Nature vs. Nurture controversy leads its history from ancient times, when some philosophers supported or denied the ideas of the essence of the human being. What is human made of, how we become who we are? Is it due to our nature or the environment where we live? It is no secret that humans are collective beings that needs socializing. In this process, every one of us gain skills that are important for us in future. And even our style of life influence on what we look like, how we dress, and how we behave. What we know we also gain due to the suststainble processes of socializing. Human nature is not that simple that we can guess. Every day we communicate with people and develop the features of character. Every day events that happen to us determine our social life. Is it possible to change something in our life only in a way of changing life style? Or nature rules us, and everything is fixed by it, and since we are born, it is not possible to change predetermined by nature in future?
In this relation, education abilities matter much for the personal development. When we study, we gain skills and learn to be useful members of the society. Education adds much to our environment and helps us to realize goals and dreams that may come true. All we dream about a good career, professional and personality development, family and many other issues that are so much important for every one. Others have other specific dreams, but education is one of universal means for every person to gain success in life and feel like living a high-quality life without any mind-oppressive restrictions.
In the opinion of John Locke (1996), when a person is born, their mind is tabula rasa (from Latin, “blank sheet”). Then society and environment are ready to write on this table. Nature brings something to this table, and nurture brings also something to this table.
Some researchers and philosophers believed that nature determines the future life (Plato, Descartes). According to them, nature is a determinant viewpoint in formation of personality. The proponents of this idea are called nativists. For example, genetic diseases, eye color, hair color and skin color are determined only biologically (by nature). According to Chomsky, who is famous for his nativistic views, all children have abilities to learn languages, and speaking skills can be developed in every one of them.
Other researchers believed that nurture plays more important role in life of human beings. This point of view was practically supported by many researchers, including John Locke who developed and thoroughly explained the concept of tabula rasa. In the opinion of behaviorists, society writes on this blank sheet. Even education can be gained by an individual, irrespectively of their biological issues. Genes does not play an important role in formation of a socially active personality. According to John B. Watson, another researcher on this matter, everyone can develop knowledge and practical skills in every field. “Give me a dozen healthy infants, well-formed, and my own specified world to bring them up in and I'll guarantee to take any one at random and train him to become any type of specialist I might select – doctor, lawyer, artist, merchant-chief and, yes, even beggar-man and thief, regardless of his talents, penchants, tendencies, abilities, vocations, and race of his ancestors.” (Watson, 1913: 171). Another representative of supporters of empirisists theory is Albert Bandura who believed that people observe behavior of others and learn to function in the society. In the other words, people copy types and models of behavior of the other people who live beside them. For example, children copy behavior of their parents. According to B.F. Skinner, “A significant change in behavior is often obvious as the result of a single reinforcement.” (Skinner, 1954: 87)
When personalizing this discussion, it is worth to draw some examples from my life so that to illustrate this controversy properly. In my opinion, both nature and nurture are crucial for my personal and professional development. Biologically, I inherited features from my ancestors, but I think my height depends on my lifestyle, and I wish to be higher and stronger. Personally, I wish to gain stronger body, but it always depends on training. I do enjoy sports, but I realize that my trainings are not enough to be healthier. I don’t have any genetic diseases and I consider this one of the main advantages of my genetic code.
When talking about my personal life, I should consider this successful as well. I am a married person, and family values are essential and matter much to me. I think I copied the models of behavior from the relations of my parents. Family relations and values were always the priority in my family, I remember many issues from my childhood when my parents spent much time with me, gave extra care to my siblings, so these values I took from my early years to adult life.
When talking about education and expectable skills, I find it easy to communicate with people and gain new friends. When I meet new person in my life, I am trying to not only to speak, but also listen their points of view regardless of social myths and stereotypes. I am an open-minded person, and I think society is still writing inscriptions on my “tabula rasa”. From other people I borrow ideas, inspire with their new beginnings. I think only in a way of communicating with others we can lead a high quality life. Every person brings something interesting to my life, and I strongly believe that the role of my friends, teachers and acquaintances is strong in this relation.
I support the side of both Nature and Nurture influence on human life. The combination of nature and nurture can produce distinct qualities and features in a person. We are all born with unique genetic code, but we are all “tabula rasas”. And I support the idea that every human being can do with their life what they wish. For example, if one would like to become a doctor, he/she would become a doctor, as well as they can become a businessman, accountant or teacher. There is no problem to develop some practical skills and gain some kind of knowledge, if a person is interested. Therefore, I believe that arguments of nativists are not that strong as empiricists. Furthermore, I don’t support the idea that some parents are trying to figure out some talents in their children. Since they become adults, they are more likely to choose another pass in life. Some parents also follow fashionable trends of making their children to become famous lawyers or economists, but in real their children wish to become engineers or painters. My opinion is that children should choose their path in life by themselves, and decide later than they are just teens. And then education may create magic. Nurture can be essential in this aspect, and even in regard to the influence on the decisions of young people.
Works Cited
Martin, Carol Lynn & Fabes, Richard. Discovering Child Development, Pearson Education Inc. Second Edition, 2009.
Locke, John, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Kenneth P. Winkler (ed.), pp. 33–36, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis, IN, 1996.
Skinner, Burrhus Frederick. The science of learning and the art of teaching. Harvard Educational Review. 1954, 24 (2), p. 87.
Watson, John B. Psychology as the Behaviorist Views it. Psychological Review, 1913, 20, 158-177.
