how does nature vs nurture relates to development?

Answer 1

It depends on if you are talking about the developement of a child from birth, or the developement of a race of people. Freudian analysts will look first to childhood experiences, whilst evolutionary biologists pay more attention to what has been stored in our genes. The surprising findings over recent years is that there is far more than we had expected in the nature argument. It seems we get a lot more than the color of our hair and eyes from our parents--in fact at least half our traits are inherited. A neat way of studying the question is to take identical twins, who will have the same genes, separate them at birth, and then watch how develop differently (supporting the nurture argument) or similarly (supporting the nature argument).
A famous study did just this. Well--almost. Rather than cruelly separate the twins, they went out and found twins that had already been separated through such as different adoptions.

Answer 2

Cassandra has said it well... I would only add that nurture is the environmental stability and NOT necessarily the degree of protection offered... those leading "sheltered" lives can often be at great disadvantage when it comes to acquired "street smarts." Like wise genetics (nature) has NOT been a decisive factor in most modern day survival attributes, however one inherited traits can indeed aid in the overalll development of the individual... from resilience to immunity to infectous disease to one's ability to cope with the external environment. At any rate, both are contributors to one 's development.

Answer 3

Nature is the genetics a person is born with, nurture are all the environmental experiences the person has. Both contribute to development.

Answer 4

through nature we are given a genetic potential that we could possibly reach, but our environment (the nurture side of the discussion) plays a big role in how close we come to reaching that potential. For example, you may have the genetic potential to be a really good swimmer, but if you live in the middle of the desert its not very likely that you will develop that potential to its full extent.

Answer 5

Nature is the biggest factor in who you are, what diseases you get, your personality....everything. At least that is what the scientific community is getting behind. People used to believe nurture was the "prime mover" but research has proven otherwise. Nurture does play some role, just not as much as your genetics do. Unfortunately, most of the "book" is already written before you are born.

Find out more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_versus_nurture

Answer 6

Oh boy, do you ever have a lot of reading to do.

Answer 7

Alot!

Answer 8

In a news report he did before he died, Peter Jennings did a piece on how it has now been "established" that a person's genes are responsible for about 30% or so of what they are. I don't remember who it was that was Peter Jennings' source. The point was made, however, that even with genetic predispositions to certain medical problems a person's lifestyle can affect whether they develop a problem.

Children's personalities are mostly formed during the first two years of life. While I know of a situation where a two-and-a-half year-old child from a really bad home was moved into an adoptive home and became a different person than she would have otherwise been, I also saw that because her personality and any deficiencies in her development had already been established by the time she was adopted. As a result, there was only so much the adoptive family could influence this child.

At the same time, my son was an infant; and the impact of my family and nurturing on him is clear to see, as are the ways he was so similar to my biological children when he was little. Naturally, all three children have their own personalities and tastes; but its that "core" stuff of what kind of people they generally are that is the same.

One other seemingly silly point: Have you known families where the children are all kind of wild and unruly and the pets are too? I have had pets, and the dispositions of my pets tends to be similiar to the dispositions of my children!

If you think, too, of a family of, say, five biological children; and if you think of how there are similarities when it comes to how birth order affects personalities, this is another example of environment over nature. Also, if you think of how children find something in one parent or the other that they respect, they may just decide to be like that parent when it comes to that one thing. If there's something they don't like, they may decide to either be like the other parent or else be whatever they think is better. There is also the high "mimicking factor" when it comes to some of the more sublte things, such as manner of speech or manners in general or any number of things. In other words, nurturing doesn't isn't always about the parent who does flash cards for math. Nurturing is about the whole environment around the child, and it also affects at least a good part of the child's internal environment as well.

I am convinced that if someone were to hand me a healthy newborn infant from any country and any biological mother, while the baby may not have my complexion or hair color it, too, would be the same kind of person my other children are. I know, too, that if someone handed me an infant who had brain damage or a birth defect and a biological mother who didn't know how to help this child, I would be able to help this child reach its potential.

One final example: Think of the story, The Miracle Worker, in which Helen Keller had had an illness that left her unable to see, talk or hear. Think of the behavior of this child at five years old, and think of what her teacher, Anne Sullivan, was able to help her accomplish.

I am convinced that even if science now accepts that genetics may only be about 30% or so responsible for what people are, there is probably a good chance that over the next few years that percentage will be lowered. Obviously, a person's genes determine the basics and any predisposition to certain things,

You've probably also heard about orphanages in other countries (Russia, Romania) where children are severely deprived when it comes to nurturing and development and where children become retarded or have severely stunted physical growth as a result of conditions such as being left in a crib all the time.

