Psychology

The paper discusses the nature vs. nurture debate. The influence of nature and nurture on human development is evaluated. The paper presents the basic arguments. The dynamics and variability of the gene-interaction concept are discussed, too.

In 1952, British Educator Richard Mulcaster wrote that nature makes the boy toward, nurture sees him forward (Pinker, 2002). Since then, nature vs. nurture became one of the major debates in psychology. Throughout years, psychology professionals tried to define how nature and nurture influence human development. Today, the nature vs. nurture debate is far from resolved. Some psychologists view nature as the basic driver of human development others are confident that human development is influenced solely by environmental forces. Most scientists believe that human development as the product of multiple influences. Whether genetics and environment equally contribute to the course and pace of human development is difficult to define, but it is clear that both forces play their role in the development of human psychology over the life span.

Nature Nurture Debate and Human Development
Through the nature vs. nurture debate, psychologists try to analyze the interactions between genes and environment and their influence on human development. The nature vs. nurture debate is about whether human development is the products of heredity, or whether human development is shaped by the environment in which individuals grow (Shaffer, 2008). In the nature vs. nurture debate presents the two opposing views on human development. One party holds heredity and genes responsible for the development of humans, their cognition and behaviors (Shaffer, 2008). The other party treats environment and social conditions as the primary source of influence on human development (Rutter, 2006). Many psychology professionals take the middle ground and state that human development is the result of both hereditary and environmental influences. They treat the intellect, human behaviors, personality traits, and temperaments as the end products of a long interplay between environmental forces and genetic predispositions (Shaffer, 2008). Yet, there is no sufficient information about how these forces interact and combine to result and reflect in a developmental change.

The gene-environment interaction concept dates back to the early stages of agricultural genetics (Gottesman  Hanson, 2005). Agricultural geneticists sought to explore the influence of environmental forces on agriculture and to confirm that different agricultural genotypes responded differently to different environmental conditions (Gottesman  Hanson, 2005). For example, the rice seeds grew vigorously in wet conditions and withered in the dry environment (Gottesman  Hanson, 2005). Unfortunately, it is not possible to calculate the influence which genes and environments produce on human development that is why, the nature vs. nurture debate persists. The belief that human psychology is the combination of genetic and environmental effects is too simple and does not reflect the real picture of influences on human development (Gottesman  Hanson, 2005). However, it is possible to assume that the balance of genetic and environmental influences is different for different stages of human development.

Environmental and biological influences on human development are not stable (Dodge, 2004). Throughout the human life, the balance of the environmental and the genetic changes (Dodge, 2004). Here, the two beliefs about the nature vs. nurture balance deserve attention. First, a belief persists that the environmental influences on human development reflect the genetic features of children (Dodge, 2004). In other words, a child who tends to behave aggressively will be more likely to meet similar environmental response than the child with a calm disposition (Dodge, 2004). Healthy environments allow children to compensate for their psychological problems for example, shy children will tend to receive more support and nurturance from their parents (Dodge, 2004). Behavioral geneticists use these arguments to protect their genetic viewpoint on human development.

Second, not only does the environment respond to genetic features of children but children change in response to environmental conditions in which they grow. For example, children who are physically abused by their parents will be more likely to become hostile to their peers (Rutter, 2006). In turn, hostility will produce negative effects on the childs socialization and interactions with other people (Rutter, 2006). Thus, the environment and ones biologically based dispositional tendencies may dance with each other across development to lead, in some cases, to compensate for each others vulnerabilities, and, in other cases, to potentiate each others effects (Dodge, 2004).

When professionals say that human development is the product of both genetic and environmental influences, they look for easy means to resolve the conflict between the two opposing parties. Vygotsky was one of the first to recognize the importance of both genetic and environmental influences on human development he wrote that the moment the child acquired the basic language skills, the entire development from his animal stage became truly social (Wertsch, 1985). Shaffer (2008) writes (and Dodge (2004) would support this view) that each individual displays genetic traits and features, which make him search for experiences and activities most compatible with these genetic characteristics. In the same way, environments influence the biological development of humans as a result, nature and nurture in human development are complexly intertwined and are difficult to separate (Shaffer, 2008). That, however, does not mean that the nature vs. nurture debate is easy to resolve. On the contrary, researchers list several reasons, for which the nature nurture debate will persist.

First, many psychologists believe the childs mind to be a black state and consider environmental forces as the best way to grow a good personality (Pinker, 2002). Modern society lives in confidence that to grow the best child, parents must be authoritative, loving, and talkative (Pinker, 2002). Society either disregards or is not aware of the genetic influences on human development. Similarly, behavioral geneticists spread the belief that genes and not environment produce the dominant influence on human development. The nature vs. nurture debate will persist, unless the society can come to a unanimous agreement about the role of environment and genetic influences on human development.

Second, the belief that human development is influenced equally by genetics and environment is not always justified. In some instances, (for example, the second language acquisition), human development has nothing to do with genetics and is solely influenced by the environment (Pinker, 2002). Thus, the society must decide whether and in what instances human development is influenced by only one of the two forces. Finally, Pinker (2002) assumes that disentangling nature from nurture is not that difficult. McCrae (2000) writes that personality traits are shaped under the influence of purely genetic factors  even significant differences in life experience have little or no effect on personality traits. Simultaneously, not all personality traits are the products of genetic processes  some of them, like Extraversion, develop under the complex influence of environmental factors (Cloninger et al, 1994). Today, the nature nurture debate is still one of the most controversial and highly ambiguous topics, which will hardly be resolved in the coming decade.

Conclusion
The nature vs. nurture debate is a popular topic in professional literature. The debate presents the two opposing views on human development. One party keeps to a belief that human development is the product of solely genetic factors. The other party is confident that human development is driven by environmental forces. Professionals in psychology often discuss human development in dualistic terms i.e., human development is considered as the result of the gene-environment interaction. Due to the complexity of the gene-environment interactions and the complex dynamic effects which they produce on human development, the coming decade will hardly resolve the nature vs. nurture debate.