Nature or Nurture Nature vs. Nurture Is

Nature or Nurture Nature vs. Nurture Is one shaped by nature or by nurture? This question of nature vs. nurture has been the center of controversy since the beginning of time. Insomuch, some feel that a living organism, such as animals, human beings, or cells may be influenced by external or internal stimuli based on one's environment. With such a huge divergence of perspectives on the issue, the nature-nurture debate is prominent in the academia arena with respect to intelligence.

Although the dispute has its complexities, the two positions' essential elements are simple. Nature entails the genetic, inherited traits that a person possesses. Smart parents pass their good genes onto their children just as dull parents do. The result is smart and dull children, respectively. Nurture entails all of the environments, the variables outside the body in which a person experiences, such as books, teachers, parental love, and other helpful or harmful forces predominantly determine human intelligence. Hence, the nature vs. nurture argument is mostly moot today.

History If one is disposed to the nature position, he or she is a nativist; to the nurture position, an environmentalist (Winkler, 2012). One should note that a great deal of diversity exists within these groups. Some environmentalists disbelieve the impact of genetics entirely. Others are more moderate, recognizing nature's impact. The same could be said of nativists. Most nativists recognize that environments influence intelligence just as most environmentalists understand the importance of genes. Both parties just believe that their favored variable is more influential than their opponent view.

"They both recognize that many have thought about intelligence (e.g., Plato), but they agree that the modern study of intelligence began in the late 19th and early 20th century" (Winkler, 2012). Environmentalists and nativists also acknowledge the early modern era's predominant conclusions: Intelligence was mostly determined by genetic inheritance, it can be objectively measured (IQ tests), and it is largely abstract reasoning (Winkler, 2012). However, parties only agree on the existences, but not in their accuracies. Although the environmentalist opposition was initially a small minority, it has become the majority view.

Essential Characteristics For environmentalists, the premise is one initially dominated by immorality, but later by justice. Many used nativists' ideas to justify racism, sexism, and other bigotries and persecutions. Later, justice prevailed as researchers showed that nativist claims were scientifically invalid and immoral. Hence, researchers demonstrated that African-Americans were not biologically inferior to Whites, sterilization was not a wise policy, and tolerance of such ideas was misguided (Winkler, 2012). Later, objective scientists conducted research that demonstrated important findings, including the IQ gaps between ethnic groups (Jensen, 1969).

The most controversial gap was and is the Black -- White IQ gap where Black IQs were significantly less than White IQs. Many claimed that the tests found a disparity because they favored White test-takers. Tests were not culturally neutral, but culturally biased. Some even argued that nativists who argued for the gap's validity were racists. Surprisingly, nativists have argued that this research was scientifically sound, but unpopular. With selective breeding practices, this aristocracy would become genetically superior to the citizens.

Citizens would have their collective IQ raised due to the government-ordained sterilization of the mentally inferior. States passed multiple sterilization laws, the legality of which was upheld by the Supreme Court (Murdoch, 2007). Environmentalists also observed that early nativists were racist and/or sexist. African-Americans were thought to have significantly lower IQs. Consequently, this prevented their ability to perform complex tasks and better suited them for manual labor. During the mid and late 20th century, new scientific evidence cast doubt on nativism (Nisbett, 2009).

Research indicated that environment significantly influenced intelligence, thus moving nativists to a minority position. Personal Reflection Insomuch, intelligence is an abstract idea. It is not like weight, speed, or temperature but more like beauty, courage, and love. There is no valid objective measure for such abstractions, and any effort to measure them would prove at best incomplete (Gottfredson & Saklofske, 2009). Intelligence tests, then, are flawed from the outset. No matter how well designed, these tests cannot measure intelligence, as it is largely immeasurable.

Intelligence is influenced by environment and can be altered. Such a simplistic dichotomy between heredity and environment stems from an interaction between the two. Therefore, a person is influenced by both in which the one characteristic is not pitted against the other. Rather, they are integral halves to the whole concept of developing one's intelligence. Conclusion Today, the nature vs. nurture argument is mostly moot. Based on historical research, such dichotomy was used as a means to create classes of people for differentiation or discrimination purposes. For decades,.