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.