneficial to psychology In order to mend the misunderstanding on the topic and likewise the resultant problems, psychologists, teachers, and students alike should work to educate themselves on the proper science of the matter in order to ensure a more correct understanding of psychology as a means to prevent further misunderstanding, With this kind of effort, the damage done by the snowballing of the debate can begin to heal, and any more harm can be prevented.