Please check the uploaded file and choose any one of them

Contributions of Nature and Nurture in Personality
Student’s name:
Course name:
Student’s number:
Due Date:

Contributions of Nature and Nurture in Personality
Abstract
The debate on nature vs. nurture has been inexistence for a longtime and many philosophers have failed to agree on this issue as to what influences the personality of a person. A lot of theories have been put into place to give a detailed description on how each affect behavior of a person. All persons have a unique DNA coding in their system which makes them unique different from each other. This is evident in traits such as eye color, skin pigmentation and height. However the study of nature wants to find out if genes inherited from parents affect our personality. Besides, the nurture argument suggested that despite having inherited characteristics the environment plays a key role in shaping ones behavior. Further this argument gives theories that proof how training and exposure influence personality, for instance the behaviorism theory. Eventually, the question of what influences our behavior goes answered and we are still left in a confusing state when the theme changes from whether its nature or nurture that influences behavior to how the two interact to bring out ones behavior. Although the debate is endless, it’s evident that we have inherited genes but the environmental exposure contributes to our personality too.
Introduction
Nature can be defined as hormone-based behavior which occurs due to the genetic compositions that a person possesses affecting their physical being and the character traits that one portrays.

On the other hand, nurture refers to the experimental and the environmental variables that influence one’s behavior and character. Nature vs. nurture debate in psychology has been ongoing for years. In this debate, a psychologist tries to argue whether human behavior and characteristics are inborn or are acquired over a period depending on the environment humans are exposed to. This paper will assess how both nature and nurture influence human behavior. Into the bargain, the paper will further examine the different scenarios that highlight how personality can be shaped by nature and nurture.
Contribution of nature to personality
Plato and Descartes are among philosophers who stated that certain personalities are inborn that is, they appear in an individual despite the environment one is exposed to. Nativists also take the position that most behaviors and characters are due to inheritance from parents to their offspring. They believe in the evolution theory which makes it clear that our survival for the fittest genes is usually passed from one generation to another making that generation survives the challenges of life. For instance, the nativists base their philosophical argument on Chomsky’s theory which states that language is an acquired device. The theory argues further that all children are born with an installed mental ability which automatically gives them the ability to learn and produce language (Lenneberg, Chomsky, & Marx, 1967).
Some physical traits such as eye color, skin pigmentation and curly or straight hair are hereditary hence passed from one generation to another. Other genes that are inherited tend to pass some genetic diseases like Huntingdon’s chorea in the same family line. Individuals who are correlated genetically tend to have relations in height, weight, and vulnerability to certain diseases such as breast cancer in women. These facts have led to the rising of an argument whether a psychological characteristic of personality is determined before one is born.
Each person has a unique genetic code which makes us different from each other. The study of twins is used mostly in this study because twins share the same home environment as each other, but only identical twins share the same genetics hence tend to show similar personalities when compared with un-identical twins. Belsky and Plauess (2009), found that “identical twins were twice likely as non-identical twins to share the same personality traits hence implying that their DNA is impacted most to their similarity” (p. 345). Belsky & Pluess (2009), further states that “if you think of the things people are born with you to think of social status or virtuoso talent, but this is looking at what we do with what we have got” ( p. 347).
Jensen’s (1969), study on the level of I.Q found out the following:
The level of I.Q possessed by the black Americans was low as compared to that of the white Americans. He supported his study by indicating that the level of intelligence in black Americans was low due to the genetic factors that they inherited from the parents. Finally he made a conclusion that intelligence is mainly inherited and environment only influences about 20% of our thinking. Simply, Jenson was trying to prove that the personality of intelligence is in a large percentage inherited and not influenced by the environments we are exposed. (p. 110)
Freud (1923) tripartite theory of personality states that “personality is structured into three parts, the id, ego, and superego which develop at different stages of life” (p. 145). The id consists of all the inherited components. The ego considers social realities and norms to decide how to behave. On the other hand, Superego incorporations the values of the society which are gotten from parents and other people this theory show that most personality traits are inherited (Mayhew, 1997).
In his research, Eysenck and Eysenck (1965) discovered that “personality could be viewed in three different ways; these dimensions of personality are extraversion, neuroticism, and psychoticism”. He later related the personality of an individual to the functioning of the autonomic nervous system which is biological hence pointing out that nature contributes to our personality. (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1965). In another study, Allport’s (1961) theory of personality emphasized on the uniqueness of the individual and internal motivation and cognitive processes that influence behavior. His assumption was that one is born with a certain personality which is shaped depending on a person’s environmental experience and training. Furthermore, some individual believe that homosexuality is an inborn trait and the individuals have no much choice just like our skin pigmentation. It is argued that those individuals are born with such hormones in their system which determines their sexuality later in their life (Allport, 1961).
