I like that this article focuses on the idea that BOTH nature-nurture play a role in how a person develops. Ever since I have been introduced to the debate of nature vs. nurture I have always thought that both were crucial in how a person develops. To go along with the nature side, my brother and I were raised almost the exact same way by our parents, as far as values, punishments, rewards, etc., however, we are two entirely different people. As far as the nuture side of things goes, I have always thought that if I were born with the exact same genes I have now, but raised in a different environment that I would be a different person in some aspects of my personality, but not all.
I also really liked this article because it really focused on the idea that both nature and nurture play a huge role in our development. That it is really not just one or the other. I have also thought and still feel that both nature and nurture play roles in development. I don't think that one aspect takes over the other in the development of individuals. I strongly agree with all the points that this article points out in how both are at work here rather than just the one or the other.
This article doesn't surprise me and I definitely think it this debate is by far the most interesting of most debates. I'm also learning about this is my psychology of personality class and I found out then that genes mattered with the IQ test. Also to take into account are situations that have happened that matter as well. Being married, divorced, careers, etc. plays a role in how a child develops. Both nature and nurture are important though and twin studies definitely show the results. More interesting to me though is adoptive studies because I was adopted and have no idea about my biological parents.
I found this article to be very interesting. I think that it pushes both the idea of nature and nurture. I have always agreed that both nature and nurture play a huge role in the way a person develops. Nature because what the person is surrounded by can influnces you to do different things or make you have to adjust the way you're living. Nurture because how much love and attention and support a person gets through out their life can really determine what kind of person they turn out to be. Each one of my siblings were brought up all the same way. But we each act completely different from one another. Although we were raised in a small town, I think that maybe we would have turned out different if we were raised in a big city or even a different state.
I always find nature-nurture debates to be interesting. But I definitely liked this article because it covered both sides, and it covered things very accurately. Both our genes and enviroment do matter in our development. You can't get much better of a study then a twin study, Thanks Galton!
I'm in Psych of Human Differences right now and we talked about Bouchard's twin studies earlier this week. My professor brought up an interesting point that much of this work was funded by a group called The Pioneer Fund. This group was very interested in promoting eugenics throughout the United States. They would have wanted Bouchard to find that intelligence was highly heritable so that the idea of eugenics would make more sense and be more appealing to the public. This research could never be replicated due to the lack of twins separated at birth and therefore we can't be sure how reliable some of his numbers are.
I like how you pointed out the Pioneer Group and how they are focused on eugenics. I forget sometimes how nature the focus was back in the days when psychology started to arise. That is why I feel that many people rely more on nature rather than the nurture side of psychology.
The nature vs nurture debate is of huge concern to many in the field of psychology. It is somewhat interesting to me, but for the amount of research done on the topics, it is still something that will never be fully understood. This article supports my view of the debate, which is that both nature and nurture are involved in making us the people we are. Both genetics and how we are raised make us who we are and maybe it is just my opinion.. but honestly I don't know how people can believe that only one side is the determining factor. I think people should consider that the two of them work together in some sort of way. It is an important topic and more research will continue to be done in the future. Twin studies are pretty interesting to me and I would like to hear more about those.
While this article is interesting, I haven't heard anyone say that it is JUST nature or JUST nurture in my entire time studying psychology. The biggest question that I have is how MUCH of an individual's intelligence is based on heredity, how MUCH is based on parental influence? I think these are important questions that we just don't have answers for at this point; but I don't feel like this article is providing any earth shattering revelations.
This article is something that has been well debated. The tests have shown just slight differences between nature and nurture. How much it impacts the child is what is hard to determine. My favorite part about these studies is when they look at twins that have been raised apart. Many twins share common traits even when raised in very different environments. This always reminds me of watching sister sister on disney channel and watching them finish each others sentences. But how much was that show actually showed what twins could have in common after being raised apart and then coming back together. Probably not alot because of entertainment, but problably more than they thought. LIke their interests, the way they do things, etc.
I like how this article focuses on the fact that both nature and nurture are important to development. In my opinion the argument of Nature vs. Nurture is ridiculous because one is not more important than the other. Both are equally important and impact who a person becomes. And the twin studies that have been done in the past to help show we are not born completely blank - I'm sure John Locke would be disappointed to hear that his idea of tabula rasa, "blank slate," isn't quite right!
