Psychologists have long debated whether nature (the effects of genetics) or nurture (the effects of

environment) plays a bigger role in the development of a human personality. The major question remains:
which has a greater effect on one's personality, nature or nurture?

In a well-developed essay, present your stance on this issue. Use evidence from research to defend your
position.

As you write, remember your essay will be scored based on how well you:

● develop a multi-paragraph response to the assigned topic that clearly communicates your thesis

to the audience.

● support your thesis with meaningful examples, information, and references for the text.

● address the readers' concerns, opposing viewpoints, or counterarguments.

● organize your essay in a clear and logical manner, including an introduction, body, and

conclusion.

● use well-structured sentences and language that are appropriate for your audience.

● edit your work to conform to the conventions of standard American English.

It is clear the combination of nature (the effects of genetics) and nurture (the effects of
environment) impact the development of the human personality. The ongoing debate
on which has a greater influence is more than ever unclear with the greater
understanding of genetics and the mapping of DNA. Although it would be easy to pick
one over the other, and make a case, I believe that both nature and nurture have a
significant impact on personality and picking one over the other is problematic.
“In practice, hardly anyone today accepts either of the extreme positions. There are
simply too many “facts” on both sides of the argument which are inconsistent with an “all
or nothing” view. ​McLeod, S. A. (2018, Dec 20). ​Nature vs nurture in psychology​.
Simply Psychology. ​https://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html

The long standing, ongoing debate over what influences human personality, nature
which is a person’s biological and genetic make-up or nurture which is the influences
from a person’s environment dates back to around 400 B.C.E., when Hippocrates
described human behaviors as being biological. Philosophers Jean-Jacque Rousseau
and John Locke, many centuries later, believed that people are born as blank slates,
and that their eventual individual differences develop solely due to the result of
environmental influences. Twentieth century behavioral psychologist John Watson
shared a similar perspective, believing that the events that take place during early
childhood have far more influence on what kind of adults we become compared to the
effects of our genes
(​https://www.medicinenet.com/nature_vs_nurture_theory_genes_or_environment/article
.htm​).

The extreme belief that Nature determines all human factors such a physical
characteristics, health, intellect and behavioral attributes is called Nativism. Nativism is
the belief that all human development is genetically predetermined and any individual
differences are a result of each person’s genetic code. Supporters of Nativism believe
that an innate biological clock determines all human development, in the same way as
puberty occurs as one matures and it is genetically predetermined for each individual.
Thus as a person matures, the predetermined genetic make-up unfolds throughout their
life. Freud was considered a Nativism with his theory of aggression as being an innate
drive (called Thanatos) and Chomsky (1965), who proposed language is gained through
the use of an innate language acquisition device. ​McLeod, S. A. (2018, Dec 20). ​Nature
vs nurture in psychology​. Simply Psychology.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html

The completely opposite belief of Nativism is Empiricism. Empiricism is the extreme

belief that Nurture determines all human factors except for biological or physical
development which occurs through maturation. The thought is that humans are born a
completely “blank slate” and the environmental exposures starting from infancy
completing influences the child’s development. ​For example, ​Bandura's (1977) social
learning theory​ states that aggression is learned from the environment through
observation and imitation and Freud (1905) stated that events in our childhood have a
great influence on our adult lives, shaping our personality. McLeod, S. A. (2018, Dec
20). ​Nature vs nurture in psychology​. Simply Psychology.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html

However, with the extensive research in DNA and the mapping of behaviors as it relates
to DNA, there as been an increase in evidence that Nature plays a significant role in the
development of the human personality. Research over the past forty years on twins and
adoptees has produced significant data on the influence of Nature versus Nurture. “​This
research has built a mountain of evidence showing that genetics contributes importantly
to all psychological differences between us. In fact, inherited DNA differences account
for ​about 50 percent of the differences between us​, in our personality, mental health and
illness, and cognitive abilities and disabilities.” ​Plomin, R. (2018). ​Blueprint: How
DNA makes us who we are​. MIT Press.​ Research conducted by Plomin found we
create our environments based on our personal genetic make-up. “For example,
parental negativity correlates with their children’s antisocial behavior, but this doesn’t
mean that the parents cause their children’s antisocial behavior. Instead, this correlation
is substantially caused by parents responding negatively to their children’s
genetically-driven propensities.” ​Plomin, R. (2018). ​Blueprint: How DNA makes us
who we are.​ MIT Press.
Empirical studies have consistently showed that adoptive children show greater
resemblance to their biological parents, rather than their adoptive, or environmental
parents (Plomin & DeFries, 1983; 1985).

Another way of studying heredity is by comparing the behavior of twins, who can either
be identical (sharing the same genes) or non-identical (sharing 50% of genes). Like
adoption studies, twin studies support the first rule of behavior genetics; that
psychological traits are extremely heritable, about 50% on average.

The Twins in Early Development Study (TEDS) revealed correlations between twins on
a range of behavioral traits, such as personality (empathy and hyperactivity) and
components of reading such as phonetics (Haworth, Davis, Plomin, 2013; Oliver &
Plomin, 2007; Trouton, Spinath, & Plomin, 2002).

Genetic research has shown we would essentially be the same person if we had been
adopted at birth and raised in a different family. Environmental influences are important,
accounting for about half of the differences between us, but they are largely
unsystematic, unstable and idiosyncratic—in a word, random. ​Plomin, R. (2018).
Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we are​. MIT Press.

According to Plomin, The DNA differences inherited from our parents are the consistent,
lifelong source of psychological individuality, the blueprint that makes us who we are. A
blueprint is a plan. It is obviously not the same as the finished three-dimensional
structure. The environment can alter this plan temporarily, but after these environmental
bumps we bounce back to our genetic trajectory. Plomin believes that DNA isn’t all that
matters, but it matters more than everything else put together in terms of the traits that
make us who we are. ​Plomin, R. (2018). ​Blueprint: How DNA makes us who we
are.​ MIT Press.

So instead of asking whether psychological traits are influenced by nature or nurture,

the question has been reformulated as “How much?” Knowing that heredity and
environment both influence the person we become, which is the more important?” There
is not a definitive answer, however it is clear both Nature and Nurture impacts all of us.
McLeod, S. A. (2018, Dec 20). ​Nature vs nurture in psychology.​ Simply Psychology.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html