Contribution of Nurture to personality
The surroundings can influence a personality of a person, for instance, the society, exposure level, and experience gained over time. Empiricists or the environmentalists argue that when a child is born their mind is tabula rasa (blank slate) which is usually filled with time depending on the experience gained and through the learning process. They argue that psychological characteristics and behavioral personalities differ from one individual to another due to lessons attained and how they were nurtured. It is this recorded life lessons in the tabula rasa that shape the behavior of an individual. For instance, children learn language by mimicking others on their speech. Furthermore, it’s also assumed that the attachment babies have with their parents or relatives is a response to the love and care they received. If a child receives love in their early stages, they tend to be more attached to the person who brought them up. On the other hand, a child who experienced child abuse tends to be less attached to the party that brought them up (Belsky & Pluess, 2009, p. 345).
Bandura (1969) came up with a social learning theory which argued that “children learned aggression by watching and emulating others’ behavior in the environment that bounded them” (p. 220). This is evident in his Bobo doll experiment which proves beyond reasonable doubt that observation influences behavior. Further, other studies also show that language is learned from other people through behavior shaping skills. In contrast to nature, empiricists argue on differences that occur when analyzing intellectual ability among different children as a result of discrimination in accessing equal opportunities and level of exposure. Children brought up in poverty, and poor environments are denied same life chances as compared to those from more privileged families, and that affects the level of intellectual ability when both children are compared. A neuroscientist James Fallon carried out a study and discovered that “his brain was like that of a psychopath” (Stromberg, 2013). Despite having the brain of a psychopath James grew to become successful in life unlike many psychopaths. His believe in the role played by the loving and caring environment he has nurtured in shows that the environment plays a major role in shaping our personality. Children who are brought up in a family of abusing women and wife battering mostly end up abusing their children or beating their wife due to the way they were brought up. Hence environmental factors such as habits of friends, parents and partners may be very significant in contributing to our characters (Stromberg, 2013).
Environmentalists believe most personalities are as a result of learning from others either through exposure, observation or imitation. They mostly believe in the theory of behaviorism which emphasizes on impacts of learning from others. Those who advocate for the behaviorist’s theory believe that all character traits are as a result of being exposed to same conditions for a period. People can be coached to carry out different tasks and become anything they want to be, for instance, one can be trained to be a footballer even if they have a talent in singing. Gergely and Watson (1999) argued that “despite the genetic background one possesses he/she can still becoming anything through training” (p. 115). In the modern society, some individuals believe that being homosexual is due to the environment in which one has been exposed, for instance, a negative environment which influenced their thinking. Such negative situations include a sexual assault or overprotective environments. Such arguments try to make it evident that the situations that surround us are more likely to affect the way we behave or affect our future decisions (Gergely & Watson, 1999).
Conclusion
In conclusion, it’s evident that the topic of nature vs. nurture is a very debatable topic, especially when discussing certain issues such as personality. The controversy of explaining these issues does not only arise when discussing factors like homosexuality, intelligence and also personality. The realism in the discussion above is that both nurture and nature play a part in determining our personality. Both are fundamental in any behavior and it’s therefore difficulty to identify a particular behavior whether it is hereditary or environmental. It is almost impractical to split nature influence and nurture influence since both cannot function in separate but interact to bring out the character of an individual. Recently researchers have changed the theme from investigating the differences between the two and are now focusing on finding out how the two interact. Height demonstrates clearly how nature and nurture interact to perfectly bring out the true height of an individual. According to research one may be from a family of tall people. He may be having the genes of tallness but if he is not exposed to an environment that nourishes the gene he may not be tall. It’s, therefore, right to say that nature and nurture cannot be separated and interact together to bring out a person’s personality.
References
Belsky, J., & Pluess, M. (2009). The nature (and nurture?) of plasticity in early human
development. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(4), 345-351.
Jensen, A. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement. Harvard educational
review, 39(1), 1-123.
Mayhew, J. (1997). Freud’s Theory of Personality. In Psychological Change (pp. 141-163).
Macmillan Education UK.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. G. B. (1965). The Eysenck personality inventory.
Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality.
Bandura, A. (1969). Social-learning theory of identificatory processes. Handbook of
socialization theory and research, 213, 262.
Stromberg, J. (2013). The neuroscientist who discovered he was a psychopath. Smithsonian.com.
Gergely, G., & Watson, J. S. (1999). Early socio-emotional development: Contingency
perception and the social-biofeedback model. Early social cognition: Understanding
others in the first months of life, 60, 101-136.
Lenneberg, E. H., Chomsky, N., & Marx, O. (1967). Biological foundations of language (Vol.
68). New York: Wiley.