Nature vs Nurture
Arguably, in the context of psychology, the nature vs. nurture debate points out which aspect-nature or circumstances-determines behaviour. Innate behavior or behavior based on genetics or DNA would classify it under nature, while that based on external circumstances or experiences falls under nurture. The nature and nurture sides of the debate have traditionally always been deterministic; in other words, the behavior could either be determined by biology itself or was the product of environment, with little room for free will to run.
Although, modern psychology increasingly accepts that behavior is a product of the result of genetic predispositions and environmental influences interplaying with each other. Instead of opposing nature and nurture forces, psychologists point to their interaction. While predispositions may lay the setting for development, environmental factors significantly influence how these will be expressed.
This debate is also associated with reductionism, as the extreme positions-claiming that behavior is determined solely by genetics or by the environment-only make the complexity of human behavior appear a little too simplistic. These arguments have been more influential historically, but current psychology deals with how genetics and experience complement each other.
It has a salient strength for it helps differentiate whether the behavior is inherited or learned-to know to what extent biological factors and environment contribute to the development of the trait. It can make it clear that some behaviors are biologically determined, eliminating misattributions to parental upbringing. However, the weakness lies in the fact that the debate oversimplifies the complex interaction between nature and nurture. In addition, an overemphasis on the inherited traits may lead a person to overlook the influence of the environment in behavior. Last, but certainly not least, the debate may be deterministic and forget that it is free will and personal agency that describes behavior.
