Nature vs. Nurture Whether your child is an overweight, four-eyed book nerd, or a slender, chick-magnet of a jock, the question always arises Why does your youngster behave that certain way Is it his biological or genetic makeup, or his environment that determines his persona, such as how he is raised, by whom, and where that shapes him as a person This controversial topic of Nature vs. Nurture has been pugnaciously debated for over a century, yet unfortunately, there is still no universally accepted conclusion.
Different approaches have been taken by numerous scientists during the 20th century regarding this contentious issue. One of them by Donald Hebb, a Canadian physiologist, who when asked what contributes more to a personality, ones genetics or ones environment, responded with the allegory Which contributes more to the area of a rectangle Its length or its width Obviously both the length and width of a rectangle are necessary in order to calculate the area of the polygon. The same law would apply to ones personality Both ones genetics and environment are equally crucial, alludes Hebb (Hebb, 1970), in determining the behavior of an individual.
While Hebb may propose a pragmatic, dual approach, where both ones biological makeup and environment affect the way one acts, other analysts tend to hold to a single outlook, choosing only one element over the other. Arthur Jensen, a present day psychologist, claims that 80 of intelligence is decided by biological factors (Crawford, 1979). He maintains that using associative learning, which is the ability to correlate one thing to another, such as lightning to thunder, different abilities are distributed equally among races. However, regarding conceptual learning, or ones ability to process information in logical mental structures, Jensen noticed that this ability occurs with significantly greater frequency in whites than in blacks. Thus, Jensen suggested, white Americans are more intelligent than African Americans....
Please join StudyMode to read the full document