argumentative speech about nature

My Speech Class

Public Speaking Tips & Speech Topics

104 Environmental Speech Topics [Persuasive, Informative]

Jim Peterson has over 20 years experience on speech writing. He wrote over 300 free speech topic ideas and how-to guides for any kind of public speaking and speech writing assignments at My Speech Class.

Environmental speech topics and essay writing on angles of view regarding different aspects of our ecology for public speaking. Hope these helpful ideas will sparkle your fantasy!

In this article:

Informative

Environmental.

• The danger of ocean oil spills.
• Recycling should be mandatory.
• Why oil needs to be conserved.
• Why we should use reusable bags.
• Why palm oil should be banned.
• Ban mining in environmentally sensitive areas.
• Disposable diapers are hazardous to the environment.
• The environment is more important than genetics in determining how a person will turn out.
• The danger of oil drilling in Alaska.
• Fishing regulations are necessary to preserve the environment.
• Endangered species need protection.
• We need to invest more in alternative fuels.
• Endangered oceans deserve protection.
• We should strive for a paperless society.
• Conserve our global resources.
• Rain forests need to be protected.
• The principal threats of land degradation in Asia / Africa / South America (choose one continent for your thesis focus).
• Ocean acidification (a decline in the pH degree of ocean waters) endangers marine organisms.
• The main causes of massive coral bleaching (the whitening of corals).
• The advantages of an intercropping system for sustainable plant production.
• Environmentalists are misusing the term sustainable development.
• Why we should be concerned about ozone depletion in Earth’s stratosphere.
• Bottom trawling (dragging huge nets along the sea floor) is killing for the benthic ecological organisms.
• The benefits of microbes to humans.
• Make you own Carbon Footprint and realize how polluting you are.
• Why the carbon tax should be the next stage in our capitalist world.
• How to manage E-waste streams in modern India.
• Emissions trading or exchangeable emission permits work contra-productive in the urgency to blow back global warming.
• Debt-for-nature swaps are natural friendly policies.
• Renewable energy technologies like wind energy, hydroelectricity, biomass and solar power should be stimulated by the government.
• How to apply green ecological sustainable computing (or green IT) at your home PC or Mac.
• The BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is the worst man-made mishap in American history. Environmental persuasive speech topics can also be found after that big crash at sea – e.g. in Nigeria.
• We should handle with care the dangers and risks of exhausting our fossil fuel resources on earth, and protect the innocent sea life.
• Global warming demands more joined global action than Kopenhagen did.
• Encourage livestock owners to adopt sustainable grazing systems.
• Environmental damage of energy consumption force us to use energy alternatives.
• Mankind is responsible for the large loss of biodiversity in nature.
• Avoid using plastic bags.
• Buy natural and organic produced, and fair trade products.
• Our ever-expanding consumerism has killed the earth.
• Sacrifice a little bit of the economic growth for the good of the environment.
• Give tax cuts to companies to develop solar, wind and forms of hydrogen energy.
• There should be a green tax on aviation fuel.
• Why stores need to stop supplying plastic bags
• Are green jobs really green and environmentally friendly?
• TV news program weather forecasts are not accurate at all.
• The only effective litter prevention method is to force recycling.
• Recycling helps with green house effects.
• Only energy efficient household appliances should be sold.
• Nuclear power is a good alternative energy source.
• Keep your thermostat at 68 F in Winter and 72 F in Summer.
• Hunting sports harm the biodiversity.
• Hundreds of thousands of species will go extinct by 2060.
• Buying durable goods will save the world.
• We are wasting the opportunity to waste less.
• Water pollution will be the world’s biggest problem in the next years.
• Natural disasters stimulate economic growth.
• We are killing the rainforest, our planet’s lungs.
• The change of our climate pattern is not natural.
• The effects of global warming are not overestimated by scientists and green activists.
• Restrict every household to 50 gallon can on trash and yard waste a week.
• Rural development is the main cause of wildfires and extensive damage in the past years.
• Energy alternatives are the only solution to the environmental damage.
• Paying higher energy prices is a sacrifice we have to make for cleaner fuels.
• Construction plans must include an environment-section.
• Promote earthfriendly cars by tax benefits.

Why can’t the discussion about nuclear energy just be about the sole bare facts instead of political bias all the time?

6 additional persuasive environmental speech topics

Persuasive environmental speech topics to increase the quality of your persuasive communication skills, detailed layouts on Natural Resources, Radio Active Waste Management, and Intensive Farming  are even applicable on essay writing goals.

Can We Write Your Speech?

Get your audience blown away with help from a professional speechwriter. Free proofreading and copy-editing included.

Examine the opportunities I offer, and assemble you own speaking text based on the sample series of reasons below.

That logic reasoning process in the end will result in a nice and substantial blueprint, and a sample argumentation scheme for a debate on good persuasive environmental speech topics.

Excessive Use of Natural Resources Leads to Depletion In The End.

Radioactive materials are – without exception I would state – firm persuasive environmental speech topics and essay discourse themes for students. E.g.:

Radio Active Waste Management.

Intensive farming has many pros and cons. In the next example I deal with the cons. Note that each of them could be used as single persuasive environmental speech topics for a debate or essay:

The Disadvantages of Intensive Farming.

You also could take the opposite side and defend the pro-intensive farming arguments by attacking and replacing them for reasons in favor of the supporters of intensive farming. That will provoke immediate discussion among your listeners. Furthermore I would like to share alternative options for persuasive environmental speech topics:

• Endangered species;
• Marine debris and microplastics;
• The sea level rise.

Endangered species – The international list of protected animals. E.g. the Red List of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature IUCN. Sharpen your persuasive communication skills and judge the conditions for protection.

Marine debris and microplastics – More and more are our ocean, seas, lakes and rivers polluted. Littering: plastic bottles, bags, and so on. Persuade your audience to act. Let them support coastal volunteer operations to remove and prevent debris.

The sea level rise – What is bad about it? What are the predictions of meteorologists regarding the reported weather and climate changes? What should we do to stop it? Is it possible to stop the rise of the sea level anyway?

• The fundamentals of logistics for oil and gas exploration.
• Wildlife protection programs.
• Plants, animals and organisms that live in the ocean.
• The greatest rainforests in the world.
• Facts and figures of littering in our community
• Domestic water waste treatment plans.
• Safety issues of nuclear power plants.
• Local communities can contribute to maintenance of fragile ecosystems.
• Global concern about climate change rose dramatically after Al Gore made his documentary.
• The importance of sustainable development for future generations.
• What is at stake with greenhouse carbon gas emissions?
• Water is the upcoming hot issue in the Middle East.
• Availability and purity of water.
• The Burj Khalifa skyscraper in Dubai – the smart innovative energy reuser.
• South-American tropical forests.
• Global climate change is not only caused by humans.
• We need a healthy environment.
• The effects of global warming.
• Why conserving energy is important.
• The negative aspects of a polluted environment.
• The great Pacific garbage patch.
• The ways that water pollution is harmful.
• The effects of industrial and household waste.
• What is global warming?
• The benefits of organic farming.
• Why drought is a serious problem.
• The pollution of today’s world.
• The importance of reducing, reusing, and recycling.
• The effects of environmental degradation.
• Why should we save birds.
• Why we should save the Ganges.
• How to recycle different materials.

212 Speech Topics For College Students [Persuasive, Informative, Impromptu]

414 Funny and Humorous Speech Topics [Persuasive, Informative, Impromptu]

Leave a Comment

I accept the Privacy Policy

Reach out to us for sponsorship opportunities

Vivamus integer non suscipit taciti mus etiam at primis tempor sagittis euismod libero facilisi.

© 2024 My Speech Class

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Environment Story Of The Day NPR hide caption

Environment

• LISTEN & FOLLOW

Your support helps make our show possible and unlocks access to our sponsor-free feed.

Transcript: Greta Thunberg's Speech At The U.N. Climate Action Summit

Climate activist Greta Thunberg, 16, addressed the U.N.'s Climate Action Summit in New York City on Monday. Here's the full transcript of Thunberg's speech, beginning with her response to a question about the message she has for world leaders.

"My message is that we'll be watching you.

"This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you!

"You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

'This Is All Wrong,' Greta Thunberg Tells World Leaders At U.N. Climate Session

"For more than 30 years, the science has been crystal clear. How dare you continue to look away and come here saying that you're doing enough, when the politics and solutions needed are still nowhere in sight.

"You say you hear us and that you understand the urgency. But no matter how sad and angry I am, I do not want to believe that. Because if you really understood the situation and still kept on failing to act, then you would be evil. And that I refuse to believe.

"The popular idea of cutting our emissions in half in 10 years only gives us a 50% chance of staying below 1.5 degrees [Celsius], and the risk of setting off irreversible chain reactions beyond human control.

"Fifty percent may be acceptable to you. But those numbers do not include tipping points, most feedback loops, additional warming hidden by toxic air pollution or the aspects of equity and climate justice. They also rely on my generation sucking hundreds of billions of tons of your CO2 out of the air with technologies that barely exist.

"So a 50% risk is simply not acceptable to us — we who have to live with the consequences.

"To have a 67% chance of staying below a 1.5 degrees global temperature rise – the best odds given by the [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] – the world had 420 gigatons of CO2 left to emit back on Jan. 1st, 2018. Today that figure is already down to less than 350 gigatons.

"How dare you pretend that this can be solved with just 'business as usual' and some technical solutions? With today's emissions levels, that remaining CO2 budget will be entirely gone within less than 8 1/2 years.

"There will not be any solutions or plans presented in line with these figures here today, because these numbers are too uncomfortable. And you are still not mature enough to tell it like it is.

"You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you.

"We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.

"Thank you."

• climate change
• greta thunberg

Argumentative Speech Topics and ideas: A Complete Guide

An argumentative speech is a persuasive speech. Here, speakers try to encourage audiences to alter their views on a controversial issue.

Though they are alike in some manner, persuasive and argumentative speech contains different goals.

A persuasive speech focuses on sharing a perspective and asking the public to think it over. An argumentative speech aims to alter the viewpoint already detained by the audience.

This type of speech is challenging. So, the speaker should pick up the topic that he is confident at and come up with a strong argument.

When you are involved in debates with family or friends, you obviously tend to win or lose. The way you argue shows your capability to compel facts and concepts in support of a topic.

While losing an argument, chances are you only used the standpoint supporting your situation. In a perfect argumentative speech, there should be a strong claim and the points to support it.

For an argumentative speech, find a concrete and controversial argument to use as your foundation. These speeches generally focus on the topics discussed at the moment by society. Most of the topics of argumentative speech are derivative of political discussion.

This is most commonly noticed in the media. The selected topic might be social, religious, ethical, or political by nature. The public must be confident to revise their long-held values. They might ask to change detained convictions relevant to the recent evidence.

In fact, picking up a topic that is debatable is important to develop good speech. The topic should not include something which is already demonstrated or verified.

Instead, it should be logical enough to convince the audience. The speaker should come up with a strong opinion to make his speech realistic to the audience.

To be able to argue in a reasonable and logical way is a fine life skill. It helps to stand up for what you think is correct and let others give attention to your viewpoints.

For instance, if the topic includes “eating egg and milk affects your healthiness”. You evaluate the opponent and create your own topic like “Eating egg and milk does not affect your health”. Yet, you have to give strong points to support your answer.

Table of Contents

Terms to Present Argumentative Speech

Claims of fact, claims of value, claims of policy, 1. pick up debatable topic, 2. take a strong standpoint, 3. give some supportable arguments, 4. refute alternate positions, tips for delivering an argumentative speech:, 1. look for your topic, 2. recognize your standpoint, 3. carry out the research, 4. know who your opposition is, 5. know the facts, 6. choose the topic of your interest, list of argumentative speech topic, argumentative speech topics about economy, argumentative speech topics about science, argumentative speech topics about environment, argumentative speech topics about family, argumentative speech topics about technology, argumentative speech topics about health, argumentative speech topics about history, argumentative speech topics about politics, argumentative speech topics about religion, argumentative speech topics about sports, argumentative speech topics about relationships, argumentative speech topics about law, argumentative speech topics about life, argumentative speech topics about ethics,  conclusion.

