Naturists claim that our inherited genes direct our preferences and goals in life.
They point towards the idea that characteristics and abilities are carried into our following generations which then set a path into what they do in life.
Conversely, nurturists believe that people are born as a 'blank canvas', on which it is the social experiences and interactions that create and build on us from childhood.
For example nature theorist Noam Chomsky highlights our natural genetic ability to interact and understand the world like picking up human speech in early years.
Whereas nurture theorist Burrhus Skinner claims that our knowledge and linguistic capabilities are a direct result of human conditioning while we are growing.
Similarly many studies have focused on gender separation of children.
Sugihara and Katsurada claim that males are born to have masculine traits while females are born with feminine traits; this therefore explains male choice for masculine items of clothing and toys and vice versa.
Whereas many competing theories suggest that is not always the case, therefore the environmental effect of friends, family and social expectations are the reinforcement behind likelihood for females and males to wear specific clothing and choose certain toys.
Typically many theories are varied and there are thousands of viewpoints into arguing which is grounded most in reality, however as the research continues, many revolutionary thoughts are arising.
SMU Research has suggested that parents help or hinder a child's progression or abandonment towards a particular path.
During the study, Dr.
George Holden conceptualised that parents daily decisions are framed subconsciously by taking nature into account when nurturing.
This was revealed through parents setting trajectories to steer their child a specific way due to their own preference and their child's abilities.
This way the child's development is largely influenced through being naturally geared for something and socially pushed, therefore mixing both nature and nurture.
Additionally, the Telegraph has shown a recent study by King's College London to reveal that the location of the individual can alter the strength of nature and nurture influences.
The study entailed identifying changes in 45 childhood characteristics in 6,759 pairs of twins across the country.
Results displayed variants in behaviour of the siblings due to the large disparities of wealth in specific communities.
This means that nature was not able to have as much an effect on the individual based in a large city like London, in comparison with a quieter village community for example.
Similarly, scientists at the University of Iowa suggest that the traditional views of which has the influence, nature or nurture, are flawed as it is not possible to break the two apart when we are in a process of continuous evolution.
Through time we are constantly changing and adapting to the environment, therefore the idea that our life is written in our inherited genes or that it is a sole product of just our environmental experiences, cannot be assured.
These recent results have contributed a large quantity towards the future thoughts towards the nature/nurture argument as they argue against majority of the existing theories.
While these results are not conclusive, they do provide a clearer insight into explaining the stimuli to child development that both sides produce and open up new areas of research into the difference in nature/nurture development reliant on geographical locations and the relationship of the two.
They point towards the idea that characteristics and abilities are carried into our following generations which then set a path into what they do in life.
Conversely, nurturists believe that people are born as a 'blank canvas', on which it is the social experiences and interactions that create and build on us from childhood.
For example nature theorist Noam Chomsky highlights our natural genetic ability to interact and understand the world like picking up human speech in early years.
Whereas nurture theorist Burrhus Skinner claims that our knowledge and linguistic capabilities are a direct result of human conditioning while we are growing.
Similarly many studies have focused on gender separation of children.
Sugihara and Katsurada claim that males are born to have masculine traits while females are born with feminine traits; this therefore explains male choice for masculine items of clothing and toys and vice versa.
Whereas many competing theories suggest that is not always the case, therefore the environmental effect of friends, family and social expectations are the reinforcement behind likelihood for females and males to wear specific clothing and choose certain toys.
Typically many theories are varied and there are thousands of viewpoints into arguing which is grounded most in reality, however as the research continues, many revolutionary thoughts are arising.
SMU Research has suggested that parents help or hinder a child's progression or abandonment towards a particular path.
During the study, Dr.
George Holden conceptualised that parents daily decisions are framed subconsciously by taking nature into account when nurturing.
This was revealed through parents setting trajectories to steer their child a specific way due to their own preference and their child's abilities.
This way the child's development is largely influenced through being naturally geared for something and socially pushed, therefore mixing both nature and nurture.
Additionally, the Telegraph has shown a recent study by King's College London to reveal that the location of the individual can alter the strength of nature and nurture influences.
The study entailed identifying changes in 45 childhood characteristics in 6,759 pairs of twins across the country.
Results displayed variants in behaviour of the siblings due to the large disparities of wealth in specific communities.
This means that nature was not able to have as much an effect on the individual based in a large city like London, in comparison with a quieter village community for example.
Similarly, scientists at the University of Iowa suggest that the traditional views of which has the influence, nature or nurture, are flawed as it is not possible to break the two apart when we are in a process of continuous evolution.
Through time we are constantly changing and adapting to the environment, therefore the idea that our life is written in our inherited genes or that it is a sole product of just our environmental experiences, cannot be assured.
These recent results have contributed a large quantity towards the future thoughts towards the nature/nurture argument as they argue against majority of the existing theories.
While these results are not conclusive, they do provide a clearer insight into explaining the stimuli to child development that both sides produce and open up new areas of research into the difference in nature/nurture development reliant on geographical locations and the relationship of the two.