The discussion about nature versus nurture is one of the oldest and most interesting theoretical issues within philosophy, psychology, and sociology. When broken down, it is the question of whether a child's development is governed by a pattern built in at birth or whether it is shaped by the experiences of the individual. Therefore, this paper will discuss the nature of the debate and then examine each side of the issue incorporating a philosophical and biological, with a detailed examination of both positions in both theory and fact. We will begin with a brief synopsis of this important and topical issue.
The Debate
As indicated earlier, the nature versus nurture debate is one of the most enduring issues in the world of academia and has been an ongoing for more than three centuries. During the early 17th century, French philosopher, Rene Descartes presented his idea that people possess certain inborn ideas that "enduringly underpin people's approach to the world" (Crisp 2001). In contrast, Thomas Hobbes emphasized that it is the experiences of the individual that contributes to behavioral development. In light of these ideas, Carl Jung elaborated on both perspectives and believed that human behavior is influenced by "experiences of the individual and by an innate "collective unconscious" that is present in all humans with certain proclivities and tendencies" (Crisp 2001). Interestingly enough, psychologist, B.F. Skinner stated that the development of human behavior was based on previous consequences. More specifically, his entire line reasoning was that if a behavior was previously rewarded then the likelihood of that behavior to reoccur would be great and vice versa (Crisp 2001).
