Nature Vs. Nurture

6 Pages 1479 Words

There is a continuing debate about the factors that contribute most strongly to human development. In sociology and psychology this debate centers on the nature vs. nature viewpoints of human development. Which argument is stronger? Let’s look at them both and see. If a person believes totally in the nurture theory, they argue that a newborn baby is a “tabula rosa,” (Latin term that means blank tablet). As such, onto this blank tablet, all values, behaviors, developmental processes, are written into the baby’s mind by the infant’s environment, and this is how we all learn.
However, critics of the nurture theory argue that if you go to a hospital nursery viewing area, you will notice that each newborn is not the same as the others. Some of the babies will have their eyes open, and others will be asleep most of the time. Others will cry incessantly, yet another may have to be woken up just to get fed. These people conclude that there must be some genetics involved in personality development (Lewontin, Rose, & Kamin 1984).
Where the argument gets tricky is that some research has demonstrated that genetic factors are generally more important in such characteristics as intelligence or temperament, and less important in determining values, ideals and beliefs (Washburn 194). However, most recent research has led social scientists to hold the opinion that there is an interaction between genetic and environmental factors. What this means is that heredity determines a number of possible behavioral outcomes, but the environment ultimately determines the behavior.
How does the nature vs. nurture controversy apply specifically to sociology? There are numerous areas regarding socialization and social development where this question still remains. In the past, social scientists have learned very heavily on the side of the nurture viewpoint in the debate. According to this view, what humans do has been explained by social environment, le...