These are some terms that help you to present an ideal argumentative speech:

• Claim – This is the main term that you should focus on. Try to give a strong standpoint. Support on the point, position, and the issue you are talking about. Do not forget the main purpose of the speech.
• Grounds – Grounds are the key information or the facts that you use to make your point more powerful and reliable. Make sure that the details you give are an appropriate reason for your claims in the initial place.

Argumentative Speech is based on:

It starts with the reality relevant to the evidence. For an instance, you drink too much alcohol and do not exercise. Then, you will surely put up the weight. If you control your drinks, then you can maintain the weight.

Claims of value include the belief something is correct or incorrect, good or bad. For an instance, punishing children is wrong. It does not improve the habits of your children.

Here you can also state “Punishing children is right”. They will think properly before doing anything wrong

Claims of the policy are taken from the course of action. For an instance, you should be able to vote through a driving license. There is a precise rule for the policy. It is realistic and superior compared to the current system.

Every child should learn different languages in school. It is vital to introduce teachers to the value of beginning foreign language experience.

While initiating the argumentative speech, get ready with strong arguments. You desire to give an influential impact right in front. Also, you might wish to leave a good impression on the audience hearing your speech.

Stay away from personal attacks. If you make the argument too boring, there will be a higher chance of losing your audience.

Besides, argumentative speech needs a powerful viewpoint on the topic that you are delivering. Remember, the goal is not to win your audience but to win the argument. You have to stand on your own point with an appropriate reason.

Essential components of an Argumentative speech:

The main goal of an argumentative essay is to influence others in your opinions. Generally, an argumentative speech addresses an audience with opposite opinions on a specific subject.

Here are four essential elements to focus on when developing an argumentative essay:

While picking up a topic, you should select the topic with more than a single side. For an instance, there is no way to discuss the topic of human smell with the nose. It is familiar fact that has no other strong points to discuss against.

While preparing for an argumentative speech, take a strong standpoint. Try to stick with the stance. This makes your speech powerful. Make sure you do not confuse the audience with any irrelevant points.

A good argument needs to have reasonable and convincing evidence. Better support your statement with information, figures, examples, and some relevant opinions. Also, argumentative speech does not contain unproven opinions. Make sure you research and present the argument that is a relevant argument.

At the end of a strong argumentative speech, you have to refute alternate positions. By dealing with the opponent, make some powerful arguments. Try to work on some common and stronger viewpoints.

• Look for a concrete and controversial argument to use as your base.
• Arrange your points properly. Arranging the points can be helpful while planning your thoughts and presenting them
• Give most of your time for research. Better research on your topics along with the topics which your opposition is likely to pick up.

How to develop an effective Argumentative Speech?

After picking up a fine controversial topic, you should work on some powerful points. Those points must make your speech influential. Start developing an outline that translates into better argumentative speech.

These are some points to consider while working on an argumentative speech:

From absorption to health, you can find many types of topics that you feel comfortable presenting.

At first, think about the topic that you are supporting. Are you supporting abortion or speaking against it? Most of the speaker loves to speak against abortion but should be confident to speak on the topic.

Better verify and try to prove the facts using some examples or supportive words. This makes your speech more powerful and interesting. Consider determining whether you are attempting to take the topic.  

You can definitely find the people who have worked for or else against the topic that you picked up earlier.

For this, you have to carry out the research well. But, this does not mean you have to copy from them. Just take your idea and use them in a better way. This helps to know what step you should take to move forward to make a good flow of the argument.

Each argumentative speech contains both for and against the side. The best probable approach that you can use is to know your opponent. Knowing how your opponent thinks and the points they use makes you easy to perform.

An argumentative speech might be weak if you do not provide any facts. For a good outcome, you need facts supporting your argument on the controversial topic. If you ignore this you might be in a problem while presenting the speech.

Be sure, you know and give the facts, and make your points strong. These facts reduce your risk of looking unprepared and unprofessional.

You cannot give a better outcome without passion. To present superior argumentative speech, you should have an interest in the topic. Better select the topic of your interest. This helps you to work and perform better. If you do not trust yourself and your topic, no one will as well.

Deciding on an arguable topic is essential to developing an effective argumentative speech. Better do not pick up the topic which needs great logic for convincing the audience.

You should have an extreme desire in the topic with a deep opinion on the subject. If he cannot fulfill these criteria, he might not provide influencing arguments.

Find here the List of Argumentative Speech Topics. They are great for developing arguments for debates, persuasive speech, and argumentation.

Most Popular

How to write a hook.

11 days ago

QuillBot VS Turnitin

12 days ago

Neuroscience vs Psychology

How to cite a letter.

10 days ago

How to Cite Yourself

Why people should connect more with nature essay sample, example.

Nature has historically been the home for human beings, just like it remains a home for animals and plants (with the exception of those that are kept in zoos and greenhouses). Nature is able to show us true beauty without modifications, exaggerations, and falseness. After all, is it not ironic how people go to galleries and exhibitions to look at paintings of colorful flowers, mighty woods, green hills, and fast clear streams; those simple beauties can easily be observed in real life outside of the urban environment which looms around them. Or the fact people purchase recordings of calming sounds of nature, like what you would hear at night in the woods—a damped quavering of an owl, a ringing flare of crickets, and the sonorous rustle of bushes. What we are in fact doing is trying to deceive our minds and make ourselves believe we are in the woods, next to those owls, crickets, and bushes, while we are instead trapped inside our tiny, well-furnished, and packed-with-technology apartment.

In the era of absolute informational chaos and noise, it becomes more important than ever to be able to pause from the crazy pace of life and relax. Finding silence and peace in the global vacuum of competitiveness, haste, and strain is challenging. We go to doctors for depression, insomnia, and anxiety. We ask for prescriptions and pills, while what we should be doing instead is turning to nature for help. What can be more relaxing and stress-free than a cup of warm herbal tea with fresh honey on the porch of a cozy wooden country house with a view of a small natural lake, or green forest, or beautiful mountains? It is the cheapest, simplest, and most accessible treatment one can think of. We laugh at those “freaks” hugging trees in the park, or walking barefoot on grass. However, these people remember what is essential—what most others have forgotten somewhere along the race to progress and prosperity: the key to being healthy, emotionally sustained and resistant to everyday stress is staying connected to nature and allowing ourselves to put all business on hold and take a break (Swang 54).

Nature is about balance and harmony—what we lack when we live inside the swirling pit of urbanized cities. Sometimes we escape, but so rarely and so abruptly, that such escapades can hardly help us reestablish our link with nature. Individuals who live in city areas should consider changing their routine and getting out into nature more regularly. When was the last time you took a walk to a nearby pond, or spent a weekend outdoors doing active sports? When was the last time you went hiking, or fishing, or took your family or friends for a picnic in the nearby park? We should try to move our weekly entertainment, as well as our holiday celebrations, parties, and friendly gatherings, from homes, pubs, and restaurants to lake shores, mountains, parks, forests, ponds, rivers, and groves. The beautiful landscapes of America are incredibly rich and diverse, and this is our true natural wealth we unfortunately often forget about.

George, Melanie. The Interdependence of Nature and Humans . New York: Scorn Publishing, 2008. Print.

Swang, Michael. Time-Outs for Adults . Portland: Daisy Press, 2010. Print.

Follow us on Reddit for more insights and updates.

Comments (0)

Welcome to A*Help comments!

We’re all about debate and discussion at A*Help.

We value the diverse opinions of users, so you may find points of view that you don’t agree with. And that’s cool. However, there are certain things we’re not OK with: attempts to manipulate our data in any way, for example, or the posting of discriminative, offensive, hateful, or disparaging material.

Comments are closed.

More from Best Persuasive Essay Examples

May 28 2023

How does outdoor exercises impact our health and well-being? Essay Sample, Example

Should Screen Time Be Limited? Essay Sample, Example

Why Video Games are Good for the Brain. Essay Sample, Example

Remember Me

What is your profession ? Student Teacher Writer Other

Forgotten Password?

Username or Email

Climate Action: It’s time to make peace with nature, UN chief urges

Facebook Twitter Print Email

The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has described the fight against the climate crisis as the top priority for the 21st Century, in a passionate, uncompromising speech delivered on Wednesday at Columbia University in New York.

The landmark address marks the beginning of a month of UN-led climate action, which includes the release of major reports on the global climate and fossil fuel production, culminating in a climate summit on 12 December, the fifth anniversary of the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.

Nature always strikes back

Mr. Guterres began with a litany of the many ways in which nature is reacting, with “growing force and fury”, to humanity’s mishandling of the environment, which has seen a collapse in biodiversity, spreading deserts, and oceans reaching record temperatures.

The link between COVID-19 and man-made climate change was also made plain by the UN chief, who noted that the continued encroachment of people and livestock into animal habitats, risks exposing us to more deadly diseases.

And, whilst the economic slowdown resulting from the pandemic has temporarily slowed emissions of harmful greenhouse gases, levels of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane are still rising, with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere at a record high. Despite this worrying trend, fossil fuel production – responsible for a significant proportion of greenhouse gases – is predicted to continue on an upward path.

‘Time to flick the green switch’

The appropriate global response, said the Secretary-General, is a transformation of the world economy, flicking the “green switch” and building a sustainable system driven by renewable energy, green jobs and a resilient future.

One way to achieve this vision, is by achieving net zero emissions (read our feature story on net zero for a full explanation, and why it is so important). There are encouraging signs on this front, with several developed countries, including the UK, Japan and China, committing to the goal over the next few decades.

Mr. Guterres called on all countries, cities and businesses to target 2050 as the date by which they achieve carbon neutrality – to at least halt national increases in emissions - and for all individuals to do their part.

With the cost of renewable energy continuing to fall, this transition makes economic sense, and will lead to a net creation of 18 million jobs over the next 10 years. Nevertheless, the UN chief pointed out, the G20, the world’s largest economies, are planning to spend 50 per cent more on sectors linked to fossil fuel production and consumption, than on low-carbon energy.

Put a price on carbon

For years, many climate experts and activists have called for the cost of carbon-based pollution to be factored into the price of fossil fuels, a step that Mr. Guterres said would provide certainty and confidence for the private and financial sectors.

Companies, he declared, need to adjust their business models, ensuring that finance is directed to the green economy, and pension funds, which manage some $32 trillion in assets, need to step and invest in carbon-free portfolios.

Far more money, continued the Secretary-General, needs to be invested in adapting to the changing climate, which is hindering the UN’s work on disaster risk reduction. The international community, he said, has “both a moral imperative and a clear economic case, for supporting developing countries to adapt and build resilience to current and future climate impacts”.

Everything is interlinked

The COVID-19 pandemic put paid to many plans, including the UN’s ambitious plan to make 2020 the “super year” for buttressing the natural world. That ambition has now been shifted to 2021, and will involve a number of major climate-related international commitments.

These include the development of a plan to halt the biodiversity crisis; an Oceans Conference to protect marine environments; a global sustainable transport conference; and the first Food Systems Summit, aimed at transforming global food production and consumption.

Mr. Guterres ended his speech on a note of hope, amid the prospect of a new, more sustainable world in which mindsets are shifting, to take into account the importance of reducing each individual’s carbon footprint.

Far from looking to return to “normal”, a world of inequality, injustice and “heedless dominion over the Earth”, the next step, said the Secretary-General, should be towards a safer, more sustainable and equitable path, and for mankind to rethink our relationship with the natural world – and with each other.

You can read the full speech here .