This article was interesting because I like hearing about the nature-nurture debates anyway. I think it's awesome that people are starting to see both sides of it, and not necessarily taking one side or the other. It just makes more sense to think of our experiences AND our genes shape who we are.
I learned in my biopsych class first that it is nature and nurture, not one or the other. I like that this article shows both sides, because I can't think of a situation where genes or environment are the sole control. I also liked that they put that parents will always matter because I think that this is an incredibly important and intricate part of child-rearing. This also shows what a long way we've come since the beginning of psychology, or back in the philosophy stage when they felt that environment was the only way to experience and understand.
The argument about genetics and the influence of environmental factors on the development of humans has always been important to psychology. I enjoyed this article because it combines the importance of both of these factors on development. This article also was great because it set out to try and clear up some the confusion around this topic that the media has created. No one is just influence just by their environment or genes alone they work hand in hand and help us to see we do have free will in this.
This article was a nice change from the usually extreme positions that often receive publication. It seems that in order to be published you must take some extreme stance. Not the case with this publication, it was a breath of fresh air. I enjoyed some of the points they brought up ranging from IQ to the importance of parents. Regarding IQ it was cool to hear that we will never know the full effect of genes as related to IQ because environments are always different, never the same and these have a huge impact. Also hearing that our genes are not always genetic (or something like that), and that aspects of our environment have just as big of an impact such that our size and strength can be greatly impacted by our diet, not simply genetics. Neat, quick, interesting read.
I've heard so much about this particular topic throughout college, and I agree that BOTH genetics and external experiences play a role in how we as people develop (including twins). Twins separated from birth are going to be similar through genetic makeup, but they will also have their differences from each other. But let's not forget… they both came from the same womb at the same time, so that means they were exposed to the same chemicals and surroundings as each other before they were born and or separated from each other. So it makes perfect sense as to why twins separated at birth to different families and/or environments.
I have also heard about the nature vs. nurture debate. It was very surprising to me during my biological psychology class when the professor told us that it was no longer a debate, but that it was proven that genes and the environment work together to influence who we are. I think that this article puts a big emphasis on how nature and nurture work together to influence each person.
I do find twin studies very interesting. I enjoy seeing the similarities that come from two twins being raised in different environments. I found this article to be very interesting and informative. It made me think about twin studies in a completely different way.
I like that this article focuses on the idea that BOTH nature-nurture play a role in how a person develops. Ever since I have been introduced to the debate of nature vs. nurture I have always thought that both were crucial in how a person develops. To go along with the nature side, my brother and I were raised almost the exact same way by our parents, as far as values, punishments, rewards, etc., however, we are two entirely different people. As far as the nuture side of things goes, I have always thought that if I were born with the exact same genes I have now, but raised in a different environment that I would be a different person in some aspects of my personality, but not all.
I also really liked this article because it really focused on the idea that both nature and nurture play a huge role in our development. That it is really not just one or the other. I have also thought and still feel that both nature and nurture play roles in development. I don't think that one aspect takes over the other in the development of individuals. I strongly agree with all the points that this article points out in how both are at work here rather than just the one or the other.
This article doesn't surprise me and I definitely think it this debate is by far the most interesting of most debates. I'm also learning about this is my psychology of personality class and I found out then that genes mattered with the IQ test. Also to take into account are situations that have happened that matter as well. Being married, divorced, careers, etc. plays a role in how a child develops. Both nature and nurture are important though and twin studies definitely show the results. More interesting to me though is adoptive studies because I was adopted and have no idea about my biological parents.
I found this article to be very interesting. I think that it pushes both the idea of nature and nurture. I have always agreed that both nature and nurture play a huge role in the way a person develops. Nature because what the person is surrounded by can influnces you to do different things or make you have to adjust the way you're living. Nurture because how much love and attention and support a person gets through out their life can really determine what kind of person they turn out to be. Each one of my siblings were brought up all the same way. But we each act completely different from one another. Although we were raised in a small town, I think that maybe we would have turned out different if we were raised in a big city or even a different state.
I always find nature-nurture debates to be interesting. But I definitely liked this article because it covered both sides, and it covered things very accurately. Both our genes and enviroment do matter in our development. You can't get much better of a study then a twin study, Thanks Galton!
I'm in Psych of Human Differences right now and we talked about Bouchard's twin studies earlier this week. My professor brought up an interesting point that much of this work was funded by a group called The Pioneer Fund. This group was very interested in promoting eugenics throughout the United States. They would have wanted Bouchard to find that intelligence was highly heritable so that the idea of eugenics would make more sense and be more appealing to the public. This research could never be replicated due to the lack of twins separated at birth and therefore we can't be sure how reliable some of his numbers are.
