The section explores the ongoing debate of nature versus nurture, focusing on how both biological factors (like genetics) and environmental influences (like parenting and socio-economic conditions) shape a child's development. It emphasizes that rather than determining which factor is more significant, the modern understanding recognizes that the interplay between heredity and environment is crucial, with individual development influenced uniquely by this interaction.
Simplify what the following stage means or focuses on in two sentences
1.5.1 Nature or Nurture?
We started this chapter with two short case studies: The Wild Boy and The Boy who
Became a Girl. Both cases elicit questions that are illustrative of the so-called nature�nurture issue. Nature refers to biological determinants such as genetic, neurological,
and hormonal factors. Nurture refers to environmental factors such as the social (e.g.,
parenting styles) and the physical environment (e.g., poverty). This debate centres on the
question of whether the child's development is the result of biological, especially genetic,
factors (nature) or environmental influences (nurture). Although this debate is one of the
oldest in psychology and the related sciences, it has continued to rage on, especially in
certain circles Several factors have contributed to this continuing debate over the years. First, the
debate is heavily interwoven with arguments that do not always meet the necessary
scientific criteria. Political and religious belief systems tend to colour these arguments,
with the inevitable result that emotion rather than scientific data often triumphs. A typical
example is the issue of same-sex sexual orientation, where political and religious leaders
tend to support the nurture approach where it is believed that this orientation is caused by
environmental factors and that people therefore have a choice in their sexual orientation.
Modern scientists, on the other hand, tend to acknowledge that biological factors play
a more significant role than was accepted previously. Second, the nature-nurture issue
encompasses such a wide variety of behaviours that it is relatively easy to find an example that will support either viewpoint. For instance, biological factors such as genetics may
be used as evidence to explain motor development, while socialisation may be used as
evidence that it is largely a product of the environment. A third factor that makes it difficult
to solve the nature-nurture debate is that the cause of a specific behaviour is often difficult
to prove. For example, if a child who was traumatised develops depression, how could one
prove that the depression was caused by the trauma or that it would not have developed
anyway (i.e., due to genetic/biological reasons)? After all, many children are traumatised
but never develop depression, while many others in a positive environment do. This cause�effect issue is particularly important in psychology and should always be kept in mind.
The issue is illustrated by the well-known joke that diet drinks cause people to become
overweight: just see how many people who drink diet drinks are overweight! A more
serious example: Should one find that people who abuse drugs are not very intelligent,
how reliable is it to say that drug abuse leads to low intelligence? It could be just the
opposite: Because of an already existing low intelligence, the person started to abuse
drugs. Thus, if two factors, A and B, co-exist or are linked, it is not always easy to determine
whether A caused B or whether B caused A — or whether there is a causal relationship at
all. This is a common thinking error and should be avoided.
As mentioned, the nature-nurture debate has not been resolved fully. However, most
psychologists agree that the debate no longer centres on which of nature or nurture is
the more important — but rather on how each of these factors contributes to specific
behaviours, situations, and individuals (Kuther, 2018; Witherington et al., 2017). It is
generally accepted that the interaction between heredity and environment is much more
important than the respective contributions of each. The unique effect of the interaction
is also acknowledged. This means that the effect of this interaction on the individual will
differ from person to person, from situation to situation, and from time to time. Therefore,
there is no set formula to determine the respective effects of nature or nurture on a
particular person. However, in most cases, a useful guideline is that heredity sets the
limits, and the environment determines to what extent a specific characteristic will develop
between these limits.
1 answer
1 answer