Is human development more nature or nuture?

Answer 1

I hope for a day when the asking of this question will no longer make sense; rather analogous to asking, " is the world flat, or round ", but the truth does not care about my hopes and people keep asking this question.

Answer 2

I say it depends on the situation I don't think that there will ever be more of a lean towards either. They both have huge impacts on your life and why and how you do the things that you do. Although I think that nurture has a stronger role. If you were to think about your siblings and you and if you were possibly more than 5 years apart (which I do believe you are considered only children) You could see how different you became because of the different experiences you were faced with. Even your sibling who is just a year or two from you are. People take different experiences into different perspectives. So I go with more nurture

Answer 3

Most modern psychologists agree that human development is based on nature, acted upon by nurture. Experiments with identical twins (who are nearly 99% gentetically similar) raised by different families shows striking resemblances in personality, ideas, anger levels, life happiness. Also, studies have found that adopted children were more likely to hold political and moral views similar to those of their biological parents than their adoptive parents. Both of these factors tend to point toward the importance of nature.

Additionally, all human infants develop in the same order (sitting up, crawling, pulling up, walking) but nurture can slightly alter the timing of these developments.

Answer 4

Initially, at the early stage of the game, it's a combination of both. A child with a gifted talent for music. That's nature, or heredity. But if you hone it with encouragement, that's nurture. If that child with many gifts and intelligence was not granted to develop to his fullest potential such as a good family background and education, then his development wouldn't be nurtured adequately. Thus his human development would be stunted versus one with similar opportunities, to fluorish. So in this case, if the raw materials achieved thru nature is not nurtured; then it would be a waste.

A child who grew up in a loving, and stable family environment is likely to develop into a loving person . At the opposite end of the spectrum, no amount of training, and encouragement and opportunities would make up for a lack of talent. Human development is nurtured with wisdom derived from one's life experiences, be they good or bad.

Answer 5

This question surprisingly has been solved for many years. Nurture doesn't matter without nature. So obviously biology takes precidence. But of course nurture has a huge influence on how people or animals develop biologically. but none of that would matter without biology.

Answer 6

I'd say it is a little of both but it unknown. The simple truth is that nobody can watch the same person grow up it different environments to see if their behaviour is in their nature or a result of their upbringing. We can study similar individuals living in different conditions but it's not the same thing.

The whole gay thing that someone mentioned, nobody 'becomes' gay. They may display homosexual tendancies due to a bad upbringing but someone who is actually gay will tell you that they never felt inclined towards the opposite sex. That part is nature, not nurture.

Answer 7

Nature, a person will always adapt to the area and their surroundings. Nurture doesn't hurt but nature is the larger of the 2 factors.

Answer 8

I would say nurture. Look what happened with Ed Gein. If you're unfamiliar with who that is, look him up on a search engine and read about him and you'll see what I mean.

Answer 9

A mix of both, but I think it is a little more nurture.

Answer 10

Nurture all the way. No one is predisposed to being gay or a serial killer. There is always an explanation. ALWAYS!