Psych Discussion Response

Original Question:

Week 3 Forum Topic - Nature versus Nurture Debate Click on the link below or copy and paste it into your web browser URL address box at the top of your screen and watch the brief interview of Dr. Laurence Steinberg about nature's versus nurture's impact on human development.Laurence Steinberg Interview http://bigthink.com/ideas/17986

In this video with accompanying transcript, Dr. Laurence Steinberg, Professor of Psychology at Temple University, explains the latest research findings into the nature versus nurture debate, highlighting the need to break down the false dichotomy between genes and the environment.

Reply to the following response with 200 words minimum.  (please make response as if having a conversation, respond directly to some of the statements in below post.)

In this week’s discussion, we look at one of the oldest debates in human development, nature vs nurture.  This time however a different perspective is given and that is in the form of Dr. Laurence Steinberg who discusses where the original concept of this ideal went wrong and how it is today.  In my opinion I believe he touches on a lot of very prominent facts and also talks about what I already believed was the answer in the first place.  The answer in my opinion being that it is a little bit of nature and nurture when it comes to how someone will turn out.  A more thorough explanation being that a person can genetically inherit certain qualities (nature), but through personal experience and exposer, those qualities can be hardened or changed completely (nurture).  Even from Dr. Steinberg, the explanation holds a lot of merit and understanding when looking at the argument.  When a parent wonders why their child did not turn out like them when they inherited their genes, the answer is simple, unless the child grew up in the exact same environment, they might not be manifested in the same type of behavior (Steinberg (2016).  Even so, parents raise children differently, siblings act differently and if a person has a family history of mental illness such as depression, it actually does not really matter if the person leads a stress-free life under too little duress to cause depression to occur.

            It is in my mind that this way of thinking in regard to the nature vs nurture debate is the most modern, not to mention the fact that Dr. Steinberg actually mentions this in the video.  Without a doubt genetics are passed on and can guide people into being who they are, but I still feel experience and environmental expose will also help in the outcome.  Dr. Steinberg offers a lot of useful insight here. 

            In looking at the second part of this forum, the two people I have chosen to look at are both old friends of mine that I have not seen very much in the past years, but know what and how they are doing.  Both of them growing up were natural born leaders in our school at the time which is when we all met and began hanging out.  Both of them were confident in what they were doing and what they wanted to do, despite any backlash or criticism in the process.  Friend A was the athletic nerdy straight A student that clearly was going to a good college and found time to not only have fun with his friends, but also turn in good grades.  In a sense, he made trying in school cool as people actually began to adapt the same “try hard” focus that he had when it came to his young age maturity.  Friend B on the other hand also exhibited the same leadership ability, this time in the sense that whatever he did became the next best thing.  His father was the catcher coach for the Yankees so naturally, he was out best athlete in school.  He led from the front, in this case meaning that no one really went against him, but at the same time he was the most likeable and nice guy. 

            Both friends had the genetic disposition to be leaders.  Friend A was the first born of four kids and had to constantly showcase his ability to his parents, one of whom was a doctor.  While friend B was the popular kid whose father was famous and he himself too young to have the chance at such popularity in general.  Regardless, both were born leaders in their own way.  In looking at where they are today, friend A is officially a doctor after graduating from Harvard and going on to med school in Illinois.  He followed in his father’s footsteps and continued to showcase the same tenacity that he had when he was young regardless of what people may or may not have thought of him.  He also influenced the rest of his siblings to go to college and from my understanding was always a phone call away if they ever needed help.  He in my mind was a true leader because he knew what needed to be done and he went and did it, simple as that and people loved him for it.  Now looking at friend B, he would go on to fail at what would be called a picturesque possibility.  He got a full rise scholarship to LSU for baseball and squandered it away with drugs and partying, barely finishing school with not even one game played.  He was considered one of the top prospects in the nation at one point and basically lost all care or real focus.  A lot of family matters took place from what I heard that really tore him apart, but all in all he lost that likeable personality and with it, his true leadership skills.  He disappeared off the grid for a while and basically hit rock bottom, now he apparently is getting better, but who knows.  Who was a real friend who actually cared, while the other only pretended to and when the cards were down walked the other way.           

References

            Steinberg, L. (2016).  Why Some Apples Fall Far From the Tree. Retrieved from http://bigthink.com/videos/why-some-apples-fall-far-from-the-tree