Nature vs. Nurture
this debate has been adamantly debated since the beginning of time. There is Nature, which states who we are is determined before birth, and there is Nurture which states that who we are is based on the environment in which we are raised. John Locke and british empiricists believed that all people were born with a tabula rasa and only experience could establish the behavorial traits of a person..B. F. Skinner also in a way saw every living animal as a blank slate. He knew that through science he could condition any animal to do anything through through certain stimuli and punishment and reward. With John Locke and BF Skinner on the nurture side of the debate, I would choose G.W. Liebniz and Noam Chomsky as heroes of the Nature side of the debate. G.W. Liebniz the german contemporary of John Locke, argued that the soul is the fountain of beliefs and doctrine and that no belief can be formed by external experiences. To expand on that he says that no idea presented from the outside can be accepted unless it is already lurking about in the inside. Noam Chomsky, the famous jewish linguist at MIT, says we are built on a strong foundation of nature. He points out, through years of research of how we learn language, that it would be impossible for us to know any language without infinite amounts of presets and concepts drilled into our head. From birth we must know what order is and what just makes sense in order to pick up language, and chomsky argues, even math or any solid necessity would be impossible without all the basics already known in our mind. Observing identical twin seems like a sound way to end this debate, considering the twins have the same genes, if they grow up and form the same traits, the Nature side wins, If they grow up radically different or just noticeable different, you would say nurture wins. This test works even best if say, the identical twins are dramatically seperated at birth, never to see each other ever again...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document