Nature_Versus_Nurture

Running Head: Nature versus Nurture Name: College: Course: Teacher: Date: Nature versus Nurture Introduction The reason why there are individual differences in intelligence goes beyond psychology and takes into account a wide range of issues including moral, ethical, social and educational among many others. That is why the subject of how differences in intelligence between persons and groups is of great deal of interest and debate as it can stir up tough reactions and bring out personal beliefs and biases (Howe, 1997). In analyzing the link between what is inherited and what is nurtured from experience, a number of scholars have argued that nature's contribution to individual differences in intelligence as a force to be considered and educated or controlled (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). In other words, nature is always a truth to contend with in relationship to these differences. Some scholars have however moved away from the position that knowledge is subjective to every individual. They have therefore argued that the human mind is a dynamic player in knowledge attainment, constructing specific facets of an experience (Howe, 1997). This is because they think that each individual inherits particular kinds or concept grids on which experiences could be arranged and/or organized (Kline, 1991). One of the primary weakness of a purely nature based point of view is how to explicate the existence or continuing survival of particular values which may take in actions for which there is no apparent natural selection force (Manolakes, 1997). For instance, why should a preference be made converse to an individual's chosen preferences or which may lead in real retribution' Altruism for not-related persons, straightforwardness and integrity as fairness are values hard to support from an evolutionary perspective, especially when some preferences cause the demise of an individual, effectively getting rid of those genes from the pool (Daniels et al, 1997). Theorizing these as principally inherited values would breed a requisite for a very intricate set of genetic directions having a great ordinary human base of reference. For this reason, the hunt for a possible universal morality has elicited more heated debate than agreement among scholars. It can definitely be argued from a social school of thoughts that human minds and their operations are of actually huge influence in events. The functions of human minds may also be inclined to showcase nature as well as nurture (Ridley, 1999). It is therefore doubtless better to be sensitive of the existence of such disquieting inclinations realized by the social psychologists than not (Liungman, 1975). Conclusion A conventional and probably secure position is that in the subject of intelligence, there are three realities about the transfer of intelligence that nearly each individual seems to agree. One is that nature and nurture have considerable contribution to intelligence. Second is nature and nurture interact in a number of ways and third is that exceedingly poor as well as enriched environments can meddle with the recognition of an individual's intelligence, despite of the individual’s nature (Weinberg, 1989). Further, even though nearly all individuals would accept the underlying role of genetics in knowledge acquisition, the precise genetic relationship and how it works is very far from being known, a point that nearly all psychologists agree on, meaning that it is unquestionably not a sole gene, but an intricate mixture of smaller genetic markers (Liungman, 1975). However, it is also not easy to pin-down single, particular elements of the environment which directly influence intelligence level, meaning a number of environmental aspects influence intelligence (Howe, 1997). In a nutshell, it is not easy to define intelligence but there is a thing individuals’ call intelligence that appears to link with ability to reason conceptually, to study and to adapt. This is to say that intelligence is as a result of both nature and nurture and its real causes are intricate, not well known and they interplay between nature and nurture. References Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological Testing (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Daniels, M., Devlin, B., & Roeder, K. (1997). Of genes and IQ. In B. Devlin, S. E. Fienberg., & K. Roeder (pp. 45-70). Intelligence, Genes, and Success: Scientists respond to The Bell Curve. New York: Springer. Eysenck, H. (1971). Race, Intelligence and Education. London: Maurice Temple Smith. Howe, M. J. A. (1997). IQ in Question: The truth about intelligence. London: Sage. Kline, P. (1991). Intelligence: The Psychometric View. London: Routledge. Liungman, C.G. (1975). What is IQ' Intelligence, Heredity and Environment. London: Gordon Cremonesi. Manolakes, L. A. (1997). Cognitive Ability, Environmental Factors, and Crime: Predicting Frequent Criminal Activity. In B. Devlin, S.E. Fienberg., & K. Roeder (pp. 235-255). Intelligence, Genes, and Success: Scientists respond to The Bell Curve. New York: Springer. Ridley, M. (1999). Genome: The autobiography of a species in 23 chapters. London: Fourth Estate Ltd. Weinberg, R.A. (1989). Intelligence and IQ: Landmark issues and great debates. American Psychologist, 44, 98-104.