Our planet is in a state of climate emergency.But I also see hope.There is momentum toward carbon neutrality. Many cities are becoming greener. The circular economy is reducing waste. Environmental laws have growing reach. And many people are taking #ClimateAction. pic.twitter.com/dDAHH279Er António Guterres, UN Secretary-General antonioguterres December 2, 2020

• climate change
• climate action

Arguments and Information

Learning Objectives

• Define what an argument is
• Introduce ethos, pathos, and logos
• Identify the argument structure of claim, evidence, and warrant
• Explore effective language

You may be wondering, “What exactly is an argument? Haven’t I already decided on my main argument and topic?”

An argument is a series of statements in support of a claim, assertion, or proposition. So far, we’ve discussed thesis statements as the main argumentative through-line for a speech—it’s what you want to inform, persuade, or entertain the audience about.

Your thesis statement, however, is just one component of an argument, i.e. “here’s what I want to inform you about / persuade you to consider.” It is the main claim of your speech. Your task is to prove the reliability of that claim (with evidence) and demonstrate, through the body of the speech, how or why that information should matter to the audience. In this chapter, we will fill in the other structural components of an argument to make sure that your thesis statement has adequate support and proof. We’ll also outline the importance of language and tips to guarantee that your language increases the effective presentation of your argument.

An Overview of Arguments

It may be tempting to view arguments as only relevant to persuasion or persuasive speeches. After all, we commonly think of arguments as occurring between different perspectives or viewpoints with the goal of changing someone’s mind. Arguments are important when persuading (and we will re-visit persuasive arguments in Chapter 13), but you should have clear evidence and explanations for any type of information sharing.

All speech types require proof to demonstrate the reliability of their claims. Remember, when you speak, you are being an advocate and selecting information that you find relevant to your audience, so arguments are necessary to, at a bare minimum, build in details about the topic’s importance.

With speeches that primarily inform, a sound argument demonstrates the relevance and significance of the topic for your audience. In other words, “this is important information because…” or “here’s why you should care about this.” If you are giving a ceremonial speech, you should provide examples of your insights. In a speech of introduction, for example, you may claim that the speaker has expertise, but you should also provide evidence of their previous accomplishments and demonstrate why those accomplishments are significant.

For each speech type, a well-crafted speech will have multiple arguments throughout. Yes, your thesis statement is central to speech, and your content should be crafted around that idea – you will use your entire speech to prove the reliability of that statement. You will also have internal arguments, i.e. your speech’s main points or the “meat” of your speech.

All speech types require arguments, and all arguments use the rhetorical appeals of ethos, pathos, and logos to elicit a particular feeling or response from your audience.

Ethos , or establishing your credibility as a speaker, is necessary for any speech. If you’re informing the audience about a key topic, they need to know that you’re a trustworthy and reliable speaker. A key way to prove that credibility is through crafting arguments that are equally credible. Using reliable and well-tested evidence is one way to establish ethos.

Using reason or logic, otherwise known as logos , is also a key rhetorical appeal. By using logos, you can select logical evidence that is well-reasoned, particularly when you’re informing or persuading. We’ll talk more about logic and fallacies (to avoid) in Chapter 13.

Pathos , or emotional appeals, allows you to embed evidence or explanations that pull on your audience’s heartstrings or other feelings and values. Pathos is common in ceremonial speeches, particularly speeches that eulogize or celebrate a special occasion.

All three rhetorical appeals are important mechanisms to motivate your audience to listen or act. All three should be done ethically (see Chapter 1) and with the speech context and audience in mind.

Regardless of which rhetorical proof you use, your arguments should be well-researched and well-structured. Below, we explore the structure of an argument in more detail.

The Structur e : Claim, Evidence, Warrant

Arguments have the following basic structure (see Figure 5.1):

• Claim: the main proposition crafted as a declarative statement.
• Evidence: the support or proof for the claim.
• Warrant: the connection between the evidence and the claim.

Each component of the structure is necessary to formulate a compelling argument.

The Toulmin Model

British Philosopher, Stephen Toulmin, created the “Toulmin Model” – a model that describes the structure of an argument or method of reasoning. Claim, evidence, and warrant are, if done well, necessary to create a good argument (O’Connor, 1958).

Evidence and warrants are the specifics that make your ideas, arguments, assertions, points, or concepts real and concrete by relating the information to your audience. Not all audiences are compelled by the same evidence, for example, so creating a well-structured argument also means being responsive to audiences.

Consider going to lunch with a friend. Your friend suggests a restaurant that you have not heard of, so you request some additional information, proof, or evidence of their choice. We could map the argument like this:

• Claim: “Let’s go to Jack’s Shack for lunch.”
• Evidence: “I have been there a few times and they have good servers.”

So far, your friend is highlighting service as the evidence to support their claim that Jack’s Shack is a good choice for lunch. However, the warrant is still missing. For a warrant, they need to demonstrate why good service is sufficient proof to support their claim. Remember that the warrant is the connection. For example:

• Warrant: “You were a server, so I know that you really appreciate good service. I have never had a bad experience at Jack’s Shack, so I am confident that it’s a good lunch choice for both of us.”

In this case, they do a good job of both connecting the evidence to the claim and connecting the argument to their audience – you! They have selected evidence based on your previous experience as a server (likely in hopes to win you over to their claim!).

Using “claim, evidence, and warrant” can assist you in verifying that all parts of the argumentative structure are present. Below, we dive deeper into each category.

A claim is a declarative statement or assertion—it is something that you want your audience to accept or know. Like we’ve mentioned, your thesis statement is a key claim in your speech because it’s the main argument that you’re asking the audience to consider.

Different claims serve different purposes. Depending on the purpose of the argument, claims can be factual, opinionated, or informative. Some claims, for example, may be overtly persuading the audience to change their mind about a controversial issue, i.e. “you should support this local policy initiative.”

Alternatively, a claim may develop the significance of a topic (i.e. “this is why you should care about this information”) or highlight a key informative component about a person, place, or thing (“Hillary Clinton had an intriguing upbringing”). You might, for example, write a speech that informs the audience about college textbook affordability. Your working thesis might read, “Universities are developing textbook affordability initiatives.” Your next step would be to develop main points and locate evidence that supports your claim.

It’s important to develop confidence around writing and identifying your claims. Identifying your main ideas will allow you to then identify evidence in support of those declarative statements. If you aren’t confident about what claims you’re making, it will be difficult to identify the evidence in support of that idea, and your argument won’t be structurally complete. Remember that your thesis statement your main claim, but you likely have claims throughout your speech (like your main points).

Evidence is the proof or support for your claim. It answers the question, “how do I know this is true?” With any type of evidence, there are three overarching considerations.

First, is this the most timely and relevant type of support for my claim? If your evidence isn’t timely (or has been disproven), it may drastically influence the credibility of your claim.

Second, is this evidence relatable and clear for my audience? Your audience should be able to understand the evidence, including any references or ideas within your information. Have you ever heard a joke or insight about a television show that you’ve never seen? If so, understanding the joke can be difficult. The same is true for your audience, so stay focused on their knowledge base and level of understanding.

Third, did I cherry-pick? Avoid cherry-picking evidence to support your claims. While we’ve discussed claims first, it’s important to arrive at a claim after seeing all the evidence (i.e. doing the research). Rather than finding evidence to fit your idea (cherry-picking), the evidence should help you arrive at the appropriate claim. Cherry-picking evidence can reduce your ethos and weakened your argument.

With these insights in mind, we will introduce you to five evidence types : examples, narratives, facts, statistics, and testimony. Each provides a different type of support, and it’s suggested that you integrate a variety of different evidence types. Understanding the different types of evidence will assist as you work to structure arguments and select support that best fits the goal of your speech.

Examples are specific instances that illuminate a concept. They are designed to give audiences a reference point. An example must be quickly understandable—something the audience can pull out of their memory or experience quickly.

Evidence by example would look like this:

Claim: Textbook affordability initiatives are assisting universities in implementing reputable, affordable textbooks.

Evidence : Ohio has implemented a textbook affordability initiative, the Open Ed Collaborative, to alleviate the financial strain for students (Jaggers, Rivera, Akani, 2019).

Ohio’s affordability initiative functions as evidence by example. This example assists in demonstrating that such initiatives have been successfully implemented. Without providing an example, your audience may be skeptical about the feasibility of your claim.

Examples can be drawn directly from experience, i.e. this is a real example, or an example can be hypothetical where audiences are asked to consider potential scenarios.

Narratives are stories that clarify, dramatize, and emphasize ideas. They have, if done well, strong emotional power (or pathos). While there is no universal type of narrative, a good story often draws the audience in by identifying characters and resolving a plot issue. Narratives can be personal or historical.

Person narratives are powerful tools to relate to your audience and embed a story about your experience with the topic. As evidence, they allow you to say, “I experienced or saw this thing first hand.” As the speaker, using your own experience as evidence can draw the audience in and help them understand why you’re invested in the topic. Of course, personal narratives must be true. Telling an untrue personal narrative may negatively influence your ethos for an audience.

Historical narratives (sometimes called documented narratives) are stories about a past person, place, or thing. They have power because they can prove and clarify an idea by using a common form— the story. By “historical” we do not mean that the story refers to something that happened many years ago, only that it has happened in the past and there were witnesses to validate the happening. Historical narratives are common in informative speeches.

Facts are observations, verified by multiple credible sources, that are true or false. The National Center for Science Education (2008) defines fact as:

an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed an . . . is accepted as ‘true.’ Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.

“The sun is a star” is an example of a fact. It’s been observed and verified based on current scientific understanding and categorization; however, future technology may update or disprove that fact.

In our modern information age, we recommend “fact-checking a fact” because misinformation can be presented as truth. This means verifying all facts through credible research (check back to Chapter 4 on research). Avoid taking factual information for granted and make sure that the evidence comes from reputable sources that are up-to-date.

S tatistics are the collection, analysis, comparison, and interpretation of numerical data. As evidence, they are useful in summarizing complex information, quantifying, or making comparisons. Statistics are powerful pieces of evidence because numbers appear straightforward. Numbers provide evidence that quantifies, and statistics can be helpful to clarify a concept or highlighting the depth of a problem.

You may be wondering, “What does this actually mean ?” (excuse our statistical humor). We often know a statistic when we find one, but it can be tricky to understand how a statistic was derived.

Averages and percentages are two common deployments of statistical evidence.

An “ a verage ” can be statistically misleading, but it often refers to the mean of a data set. You can determine the mean (or average) by adding up the figures and dividing by the number of figures present. If you’re giving a speech on climate change, you might note that, in 2015, the average summer temperature was 97 degrees while, in 1985, it was just 92 degrees.

When using statistics, comparisons can help translate the statistic for an audience. In the example above, 97 degrees may seem hot, but the audience has nothing to compare that statistic to. The 30-year comparison assists in demonstrating a change in temperature.

A percentag e expresses a proportion of out 100. For example, you might argue that “textbook costs have risen more than 1000% since 1977” (Popken, 2015). By using a statistical percentage, 1000% sounds pretty substantial. It may be important, however, to accompany your percentage with a comparison to assist the audience in understanding that “This is 3 times higher than the normal rate of inflation” (UTA Libraries). You might also clarify that “college textbooks have risen more than any other college-related cost” (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016).

You are responsible for the statistical information that you deploy. It’s all too common for us as information consumers to grab a quick statistic that sounds appealing, but that information may not be reliable.

Be aware of three major statistical issues: small samples, unrepresentative samples, and correlation as causation. In a small sample, an argument is being made from too few examples. In unrepresentative sample, a conclusion is based on surveys of people who do not represent, or resemble, the ones to whom the conclusion is being applied. Finally, it’s common to conflate correlation as causation. In statistics, a correlation refers to the relationship between two variables while causation means that one variable resulted from the other. Be careful not to assume that a correlation means that something has caused the second.

