It has been a long time since the debate about supremacy of nature and nurture has found its way to the spot as one of the highly disputed questions. Nevertheless, this debate started to be looked from scientific point of view starting from 19th century only. Just recently, psychology has developed as an independent scientific discipline. This explains to us the significance and fundamentalism of the nature-nurture controversy. The main purpose of this polemic was to answer questions like “Why people from the same environment have different characters?” and on the other hand, “Why people with the same genetics have different characters?”. Even nowadays, these questions continue to be relevant and make huge amounts of people from all over the world wonder about them because they (questions) cover a huge period of human life, from the womb to the grave. However, they still do not have the universal answer. At the moment, the debate is not about how good and bad nature and nurture are, but more specifically about which one plays a more important role in the life of any human being.
There are several points of view on which of the abovementioned aspects has a greater effect on the life of an individual – nature or nurture. The first point of view lies in the belief that nature hardly influences human beings. People who adopt this
…show more content…
As animals, we all have instincts, which are inborn. In addition, we have physical body, which is genetically pre-determined. Color of eyes, straight or curly hair, pigmentation of the skin and certain diseases (such as Huntingdon’s chorea) are all a function of the genes we inherit. Other physical characteristics, if not determined, appear to be at least strongly influenced by the genetic make-up of our biological parents. In other words, it seems that nature plays the dominant role in shaping the human being. Nevertheless, the keyword is