The Nature vs. Nurture Debate

There is an issue that has been conferred upon by philosophers in the past and still so by scientists today. This issue is whether heredity or environment plays a greater role in the determining or shaping of an individual’s behavior. It is known as the nature versus nurture debate.
Numerous generations before us have deliberated on the reasons behind the development of human behavior. There have been many theories formulated to explain why humans behave the way they do. The surviving theories for behavior derive from physiological and sociological explanations. However, the two explanations have not always been compatible with each other. The famous nature vs. nurture debate over human behavior resulted from conflicting views between proponents of the physiological (nature) and sociological (nurture) explanations. Throughout history, research has swayed popularity back and forth between the theories. Yet, theorists have broken down the line separating nature and nurture. As of today, people utilize both explanations to explore human behavior.
Way before our time, early philosophers endeavored to understand the human behavior. As early as 350 BC, such philosophers as Plato and Aristotle tried to understand behavior. The questio

Alternatively, philosopher Aristotle theorized a different idea about human behavior. He presented the idea that humans are born into the world with a "blank slate" and people’s behavior and thoughts are due to experience (Ashcraft, 1998). His tabula rasa explanation believed that the environment and experience were the important influences in human behavior. Unlike Plato, Aristotle hypothesized that humans were not born with knowledge, but they acquire it through experience (Ashcraft, 1998). Aristotle’s idea of the tabula rasa is not believed today. Nevertheless, his belief that the environment was a vital factor in behavior influenced many empiricists throughout history.

Throughout my childhood, I didn't grow up free of environmental influences nor did I develop without being affected by my inherited genetic makeup. I think nature plays a significant role in a child's childhood, but like Ivan Pavlov, I believe that the environment is the greatest factor in shaping human behavior. Environmental factors and influences develop a person more than physical aspects. In reading stories about identical twins my point of view is easily understood. Various types of psychologist have analyzed the study of identical twins. It shows that individuals with the same genetic make-up can be totally different, when it comes to personality. The environment promotes the twins to grow up as separate individuals.

A key point should be made that even though the literalists and empiricists felt strongly about their theories, the explanations were not entirely opposite of each other. Cowie explains, "…rhetoric aside, both empiricists and nativists are both internalist and externalists about the origin of what is in our minds" (Cowie, 1999, p. 17). Even Leibniz and Locke stated that the philosophies sometimes were only different by the choices of words they used to describe their theories. Leibniz once wrote that fundamentally their views were the same about the nature vs. nurture question (Cowie, 1999).

In 1959, the final attack that swayed popularity to the nature side of development originated with Noam Chomsky and other psycholinguists. Chomsky attacked behaviorism’s scientific empiricism, especially dealing with the acquisition of language (Amsel, 1989). Ashcraft (1998) explains, "...Chomsky argued not only that the behaviorist account of language was seriously wrong and misguided, but that behaviorism was unable in principle to provide useful scientific knowledge of language" (p. 22). In addition, research developments in physiology and new studies involving genetics, such as adoption studies, and studies on twins, popularized genetic