A few other statistical tips:

• Use statistics as support, not as a main point. The audience may cringe or tune you out for saying, “Now I’d like to give you some statistics about the problem of gangs in our part of the state.” That sounds as exciting as reading the telephone book! Use the statistics to support an argument.
• In regard to sources, depend on the reliable ones. Use Chapter 4 as a guide to criticizing and evaluating credible sources.
• Do not overuse statistics. While there is no hard and fast rule on how many to use, there are other good supporting materials and you would not want to depend on statistics alone. You want to choose the statistics and numerical data that will strengthen your argument the most and drive your point home. Statistics can have emotional power as well as probative value if used sparingly.
• Explain your statistics as needed, but do not make your speech a statistics lesson. If you say, “My blog has 500 subscribers” to a group of people who know little about blogs, that might sound impressive, but is it? You can also provide a story of an individual, and then tie the individual into the statistic. After telling a story of the daily struggles of a young mother with multiple sclerosis, you could follow up with “This is just one story in the 400,000 people who suffer from MS in the United States today, according to National MS Society.”

Testimony is the words of others. As evidence, testimony can be valuable to gain insight into an expert or a peer’s opinion, experience, or expertise about a topic. Testimony can provide an audience with a relevant perspective that the speaker isn’t able to provide. We’ll discuss two types of testimony: expert and non-expert.

Expert Testimony

What is an expert? An expert is someone with recognized credentials, knowledge, education, and/or experience in a subject. To quote an expert on expertise, “To be an expert, someone needs to have considerable knowledge on a topic or considerable skill in accomplishing something” (Weinstein, 1993).

A campus bookstore manager could provide necessary testimony on the changing affordability of textbooks over time, for example. As someone working with instructors, students, and publishers, the manager would likely have an insight and a perspective that would be difficult to capture otherwise. They would provide unique and credible evidence.

In using expert testimony, you should follow these guidelines:

• Use the expert’s testimony in their relevant field. A person may have a Nobel Prize in economics, but that does not make them an expert in biology.
• Provide at least some of the expert’s relevant credentials.
• If you interviewed the expert yourself, make that clear in the speech also. “When I spoke with Dr. Mary Thompson, principal of Park Lake High School, on October 12, she informed me that . . .”

Expert testimony is one of your strongest supporting materials to prove your arguments. When integrating their testimony as evidence, make sure their testimony clearly supports your claim (rather than an interesting idea on the topic that is tangential to your assertions).

Non-Expert/Peer Testimony

Any quotation from a friend, family member, or classmate about an incident or topic would be peer testimony. It is useful in helping the audience understand a topic from a personal point of view. For example, you may draw on testimony from a campus student who was unable to afford their campus textbooks. While they may lack formalized expertise in textbook affordability, their testimony might demonstrate how the high cost limited their engagement with the class. Their perspective and insight would be valuable for an audience to hear.

The third component of any argument is the warrant. Warrants connect the evidence and the claim. They often answer the question, “what does this mean?” Warrants are an important component of a complete argument because they:

• Highlight the significance of the evidence;
• Detail how the evidence supports the claims;
• Outline the relevance of the claim and evidence to the audience.

For example, consider the claim that “communication studies provide necessary skills to land you a job.” To support that claim, you might locate a statistic and argue that, “The New York Times had a recent article stating that 80% of jobs want good critical thinking and interpersonal skills.” It’s unclear, however, how a communication studies major would prepare someone to fulfill those needs. To complete the argument, you could include a warrant that explains, “communication studies classes facilitate interpersonal skills and work to embed critical thinking activities throughout the curriculum.” You are connecting the job skills (critical thinking) from the evidence to the discipline (communication studies) from your claim.

Despite their importance, warrants are often excluded from arguments. As speechwriters and researchers, we spend lots of time with our information and evidence, and we take for granted what we know. If you are familiar with communication studies, the connection between the New York Times statistic referenced above and the assertion that communication studies provides necessary job skills may seem obvious. For an unfamiliar audience, the warrant provides more explanation and legitimacy to the evidence.

We know what you’re thinking: “Really? Do I always need an explicit warrant?”

It’s true that some warrants are inferred , meaning that we often recognize the underlying warrant without it being explicitly stated. For example, I might say, “The baking time for my cookies was too hot. The cookies burned.” In this statement, I’m claiming that the temperature is too hot and using burnt cookies as the evidence. We could reasonably infer the warrant, i.e. “burnt cookies are a sign that they were in the oven for too long.”

Inferred warrants are common in everyday arguments and conversations; however, in a formal speech, having a clear warrant will increase the clarity of your argument. If you decide that no explicit warrant is needed, it’s still necessary to ask, “what does this argument mean for my thesis? What does it mean for my audience?” Your goal is to keep as many audience members listening as possible, and warrants allow you to think critically about the information that you’re presenting to that audience.

When writing warrants, keep the following insights in mind:

• Avoid exaggerating your evidence, and make sure your warrant honors what the evidence is capable of supporting;
• Center your thesis statement. Remember that your thesis statement, as your main argument, should be the primary focus when you’re explaining and warranting your evidence.
• A good warrant should be crafted with your content and context in mind. As you work on warrants, ask, “why is this claim/evidence important here? For this argument? Now? For this audience?”
• Say it with us: ethos, pathos, and logos! Warrants can help clarify the goal of your argument. What appeal are you using? Can the warrant amplify that appeal?

Now that you have a better understanding of each component of an argument, let’s conclude this section with a few complete examples.

Claim : The Iowa Wildcats will win the championship. Evidence: In 2019, the National Sporting Association found that the Wildcats had the most consistent and well-rounded coaching staff. Referees of the game agreed, and also praised the players ability for high scoring. Warrant: Good coaching and high scoring are probable indicators of past champions and, given this year’s findings, the Wildcat’s are on mark to win it all.

Here’s an example with a more general approach to track the potential avenues for evidence:

Claim: Sally Smith will win the presidential election. Evidence: [select evidence that highlights their probable win, including: they’ve won the most primaries; they won the Iowa caucus; they’re doing well in swing states; they have raised all the money; they have the most organized campaign.” Warrant: [based on your evidence select, you can warrant why that evidence supports a presidential win].

Using Language Effectively

Claim, evidence, and warrant are useful categories when constructing or identifying a well-reasoned argument. However, a speech is much more than this simple structure over and over (how boring, huh?).

When we craft arguments, it’s tempting to view our audience as logic-seekers who rely solely on rationality, but that’s not true. Instead, Walter Fisher (1984) argues that humans are storytellers, and we make sense of the world through good stories. A good speech integrates argumentative components while telling a compelling story about your argument to the audience. A key piece of that story is how you craft the language—language aids in telling an effective story.

We’ll talk more about language in Chapter 7 (verbal delivery), but there are a few key categories to keep in mind as you construct your argument and story.

Language: What Do We Mean?

Language is any formal system of gestures, signs, sounds, and symbols used or conceived as a means of communicating thought, either through written, enacted, or spoken means. Linguists believe there are far more than 6,900 languages and distinct dialects spoken in the world today (Anderson, 2012). Despite being a formal system, language results in different interpretations and meanings for different audiences.

It is helpful for public speakers to keep this mind, especially regarding denotative and connotative meaning. Wrench, Goding, Johnson, and Attias (2011) use this example to explain the difference:

When we hear or use the word “blue,” we may be referring to a portion of the visual spectrum dominated by energy with a wave-length of roughly 440–490 nanometers. You could also say that the color in question is an equal mixture of both red and green light. While both of these are technically correct ways to interpret the word “blue,” we’re pretty sure that neither of these definitions is how you thought about the word. When hearing the word “blue,” you may have thought of your favorite color, the color of the sky on a spring day, or the color of a really ugly car you saw in the parking lot. When people think about language, there are two different types of meanings that people must be aware of: denotative and connotative. (p. 407)

Denotative meaning is the specific meaning associated with a word. We sometimes refer to denotative meanings as dictionary definitions. The scientific definitions provided above for the word “blue” are examples of definitions that might be found in a dictionary. Connotative meaning is the idea suggested by or associated with a word at a cultural or personal level. In addition to the examples above, the word “blue” can evoke many other ideas:

• State of depression (feeling blue)
• Indication of winning (a blue ribbon)
• Side during the Civil War (blues vs. grays)
• Sudden event (out of the blue)
• States that lean toward the Democratic Party in their voting
• A slang expression for obscenity (blue comedy)

Given these differences, the language you select may have different interpretations and lead to different perspectives. As a speechwriter (and communicator), being aware of different interpretations can allow you select language that is the most effective for your speaking context and audience.

Using Language to Craft Your Argument

Have you ever called someone a “wordsmith?” If so, you’re likely complimenting their masterful application of language. Language is not just something we use; it is part of who we are and how we think. As such, language can assist in clarifying your content and creating an effective message.

Achieve Clarity

Clear language is powerful language. If you are not clear, specific, precise, detailed, and sensory with your language, you won’t have to worry about being emotional or persuasive, because you won’t be understood. The goal of clarity is to reduce abstraction; clarity will allow your audience to more effectively track your argument and insight, especially because they only have one chance to listen.

Concreteness aids clarity. We usually think of concreteness as the opposite of abstraction. Language that evokes many different visual images in the minds of your audience is abstract language. Unfortunately, when abstract language is used, the images evoked might not be the ones you really want to evoke. Instead, work to be concrete, detailed, and specific. “Pity,” for example, is a bit abstract. How might you describe pity by using more concrete words?

Clear descriptions or definitions can aid in concreteness and clarity.

To define means to set limits on something; defining a word is setting limits on what it means, how the audience should think about the word, and/or how you will use it. We know there are denotative and connotative definitions or meanings for words, which we usually think of as objective and subjective responses to words. You only need to define words that would be unfamiliar to the audience or words that you want to use in a specialized way.

Describing is also helpful in clarifying abstraction. The key to description is to think in terms of the five senses: sight (visual:  how does the thing look in terms of color, size, shape); hearing (auditory: volume, musical qualities); taste (gustatory: sweet, bitter, salty, sour, gritty, smooth, chewy); smell (olfactory: sweet, rancid, fragrant, aromatic, musky); and feel (tactile: rough, silky, nubby, scratchy).

If you were, for example, talking about your dog, concrete and detailed language could assist in “bring your dog to life,” so to speak, in the moment.

• Boring and abstract: My dog is pretty great. He is well behaved, cute, and is friendly to all of our neighbors. I get a lot of compliments about him, and I really enjoy hanging out with him outside in the summer.
• Concrete and descriptive: Buckley, my golden-brown Sharpei mix, is a one-of-a-kind hound. Through positive treat reinforcement, he learned to sit, shake, and lay down within one month. He will also give kisses with his large and wrinkly snout. He greats passing neighbors with a smile and enjoys Midwest sunbathing on our back deck in the 70-degree heat.

 Doesn’t the second description do Image 5.2 more justice ? Being concrete and descriptive paints a picture for the audience and can increase your warrant’s efficacy. Being descriptive, however, doesn’t mean adding more words. In fact, you should aim to “reduce language clutter.” Your descriptions should still be purposeful and important.

Be Effective

Language achieves effectiveness by communicating the right message to the audience. Clarity contributes to effectiveness, but effectiveness also includes using familiar and interesting language.

Familiar language is language that your audience is accustomed to hearing and experiencing. Different communities and audience use language differently. If you are part of an organization, team, or volunteer group, there may be language that is specific and commonly used in those circles. We call that language jargon, or specific, technical language that is used in a given community. If you were speaking to that community, drawing on those references would be appropriate because they would be familiar to that audience. For other audiences, drawing on jargon would be ineffective and either fail to communicate an idea to the audience or implicitly community that you haven’t translated your message well (reducing your ethos).

In addition to using familiar language, draw on language that’s accurate and interesting. This is difficult, we’ll admit it! But in a speech, your words are a key component of keeping the audience motivated to listen, so interesting language can peak and maintain audience interest.

