The nature versus nurture debate is one humanity has disputed since ancient times. “Greek philosopher Plato assumed that we inherit character and intelligence and that certain ideas are inborn. Aristotle, however, countered that there is nothing in the mind that does not first come in from the external world through the senses” (Meyers 2014). Today those who believe humanity is determined by nature are referred to as “hereditarians or nativists” (Psych 2010), while those who believe in nurture are called “empiricists or behaviorists” (Psych 2010). Others view the debate as “nurture works on what nature endows” (Meyers 2014). The promoters of nature in the nature versus nurture debate are known as hereditarians or nativists. They feel that “our character and predispositions are innate” (Psych 2010), therefore nature has the only effect on our personality and the way we act has been ingrained in our psyche from birth. To nativists, nurture has no part in the development of a child. These beliefs come from “main assumptions of evolutionary theories of human reproductive behavior. These theories stem from the fact that any behavior today has evolved because it increased an individual’s chances of survival and thus reproduce in order to pass on their genes” (Psych 2010). Supporters of nurture, …show more content…
Children are born with the ability to learn their mother’s scent, search for food, and crawl; all of these abilities are considered nature. But without nurture a child cannot learn how to speak, walk, or cook. Every skill a child has within them is expanded upon as they learn with their senses. Thus nature is only a partial contributor of human personalities and traits. Humans cannot learn useful skills in life if there is nothing to build off of; every skill learned needs some sort of groundwork. In this case nature provides the fundamentals that nurture builds