Ahh, the ancient philosophical question. 'Nature versus Nurture" is the idea that a person's surroundings, upbringing, and general environment mean more to that person's personal development than the genetic or racial background. For example, if you took someone born in poverty in a society where he or she would not have much chance to better themself, and gave him or her a good education, a loving family life, and the opportunities to become a 'better citizen', that nurturing would overcome the 'nature' of that person. Most social scientists now believe that NURTURING can overcome any negative natural forces. See the Eddie Murphy/Dan Ackroyd movie "Trading Places" for a Hollywood-ized version of this idea. The upshot of the argument is that no one is "born" a criminal or a bad person - that, given the right surroundings and environment, anyone can grow to be a 'good' person. I beg to differ. While the first answer makes the argument for the "nuture" side of the equation, the term itself refers to a dichotomy that mankind has been asking about for a very long time: Which affects a human's behavior more; genetic or "natural" traits including instinct, or their experiences once the individual has left the womb. Over the years, the pendulum of opinion on this question has swung both ways. Notably, in Victorian England, the thinking was that a man carried "foreknowledge" as a result of the circumstances prior to birth. These included such ideas as a the "criminal type" which could (supposedly) be determined by inherited factors, intelligence as manifested by the shape of the skull, etc. In the later half 20th century, the pendulum had swung the other way and, as late as the 1960's the general opinion was that man actually had no instincts (only animals had those), there was no criminal type and no physiological aspect to criminality, anti-social behavior was not a disease in the classic sense, but purely the result of behaviorism, etc. Nowadays (early 21st century), the pendulum has crept back towards the middle. We believe there may be genetic components at work in cases of voilent offenders, schizoform disorders, etc. and that some of these factors are therefore inherited. But even now, we don't rule out the very potent effects that a person's environment will have on their behavior and health. The ultimate test was thought to be bringing up two identical twins, one is a very positive environment and the other in a highly negative one. Students of Ethics will understand why this experiment is not acceptable in practice. And at this time, we start to surmise that the answer has always been: Both.
False. Nature refers to genetics, nurture refers to environmental conditions.
Nature vs Nurture
The controversy of "nature vs. nurture" is basically about behavior and learning. The question is simply this: Do people act in a certain way because of instinct or is it because of how he or she was raised?
Nature vs nurture can definitely affect the moral development of children. Stereotypically, the nurtured child will have a greater sense of moral development than the child raised by nature, because the child raised by nature will be exposed to the harsher realities. However, this can backfire with a nurtured child missing out on moral development from lack of experience, and the nature child developing a much keener sense of morals. When it comes to nature vs nurture, things are always subjective.
Family is considered important in the nature vs. nurture debate because of the close relationship children have with parents and siblings. While it is not certain, much negative behavior is believed to be a result of how a person was raised.
What was Piaget theory on nature vs. Nurture?
The Spectacular Spider-Man - 2008 Nature vs- Nurture 1-13 was released on: USA: 14 June 2008 Belgium: 28 November 2009
False. Nature refers to genetics, nurture refers to environmental conditions.
The nature vs nurture debate is a scientific, cultural, and mostly philosophical debate. The debate is about whether human culture, personality, and behavior are caused primarily by nature or by nurture.
disadvantage of nurture in ones development
Nature vs nurture is a debate that has gone on for years between psychologists. If you believe in the nature side of things, you believe that we are the way we are because of genetics. If you believe in the nurture side of things, you believe that we are the way we are because of our upbringings.
Nature vs. NurtureNature is the role of HEREDITY, while Nurture is the role of ENVIRONMENT...In NATURE, a behavior can get through hereditary, while in NURTURE, a behavior can be enhanced,or can be improved through the environment ..
The direct opposite of nurture would be to deprive or oppress. The condition that is opposite is the lack of nurturing, which is to neglect or ignore.In debates over human behavior, the opposite influence to nurture is "nature" (nature vs nurture), natural behavior being instinctive rather than learned.
The question is, are children the way they are because they were born that way (nature), or is it the way they were brought up (nurture).
The nature vs. nurture question asks whether differences in traits and behaviors are due to genetics (nature) or environment (nurture). It explores the influence of genetics and upbringing on a person's development and characteristics.
beac
Nature VS. Nurture issue.