Nature Vs Nurture By Group Vidyut

NATURE VS. NURTURE The principle of nature vs. nurture has been batted around time and time again in many aspects of life, Traditionally, human nature has been thought of as not only inherited but divinely ordained. Whole ethnic groups were considered to be, by nature, superior or inferior. In the 19th and 20th centuries, however, intellectuals increasingly attributed differences among races, classes, and genders to socialization (nurture), rather than to innate qualities (nature). Way before our time, early philosophers endeavored to understand the human behavior. As early as 350 BC, such philosophers as Plato and Aristotle tried to understand behavior. The question of nature or nurture as the primary drive can be traced to these times. Plato believed behavior and knowledge was due to innate factors. Author Fiona Cowie states, "The claim that the character of our mental furniture is to a large extent internally rather than environmentally determined found its first substantive defense in the works of Plato..." (Cowie, 1999). Plato theorized that all knowledge is present at birth. Plato also believed that the environment played a part in human processes, but he thought it had an unique role. He believed the environment did not teach people anything new, but its purpose was to remind people of information they already knew (Cowie, 1999). Although Plato's views are not supported today, he laid the groundwork for other researchers to follow. Alternatively, philosopher Aristotle theorized a different idea about human behavior. He presented the idea that humans are born into the world with a "blank slate" and people's behavior and thoughts are due to experience (Ashcraft, 1998). Unlike Plato, Aristotle hypothesized that humans were not born with knowledge, but they acquire it through experience (Ashcraft, 1998). Aristotle's idea of the tabula rasa is not believed today. Nevertheless, his belief that the environment was a vital factor in behavior influenced many empiricists throughout history.

During the late 1700s, the nature vs. nurture debate began to heat up between philosophers. Internalists (nature) and empiricists (nurture) wrote literature back and forth trying to prove their beliefs and disprove the other theories. Two philosophers, G.W. Leibniz and John Locke, were the main representatives of their respected explanations. Leibniz promoted the externalism point of view. Cowie states, "...Leibniz's position on this issue is, of course, that the tabula is far from rasa: 'The soul inherently contains the sources of various notions and doctrines, which external objects merely rouse up...' " (Cowie, 1999). Leibniz argued against Locke and other empiricists stated that "...there is no way ideas which come into the mind from outside can be formed into beliefs and judgments without the operation of specific internal mechanisms" (Cowie, 1999). Simultaneously, John Locke and his fellow philosophers campaigned for empiricism. Like Aristotle, the philosophers believed that humans' thoughts and actions were determined not by innate factors, but by the their unique experiences (Ashcraft, 1998). Locke argued against the internalists by tentatively examining different human processes such as logic and reasoning. He would ask how it was possible to use logic and reasoning if people were born with all of the knowledge they would ever acquire (Cowie 1999). The contrasting views of the two groups had begun the nature vs. nurture debate, which would linger in the fields of philosophy and psychology for decades. A key point should be made that even though the literalists and empiricists felt strongly about their theories, the explanations were not entirely opposite of each other. Cowie explains, "...rhetoric aside, both empiricists and nativists are both internalist and externalists about the origin of what is in our minds" (Cowie, 1999). Even Leibniz and Locke stated that the philosophies sometimes were only different

by the choices of words they used to describe their theories. Leibniz once wrote that fundamentally their views were the same about the nature vs. nurture question (Cowie, 1999). In the 20th century, the Nazis pursued an agenda based on the concept of human nature as defined by one's race. The Communists, on the other hand, largely followed Marx's lead in defining the human identity as subject to social structures, not nature. In scientific circles, this conflict led to ongoing controversy of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology The nature versus nurture debates concern the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities i.e "nature" versus personal experiences i.e "nurture" in determining or causing individual differences in physical and behavioral traits. The view that humans acquire all or almost all their behavioral traits from "nurture" is known as "blank slate". This question was once considered to be an appropriate division of developmental influences, but since both types of factors are known to play such interacting roles in development. How to Define Nature VS Nurture Theories There are three distinctive schools of thought. 1- Personality is Natural This group believes that your personality is result of evolutionary process. You inherit behaviors due to complex interaction of genes. They control your behaviors. So you don’t have a free will to act otherwise. 2- Personality is Nurtured This group argues that you don’t get your personality inherited. Your mind is a blank slate at your birth. It is your environment, education and culture that make up your behaviors. There are differences on the issue of ‘free will’ to change your behaviors. 3- Personality is Spiritual

