Nature vs. Nurture Debate

What is the nature perspective when discussing psychology?

The nature perspective is the idea that a person should act based off of their genetic code and the genes they receive from each parent. An example of this is thinking that because a child inherited their mothers eye and hair color they should act just like their mother. Or because these twins were born identical and their genes are the same they should also act identical. This perspective supports the idea of instincts and genetic make up being the driving force behind how someone thinks and behaves. A study done on dogs was testing the genetics of a Chihuahua puppy, which is considered an aggressive dog, being raised by a non aggressive beagle parent and vice versa. This experiment was to test whether the genetics of a certain breed would become dominant over being raised in an environment under a different breed. Another study was done on a monkey, psychologists took a baby monkey and gave her two mothers. One of the mothers was made of cloth and was considered the "nurture" mom and the other was made of wire and was considered the "nature" mother. This was to test and see which mother the monkey would become more attached to even though the nature mother was the one providing the baby monkey with food. The nurture mother was just there to give comfort and stability to the baby monkey while the nature mother only gave what the baby needed to survive. The baby monkey ended up being more attached to the nurture mom despite not her not having the food that the monkey needed to live. This study doesn't support the nature perspective but it does give you an idea of what scientists considered a mother that was raising a child in a nature kind of way. That the mother only provides the means to live and doesn't show and love for the baby.

What is the nurture perspective when discussing psychology?

Nurture is the effect the environment has on a child and how certain aspects of where they grow up effects how they are as a person. For example a child born in China but adopted into a family that lives in the United States will grow up speaking English because that's the language they're parents spoke. The child is genetically Chinese and would have spoken Chinese had they been adopted into a Chinese family, however, because of their environment they grew up speaking only English. This supports the idea that the nurture aspect of a child's development can effect a child in a major way later on in their life. Study's done by psychologist include the idea that because identical twins share 100% of their DNA that they have to act the exact same, however, psychologists supporting the nurture perspective believe that despite the similar DNA they are still two different people that have different experiences in life making them act differently. Their was also a study of twins being born and adopted into separate families leading completely different lives because they were raised in completely different environments by their own adopted parents. These studies support the idea that your environment and how you are raised has a major impact on who you are as a person despite your genetics. 

What is the debate between the two?

There is a divide in the psychology world because some psychologists support the idea that nature is the most important aspect in a child's development whereas the other psychologists believe that nurture is the more pressing developing agent. This debate is still at large today because their is no accurate legal way to test the nature nurture aspects on a human child. Some psychologist have done tests on animals such as monkeys and dogs, however, those animals don't have any connection to people so all in all those study's don't accurately resolve the debate in terms of nature v. nurture in humans. Their have been many experiments done by psychologists on both sides supporting each side of the debate. This debate is important because it helps psychologists explain certain behaviors expressed by people at different stages in their life. It also helps them to see the lasting effects of lacking in one area or the other. If someone doesn't have a very nurturing upbringing how are they going to development in that area of their life or if someone has overbearing parents that over nurture them, how will they develop as they age.

What do I think?

In my opinion I think everyone should have a good balance between the two, however, if I had to choose one side or the other I would probably choose to support the nurture perspective. I think that the living environment can have a major effect on a person and how they turn out to be as an adult. I'm very into watching Criminal Minds on Netflix and I see a lot of episodes concerning psychopaths and sociopaths. However, one episode that I found to be very interesting was of a father and son duo that would kill together. I think that because the son grew up with a parent that was murdering people, he wanted to connect to his father because his father never showed him affection that he decided to kill people as well. I do believe in the chemical imbalance of the brain of psychopaths but I also believe in learned psychopathy and the act of seeing a parent or role model figure kill someone imprints on a child and creates the psychopathic tendencies. I also think that the way someone is can be majorly affected by parenting style and how a child is raised. I think that the household environment shapes the personality of a child in a huge way as they grow and become teenagers and later adults.

sources:

http://nobaproject.com/modules/the-nature-nurture-question

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/peggy-drexler/is-a-childs-behavior-alwa_b_1886367.html