Nature vs. Nurture Controversy

The nature versus reproduction line concerns the relative importance of an respective(prenominal)s innate qualities (nature, i. e. nativism, or innatism) versus personal experiences (nurture, i. e. empiricism or behaviorism) in determining or do individual differences in physical and behavioral traits. The phrase Nature versus nurture in its modern sense was coined123 by the English Victorian polymath Francis Galton in discussion of the influence of heredity and environs on social advancement, although the foothold had been contrasted previously, for example by Shakespeare (in his play, The Tempest 4. ). Galton was influenced4 by the book On the roue of Species written by his cousin, Charles Darwin. The concept embodied in the phrase has been criticized34 for its binary program simplification of two tightly interwoven parameters, as for example an environment of wealth, education and social privilege are often historically passed to communicable offspring. The difference be ing that wealth, education and social privilege are not part of the human biological system, and so cannot be directly attributed to genetics.The discover that humans acquire all or almost all their behavioral traits from nurture was termed tabula rasa (blank slate) by philosopher John Locke, and proposes that humans fetch from only environmental influences. This question was once considered to be an appropriate variant of developmental influences, but since both types of factors are known to play such interacting roles in development, most modern psychologists and anthropologists consider the question naiverepresenting an overaged state of knowledge. 5678 In the social and political sciences, the nature versus nurture debate may be contrasted with the structure versus agency debate (i. e. socialization versus individual autonomy). For a discussion of nature versus nurture in language and otherwise human universals, see also psychological nativism.