I like how you pointed out the Pioneer Group and how they are focused on eugenics. I forget sometimes how nature the focus was back in the days when psychology started to arise. That is why I feel that many people rely more on nature rather than the nurture side of psychology.
The nature vs nurture debate is of huge concern to many in the field of psychology. It is somewhat interesting to me, but for the amount of research done on the topics, it is still something that will never be fully understood. This article supports my view of the debate, which is that both nature and nurture are involved in making us the people we are. Both genetics and how we are raised make us who we are and maybe it is just my opinion.. but honestly I don't know how people can believe that only one side is the determining factor. I think people should consider that the two of them work together in some sort of way. It is an important topic and more research will continue to be done in the future. Twin studies are pretty interesting to me and I would like to hear more about those.
While this article is interesting, I haven't heard anyone say that it is JUST nature or JUST nurture in my entire time studying psychology. The biggest question that I have is how MUCH of an individual's intelligence is based on heredity, how MUCH is based on parental influence? I think these are important questions that we just don't have answers for at this point; but I don't feel like this article is providing any earth shattering revelations.
This article is something that has been well debated. The tests have shown just slight differences between nature and nurture. How much it impacts the child is what is hard to determine. My favorite part about these studies is when they look at twins that have been raised apart. Many twins share common traits even when raised in very different environments. This always reminds me of watching sister sister on disney channel and watching them finish each others sentences. But how much was that show actually showed what twins could have in common after being raised apart and then coming back together. Probably not alot because of entertainment, but problably more than they thought. LIke their interests, the way they do things, etc.
I like how this article focuses on the fact that both nature and nurture are important to development. In my opinion the argument of Nature vs. Nurture is ridiculous because one is not more important than the other. Both are equally important and impact who a person becomes. And the twin studies that have been done in the past to help show we are not born completely blank - I'm sure John Locke would be disappointed to hear that his idea of tabula rasa, "blank slate," isn't quite right!
This article was interesting because I like hearing about the nature-nurture debates anyway. I think it's awesome that people are starting to see both sides of it, and not necessarily taking one side or the other. It just makes more sense to think of our experiences AND our genes shape who we are.
I learned in my biopsych class first that it is nature and nurture, not one or the other. I like that this article shows both sides, because I can't think of a situation where genes or environment are the sole control. I also liked that they put that parents will always matter because I think that this is an incredibly important and intricate part of child-rearing. This also shows what a long way we've come since the beginning of psychology, or back in the philosophy stage when they felt that environment was the only way to experience and understand.
The argument about genetics and the influence of environmental factors on the development of humans has always been important to psychology. I enjoyed this article because it combines the importance of both of these factors on development. This article also was great because it set out to try and clear up some the confusion around this topic that the media has created. No one is just influence just by their environment or genes alone they work hand in hand and help us to see we do have free will in this.
This article was a nice change from the usually extreme positions that often receive publication. It seems that in order to be published you must take some extreme stance. Not the case with this publication, it was a breath of fresh air. I enjoyed some of the points they brought up ranging from IQ to the importance of parents. Regarding IQ it was cool to hear that we will never know the full effect of genes as related to IQ because environments are always different, never the same and these have a huge impact. Also hearing that our genes are not always genetic (or something like that), and that aspects of our environment have just as big of an impact such that our size and strength can be greatly impacted by our diet, not simply genetics. Neat, quick, interesting read.
I've heard so much about this particular topic throughout college, and I agree that BOTH genetics and external experiences play a role in how we as people develop (including twins). Twins separated from birth are going to be similar through genetic makeup, but they will also have their differences from each other. But let's not forget… they both came from the same womb at the same time, so that means they were exposed to the same chemicals and surroundings as each other before they were born and or separated from each other. So it makes perfect sense as to why twins separated at birth to different families and/or environments.
I have also heard about the nature vs. nurture debate. It was very surprising to me during my biological psychology class when the professor told us that it was no longer a debate, but that it was proven that genes and the environment work together to influence who we are. I think that this article puts a big emphasis on how nature and nurture work together to influence each person.
I do find twin studies very interesting. I enjoy seeing the similarities that come from two twins being raised in different environments. I found this article to be very interesting and informative. It made me think about twin studies in a completely different way.