This group claims that your personality is result of neither nature nor nurture. It is gift of some deity. They are split on the issue of ‘free will’. Some scientists think that people behave as they do according to genetic predispositions or even "animal instincts." This is known as the "nature" theory of human behavior. Other scientists believe that people think and behave in certain ways because they are taught to do so. This is known as the "nurture" theory of human behavior. we all have the power within to achieve great things in business or in anything we put our passion toward in life. Environment is more important than genes when it comes to intelligence, politically-corrected scientists keep telling us. If this is true, however, then it would follow that the Homo Sapiens of 20,000 years ago was not as intelligent as we are today. However, these very same 'scientists' keep telling us that we are no more intelligent than the very first human beings! But they simply cannot be right on both counts - unless they also argued that 20,000 years of 'environmental progress' and change achieved absolutely nothing in the way of developing our intellect. But if they argued this, they would then scupper their own notion that the environment was important! After all, the environment that surrounds, let's say, city-dwellers, right now, is VASTLY different from the environments and conditions of 20,000 years ago. If such

enormous changes haven't

altered

intelligence levels, then

what

environmental changes will? Also, if environment is extremely important when it comes to intelligence, then it follows that those brought up in more primitive environments are less intelligent than those brought up in more 'enriched' environments.

And this must mean that simple, primitive, isolated 'tribalfolk' are less intelligent than 'civilised' folk who live in places that are 'enriched', and where experts provide a mountain of education to those who study and learn from them.. But politically-corrected 'scientists' would also deny this! And by doing so, they again scupper their own notion that the environment is important. If the environment is of greater significance than heredity when it comes to intelligence - as politically-corrected 'scientists' would have you believe - then it also follows that poorer folk should be less intelligent than richer folk, that those doing dull boring jobs should be less intelligent than those doing stimulating ones, and that women throughout the ages (who were, apparently, oppressed into domestic servitude for most of their lives) were less intelligent than their men throughout the whole of History!

Every aspect can be learned whether that is computer programming, engineering a product, bookkeeping, marketing strategies, or even janitorial work. Some will take longer and require more effort and creativity

The root problem with thinking that someone is born with a talent is that people use that often as an excuse for failure . They look at others and say I could never do that. Instead they should realize that each one of us have singular capability to achieve even beyond our wildest dreams. Overcoming this narrow mindedness that we are taught consistently in society then you will one day realize your potential. Task by task progress will be

achieved and eventually leading to successful business owner and live that lifestyle you want.

There is a say “You don’t become great, you always were. You just decided to take the crap off that was covering it.”Washing out the nonsense of self-doubt takes one thing and that is education.

Managers: Born or Developed Question is often asked : Are managers born or are they developed? Managers are much like athletes-some have more natural talent than others. But, without practice, athlete or leader will fail. All of our great leaders, whether they are social or business leaders, have natural talent and have spent many years of hard work developing their leadership skills.

Jack Welch, CEO of General Electric and arguably one of the world's most effective corporate leaders, reportedly spends the bulk of his day on GE leadership issues. Although the pending acquisition of Honeywell may pull Welch's current attention away from leadership topics, he focused great energy in the 1990s on GE leadership development. Each April and May, Welch traveled to GE's various businesses to review the progress of the top 3,000 executives. He spent enormous amounts of time with top future GE leaders, reviewing outlined plans for their development and fine tuning detailed succession plans.

Often we hear and read about the quality of GE's leadership bench. In GE's annual report of last year, under Leadership it read: It's about the four "E's" we've been using for years as a screen to pick our leaders. 1. "Energy": to cope with the frenetic pace of change. 2. "Energize": the ability to excite, to galvanize the organization and inspire to action. 3. "Edge": the self-confidence to make the tough calls with "yeses" and "noes" and very few "maybes." And, 4. "Execute": the ancient GE tradition of always delivering, never disappointing."

