nature vs nurture debate

• Early naturists argued that human characteristics are innate (the result of our genes). Psychological characteristics like intelligence or personality are determined by biological factors, just like eye colour or height
• Empiricists argued that the mind is a blank slate at birth, and is shaped by interaction with the environment. Lerner identified different levels of the environment which are:

  • prenatal terms like mother smoking or hearing music
  • postnatal experiences like the social conditions a child grows up in
• there are 2 ways of measuring nature and nurture:

  • concordance which is the degree to which 2 people are similar on a particular trait
  • heritability which is the proportion of differences between individuals in a population, with regards to a particular trait, due to genes. 0.01 (1%) is very little contribution, 1 (100%) means genes are the only reason
• One strength of the nature-nurture research is adoption studies. If adopted children are more similar to their adoptive parents, this suggests environmental influence, if more similar to biological parents, this suggests genetic influence. Rhee and Waldman found in a meta-analysis of adoption studies that genetic influences accounted for 41% of variance in aggression. This shows hoe research can separate nature and nurture influences
• One limitation of nature nurture debate is implications. The extreme nativist stance is determinist and has led to controversy like linking ethnicity, genetics and intelligence and eugenic policies. Empiricists suggest that any behaviour can be changed by altering environmental conditions like aversion therapy. This may lead to a society that controls and manipulates its citizens. This shows that both positions, taken to extremes, may have dangerous consequences for society so a moderate, interactionist position is preferred