The debate concerning 'nature vs. nurture' is one of three controversial issues argued when psychologists talk of human development. One side will argue the point of nature, saying genetics hold the key that unlocks human development. On the other hand, some will say the environment in which one is raised, or nurtured in, significantly influence development. However, neither side will put all the faith on one point, knowing that both contribute to development. 'Nature vs. nurture' opens the door for two other issues that are argued about also.
The point that the 'nature' following side wish to convey concerns development and genetics. The theory follows the thoughts that a baby is born with the development programming present and will react to a situation in a certain manner because of genes passed from generation to generation. Regardless of what the baby is subjected to, it will react according to what its genetics have been developed to do, thanks to mom, dad, grandpa and everyone else up the family tree. 'For example, a theorist who emphasizes heredity and biology as the determinants of behavior might say a preschooler's imaginary friends are caused by the level of brain and cognitive maturity of the child'. (Craig, 1996)
On the other hand, a theorist who leans toward the nurture theory might speculate that the child lacks a responsible caretaker or no sibling. A nurture theorist supports the thought of the environment a person is surrounded in directly affects development. One believes that the synapses that our brain makes at the time of learning are made then, not while in the womb. If you were to expand on that thought, one could say that we are forever changing if we are always adjusting to our surroundings.
Once past this point, we go into two controversial issues. The first, 'continuity vs. discontinuity', is based upon the following questions. Does development occur when behavior is built continually on each ot...
Page 1 of 2