Whether raised by parents properly or heavily influenced by the environment, many people debate whether an individual is mostly influenced by genetics or influenced by their environment. A person’s environment can have multiple influences, but the genes passed down by parents play a huge role in developing how their offspring will turn out to be. Being unable to properly test whether certain characteristics of a person come from genetics or the influences of the environment makes this theory very difficult to understand, thus making the topic of nature vs. nurture extremely controversial. The debates always show that nature and nurture contrast but then there may be evidence that suggest that the two are linked and a person is actually an enigma characterized by the mixture of predisposed genetics and environmental influences. The idea that nature and nurture are joined is great to oppose nativists, people on the nature side, and empiricists, people sided ...view middle of the document...
Possible audiences might include nativists and empiricists. I conclude that because they are on opposite sides of the spectrum and the article serves as a way to arbitrate the different opinions people have. I feel like this article had some biases, his sources were sketchy and he was very vague on some parts of the article where he talks about schizophrenia. The evidence somewhat support what he was trying to mention but he went on a tangent and menially focused on nature via nurture.
With a classic subtopic of Nature vs. Nurture, Shanawaz describes language and how we learn to speak. The author is trying to persuade that we acquire a lot of our language by our environment as well as our genetics but the environment has a greater impact. The intended audiences once again are empiricists and nativists because the article has a special focus on those groups explaining rationale on why both of those groups can be correct regarding how a human develops language. The author emphasizes the big overarching debate of nature and nurture in the linguistic section including LAD (language acquisition device) and UG (Universal Grammar). I don’t think that there was any bias because it seemed that the author listed solid facts that are credible. The evidence does support the main points because he stated a lot of facts and use resources of psychologists like Chomsky.
McLeod explains the information really well in this article and it is a very simple red. He focuses on the debate at its simplest form. And the author is trying to provide basic information about nature and nurture to the audience and the audience can be anyone who is generally interested in psychology or anyone who wants an informational read. The author intends to clearly and simply explain the great debate that has created a lot of controversy. The author doesn’t really emphasize a lot, he keeps it simple and consistent. I believe that there are no biases because he mentioned specific facts and cited psychologists. Omissions were present but that’s probably because it’s a general broad topic and it does not go into specific cases of nature vs. nurture. I believe that the evidence does support his main points because the evidence were facts from reliable psychologists.