Throughout the past several centuries, there has been a debate over nature versus conditioned nurture. This debate has spanned the spectrum of philosophical ideas, such as empiricism and rationalism. The debate has also influenced the field of psychology, which has teetered between nature and nurture.
In psychology, the terms nature and nurture refer to specific characteristics and abilities. Nature refers to genetically inherited qualities, while nurture refers to environmental factors. For example, a child who grows up in a loving home will be more likely to thrive than a child who grows up in a less loving home. In other words, nature and nurture are two of the most important factors in child development.
The Nature hypothesis proposes that most human behaviors are genetically inherited. This hypothesis also suggests that other aspects of child development are controlled by external factors. It also focuses on natural selection, which is thought to contribute to human behavior.
In the early 20th century, psychologists assumed that human and animal behavior was based on instincts. However, this assumption was challenged by psychologists in the 1920s and 1950s. Instincts were argued to be insufficient as a scientific concept, and most psychologists have since shifted away from the term. Other terms used by psychologists include innate knowledge, biological maturation, and hereditary/genetic effects on development.
I share your opinion.
But I have noticed with time that children are a blank page when they are born to life.
The parents are the writers for it and the main components of its story.
Of course, society then intervenes as a secondary element and writes aspects of its story.
It turns it from a white page into a ready element according to its composition.
So we say that nature has a very effective role for everyone
Downvoting a post can decrease pending rewards and make it less visible. Common reasons:
Submit