Nature versus Nurture

   Psychologically speaking the Nature versus Nurture debate is one of the oldest issues in psychology. The debate centers on the relative contributions of genetic inheritance and environmental factors to human development. Some philosophers such as Plato and Descartes suggested that certain things are inborn, or that they simply occur naturally regardless of environmental influences. Other well-known thinkers such as John Locke believed in what is known as tabula rasa, which suggests that the mind begins as a blank slate. According to this notion, everything that we are and all of our knowledge is determined by our experience.  
    Nature versus nurture in its modern sense was coined by the English Victorian polymath Francis Galton in discussion of the influence of heredity and environment on social advancement, although the terms had been contrasted previously, for example by Shakespeare (in his play, The Tempest: 4.1). Galton was influenced by the book On the Origin of Species written by his cousin, Charles Darwin. The concept embodied in the phrase has been criticized for its binary simplification of two tightly interwoven parameters, as for example an environment of wealth, education and social privilege are often historically passed to genetic offspring.

Nature versus Nurture Theory

       
  My stand when it comes to Nature versus Nurture Debate is that I do agree to Both. Nature endows us with inborn abilities and traits that we may have inherited from our Parents or Relatives while Nurture takes these genetic traits and molds them as we learn, grow and mature. It's like the Environment is just Nurturing our Innate Ablities (Nature) for it to be more dominant. I mean for our Ability to grow and Flourish. We were not born already as an Active person, but the Environment as we grow changes,matures and develop, thus the Change in the Environment helps us to change for the better. The Nature that we have in us, our very own capabilities is being develop and enhanced by Nurture . I think those two must be just be set like that . Because for me you cannot enhance the Nature that you have and will be having if you wouldn't Nurture it. I do not have the perfect scientific explanation that the debators are seeking for, but I do just explain it the way I do understand the Situation.

Gay Couple

     
   Newspaper reports announce that scientists are on the verge of discovering (or have already discovered) the gene for criminality, for alcoholism or the “gay gene”. If these advances are not to be abused then there will need to be a more general understanding of the fact that biology interacts with both the cultural context and the personal choices that people make about how they want to live their lives. There is no neat and simple way of unravelling these qualitatively different and reciprocal influences on human behaviour.

   I have ran into these article about the Gay people. Is it about the Nature or Nurture? For me it is again both. The difference of Sex from Gender is that Sex is the biological differences, their sex organs. Whether they like it or not thy cannot take away or Forget their sex. It is in them almost forever. Gender describe as the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine. Gender is what they prefer to be. This is where Gay and Lesbians line. It is their Preference in what Gender theywant to be. I do think that sometimes it is the Nurture that binds it. But being Gay is now hereditary so it is also in the Nature. This is what I do think about the Gay Issue in Nature versus Nurture.