The Debate
One of the oldest issues in psychology is the nature-nurture debate, tracing back to 350BC. The debate
centres around the relative contributions of environmental factors and genetics to human development.
It seeks to understand if our personalities are a result of our genetic makeup and biological factors, or
if it is shaped by environment e.g. parents, peers, and culture. The entire debate can be summarised as
an attempt to separate what has been acquired after one is born from what is innate. Many studies and
experiments have been carried out over the centuries to try and identify exactly what shapes us, with
‘nature’ being supported by physiological explanations, and ‘nurture’ being supported by sociological.
These two conflicting approaches to human development have caused great controversy over the years,
explaining why the debate is still ongoing till this day.
Nature (Nativism)
The nature side of the debate is based on the premise that all characteristics of human development are
biologically determined by a person’s unique genetic makeup, as well as a product of evolution. People
who adopt this hereditary position are known as nativists. They believe that all psychological traits,
including behavioural tendencies and personality attributes, are all pre-programmed into the brain at
birth.
Nurture (Empiricism)
At the other end of the spectrum are the empiricists. They believe that the human brain is a blank slate
at birth, and that one’s personality develops as a result of experience. It is how you are brought up
(nurtured) that determines the psychological aspects of human development. This view point is based
on the assumption that human behaviours and characteristics emerge through childhood and are gained
through learning.
Classical Period
This argument traces back to 350BC where two philosophers, Aristotle and Plato, endeavoured to
understand human behaviour. In attempt to identify the driving force for human behaviour, the question
of nature or nurture arose, although at the time, it was known as empiricism or nativism. Aristotle and
Plato, though working together at the time, had two different views on the issue. These Greek
philosophers introduced the terms of empiricism and nativism, initialising the nature-nurture debate
which has had a dramatic effect on our thoughts on human development right into the 21st century. At
this time, people either believed that human development was a result of every day experience
, (empiricism, started by Aristotle), or a result of inborn ideas (nativism, started by Plato), not a mixture
of both.
Aristotle
Aristotle introduced the idea of empiricism, which most people refer to as the nurture side of the nature-
nurture debate. He argued that knowledge is gained through everyday experience, and that the origins
of structure and function are a result of nurture. He also believed that our behaviour is not due to our
genetic make-up, but a result of how we are raised during childhood. It is also believed that Aristotle
was the original behaviourist, and was later the inspiration to many well-known behaviourists such as
John Watson and B.F. Skinner.
Plato
In contrast to Aristotle, Plato introduced the idea of nativism, known as the nature side of the debate.
He theorised that all human behaviour, characteristics, and beliefs are a result of inheritance, and were
pre-programmed into our brains at birth. Plato also believed that environmental factors played a unique
role in human development. Instead of the environment teaching people new things, he believed its
purpose was to help people discover knowledge that they already attained at birth.
In attempt to settle this debate, Plato wrote a play titled Meno which discussed, through his characters,
how intelligence was based on recollection. This was derived from the idea that after one dies, their
soul is reincarnated into another being. As a result, that newly born person has all the knowledge that
their former life possessed.
1600s
Many of the ideas in the classical period are also relevant in the 1600s. Rene Descartes further explored
Plato’s idea of reincarnation, stating that all human information is passed on to a new person after one
dies. However, this knowledge is not backed up by any evidence besides Plato and Descartes’ strong
religious beliefs. The two sides of the debate were still known as empiricism and nativism, previously
named by Plato and Aristotle in 350BC. It also remained very extreme, with human development either
being a result of biological factors or experience, with no information claiming that it could be both.
Locke’s tabula rasa theory that states that everyone’s minds are born a ‘blank slate’ contributed
massively to the nurture side of the debate in the 1600s. Most research before this time was very nature
driven, but Locke’s work influenced a lot of scientists to carry out studies on the effects of the
environment (nurture) in later centuries.
One of the oldest issues in psychology is the nature-nurture debate, tracing back to 350BC. The debate
centres around the relative contributions of environmental factors and genetics to human development.
It seeks to understand if our personalities are a result of our genetic makeup and biological factors, or
if it is shaped by environment e.g. parents, peers, and culture. The entire debate can be summarised as
an attempt to separate what has been acquired after one is born from what is innate. Many studies and
experiments have been carried out over the centuries to try and identify exactly what shapes us, with
‘nature’ being supported by physiological explanations, and ‘nurture’ being supported by sociological.
These two conflicting approaches to human development have caused great controversy over the years,
explaining why the debate is still ongoing till this day.
Nature (Nativism)
The nature side of the debate is based on the premise that all characteristics of human development are
biologically determined by a person’s unique genetic makeup, as well as a product of evolution. People
who adopt this hereditary position are known as nativists. They believe that all psychological traits,
including behavioural tendencies and personality attributes, are all pre-programmed into the brain at
birth.
Nurture (Empiricism)
At the other end of the spectrum are the empiricists. They believe that the human brain is a blank slate
at birth, and that one’s personality develops as a result of experience. It is how you are brought up
(nurtured) that determines the psychological aspects of human development. This view point is based
on the assumption that human behaviours and characteristics emerge through childhood and are gained
through learning.
Classical Period
This argument traces back to 350BC where two philosophers, Aristotle and Plato, endeavoured to
understand human behaviour. In attempt to identify the driving force for human behaviour, the question
of nature or nurture arose, although at the time, it was known as empiricism or nativism. Aristotle and
Plato, though working together at the time, had two different views on the issue. These Greek
philosophers introduced the terms of empiricism and nativism, initialising the nature-nurture debate
which has had a dramatic effect on our thoughts on human development right into the 21st century. At
this time, people either believed that human development was a result of every day experience
, (empiricism, started by Aristotle), or a result of inborn ideas (nativism, started by Plato), not a mixture
of both.
Aristotle
Aristotle introduced the idea of empiricism, which most people refer to as the nurture side of the nature-
nurture debate. He argued that knowledge is gained through everyday experience, and that the origins
of structure and function are a result of nurture. He also believed that our behaviour is not due to our
genetic make-up, but a result of how we are raised during childhood. It is also believed that Aristotle
was the original behaviourist, and was later the inspiration to many well-known behaviourists such as
John Watson and B.F. Skinner.
Plato
In contrast to Aristotle, Plato introduced the idea of nativism, known as the nature side of the debate.
He theorised that all human behaviour, characteristics, and beliefs are a result of inheritance, and were
pre-programmed into our brains at birth. Plato also believed that environmental factors played a unique
role in human development. Instead of the environment teaching people new things, he believed its
purpose was to help people discover knowledge that they already attained at birth.
In attempt to settle this debate, Plato wrote a play titled Meno which discussed, through his characters,
how intelligence was based on recollection. This was derived from the idea that after one dies, their
soul is reincarnated into another being. As a result, that newly born person has all the knowledge that
their former life possessed.
1600s
Many of the ideas in the classical period are also relevant in the 1600s. Rene Descartes further explored
Plato’s idea of reincarnation, stating that all human information is passed on to a new person after one
dies. However, this knowledge is not backed up by any evidence besides Plato and Descartes’ strong
religious beliefs. The two sides of the debate were still known as empiricism and nativism, previously
named by Plato and Aristotle in 350BC. It also remained very extreme, with human development either
being a result of biological factors or experience, with no information claiming that it could be both.
Locke’s tabula rasa theory that states that everyone’s minds are born a ‘blank slate’ contributed
massively to the nurture side of the debate in the 1600s. Most research before this time was very nature
driven, but Locke’s work influenced a lot of scientists to carry out studies on the effects of the
environment (nurture) in later centuries.