It is now being seen that there can be such a thing as identical twins, with one being gay and the other being straight. The medical profession/science suspects changes in hormone levels prior to birth could be responsible; because identical twins have identical genetic material. I am not qualified to question the theory about hormones in the uterus, and I probably wouldn't. At the same time, though, I have reason to believe there's the chance that nurturing and the family dynamics could actually cause one twin to want to differentiate himself and identify with the parent of the other gender. This, however, isn't something I've ever heard from any scientific source. Its just a theory I have, based on certain things I know.

I am close enough to people who were adopted to have seen for myself that an adopted person can be a very different person than he/she would have been had he/she not been adopted.

It is generally understood that there is a certain quality of nurturing required for a baby's or toddler's brain to develop in all the ways a brain needs to develop. I am under the impression, too, that while nurturing may actually direct the ways in which a brain develops (for example, the "verbal part" of the brain versus some other part), once a brain has been "programmed" in a certain direction it would seem that the brain could then, in turn, actually send out "brain chemicals" in amounts/combinations determined by the way the brain has developed.

I have seen adopted children who speak in the same way as their adopted siblings and their parents, have the type of thinking, and even have the same type of what could be called a "soul". It appears to me that because some adopted children may have been with biological family for a few months or a couple of years before becoming adopted there is also the chance that they are not 100% "matching" with their adopted parents and siblings. At the same time, however, I've seen that the earllier in infancy a child is adopted, the more likely that child is to be very similar to his non-biological siblings and parents.

I know of at least one example where a biological family of several children are all very overweight, but where the adopted child remains - even as an adult - very slim because, perhaps, of having learned good eating habits and also, perhaps, because she was not so stressed out (as her biological siblings are) to the point where she felt so exhausted she needed to eat for energy.

When a person has a brain injury he/she gets therapy in order to help develop other parts of the brain to compensate for the injury. The point here is that certain exercises and training can alter brain development.

These days there is a trend toward returning to the belief that nature is far more important than nurture when it comes to a person's abilities and personality; but some of the very simple examples I've used above should make even a non-scientist
question placing so much emphasis on nature.

Its easy for people to understand that severe deprivation can turn a child who would not have had retardation into one who is "officially" retarded in mental abilities, social skills, and physical development. What people have more trouble accepting is that with the more subtle differences between how families rear their children it may just be easier to blame everything (or credit everything) to genes. They tend to think, "Hey. Freddie's father likes baseball. Freddie likes baseball. Genes." In reality, Freddie's father had him out tossing a baseball when he was a year and a half old, and Freddie became quite the ballplayer by the time he was four.

I have one adopted son, one biological son, and one biological daughter. I have seen more similarities in the types of people they are between them than I can see between, say, my biological kids and my sister's biological kids or even me and my siblings when we were kids. In other words, this little group of people who have been nurtured by me have a sameness that is unique to that little group that I probably wouldn't have thought possible before I had children.

I'm not a scientist, so you can't just believe what I say here. I can say, though, that anyone who has some knowledge of brain development and its impact on physical development; and anyone who looks around for examples such as those I've mentioned above, will probably begin to question exactly how important nature is regardless of what the latest ideas are that people "out there" are pushing these days.

While the popular thing over recent years has been to try to point out how important nature is to what a person is, I am now seeing the beginning of a trend that is starting to point out the conflicting scientific proof that recognizes the importance of nurture.

I believe that when it comes to a person's personality nurture must have even more than the 70% that that Peter Jennings news piece suggested. I suspect that the only time that 70% (or in my guess, even greater than that) impact nurturing has on a personality would be less than that would be in the case of the adopted child who had spent early months or years with a biological family or with some other caretaker (in which case, a certain percentage, based on how long the child was with the previous caretaker, would be the result of that rather than the adoptive parents' nurturing). Even in this case, though, it appears to me quite possible for adoptive parents' nurturing to overcome a minor impact previous nurturing may have had on the child provided the time with the previous caretaker was short enough.

The above opinion is just mine, but its based on experience with adoptive children and other children other than my own, as well as studying up quite a bit on the topic. I realize my opinion may conflict just a little with current conventional wisdom, but you have probably, yourself, seen that there does seem to be some turning away from previous, recent, belief that genes determined certain things.

Answer 9

both is same.