Nature VS Nurture debate
For many years philosophers and theorists have long argued over the historical debate of nature vs
nurture. As philosophers and theorists have argued that we are how we are by our genetic and
biological influences, which is established as the nature debate. Other theorists have brought up the
argument that it is the social, economic and environmental influences that make us how we are,
which is recognised by the nurture debate. As of now, we have an understanding that both nature
and nurture play important roles in the development of human beings.
I’m now going to discuss the two sides of the argument.
For the nature argument, there are many theories and studies that conclude that nature plays a vital
part in our existence. Firstly Bowlby’s (1969) theory of attachment links to the cause of a biological
factor. Bowlby proposed that children come into the world biologically programmed to form
attachments because this will help them to survive. This suggests attachment behaviours are
naturally selected and passed on as a result of generic inheritance.
This attachment argument is repeated and portrayed in the nurture argument as behavioural
psychologists explain attachment in terms of classical learning (learning environment). Where in
their studies they assessed that where food is associated with the mother, the baby forms an
attachment from the learnt behaviour of regular feeds. Within this it creates a pleasured response
from the baby confirming the attachment bond is there between the mother and child all because of
its learnt behaviour from being fed, this supports the nurture argument.
Noam Chomsky’s theory of language relates to nature. As he believes it outlines that humans are pre
– wired to learn language and that we are born capable of the basic rules for language. He disagrees
For many years philosophers and theorists have long argued over the historical debate of nature vs
nurture. As philosophers and theorists have argued that we are how we are by our genetic and
biological influences, which is established as the nature debate. Other theorists have brought up the
argument that it is the social, economic and environmental influences that make us how we are,
which is recognised by the nurture debate. As of now, we have an understanding that both nature
and nurture play important roles in the development of human beings.
I’m now going to discuss the two sides of the argument.
For the nature argument, there are many theories and studies that conclude that nature plays a vital
part in our existence. Firstly Bowlby’s (1969) theory of attachment links to the cause of a biological
factor. Bowlby proposed that children come into the world biologically programmed to form
attachments because this will help them to survive. This suggests attachment behaviours are
naturally selected and passed on as a result of generic inheritance.
This attachment argument is repeated and portrayed in the nurture argument as behavioural
psychologists explain attachment in terms of classical learning (learning environment). Where in
their studies they assessed that where food is associated with the mother, the baby forms an
attachment from the learnt behaviour of regular feeds. Within this it creates a pleasured response
from the baby confirming the attachment bond is there between the mother and child all because of
its learnt behaviour from being fed, this supports the nurture argument.
Noam Chomsky’s theory of language relates to nature. As he believes it outlines that humans are pre
– wired to learn language and that we are born capable of the basic rules for language. He disagrees
