Nature versus Nurture

Garvey, B. (2005). Nature, Nurture and Why the Pendulum Still Swings. Canadian Journal Of Philosophy, 35(2), 309-330.

The article states that in popular and technical debates there exist  pairs of contrasting phrases ‘nature/nurture’, ‘innate/acquired’,  ‘resulting from gene/environment’ et cetera. They seem to be utilized as if every one of them captures a genuine difference at that (Garvey, 2005). Further, there are related opposing pairs that describe the distinction between the ones who attribute certain traits to nature and the ones who attribute them to ‘nurture’. Among the opposing pairs is ‘nativists versus constructivists’. The author states that on a cursory evaluation, lots of Evolutionary Psychology claims have the characteristics of ‘nativism’, specifically, it seems like Evolutionary psychologists  usually make claims with regards that numerous aspects of the mind that are normally perceived to be as a result of ‘nurture’ are usually as a result of nature (Garvey, 2005).  The author states that, among the genre’s top practitioners, Leda Cosmides and John Tooby, strongly refute that position is theirs. Actually they refute that ‘nature versus nurture’ theory generates any sense. But they offer alternative dichotomies phrasings. The author also observes that whatever phrasings are chosen there exist two claims being denied ( a strong one and  weak one). The strong claim being it is likely to characterize a trait wholly as being influenced by genes or entirely as influenced by environment. Thus to refute claims of this nature, nevertheless, is totally uncontroversial- in reality it is extremely difficult to coherently assert this kind of claim. The weak claim regards the likelihood of regard traits as being more or less controlled by genes or environment (Garvey, 2005). The author observes that a trait cannot sensibly be analyzed into distinct genetically influenced and environmentally influenced components or extents of influence. The article asserts that it generates no sense to attribute a character as being greatly more genes controlled than environmentally controlled or even vice versa (Garvey, 2005).   Therefore the weak claim is also rejected. The article states that on way that the whole discussion is concluded or shows is that the influence of either genes or environment is incommensurable.

Mullen, J. D. (2006). NATURE, NURTURE, AND INDIVIDUAL CHANGE. Behavior & Philosophy, 341-17.

The article states that determining the extent that persistent human traits and behaviors are influenced by genetics or environment is essential for numerous reasons regarding theoretical psychology. Thus, the article attempts to determine whether these determinations are relevant towards tasks of individual change as tried through for instance, therapy, self-transformation or parenting techniques. Psychological literature on ’subjective wellbeing’ or happiness indicates that a trait that is largely attributed to genetics is highly difficult to alter or transform compared to one that is to a large extent environmental (Mullen, 2006).  The author states that the mainly known theoretical techniques to differentiating genetic from environmental influences in individuals is behavioral genetics, using its core concept; heritability or h². The author argues that h² measures fail to foresee the ease or complexity of modifying individuals’ behavioral traits (Mullen, 2006). A technique distinct from that of h² is that of innateness, however, it was also discovered as being unhelpful in predicting individual modifiability.

The article states therapists attempt modifying their patients’ behaviors and mindsets, people try the same thing on themselves, and parents attempt to inculcate personal traits while developing their kids. The author observes that the intention of all these endeavors are meant to modify what already exists or what would probably develop. One of the mostly prevalent issues in these endeavors of individual modification is whether the traits and conducts are as resultant from nurture or nature (Mullen, 2006). The article observes that this is supposed to be appropriate under the supposition that the probability of attaining human modification is limited to the extent to which a behavior or trait is environmentally caused and influenced to the extent that it is genetically caused or vice versa. There exists an additional idea indicating that genetically caused traits are greatly more closely associated to an individual’s identity.  For instance, it is deemed as significant to gay rights supporters that their sexual orientation is entirely hereditary and to antagonists it is regarded as being chosen or nurtured (thus it could be un-nurtured) (Mullen, 2006). In conclusion the awareness of the extent to which an individual characteristic is influenced by nature or nurture possesses no implications towards the simplicity or complexity of modifying that trait

Sameroff, A. (2010). A Unified Theory of Development: A Dialectic Integration of Nature and Nurture. Child Development, 81(1), 6-22. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01378.x

The article states that the understanding of nurture and nature in developmental science has transformed with alternating of primary explanations regarding personal distinctions in life course paths of failure or success (Sameroff, 2010).    A dialectal point of view stressing the interconnectedness of personal along with context is seen to explain the transformation of developmental science in equivalent approaches to those essential to explaining individual children development.  The author observes that the developmental explanations were shown in aspects of a person’s nature or nurture. Developmental Psychology’s history has overtime been marred by swings amongst opinions stating that a person’s behavior determinants could be traced either in the person’s irreducible crucial units or in the person’s irreducible crucial experience (Sameroff, 2010).  The article additionally states that the growth process linking infanthood and adulthood can be explicated by appealing to the child’s intrinsic properties or by appealing to their extrinsic experience properties. The author views that the nature-nurture subject arises when a kid experiences a difficulty, therefore the issue arise regarding who could be accountable. Lots of parents lay blame to the kid whilst the professionals blame the parents. Nonetheless, scientists know that both the kid and the parent are to blame along with neurons and environs, proteins and peers, synapses and schools. The author observes that the question remains whether nature and nurture interact deterministically such that the ratios to one another could be decomposed or whether they operate probabilistically such that the role of each could solely be a concept the activities of dynamic systems (Sameroff, 2010).

The article states that the neurosciences along with molecular biology are making primary contributions in understanding of development by use of new technologies for brain imaging and genome manipulation. The topics of nature and nurture have been gaining popularity as developmental explanations (Sameroff, 2010). At every point, there exist sturdy supporters of the two positions waiting for technological breakthrough to confirm their viewpoint. The author in conclusion observes that the prevalence of nature-nurture discussion may pursue developmental principles equivalent to the ones that control human development and that the evaluation of both might be illuminated simultaneously.