Active language is interesting language. Active voice , when the subject in a sentence performs the action, can assist in having active and engaging word choices. An active sentence would read, “humans caused climate change” as opposed to a passive approach of, “climate change was caused by humans.” Place subjects at the forefront. A helpful resource on active voice can be found here.

You must, however, be reflexive in the language process.

Practicing Reflexivity

Language reflects our beliefs, attitudes, and values – words are the mechanism we use to communicate our ideas or insights. As we learned in Chapter 1, communication both creates and is created by culture. When we select language, we are also representing and creating ideas and cultures – language has a lot of power.

To that end, language should be a means of inclusion and identification, rather than exclusion.

You might be thinking, “Well I am always inclusive in my language,” or “I’d never intentionally use language that’s not inclusive.” We understand, but intention is less important than effect.

Consider the term “millennial”— a categorization that refers to a particular age group. It can be useful to categorize different generations, particularly from a historical and contemporary perspective. However, people often argue that “millennials are the laziest generation” or “millennials don’t know hard work!” In these examples, the intention may be descriptive, but they are selecting language that perpetuates unfair and biased assumptions about millions of people. The language is disempowering (and the evidence, when present, is weak).

Language assists us in categorizing or understanding different cultures, ideas, or people; we rely on language to sort information and differentiate ourselves. In turn, language influences our perceptions, even in unconscious and biased ways.

The key is to practice reflexivity about language choices. Language isn’t perfect, so thinking reflexively about language will take time and practice.

For example, if you were crafting a hypothetical example about an experience in health care, you might open with a hypothetical example: “Imagine sitting for hours in the waiting room with no relief. Fidgeting and in pain, you feel hopeless and forgotten within the system. Finally, you’re greeted by the doctor and he escorts you to a procedure room.” It’s a great story and there is vivid and clear language. But are there any changes that you’d make to the language used?

Remember that this is a hypothetical example. Using reflexive thinking, we might question the use of “he” to describe the doctor. Are there doctors that are a “he”? Certainly. Are all doctors a “he”? Certainly not. It’s important to question how “he” gets generalized to stand-in for doctors or how we may assume that all credible doctors are men.

Practicing reflexivity means questioning the assumptions present in our language choices (like police men rather than police officers). Continue to be conscious of what language you draw on to describe certain people, places, or ideas. If you aren’t sure what language choices are best to describe a group, ask; listen; and don’t assume.

In this chapter, we discussed crafting complete, well-reasoned arguments. Claim, evidence, and warrant are helpful structural components when crafting arguments. Use Chapter 4 to aid in research that will enable you to locate the best evidence for each claim within your speech.

Remember, too, that language plays a central role in telling a compelling story. Up next: organizing and outlining.

Media Attributions

• Sharpei-Mix © Mapes

Speak Out, Call In: Public Speaking as Advocacy Copyright © 2019 by Meggie Mapes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Want to create or adapt books like this? Learn more about how Pressbooks supports open publishing practices.

17.2 Types of Persuasive Speeches

Learning objectives.

• Differentiate among the four types of persuasive claims.
• Understand how the four types of persuasive claims lead to different types of persuasive speeches.
• Explain the two types of policy claims.

Burns Library, Boston College – Maya Angelou – CC BY-NC-ND 2.0.

Obviously, there are many different persuasive speech topics you could select for a public speaking class. Anything from localized claims like changing a specific college or university policy to larger societal claims like adding more enforcement against the trafficking of women and children in the United States could make for an interesting persuasive speech. You’ll notice in the previous sentence we referred to the two topics as claims. In this use of the word “claim,” we are declaring the goodness or positivity of an attitude, value, belief, or behavior that others may dispute. As a result of the dispute between our perceptions of the goodness of an attitude, value, belief, or behavior and the perceptions of others, we attempt to support the claim we make using some sort of evidence and logic as we attempt to persuade others. There are four common claims that can be made: definitional, factual, policy, and value.

Definitional Claims

The first common types of claims that a persuasive speaker can make are definitional or classification claims. Definitional claims are claims over the denotation or classification of what something is. In essence, we are trying to argue for what something is or what something is not. Most definitional claims falling to a basic argument formula:

X is (or is not) a Y because it has (or does not have) features A , B , or C .

For example, maybe you’re trying to persuade your class that while therapeutic massage is often performed on nude clients, it is not a form of prostitution. You could start by explaining what therapeutic massage is and then what prostitution is. You could even look at the legal definition of prostitution and demonstrate to your peers that therapeutic massage does not fall into the legal definition of prostitution because it does not involve the behaviors characterized by that definition.

Factual Claims

Factual claims set out to argue the truth or falsity of an assertion. Some factual claims are simple to answer: Barack Obama is the first African American President; the tallest man in the world, Robert Wadlow, was eight feet and eleven inches tall; Facebook wasn’t profitable until 2009. All these factual claims are well documented by evidence and can be easily supported with a little research.

However, many factual claims cannot be answered absolutely. Some factual claims are simply hard to determine the falsity or trueness of because the final answer on the subject has not been discovered (e.g., when is censorship good, what rights should animals have, when does life begin). Probably the most historically interesting and consistent factual claim is the existence of a higher power, God, or other religious deity. The simple fact of the matter is that there is not enough evidence to clearly answer this factual claim in any specific direction, which is where the notion of faith must be involved in this factual claim.

Other factual claims that may not be easily answered using evidence are predictions of what may or may not happen. For example, you could give a speech on the future of climate change or the future of terrorism in the United States. While there may be evidence that something will happen in the future, unless you’re a psychic, you don’t actually know what will happen in the future.

When thinking of factual claims, it often helps to pretend that you’re putting a specific claim on trial and as the speaker your job is to defend your claim as a lawyer would defend a client. Ultimately, your job is to be more persuasive than your audience members who act as both opposition attorneys and judges.

Policy Claims

The third common claim that is seen in persuasive speeches is the policy claim —a statement about the nature of a problem and the solution that should be implemented. Policy claims are probably the most common form of persuasive speaking because we live in a society surrounded by problems and people who have ideas about how to fix these problems. Let’s look at a few examples of possible policy claims:

• The United States should stop capital punishment.
• The United States should become independent from the use of foreign oil.
• Human cloning for organ donations should be legal.
• Nonviolent drug offenders should be sent to rehabilitation centers and not prisons.
• The tobacco industry should be required to pay 100 percent of the medical bills for individuals dying of smoking-related cancers.
• The United States needs to invest more in preventing poverty at home and less in feeding the starving around the world.

Each of these claims has a clear perspective that is being advocated. Policy claims will always have a clear and direct opinion for what should occur and what needs to change. When examining policy claims, we generally talk about two different persuasive goals: passive agreement and immediate action.

Gain Passive Agreement

When we attempt to gain the passive agreement of our audiences, our goal is to get our audiences to agree with what we are saying and our specific policy without asking the audience to do anything to enact the policy. For example, maybe your speech is on why the Federal Communications Commission should regulate violence on television like it does foul language (i.e., no violence until after 9 p.m.). Your goal as a speaker is to get your audience to agree that it is in our best interest as a society to prevent violence from being shown on television before 9 p.m., but you are not seeking to have your audience run out and call their senators or congressmen or even sign a petition. Often the first step in larger political change is simply getting a massive number people to agree with your policy perspective.

Let’s look at a few more passive agreement claims:

• Racial profiling of individuals suspected of belonging to known terrorist groups is a way to make America safer.
• Requiring American citizens to “show their papers” is a violation of democracy and resembles tactics of Nazi Germany and communist Russia.
• Colleges and universities should voluntarily implement a standardized testing program to ensure student learning outcomes are similar across different institutions.

In each of these claims, the goal is to sway one’s audience to a specific attitude, value, or belief, but not necessarily to get the audience to enact any specific behaviors.

Gain Immediate Action

The alternative to passive agreement is immediate action, or persuading your audience to start engaging in a specific behavior. Many passive agreement topics can become immediate action-oriented topics as soon as you tell your audience what behavior they should engage in (e.g., sign a petition, call a senator, vote). While it is much easier to elicit passive agreement than to get people to do something, you should always try to get your audience to act and do so quickly. A common mistake that speakers make is telling people to enact a behavior that will occur in the future. The longer it takes for people to engage in the action you desire, the less likely it is that your audience will engage in that behavior.

Here are some examples of good claims with immediate calls to action:

• College students should eat more fruit, so I am encouraging everyone to eat the apple I have provided you and start getting more fruit in your diet.
• Teaching a child to read is one way to ensure that the next generation will be stronger than those that have come before us, so please sign up right now to volunteer one hour a week to help teach a child to read.
• The United States should reduce its nuclear arsenal by 20 percent over the next five years. Please sign the letter provided encouraging the president to take this necessary step for global peace. Once you’ve signed the letter, hand it to me, and I’ll fax it to the White House today.

Each of these three examples starts with a basic claim and then tags on an immediate call to action. Remember, the faster you can get people to engage in a behavior the more likely they actually will.

Value Claims

The final type of claim is a value claim , or a claim where the speaker is advocating a judgment claim about something (e.g., it’s good or bad, it’s right or wrong, it’s beautiful or ugly, moral or immoral).

Let’s look at three value claims. We’ve italicized the evaluative term in each claim:

• Dating people on the Internet is an immoral form of dating.
• SUVs are gas guzzling monstrosities .
• It’s unfair for pregnant women to have special parking spaces at malls, shopping centers, and stores.

Each of these three claims could definitely be made by a speaker and other speakers could say the exact opposite. When making a value claim, it’s hard to ascertain why someone has chosen a specific value stance without understanding her or his criteria for making the evaluative statement. For example, if someone finds all forms of technology immoral, then it’s really no surprise that he or she would find Internet dating immoral as well. As such, you need to clearly explain your criteria for making the evaluative statement. For example, when we examine the SUV claim, if your criteria for the term “gas guzzling monstrosity” are ecological impact, safety, and gas consumption, then your evaluative statement can be more easily understood and evaluated by your audience. If, however, you state that your criterion is that SUVs are bigger than military vehicles and shouldn’t be on the road, then your statement takes on a slightly different meaning. Ultimately, when making a value claim, you need to make sure that you clearly label your evaluative term and provide clear criteria for how you came to that evaluation.

Key Takeaways

• There are four types of persuasive claims. Definition claims argue the denotation or classification of what something is. Factual claims argue the truth or falsity about an assertion being made. Policy claims argue the nature of a problem and the solution that should be taken. Lastly, value claims argue a judgment about something (e.g., it’s good or bad, it’s right or wrong, it’s beautiful or ugly, moral or immoral).
• Each of the four claims leads to different types of persuasive speeches. As such, public speakers need to be aware what type of claim they are advocating in order to understand the best methods of persuasion.
• In policy claims, persuaders attempt to convince their audiences to either passively accept or actively act. When persuaders attempt to gain passive agreement from an audience, they hope that an audience will agree with what is said about a specific policy without asking the audience to do anything to enact the policy. Gaining immediate action, on the other hand, occurs when a persuader gets the audience to actively engage in a specific behavior.
• Look at the list of the top one hundred speeches in the United States during the twentieth century compiled by Stephen E. Lucas and Martin J. Medhurst ( http://www.americanrhetoric.com/top100speechesall.html ). Select a speech and examine the speech to determine which type of claim is being made by the speech.
• Look at the list of the top one hundred speeches in the United States during the twentieth century compiled by Stephen E. Lucas and Martin J. Medhurst and find a policy speech ( http://www.americanrhetoric.com/top100speechesall.html ). Which type of policy outcome was the speech aimed at achieving—passive agreement or immediate action? What evidence do you have from the speech to support your answer?

Stand up, Speak out Copyright © 2016 by University of Minnesota is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License , except where otherwise noted.

