Nature vs. Nurture: The Debate on Psychological Development

This documentary was entered into National History Day in 2011, which is basically a history project competition. We received 3rd place at the regional contest, which is district-wide. This…

You may also like...

25 Responses

  1. Chris McIsaac says:

    I feel like she went completely off topic for too long on the whole
    homosexuality thing.. I thought this was supposed to be about nature vs.
    nurture and she snuck in a quick lesson on the background of
    homosexuality. 

  2. David List says:

    One last thought. Just because there is a correlation between two variables
    doesn’t ensure causation. There maybe a correlation between genetics and
    homosexuality. However that no way indicates that genetics causes
    homosexuality.

  3. Pumlan Mamsundu says:

    Thanks for the video (y)

    Since you said much about homosexuality can I get a clarity on this:
    My Lecture today said we(men) have estrogen although it is the female
    hormone. Same applies to women, they also have testorestone.

    Doesn’t this mean we all have 45% of being gay??

  4. David List says:

    It is interesting that you talk you explain twin studies and then talk
    about how inaccurate they are and then use twin studies to justify
    homosexuality as a win for nature over nurture. It seems like you have
    completely contradicted your premise.

  5. xutherx1 says:

    you talk too fast, but it is clear xD

  6. michael g says:

    what are the names of the two theorists? i got plato but who is the other
    one? i would really appreciate the answer.

  7. David List says:

    According to Cervone and Pervin (2010), twin studies are useful in
    determining a biological or genetic influence on personality development.
    However, heritability does not determine the overall effect of a trait that
    in inherited or the actual genetic causes for that trait. Additionally,
    even if a trait is inherited that does not in anyway indicate that the
    trait is permanent. So, regarding the issue of homosexuality being genetic
    or not, even if homosexuality is an inherited trait, that in no way means
    that it is a permanent trait. Additionally, genetics are not the only
    influences regarding personality development (which includes sexual
    preference). The individual’s environment plays an almost equal role in
    development as genetics does.
    So, to draw the conclusions that the ladies have drawn in their
    presentation is irresponsible at best.
    References:
    Cervone, D., & Pervin, L. A. (2010). Personality: Theory and research (11th
    ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

  8. Sinclairelim says:

    Oh come on, it’s a terrible mistake to name it nature vs nurture: it is not
    either one or the other, it’s nature as modified by nurture. Nobody can
    deny the effect of either in pretty much all of human behaviour.

  9. pat sentana says:
  10. David List says:

    Oh and your title for your presentation is deceptive when it is very
    apparent that you intended to promote homosexuality. If your purpose was to
    try and prove that genetics is the main cause of homosexuality and that was
    the point of your presentation then have the courage to be honest from the
    beginning. Also, just because someone may not agree with your perspective
    on the homosexual debate does not make them homophobic. Lets have a lively
    debate with out reverting to name calling. You are allowed to have your
    opinion just as the people who happen to disagree with you are allowed to
    have their opinion. If you are looking to promote tolerance and insisting
    that other people be tolerant of your beliefs then by labeling someone who
    disagrees with you as homophobic is rather intolerant of you. It is
    possible to have an honest debate and even disagree without trying to win
    your side of the debate by talking down to your opponent and using name
    calling.

  11. TrashClashClassy says:

    excellent, thank you so much!

  12. Alexis Izazaga says:

    This video was very helpful thank you very much you

  13. Ivan Makaris says:

    There is little or no science in this. Most of the so called arguments are
    antidotes and old trails of thought. The Nurture side has very poor
    evidence. Nature however has solid evidence for biological factors playing
    on human psychology. Adopting the nurture side is an act of laziness and
    requires no neutral perspective as we are humans analyzing ourselves though
    our biological social perceptions.

  14. Sean Donnelly says:

    Forgot to mention. that homosexuality is a defect genetically

  15. DavidEm Rutz says:

    One person who, I think, doesn’t apply to any of these statements (nurture)
    Liz Murray.

  16. Gil Ortale says:

    ironic that the “gay”/ “homosexual” comments speak to the lack of testes
    and overall flaccid state of the posters.

  17. Saif Chowdhury says:

    I went completely nuts at about 5:18 !

  18. Saif Chowdhury says:

    Great vid

  19. Scolding Mime says:

    You forgot to cover the research concerning eugenics. Aside from the
    omission, kudos to you both for making a ten-minute video very interesting.

  20. Jonathan Felton says:

    Gay animals aren’t an indication of gay genetics to those on the nurture
    side of the debate, such as myself. I say this because I believe animals
    are susceptible to the same external influences in behaviour as a human,
    for example nobody knows how to act their own species and gender until
    they’re taught by society, this applies to all living sentient creatures,
    not just humans.

    Any argument on the nature side of the debate tends to be based on a gross
    misrepresentation of the nurture argument and a biased distortion of
    evidence, at least in my experience.

    I also don’t see how homosexuality being genetic would make it any less the
    gay person’s “fault”, just because we’re governed by external stimuli
    doesn’t mean we have any say in what that external stimuli is, because it’s
    external and thus beyond our own direct control. Behaviourism indicates a
    distinct lack of free will, not the presence of it, ergo neither the nature
    or nurture side of the debate is implying that being gay is a choice, the
    only side that might think that are people who believe in free will which
    would be somewhere between nature and nurture.

    But I suppose it is my ‘nature’ to like all of the parts of the video that
    spoke in favour of my side and dislike all parts of the video that spoke in
    favour of the other side. It’s a pretty good video overall though.

  21. robert tucker says:

    You gay?

  22. Maria Kuznetsova says:

    loved it , short and easy :)

  23. R26Natalie says:

    meant to put youtube video not power point ahaha

  24. R26Natalie says:

    hi i was just wondering if you have references for this power point, id
    like to use some of your information in an essay im doing on nature vs
    nurture

  25. Kayla Powell says:

    feral means wild. these children are raised in the wild, how is that mean
    in any way? would you prefer the term savage?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *