Nature Vs Nurture Debate: Analysis Scientific Articles

One of the most controversial scientific debates is the nature vs. nurture conflict. This focuses on whether our genes control and determine the person we are believed to be today, or if our early environment has shaped us into who we are. This idea has baffled and been argued by scientists for a long period. There is no right or wrong stand. There is plenty of thoroughly studied information proving both sides of the spectrum to be true, but could one be more accurate than the other? In this paper, I plan to tackle the many issues within the debate and relate them to modern-day problems.

I began by reading and analyzing an article written by Kayla Guo. The family has influenced the way we live, our culture, etc. Our family is the first person we are introduced to in our lives and share the most in common with. However, our family isn’t the only group of people influencing our daily lives. As we grow, we are continuously introduced to other groups of people whom we may or may not begin to develop similar interests with, but we will always have the strongest relationship with our parents. Guo references a psychology teacher Jenna Breuer who brings up a very good point. In the example Breuer uses, she says a kid playing soccer could consider his soccer team to be his “peer group” or a group they share one or many interests with. Though the kids are still being influenced, it is only in one aspect of their lives, sports. Family, on the other hand, they are with us every day of the year and are constantly influencing us in many aspects of life. This article does a great job of informing bout the nurture side of the conversation but lacks the opposite side, nature. There are plenty of other plausible explanations for why we are the way we are. First off, the way our body works differs from person to person. A person who is predominantly “right brain” heavy could very well be born into a “left brain” family. There isn’t anything the family really could or couldn’t have done to predict or change this, the individual was just born with the trait. When talking about this topic it’s also very important to discuss the role our genes have on us. We, humans, have multiple pairs of chromosomes within our bodies that contain DNA. DNA is made up of different nucleotides that code for different genes and traits. These genes and traits within our DNA are likely responsible for making us who we are today. I also believe that our memory and its different processes can impact us as individuals. In class, we defined memory as, “the retention of information over time,” or “the endurance of learning.” We’re constantly retaining information no matter how old or young we are. It’s obvious that no two people are alike so wouldn’t it make sense that no two people’s memories are also alike. The information we believe to be important to us will stick with us and impact who we are. The article does bring up some excellent points on how the people around us affect us but lacks an overview of all things that make us the people we are today.

After analyzing the article, I reviewed some scholarly sources to see their views on the nature vs. nurture debate. Something that almost all the articles had in common was that they believe there truly is no right or wrong side. Matt Bradshaw even stated, “We argue that the higher religiosity of women is likely the product of both biological and environmental influences”. Michael Meany also makes a good point in his article Nature, Nurture, and the Disunity of Knowledge. Meany includes that a Journalist approached and asked psychologist Donald Hebb whether the nature or nurture aspect was more important. His response, “to pose this question was akin to asking what contributed more to the area of a rectangle, the length or the width”. This once again proves that renowned psychologists seem to be in unison with the idea that both stances are equally important in the development of one’s personality and or behavior. Another article I found discussed how the nature vs. nurture argument can also be somewhat applied into different aspects of our life. One researcher discussed how nature vs. nurture has been studied to be like physicians' practice preferences. He described it as, “Nature might be best defined as those factors present before medical school (e.g., a candidate's upbringing, specialty preference, and demographics) that may contribute to the selection of candidates who have preferences for rural practice. Nurture would be those aspects of training (e.g., curricula, faculty, rotations, or specialty tracks) both in medical school and during residency”. Not only have experts shown the equivalent importance of both topics, but how the idea can be used in other everyday life scenarios.

Not mentioned in the original article, but something that must be discussed when talking about the nature vs. nurture debate is the role mental health and gender play. How “can one growing up in an all-straight family with Christian values ultimately change his or her beliefs on their sexuality? The same for with mental health. How can someone who grew up in an awesome and caring family fall victim to depression if they aren’t surrounded by it daily? It’s hard to pinpoint where these parts of our personality come from since there isn’t a scientific reason for why someone might be gay. Researchers Alice H. Eagly and Wendy Wood concluded that “science pertaining to gender and sex differences lies in overcoming ideological and identity biases and formulating theories that effectively integrate principles of nature and nurture into interactionist approaches”. In other words, the gender debate really isn’t specifically lean towards one side of the spectrum. There really isn't a scientific solution for why one chooses to identify the way they do.