Share This Book

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• NEWS AND VIEWS
• 17 March 2021

Argument technology for debating with humans

• Chris Reed 0

Chris Reed is at the Centre for Argument Technology, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN, UK.

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

The study of arguments has an academic pedigree stretching back to the ancient Greeks, and spans disciplines from theoretical philosophy to computational engineering. Developing computer systems that can recognize arguments in natural human language is one of the most demanding challenges in the field of artificial intelligence (AI). Writing in Nature , Slonim et al . 1 report an impressive development in this field: Project Debater, an AI system that can engage with humans in debating competitions. The findings showcase how far research in this area has come, and emphasize the importance of robust engineering that combines different components, each of which handles a particular task, in the development of technology that can recognize, generate and critique arguments in debates.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Nature 591 , 373-374 (2021)

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-00539-5

Slonim, N. et al. Nature 591 , 379–384 (2021).

Article   Google Scholar  

Lawrence, J. & Reed, C. Comput. Linguist. 45 , 765–818 (2020).

Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K. & Toutanova, K. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805 (2018).

Feigenbaum, E. A. Proc. 5th Int. Joint Conf. Artif. Intell. 1014–1029 (Morgan Kauffman, 1977).

Google Scholar  

van Eemeren, F. H. et al. Handbook of Argumentation Theory (Springer, 2014).

Hahn, U. Trends Cogn. Sci. 24 , 363–374 (2020).

Levy, R., Yonatan, B., Hershcovich, D., Aharoni, E. & Slonim, N. Proc. COLING 2014, 25th Int. Conf. Comput. Linguist. Tech. Pap. 1489–1500 (2014).

Trautmann, D., Daxenberger, J., Stab, C., Schütze, H. & Gurevych, I. Proc. AAAI Conf. Artif. Intell. 34 , 9048–9056 (2020).

Rahwan, I., Zablith, F. & Reed, C. Artif. Intell. 171 , 897–921 (2007).

Download references

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

See all News & Views

• Computer science

AI now beats humans at basic tasks — new benchmarks are needed, says major report

News 15 APR 24

High-threshold and low-overhead fault-tolerant quantum memory

Article 27 MAR 24

Three reasons why AI doesn’t model human language

Correspondence 19 MAR 24

Faculty Positions& Postdoctoral Research Fellow, School of Optical and Electronic Information, HUST

Job Opportunities: Leading talents, young talents, overseas outstanding young scholars, postdoctoral researchers.

Wuhan, Hubei, China

School of Optical and Electronic Information, Huazhong University of Science and Technology

Postdoc in CRISPR Meta-Analytics and AI for Therapeutic Target Discovery and Priotisation (OT Grant)

APPLICATION CLOSING DATE: 14/06/2024 Human Technopole (HT) is a new interdisciplinary life science research institute created and supported by the...

Human Technopole

Research Associate - Metabolism

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Postdoc Fellowships

Train with world-renowned cancer researchers at NIH? Consider joining the Center for Cancer Research (CCR) at the National Cancer Institute

Bethesda, Maryland

NIH National Cancer Institute (NCI)

Faculty Recruitment, Westlake University School of Medicine

Faculty positions are open at four distinct ranks: Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, Full Professor, and Chair Professor.

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China

Westlake University

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

storybooksingers

• Essay outline
• Getting free essays about family
• Sample problem solution essays
• Writing a narrative paper
• Composing a paper on Julius Caesar
• Writing a definition paper outline
• Love: writing a narrative paper
• The opening of informative essays
• A guide to illustration essays
• Middle school thesis statements
• Crafting an expository paper
• Media cause-and-effect paper writing
• Formatting a synthesis essay
• Writing prompts for a persuasive essay
• Descriptive essay for 7th grade
• Narrative essay conclusion on bullying
• Where to get a profile essay example
• Essay layout on Great Gatsby
• Long essay about pollution
• 8th grade informative essay topics
• Creating an introductory paragraph
• Writing an essay about football history
• Expository essay outline
• Writing a movie review
• Creating titles on Romeo & Juliet
• Reflective essay on your writing skills
• What is a competent writing service?
• Culture shock: example
• Writing on Bermuda Triangle
• Rhetorical analysis paper titles
• Essay about On the Waterfront
• Writing on Romeo and Juliet
• How to create a media response paper
• Technology explanatory essay intro
• Searching for a reliable company
• Features of professional writers
• APA essay sample in psychology
• Picking topics about mental health
• How to outline a narrative essay
• Literature compare & contrast paper
• Writing essay about Rosa Parks
• How to use a descriptive essay sample
• Crafting a winning application paper
• Getting an economics essay sample
• How do you pay for academic papers
• Descriptive essay thesis statement
• MBA essay editing techniques
• Cause and effect paper on divorce
• Finding an informative essay template
• Argument paper on globalization
• Writing about environment
• Who can help
• Analysing a short story
• Crafting a 300-word paper
• Cause & effect paper topics
• Writing a process analysis essay
• 5-paragraph essay examples
• Analytical writing samples
• Argumentative essay prompts
• demystifying custom essay writing
• Crafting a strong essay
• Sample paper on analysis of causes
• Composing a paper on freedom writers
• Inventing new topics for papers
• A list of songs to analyze
• Writing a freedom of speech paper
• The basics of paper writing help
• Finding literary analysis essay samples
• Topics for opinion essays
• The education's role in social life

A List Of Impressive Argumentative Essay Topics About Nature

Nearly everyone has some opinion about how they feel about topics to do with nature. Some people do not completely understand some of the issues that surround the themes and these are the people that you will need to reach out.

You will need to make your argumentative essay informative and interesting so that it not only holds their attention it also helps them develop their own opinion and beliefs. Try out some of these ideas or develop the ones that are here to suit your own attitudes.

• Why test out new medicine on animals? Why can’t we try out the new medicines on human beings? You will need to do some sound research to back up your argument.
• Why is it important not to take plants from one country to another? Thinking here of the effect of Japanese knotweed in the UK and tumbleweed in the US neither plant is indigenous.
• Why is the health of bees important? What effect do bees have on the eco system? What would happen if all of the bees died?
• Why do some people become vegetarians? What are the benefits of becoming a vegetarian? Are there health benefits from eating ta totally vegetarian diet?
• What is the link between hunting and conservation in the US? What effect has hunting laws had on the re-emergence of some protected species (think of the wolves in Yellowstone).
• Why do we need more research into GM foods, what is the long term effect of these foods on the human body and on the environment?
• Has air travel caused global warming? How can some of the effects of Global Warming be reversed?
• Why is Margarine thought to be unhealthy and why are cardiologists now saying that it is healthier to eat butter? Talk about the chemical makeup of margarine.
• Why it is important to cultivate gardens in the city. Talk about the benefits to nature and to society in general. How could you convince a friend in the city or town to plant seeds?
• Is cosmetic surgery going against nature? What are the benefits and what are the drawbacks? How would you convince a friend that they do not need a nose job?
• Trees are important, yet we still chop them down without planting enough to replace them. Convince a friend that it is impotent not to use a real tree for Christmas.
• Convince some of the benefits of medical marijuana to treat diabetes and arthritis? How is medical marijuana different to anything else?
• Foraging has become quite a pastime; convince a friend of the benefits of foraging. Convince them of the benefits.
• Convince a friend who always burns in the sun of the important of using sunscreen. Support your argument with scientific evidence.
• Persuade a relative that the benefits out way the negatives with getting a pet dog. Point out the way that pets can enhance people’s lives.

Tips For Writing

• Process analysis papers
• PM essay conclusion
• Essay topics on nature
• Academic writing sample
• Analytical essay prompts
• Comparative essays
• Money management
• Cover letter example
• Human communication
• Reflective essay
• Argumentative essay tips
• Cause/effect papers
• Gender and divorce
• The use of garlic
• Paper checking
• 5-paragraph essays

helpful blogs

• Dissertation service
• DissertationExpert

21 Nature vs Nurture Examples

The nature vs. nurture debate is the long-standing argument over whether heredity (nature) or environment (nurture) plays a greater role in developing human characteristics and behaviors. 

Nature refers to the biological characteristics we are born with, including genetic predispositions toward certain traits. In contrast, nurture includes external influences that shape us, such as culture, relationships, and everyday experiences.

For example, when it comes to personality development, some people believe that genetics play a stronger role than environmental factors; this would be considered a nature-focused perspective. 

Others may view the environment as more important. In this case, a nurturing upbringing could help individuals develop their personalities. Therefore, both sides can have valid arguments for their respective positions in the debate.

The Nature Perspective

In the context of the nature vs. nurture debate, nature refers to biological heredity and genetic predispositions inherited by individuals from their parents at birth. 

Buheji (2018) states that:

“in the “nature vs. nurture” debate, nature refers to an individual’s innate qualities (nativism)” (p. 221).

This includes physical characteristics such as eye color, facial features, personality traits, and behavioral tendencies.

Genes determine the unique physical characteristics of each individual while also influencing psychological and social behavior.

Some research implies that roughly 50% of an individual’s personality and disposition are pre-determined by genetics (Bouchard & Loehlin, 2001).

However, Krueger and colleagues (2008) state that the interplay between gene-environment interactions has a consequential effect on one’s character traits. Hence, the heritability of personality isn’t always precisely 50%.

So, nature is the hereditary and genetic characteristics pre-determined at birth and influence a person’s behavior.

The Nurture Perspective

Nurture, in the context of the nature vs. nurture debate, is used to describe environmental factors that influence an individual’s development. 

According to Coon and Mitterer (2014), nurture:

“…refers to the sum of all external conditions that affect a person” (p. 100).

This includes a variety of influences such as parenting style, educational experiences, cultural background, and exposure to different environmental conditions over time.

While “nurture” may naturally invoke ideas of childhood and parental care, environmental components and life experience can shape human mental, emotional, and physical health throughout their lives (Harsha et al., 2020).

For example, lifestyle choices have been found to impact a person’s risk for developing certain diseases and their level of immunity against illness. 

Furthermore, addiction susceptibility can be impacted by environmental factors such as peer group that has been observed throughout an individual’s life (Ducci & Goldman, 2012).

Simply, nurture is an umbrella term for any environmental influences that shape the development of a person’s mental, physical, and emotional health. 

Examples of Nature vs Nurture

Nature examples.

• Eye color : A person’s eye color is determined by their genetic makeup and inherited from their parents.
• Height : As with eye color, height is a physical trait that is determined by a person’s genes and largely determines an individual’s adult height.
• Risk of D iseases : A person’s risk for developing certain diseases can be partially attributed to their genetic predisposition for that illness and influenced by lifestyle factors and personal environment.
• Immune S ystem F unctionality : Genetic predisposition plays an important role in determining an individual’s resistance to disease through the strength of their immune system. However, lifestyle choices can also influence this trait over time (e.g., diet and exercise).
• Hair Color: Hair color is determined by genetic factors. Recessive genes, like the red hair gene, generally have to be present in both parents for the recessive gene to become dominant.
• Balding: Going bald is an inherited trait. Some groups – such as male British Anglo-Saxons – are more likely to go bald in their 30s than the average.
• Adrenaline response : An individual’s ability to react quickly in dangerous situations—their “fight or flight” response—tends to be innate in all of us.

Nurture Examples

• Ethics and Parenting style : An individual’s upbringing and the parenting style they are exposed to can shape their behavior, emotional reactions, and psychological outlook throughout life.
• Linguistic Determinism Theory : In this theory, the language we are taught as a child will determine the ways we think and interact with the world. It goes some way to explaining how people of differing language groups may have differing values and belief systems .
• Values and Cultural background : Depending on their cultural background, different individuals may be exposed to different values and belief systems, which can impact their attitudes toward certain issues or topics/ideas/beliefs.
• Anxiety and Exposure to T rauma : Experiences with violence or traumatic events can have long-term effects on an individual’s psychology which could manifest outwardly as symptoms of anxiety or difficulty coping under pressure in later stages of life.
• Positivity and Social E nvironment : The people an individual interacts with can either positively or negatively affect their development. Individuals need to surround themselves with positive influences while avoiding those that might lead them down the wrong path in life.
• Relationship E xperiences and Sense of Security : Positive relationships throughout a person’s life will tend to improve outlook and well-being. In contrast, unhealthy relationships could leave long-term psychological damage that might need professional help before it can be addressed adequately by an individual suffering firsthand.

