The debate between nurture versus nature is one of the most significant in the 21st century with mixed opinions from different sides. Scholars argue whether environmental factors or genetic composition of a person influence their behaviors. In other words, the aspects related to genes and DNA are classified under nature, whereas those related to the environment are known as nurture. Many people argue that for a person to develop correctly, the two aspects must be equally mixed. Nevertheless, the question of whether nurture is outdoing nature or nurture overshadowing nature should be answered.
Some people are of the view that nurture is responsible for affecting human behavior and their development. More specifically, they postulate that people have small genetic codes that cannot sustain their array of actions and reactions (Ahmed Zaky 4). Moreover, the psychologists add that fruit flies have three times less than human genes, yet the latter perform many behaviors as opposed to what the former can do. In a nutshell, humans do things beyond eating and reproduction. It is also believed that genes are essential in the development of complex neural networks of the brain to adapt to the different stimuli of the environment. However, they note that we have fewer genes to explain the number of sophisticated actions that we perform every day. Therefore, they take the stand that nurture is what causes human behavior to vary in different circumstances.
Likewise, it is argued that the idea that people’s DNA plays a role in passing behaviors to their offspring is a biological fallacy that must be refuted. For example, they note that since people’s genes originated from those of snakes during our early existence, then we should have an innate fear of these snakes. However, they call this a fallacy that is groundless because New Guinea is known to have many poisonous snakes, yet its people don’t fear them (Ahmed Zaky 5). Thus, according to the psychologists, they believe evolutionary psychologists overestimate human behavior when they trace them to biological universals that are found in their genes. Given this argument, it can be said that people easily create stories such as the ones of New Guinea to provide a moral justification of their observed behavior in living things.
By contrast, some believe that genetic factors are responsible for influencing human behavior more than cultural or environmental factors. It is based on the argument that genomes in human beings contain about thirty thousand genes, and thus, it should be paramount that these genes control our behavior (Levitt 7). Likewise, our brain capacity is made in a way that it can change in adaptation to the different variations in the environment. For instance, a child had their left hemisphere of the brain removed, and yet they were able to continue speaking because the neurons shifted their functions. Also, it is asserted that genes of human beings contain sequences that regulate and activate them when a varying stimulus triggers them.
My stand on the debate of nature versus nurture leans towards the nurture side. The specific stimuli by the environment can significantly shape our behaviors. For instance, health, neighborhood safety, and family matters have a critical effect on a person’s behavior. Also, when there is high insecurity in the community, people will be more cautious to protect their properties and their lives as compared to when it is calm. In the same manner, I argue that nature is vital in the development of individuals. For example, many genetic disorders are caused by external stimuli. An excellent example of this is when the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombing during world war II. Many children born after this incidence had physical disorders that it took years for births to revert to normal again.