The nature versus nurture debate involves the extent to which particular aspects of behavior are a product of either

inherited (i.e., genetic) or acquired (i.e., learned)

influences.

Nature versus nurture is a debate which is the factors that influence in our behavior. However,
this topic isn’t something that experts have talked recently. In the past, there were two
extreme positions: Nativism and Empiricism.

The first one is related to the biological factors and mentioned that all what people learn after
their born is the result of a pre program that was inherited by our genetic system. Many
psychologies supported this position such as Chomsky who said, “Language is gained through
the use of an innate language acquisition device” and Freud who mentioned, “The aggression
is an innate drive called Thanatos”. On the contrary, the second one refers to environmental
factors which basically is about that the human mind is like a blank slate that is gradually
“filled” as a result of experiences. For instance, Bandura said, “Aggression is learned from the
environment through observation and imitation” and Skinner reported, “The language is learnt
from other people via behavior shaping techniques”.

Nowadays, many scientists have accepted that psychological traits is the result of the sum of
nature and nurture, but what is important to know is the percentage of the influence of each
one and the interaction of them in our behavior.

Nature is what we think of as pre-wiring and is influenced by genetic inheritance and other biological factors. Nurture is generally taken as the
influence of external factors after conception, e.g., the product of exposure, life experiences and learning on an individual.

The two positions about this debate fell in the past into two extreme positions: Nativism and Empiricism.

The first position deals with the idea that everything is in our genes, like a set of preprogrammed system. So since the moment we are born,
everything that we learn or do is a result of that pre program that was inherited by our genetic system. Examples of an extreme nature positions in
psychology include Chomsky (1965), who proposed language is gained through the use of an innate language acquisition device. Another example of
nature is Freud's theory of aggression as being an innate drive (called Thanatos).

At the other end of the spectrum are the environmentalists – also known as empiricists (not to be confused with the other empirical / scientific approach). Their basic
assumption is that at birth the human mind is a tabula rasa (a blank slate) and that this is gradually “filled” as a result of experience (e.g., Behaviorism).The idea here is that
every behavior or skill is learned through our relation with the things around us. An example of this position can be Bandura's (1977) social learning theory, which states that
aggression is learned from the environment through observation and imitation. Also, Skinner (1957) believed that language is learnt from other people via behavior shaping
techniques. Freud (1905) stated that events in our childhood have a great influence on our adult lives, shaping our personality. He thought that parenting is of primary
importance to a child's development, and the family as the most important feature of nurture was a common theme throughout twentieth-century psychology (which was
dominated by environmentalists theories).

In practice, hardly anyone today accepts either of the extreme positions. There are simply too
many “facts” on both sides of the argument which are inconsistent with an “all or nothing”
view. So instead of asking whether psychological traits are influenced by nature or nurture the
question has been reformulated as “How much?” That is to say, given that heredity and
environment both influence the person we become, which is the more important?