Nurture Wins Nature/Nurture

The debate of nature vs. nurture has persisted with intensity over time. Some scholars contend that this debate can be traced back to the times of ancient Greece. In the debate, nature may be referred to as nativism, or innatism. The side of nature contends that a person's natural, in-born, or innate qualities have more of an influence over the person's life. Nurture refers to personal experience, context, and environment (physical and social) with respect to what has a greater influence over a person's character as well as the general outcome of his/her life. It is a debate that has engaged those in the social sciences, such as sociologists, anthropologists, and psychologists, as well as debated by political scientists and philosophers. Nurture may also be referred to as behaviorism or empiricism in the context of this debate. It is the position of the paper that though both nature and nurture have affective influence over each individual, nurture is the factor that ultimately wields more power over determining the type of person someone will be as well as the overall course of that person's life.

More and more in the 21st century, experts with particular focus on the nature-nurture debate are arguing for an integrative approach and perspective regarding nature and nurture. Throughout the decades, the consensus over which aspect is more important has oscillated. Though Sameroff proposes and integrated approach rather than a debate, he contends that in the present moment, more professionals are in favor of nurture over nature, in line with the position of the paper.

Nurture, for example, the environment of the gene, the environment of the cell, and the environment of the organism, are incorporated into advanced analyses of the contribution of context at every level of analysis…A renewed emphasis on the importance of nurture is underway. Again, it is a dialectical result of the inability of appeals to human nature to explain fully developmental pathways…The nurture resurgence is...

(Sameroff, 2010,-Page 19-20)
Nurture clearly has applications in the hard and physical sciences, as suggested by Sameroff. Researchers are now taking into consideration of the environment or nurture factor within the confines of individual cells. The application for nurture, with more attention from a wider variety of disciplines, broadens the potential for nurture in application in areas such as neurology, biology, perhaps even urban design and architecture. Certainly nature and nurture interact with each other, but nurture is the overriding factor that determines traits, choices, and behavior.

With the fields of child development and psychology for example, studies are often performed with twins -- those who cohabitate and those who do not. In such studies, children who were adopted are often studied as well. Throughout such research, data routinely shows the influence of nurture over the children. Children who come from parents with substance abuse problems, which may be genetic and/or environmental, have a greater likelihood of avoiding the same kinds of pitfalls when they are removed and placed in a more stable environment. In examples of children who cannot adjust to a more healthy home environment, are also examples of the power of nurture. The imprint of their initial home environment is so strong and deep that it prevents healthy maturation in a nurturing and stable environment relative to the one from which they came. This is all to say that in many cases, people are able to overcome the obstacles or predispositions of their nature, that is, their genes. Nurture can often override nature.

I personally believe nurture is more powerful than nature. To me, there seem to be a plethora of examples of people who have overcome or surpassed the limitations of their nature because of…