The Nature-Nurture Issue

     The pro-nature and pro-nurture perspectives center on nature vs. nurture, which may be the oldest debated issues in psychology. This centuries old debate within psychology by psychologists remains an issue because there is no definitive proof of either prospective. The issue at hand is weather behavioral traits are inherited (inborn) or learned after birth. The belief of the pro-nature perspective is that behavioral traits are inherited or also known as genetic inheritance. While the belief of the pro-nurture perspective is that behavioral traits are learned also believed to be the result of environmental factors. This perspective is the belief that the brain begins as a blank slate, also known as tabula rasa.   

     I think it is flawed to ask how much of a particular behavior is because of genetics or experience; because there is not a definitive way to determine if behavioral traits are the product of nature or nurture. I believe nature and nurture both affect behaviors. Churchland asserts “the physiological-or-psychological debate and the nature-or-nurture debate are based on incorrect ways of thinking about the biology of behavior, and a new generation of questions is directing the current boom in biopsychological research” (as cited in Pinel, 2011). There may be one exception and that is if one has a mental disorder at birth which will determine behaviors. One may become aware that they seem to have the same behavioral traits as their parents, but there is no definitive way to tell if those traits are inherited from one’s parents or learned from interactions with one’s parents. It is appropriate to separate the contributions of genetics and the experiences when measuring the development of differences among individuals because not human creatures and non-human creatures share the same environments or genes. Genes and environmental differences will always very.

Reference

Pinel, J. P. J. (2011). Biopsychology (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.