Nature and Nurture Examples

• Personality traits: The role of genetics (nature) in determining personality traits, such as extraversion or conscientiousness is balanced against the influence of upbringing and life experiences (nurture).
• Aggression: There is debate over whether aggressive behavior is primarily influenced by genetic factors (nature) or by environmental factors, such as upbringing, social learning , and exposure to violence (nurture).
• Athletic ability: The role of genetics (nature) determines a lot of our natural talent in sports but the importance of training, motivation, and exposure to physical activity (nurture) takes us the rest of the way.
• Musical talent: Musical ability may be affected by genetic predisposition (nature) but also environmental factors, such as exposure to music at a young age, education, and practice (nurture).
• Attachment styles: It is debatable whether a person’s attachment style (secure, anxious, or avoidant) is impacted by genetics (nature) versus the influence of early childhood experiences and caregiver relationships (nurture).
• Empathy and emotional intelligence: The capacity for empathy and emotional intelligence is debatably determined by both genetics (nature) and the result of upbringing, social exposure, and life experiences (nurture).
• Spiritual beliefs: Theological determinism holds that god has pre-selected his chosen people who will be true believers (nature) while others think that belief in god is a choice and we must raise our children to maintain a belief in god (nurture).
• Learning styles: In the 1980s, there was extensive debate over whether preferred learning styles, such as visual, auditory, or kinesthetic, are determined by genetic factors (nature) or influenced by educational experiences and personal development (nurture). Today, most education theorists believe that learning preferences are based on nurture over nature.
• Addiction susceptibility : Scientists have identified genes related to addiction susceptibility, even though this trait is also heavily influenced by the environment (Ducci & Goldman, 2012).
• Intelligence : Education can significantly impact traits such as intelligence levels and knowledge base, with certain experiences inspiring curiosity or creativity in individuals later in life.

Origins of Nature vs. Nurture Debate

The debate surrounding the extent to which human development is influenced by nature (heredity) or nurture (environmental factors) has been around since ancient times.

Plato, the renowned Greek philosopher, argued that beneficial traits in humans were attributable to both nature and nurture. He believed people could adapt to external occurrences throughout their lifetime (Englander, 2010).

However, his mentor Socrates leaned more towards genetics as the primary factor of human development – a notion known as Nativism, which was coined by both philosophers together.

In the late 1800s, Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution and Sir Francis Galton’s article “Hereditary Talent and Character” sparked a resurgence in interest in this topic (Galton, 1865)

So, Galton (1865) suggested hereditary influences to be at least as important as the environment when determining an individual’s outcomes in life.

The debate continued through subsequent decades, with psychologist John B. Watson’s revolutionary suggestion that environment—what he called “nurture”—was more important than hereditary factors or biology (Herrnstein, 1998).

In recent years, researchers have realized that both internal (genetic) and external (environmental) factors play a role in how individuals develop physically and psychologically. 

As such, most experts now subscribe to an approach that looks at how both genetic inheritance and environmental influences work together throughout life to shape each person’s unique character traits and behaviors.

The Role of Epigenetics in the Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Epigenetics is the study of changes in gene expression caused by environmental factors, such as diet and exposure to toxins, without altering the underlying sequences of DNA .

It is an emerging field of research that has been gaining prominence in recent years as scientists try to uncover how and to what extent the environment can shape genetic expression (Harvard University, 2019).

Epigenetic influences are now considered a significant factor in the nature vs. nurture debate, particularly in how individuals develop physically and psychologically throughout life. 

Evidence suggests that epigenetic mechanisms can be used to modulate gene expression depending on the environment, thus having a direct influence on an individual’s characteristics and behaviors (Harvard University, 2019).

This means that while both genetics and environment may play a role in determining an individual’s outcomes in life, epigenetics provides an additional layer of complexity by allowing environmental factors to interact with gene expression.

Nature vs. nurture is a decades-old debate that continues to be studied in various fields. 

Nativists state that genetics play a major role in determining characteristics and behaviors. For example, a person may have inherited certain traits from their family. 

However, empiricists suggest that external factors, such as upbringing and lifestyle choices, can also have a significant influence.

From ancient philosophers to modern-day scientists, this debate has gone through various iterations and continues to evolve today with the introduction of epigenetics. 

More recently, epigenetics have emerged as a key factor in the debate. Its  mechanisms can be used to modulate gene expression depending on the environment, thus having a direct influence on an individual.

So, it appears that both nature and nurture are important factors in determining an individual’s outcomes in life. 

Bouchard, T. J., & Loehlin, J. C. (2001). Genes, evolution, and personality.  Behavior Genetics ,  31 (3), 243–273. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1012294324713

Buheji, M. (2018).  Understanding the power of resilience economy . Mohamed Buheji.

Coon, D., & Mitterer, J. O. (2014).  Psychology: A journey . Wadsworth/Cengage Learning.

Ducci, F., & Goldman, D. (2012). The genetic basis of addictive disorders.  Psychiatric Clinics of North America ,  35 (2), 495–519. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psc.2012.03.010

Englander, M. (2010).  The nature and nurture of learners . AuthorHouse.

Galton, F. (1865).  Hereditary talent and character . University of Bristol Library.

Harsha, N., Ziq, L., Lynch, M. A., & Giacaman, R. (2020). Assessment of parental nurturing and associated social, economic, and political factors among children in the West Bank of the occupied Palestinian territory.  BMC Pediatrics ,  20 (1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-020-02317-0

Harvard University. (2019).  What is epigenetics? The answer to the nature vs. nurture debate . Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University; Harvard University. https://developingchild.harvard.edu/resources/what-is-epigenetics-and-how-does-it-relate-to-child-development/

Herrnstein, R. J. (1998). Nature as nurture: Behaviorism and the instinct doctrine.  Behavior and Philosophy ,  26 (1/2), 73–107. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27759383

Krueger, R. F., South, S., Johnson, W., & Iacono, W. (2008). The heritability of personality is not always 50%: Gene-environment interactions and correlations between personality and parenting.  Journal of Personality ,  76 (6), 1485–1522. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00529.x

Viktoriya Sus (MA)

Viktoriya Sus is an academic writer specializing mainly in economics and business from Ukraine. She holds a Master’s degree in International Business from Lviv National University and has more than 6 years of experience writing for different clients. Viktoriya is passionate about researching the latest trends in economics and business. However, she also loves to explore different topics such as psychology, philosophy, and more.

• Viktoriya Sus (MA) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Free Enterprise Examples
• Viktoriya Sus (MA) #molongui-disabled-link 21 Sunk Costs Examples (The Fallacy Explained)
• Viktoriya Sus (MA) #molongui-disabled-link Price Floor: 15 Examples & Definition
• Viktoriya Sus (MA) #molongui-disabled-link Linguistic Relativity: 10 Examples and Definition

Chris Drew (PhD)

This article was peer-reviewed and edited by Chris Drew (PhD). The review process on Helpful Professor involves having a PhD level expert fact check, edit, and contribute to articles. Reviewers ensure all content reflects expert academic consensus and is backed up with reference to academic studies. Dr. Drew has published over 20 academic articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education and holds a PhD in Education from ACU.

• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Positive Punishment Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 25 Dissociation Examples (Psychology)
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link 15 Zone of Proximal Development Examples
• Chris Drew (PhD) #molongui-disabled-link Perception Checking: 15 Examples and Definition

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples

Have some suggestions and questions about nature vs nurture? On this page, find research and essay topics to explore a particular aspect of the discussion.

📑 Aspects to Cover in a Nature vs Nurture Essay

🏆 best nature vs nurture essay topics & essay examples, 📌 most interesting nurture vs nature topics to write about, 👍 good nature vs nurture topics, ❓ questions about nature vs nurture.

What affects human development: nature or nurture? Are gender roles and differences come naturally, or does society impose them? What can be argued about the personalities of identical twins? Explore any of the issues with us! Our IvyPnada team has prepared nurture vs nature topics to write about. Check essay examples via the links as well.

At first glance, a nature vs nurture essay seems to be easy. However, a limited view of the subject matter may cost you marks, which is why it is crucial to offer a well-rounded account of the debate. Here are some of the aspects that you might want to include in your essay on nature vs nurture.

• The importance of the topic. The debate on what influences one’s personality, intelligence, and character is among the most prominent ones in psychology and other social sciences. Your task is to reflect this and to attempt to justify why the debate is so important. What could be done if it were resolved one day? How does the dispute affect other subject fields and topics in psychology? How would the resolution help the study of psychology and human behavior to move forward? Would it help to prove certain theories or refute the others, and what would be the effect on professional practice?
• The origins of the debate. While you explore the first aspect, you might stumble upon the history of the nature vs nurture debate. Covering this theme in your essay could also earn you some extra marks. Merely summarizing historical facts is not enough, though, because your tutor is probably aware of them already. Instead, you should focus on why the debate started. Were there any developments in psychology that prompted it?
• Prominent views. It is hard to omit the opinions expressed by famous scholars while writing an essay on this subject. John Locke, John B. Watson, Calvin Hall, and other authors had all shared ideas on the issue. If you need more names, try searching sample essays on nature and nurture online since most of them point out the key names. This might also help you to identify possible nature vs nurture essay titles.
• Results of research studies. Research evidence is among the key nature vs nurture essay topics because there were many attempts to prove one or the other view. Examples of such studies may be cited in your textbook, so it should be the first point of your research. Your school’s library and Google Scholar might also give you more information. If you find any sources online, make sure that they are of academic quality, or you might lose marks.
• Your personal experience and thoughts. Because the controversy is so prominent, nearly all people who study psychology or social studies have an opinion on it. If the instructions don’t prevent you from doing this, you should share your thoughts on the debate between nature and nurture. Support your opinion with credible research evidence and link it to the work of other scholars. If you believe that the environment is more important than genes, why is that? What other theorists supported this view, and why did they? Your opinion, supported by relevant facts and views, may become an excellent nature vs nurture essay thesis.
• Suggestions for further research. Try to think about what could be done to resolve the debate once and for all. What are the main gaps in studies on nature vs nurture and how could they be addressed by scholars?

Covering all of the themes above will help you to produce an outstanding essay. Make sure to check our website for a nature vs nurture essay prompt, titles, and other useful materials!

