There is much controversy in respect to the theory of how human development can be effect by one's environment versus their biological predisposition. Thephase "Nature vs. Nurture" has been debated for many years by Psychologist and Biologist alike. Professionals in the field have energetically argued the ideas associated to the root of ones personality traits i.e.; shyness, sexual orientation or intelligence. Both sides have valid and well documented basis for their beliefs but fail to perpetuate independently given the the most recent scientific findings. Recent research has shown that there is reason to believe that in fact both ideologies have a direct impact on lifelong human ...view middle of the document...
This idea by itself, I find hard to believe given my personal experience with individuals in by professional career.
The individuals with mental illness whom I have worked with have shown me that environmental factors do not solely influences their development. Many of these individuals have to deal with their own mental illness and that of a close family member such as a mother, father or sibling. Postmortem studies of schizophrenic brain have suggested that there may be anomalies affecting the intrinsic neural circuitry within the anterior cingulate cortex in patients with this disorder A recent series of experiments has demonstrated that when stress-related levels of corticosterone are administered to pregnant rats, the offspring show an increase of dopaminergic inputs to interneurons in the rat mPFC, suggesting that stress in utero may render an animal more vulnerable to the effects of stress in later life. (Benes, 1999)It can be said that an increase in community-based resources fundamentally help individuals adapt to difficult situations. Few studies discuss the correlation between community resources and human development.
If an individual lacks the ability of knowledge of the resources that are available to him/her, in what ways does that impact their overall wellbeing? One might argue that this is a flaw, either genetically or environmentally.
Socioeconomic status alone can not determine the outcome of an individuals life. If one's environment was solely the formula that determines how each individual with develop, how do we see such variation in school performance? For example; two students attended the same school, live in similar home environments with single mothers and minimal family supports end up with different value systems. It is impossible to argue this scenario only using the environmental or "nurture" approach in evaluating the situation.
One might argue that the two girls who had similar life experiences with varying outcomes must have had a macro environmental factor that effected them as individuals. if this were valid, so would dually be true in respect to the biological theory of human development. Any erroneous outcome of either theory would in turn validate the others argument through systemization of accuracy.
A good example of the influences of environment and genetics on human development can be clearly exhibited in the differences of twins who were separated at birth. Genetic researchers have studied the similarities of what they consider genetic predisposition of IQ, personality and general interest in twins.
Inconstancies, however are found in some of these studies as the research does not take into consideration the psychosocial influences that are not easily identified in the environment. Findings have indicated that environmental factors tend to make siblings different from one another (IE, non shared environmental influence). These findings have led to controversial arguments regarding the (un)importance...