Learning and Memory: Biology vs. Society

at that place has been such(prenominal) struggle about the reputation of humans apprehension. Questions arise from the matter. Is the way you think and learn inherited, or as the disposition side of the debate argues, biological? Or is the way you think influenced by outside forces, or as the nature side of the debate argues, societal? This paper aims to present the points of view of each side of the argument. At the kibosh of the paper, the author gives non just a summary of what has been presented but in any case an integration of the two views that gives the more than believed perspective nowadays. From this point on, the society that is referred to in the title is the environmental factors and biology is the transmissible factors.During the last twenty years, familial science has moved from a relatively difficult to understand sub-field of biology to unrivaled of its most well funded segments. Over these twenty years, thither has been an explosion of genetic discover ies. Nevertheless, more and more questions pop out from our minds regarding genetics. One of these is the question How does genetics research fit with our existing notions of us as humans?Recently, there nurture been an increasing chip of researches that prove that cognitive abilities such as learning and memorizing atomic number 18 determined by genes. That is, that our intelligence is hereditary. Our human familiarity and cognitive affectes atomic number 18 passed on from our parents. Nature theorists believe that our cognitive abilities are the product of a unique web of interactions among genes (Lickliter and Honeycutt 461).These nature theorists believe that when we were born, our intelligence and everything that we know of are already mathematical function of ourselves because of our genes. That is, they believe that Nature is everything, confirm nothing (Gopnik). Leamnson and Betz (as cited in McMahon) argue that learning is a biological process as much as respiratio n or circulation is. McMahon further explains that cognitive abilities such as thinking, learning and memorizing take place when biochemical reactions go across synapses which then form the neural networks.While some researchers delay to the fact that genetic and environmental factors both play an important image in our cognitive development, they still believe that genes take the primary part in influencing our thinking, learning and memorizing abilities. In their study, Genetic and Environmental Influences on the discipline of Intelligence, Bartels et al. found that as the child grows up, the genetic influence on his intelligence increases while environmental factors decrease influence to his cognitive ability. Thus, they conclude that genetic influences are the main driving force behind continuity in general cognitive ability (Bartels et al. 247).On the other side of the debate are the nurture theorists. These theorists believe that environmental factors have a more significa nt part in sharpening our cognitive processes. These nurture theorists believe in John Lockes philosophy that when we were born, our minds are in blank states or as they call it tabula rasa. That is, when we were born, we do not know anything. We only memorise knowledge, that is, we only learn as we experience the world around us. That is, as Gopnik puts it, nurture is everything, nature nothing. Locke believed that we learn through experience.James Flynn, a NZ-based governmental scientist, found that after World War II, the average IQ in all countries increased which he claims is due to environmental effects. Ulric Neisser explains further that this is because children are increasingly exposed to sophisticated visual images such as ads, posters, videogame and tv set in production line to the methods of learning before the world war. This suggests that the childrens cognitive abilities are influenced by the environment (Gopnik).Recently, however, there are an increasing number o f researchers who believe that intelligence is influenced by both genetics and environmental factors. There is no dominant factor both play an equal quality in the development of human intelligence. Lickliter and Honeycutt describe the developmental systems theory (DST) that believes in the power of both genetics and environment to influence our cognitive abilities. accord to this theory, our cognitive abilities cannot be determined by genetics or environmental factors alone.As Lickliter and Honeycutt explain, development is seen as a self-organizingprocess in which conformation and order emerge and change as a result of composite interactions and relations among developmentally relevant resources both internal (including genes, but in like manner cells, hormones, organs) and external to the organism (and not from some set of prespecified instructions) (Lickliter and Honeycutt 462). In contrast to the solely nature theorists, DST argues that genes and the mere passing of it to a child is not a sufficient explanation or cause of an individuals learning and memorizing. That is, although genes and environment both play an important role to the cognitive development of human beings, we cannot separate them and consider them as independent causes.The nature vs. nurture debate is likely to continue on but marvellous to be resolved to the satisfaction of those who strictly believe that intelligence is solely nature caused or nurture caused. However, recently both environmentalists and behavior geneticists have called for the matter to have be ended by echoing Anastasis call to emphasize more on the question How? rather than How much? in the study of heredity and environment.Works CitedNature Vs. Nurture in Intelligence. 2005. November 20 2007. <http//wilderdom.com/personality/L4-1IntelligenceNatureVsNurture.html>.Bartels, M., et al. Genetic and Environmental Influences on the schooling of Intelligence. Behavior Genetics 32 (2002) 237-49.Gopnik, Alison. Nat ure vs. Nurture. 2004.Lickliter, Robert, and Hunter Honeycutt. Evolutionary Approaches to cognitive Development Status and Strategy. Journal of Cognition and Development 4 (2003) 459-73.McMahon, graham Peter. Getting the Hots with Whats in the Box Developing Higher Order mentation Skills within a Technology-Rich Learning Environment. Curtin University of Technology, 2007.