Are GE's leaders born with all these attributes? Of course not! It takes many years of practice - trial and error - to hone these skills to a fine edge. That's why many of America's major corporations spend time and financial resources moving individuals around the organization to engage in assignments that will help them grow as leaders-and prepare them for more important jobs and responsibilities.

Mentoring, the act of bringing someone in under your wing, can be very useful for an individual. However, mentoring is somewhat passive. It's characterized by showing concern, responding to questions, giving advice when sought, providing encouragement, and, of course, acting as a role model. Coaching, on the other hand, is more proactive. Coaching focuses on helping the individual analyze their performance; suggesting ways to improve performance; demonstrating patience, support, and encouragement; and even holding practice sessions prior to demanding tasks.

Are managers born or developed? Are you a born manager? Managers aren't born. Neither are great artists, but both are born with potential. If being a manager means challenging the status quo, then you need youthful rebelliousness to stand up and be counted. This is a character trait you were born with or developed very early in life - it is not a learned skillset. To manage, you need the following traits or qualities: a spirit of adventure - the urge to explore, break new ground, challenge the status quo, stand up for what you believe, risk rejection, rebel against authority, innovate. an ability to influence - by example, logical argument, enthusiasm, persistence or painting a visionary picture. something you think is worth saying, to improve the world around you. the courage to speak out and the willingness to risk group rejection.it doesn't require a drive to dominate people, only a desire to differentiate yourself, to make your mark. You can modify your style of influencing a bit, but not totally. A quietly persuasive leader will have difficulty ever being charismatic - some in-born traits here.

•

The same is true of intelligence.

•

Earlier theories of managment rejected the idea that managers are born because they identified managment with the personality and skills to influence followers, noting rightly that there are widely differing styles of influence and that people can improve their influencing skills.

•

But the critical managment trait is the courage to stand up and be counted, rebelliousness - it's a bit like creativity, you might have it in a small amount, rather than large doses, but you either have it or you don't.

•

managers are rebels who focus their rebelliousness on challenging the status quo and improving the world around them.

•

Strictly speaking, no one is born a manager, just as no one is born a talented artist. But you can be born with the underlying traits that make you a potential artist given the right stimulus and environment. Similarly, exploratory, rebellious characters could become criminals rather than leaders depending on circumstances, so it is the potential you are born with, not full scale leadership. Mozart was not born a musician after all - just with the creative potential to become one.

•

We live in a more biological age. Throughout the latter half of the 20th century we believed that everyone could become anything with the right environment and support. This view is not so widely held in the 21st century.

•

Even the conventional definition of managment which focuses on the drive to dominate people, to be the top dog, is a trait that some people acquire early in life and have more than others. Here, however, this definition of managment is rejected. The real meaning of leadership has nothing to do with occupying a position of power.

•

Should we focus on selecting managers then rather than developing them? No, this misses the point - it's not about appointing people to positions. The key is to create the conditions for leadership to emerge informally and spontaneously throughout the organization.

•

Keep in mind that managers, as portrayed here, is about innovating or championing new directions. It is not about managing people - otherwise how could innovative knowledge workers show leadership upwards - to people they do not manage? Of course, management skills can be learned. Still, some people are more naturally suited to management than others.

•

EVERYONE can show some managment - you don't have to be an out and out rebel. Anyone with suggestions to make to improve things can show leadership at least on a small, local scale. We all have good ideas for doing things better. It's just a matter of speaking up and persisting until you win support for your views.

conclusion In conclusion, it is safe to say that the role of genetics and the environment equalize people's traits and behavior. You cannot blame either one because without one, the other would not be activated. Genes effect a lot of your personality and behavior but the environment

mutates and molds the way people are going to act. This will always be an ongoing controversy because it is nearly impossible to pin point accurately where the role of genes and the environment steps in.