• Nature vs. Nurture In most cases, nature determines the physical characteristics which in effect influence the behavior of an individual. These are traits which largely determined by the socio-cultural environmental factors or the way the individuals are socialized […]
• As Nature Made Him: Summary and Analysis As aforementioned, the author of this book provides useful analysis of this aspect of personality. One of the greatest questions that readers get answer from this book is the question of nature vs.nurture in sexuality […]
• Nature vs. Nurture: “In Cold Blood” by Truman Capote Thus, by contrasting Dick’s nurturing in love and affection and the conditions of his blissful childhood and adolescence with the details of a horrible crime committed by him and his attitude to it, the author […]
• Human Development: Nature or Nurture? With studies and theories carried out to examine the impact of nature on the personal development and personality traits, heredity is an important factor in the development.
• Physical and Mental Wellbeing: Nature Versus Nurture In conclusion, the debates on nature versus nurture reveal that both innate health conditions and external factors shape the outcomes for physical and mental wellbeing of an individual.
• Nature Versus Nurture and Learning Among Children Of much concern among modern researchers is the determination of the degree of influence of nature and nurture on the development of a child and the provision of learning experiences.
• Violent Behavior: Nature vs. Nurture Considering this circumstance, the shifts in one’s attitudes are likely to be ascribed to the modifications in conditions, which can be reported by families with children.
• “Nature” Versus “Nurture”: Effects on Child Development Consequently, a child’s behavior cannot be viewed as solely attributable to the genetic composition of the parents and the hereditary characteristics.
• Nature vs. Nurture: New Science Stirs Debate How Behavior Is Shaped A prime example of this nature of debates is the debate on whether nature or nurture has a greater bearing on the development of the diverse individual behavioral differences that exist.
• Alcoholism-Nature vs. Nurture Debate The analysis on physiological physiology regarding alcohol shows that, alcohol displays feelings of superiority and fearless behavior and also, it reduces an individual’s fear.
• The Relationship Between Nature and Nurture on the Intelligence
• The Controversies Surrounding the Topic of Nature Versus Nurture
• The Nurture Side of the Dichotomy Nature Versus Nurture
• The Formula For Fruition: The Age Old Debate of Nature Versus Nurture by Kendra Cherry
• The Meaning of Nature and Nurture in Psychology
• The Role of Nature vs. Nurture in Violent Behavior
• Influence of Nature Versus Nurture on Child Development
• The Role of Nature and Nurture: Adolescence Eating Disorders
• The Nature vs. Nurture Debate in Learning More About Alcoholism
• The Psychological Argument Between Nature vs. Nurture
• The Role of Nature and Nurture in Human Development
• The Influence of Nature Versus Nurture on an Individual Human Behavior
• Use of Nature and Nurture Based Studies on Epigenetics
• The Impact of Nature and Nurture on Huck’s and Finn’s Personality and Behavior in the Adventure of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain
• The Correlation Between Nature and Nurture in the Personal Development
• Role of Nature and Nurture in Language Development
• Personality, Behavior, and the Significance of Nature vs. Nurture
• The Disputes Concerning the Popular Nature vs. Nurture Argument
• Understanding the Role of Nature Versus Nurture in Alcohol Addiction
• Wild Child vs. Nature and Nurture
• The Importance of Nature Verses Nurture in Shaping Behavior and Personality
• The Differences Between Boys and Girls from Combination Between Nature and Nurture
• The Role of Nature and Nurture in Human Homosexuality
• The Nature Versus Nurture Debate in the Blasphemy of Talking Politics During Bach Year, an Article by Susan McClary
• What Roles Do Nature and Nurture Play on Children’s
• What Differentiates the Entrepreneurs From Non-Entrepreneurs on Nature and Nurture
• The Source of Violence: Nature vs. Nurture
• Gender and Socialization: Nature or Nurture
• How Nature and Nurture Affects the Pies in Adolescence and Adulthood
• The Debate Between Criminal Nature and Criminal Nurture: William Sheldon Theory
• The Nurture and Care From Nature and the Damage Caused by Humans to Our Environment
• The Evolutionary Theory of Nature vs. Nurture
• The Personality and Biology Differences in Nature Versus Nurture and Man Versus Woman Situations in Daily Life
• The Importance of Twin Studies in the Nature Versus Nurture Debate
• The Scientific and Cultural Debate of Nature vs. Nurture
• The Issue of Nature Versus Nurture in the Development of Serial Killers
• The Role of Nature vs. Nurture, Culture and Gender, and Family
• What Makes a Monster Nature vs. Nurture in Mary Shelleys Frankenstein
• The Theme of Nature Versus Nurture in Shelly’s Frankenstein
• The Psychology Field of Study About Nature and Nurture
• How Children Develop and the Interplay of Nature vs. Nurture?
• How Nature vs. Nurture Affect Human Development?
• Homosexuality: Nature vs. Nurture?
• How Do Nature vs. Nurture Work Together Example?
• How Does Nature vs. Nurture Affect Human Behavior?
• Why Is Nature vs. Nurture Called a False Debate?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Do Our Genes Affect Our Personalities?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Which Has a More Significant Influence on Child Development?
• How Do You Argue Nature vs. Nurture?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Who’s to Blame for Acts of Violence?
• How Does Nature vs. Nurture Affect Intelligence?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Which Is the Origin of Virtue?
• How Does Shelley Represent the Nature vs. Nurture Debate?
• Nature vs. Nurture: Which Determines Personality?
• What Are Examples of Nature vs. Nurture?
• Nature vs. Nurture: What Does Matter More?
• What Is Stronger Nurture vs. Nature?
• Why Nurture Is Better Than Nature?
• How Does the Nature vs. Nurture Debate in May Affect the Physical?
• What Is Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development?
• How Nature vs. Nurture Influence Substance Abuse?
• Twin Studies: What Can They Tell Us About Nature vs. Nurture?
• How Does Nature vs. Nurture Affect the Development of Social-Emotion Attributes?
• Who Won Nature vs. Nurture?
• How Nature vs. Nurture Apply the Principles of Life?
• What Is the Difference Between Nature vs. Nurture in Child Development?
• What Is the Main Idea of Nature vs. Nurture?
• Is Nature vs. Nurture Misleading?
• Nature vs. Nurture: What Impacts a Child’s IQ?
• How Does Nature vs. Nurture Affect Human Development?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 2). 80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/

"80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 2 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples'. 2 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "80 Nature vs Nurture Essay Topics & Examples." March 2, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/nature-vs-nurture-essay-examples/.

• Literacy Development Titles
• Personality Development Ideas
• Social Development Essay Topics
• Human Nature Essay Titles
• Academic Achievements Research Topics
• Bioethics Titles
• Emotional Intelligence Paper Topics
• Genetics Research Ideas

What are your chances of acceptance?

Calculate for all schools, your chance of acceptance.

Your chancing factors

Extracurriculars.

112 Persuasive Speech Topics That Are Actually Engaging

What’s covered:, how to pick an awesome persuasive speech topic, 112 engaging persuasive speech topics, tips for preparing your persuasive speech.

Writing a stellar persuasive speech requires a carefully crafted argument that will resonate with your audience to sway them to your side. This feat can be challenging to accomplish, but an engaging, thought-provoking speech topic is an excellent place to start.

When it comes time to select a topic for your persuasive speech, you may feel overwhelmed by all the options to choose from—or your brain may be drawing a completely blank slate. If you’re having trouble thinking of the perfect topic, don’t worry. We’re here to help!

In this post, we’re sharing how to choose the perfect persuasive speech topic and tips to prepare for your speech. Plus, you’ll find 112 persuasive speech topics that you can take directly from us or use as creative inspiration for your own ideas!

Choose Something You’re Passionate About

It’s much easier to write, research, and deliver a speech about a cause you care about. Even if it’s challenging to find a topic that completely sparks your interest, try to choose a topic that aligns with your passions.

However, keep in mind that not everyone has the same interests as you. Try to choose a general topic to grab the attention of the majority of your audience, but one that’s specific enough to keep them engaged.

For example, suppose you’re giving a persuasive speech about book censorship. In that case, it’s probably too niche to talk about why “To Kill a Mockingbird” shouldn’t be censored (even if it’s your favorite book), and it’s too broad to talk about media censorship in general.

Steer Clear of Cliches

Have you already heard a persuasive speech topic presented dozens of times? If so, it’s probably not an excellent choice for your speech—even if it’s an issue you’re incredibly passionate about.

Although polarizing topics like abortion and climate control are important to discuss, they aren’t great persuasive speech topics. Most people have already formed an opinion on these topics, which will either cause them to tune out or have a negative impression of your speech.

Instead, choose topics that are fresh, unique, and new. If your audience has never heard your idea presented before, they will be more open to your argument and engaged in your speech.

Have a Clear Side of Opposition

For a persuasive speech to be engaging, there must be a clear side of opposition. To help determine the arguability of your topic, ask yourself: “If I presented my viewpoint on this topic to a group of peers, would someone disagree with me?” If the answer is yes, then you’ve chosen a great topic!

Now that we’ve laid the groundwork for what it takes to choose a great persuasive speech topic, here are over one hundred options for you to choose from.

• Should high school athletes get tested for steroids?
• Should schools be required to have physical education courses?
• Should sports grades in school depend on things like athletic ability?
• What sport should be added to or removed from the Olympics?
• Should college athletes be able to make money off of their merchandise?
• Should sports teams be able to recruit young athletes without a college degree?
• Should we consider video gamers as professional athletes?
• Is cheerleading considered a sport?
• Should parents allow their kids to play contact sports?
• Should professional female athletes be paid the same as professional male athletes?
• Should college be free at the undergraduate level?
• Is the traditional college experience obsolete?
• Should you choose a major based on your interests or your potential salary?
• Should high school students have to meet a required number of service hours before graduating?
• Should teachers earn more or less based on how their students perform on standardized tests?
• Are private high schools more effective than public high schools?
• Should there be a minimum number of attendance days required to graduate?
• Are GPAs harmful or helpful?
• Should schools be required to teach about standardized testing?
• Should Greek Life be banned in the United States?
• Should schools offer science classes explicitly about mental health?
• Should students be able to bring their cell phones to school?
• Should all public restrooms be all-gender?
• Should undocumented immigrants have the same employment and education opportunities as citizens?
• Should everyone be paid a living wage regardless of their employment status?
• Should supremacist groups be able to hold public events?
• Should guns be allowed in public places?
• Should the national drinking age be lowered?
• Should prisoners be allowed to vote?
• Should the government raise or lower the retirement age?
• Should the government be able to control the population?
• Is the death penalty ethical?

Environment

• Should stores charge customers for plastic bags?
• Should breeding animals (dogs, cats, etc.) be illegal?
• Is it okay to have exotic animals as pets?
• Should people be fined for not recycling?
• Should compost bins become mandatory for restaurants?
• Should electric vehicles have their own transportation infrastructure?
• Would heavier fining policies reduce corporations’ emissions?
• Should hunting be encouraged or illegal?
• Should reusable diapers replace disposable diapers?

Science & Technology

• Is paper media more reliable than digital news sources?
• Should automated/self-driving cars be legalized?
• Should schools be required to provide laptops to all students?
• Should software companies be able to have pre-downloaded programs and applications on devices?
• Should drones be allowed in military warfare?
• Should scientists invest more or less money into cancer research?
• Should cloning be illegal?
• Should societies colonize other planets?
• Should there be legal oversight over the development of technology?

Social Media

• Should there be an age limit on social media?
• Should cyberbullying have the same repercussions as in-person bullying?
• Are online relationships as valuable as in-person relationships?
• Does “cancel culture” have a positive or negative impact on societies?
• Are social media platforms reliable information or news sources?
• Should social media be censored?
• Does social media create an unrealistic standard of beauty?
• Is regular social media usage damaging to real-life interactions?
• Is social media distorting democracy?
• How many branches of government should there be?
• Who is the best/worst president of all time?
• How long should judges serve in the U.S. Supreme Court?
• Should a more significant portion of the U.S. budget be contributed towards education?
• Should the government invest in rapid transcontinental transportation infrastructure?
• Should airport screening be more or less stringent?
• Should the electoral college be dismantled?
• Should the U.S. have open borders?
• Should the government spend more or less money on space exploration?
• Should students sing Christmas carols, say the pledge of allegiance, or perform other tangentially religious activities?
• Should nuns and priests become genderless roles?
• Should schools and other public buildings have prayer rooms?
• Should animal sacrifice be legal if it occurs in a religious context?
• Should countries be allowed to impose a national religion on their citizens?
• Should the church be separated from the state?
• Does freedom of religion positively or negatively affect societies?

Parenting & Family

• Is it better to have children at a younger or older age?
• Is it better for children to go to daycare or stay home with their parents?
• Does birth order affect personality?
• Should parents or the school system teach their kids about sex?
• Are family traditions important?
• Should parents smoke or drink around young children?
• Should “spanking” children be illegal?
• Should parents use swear words in front of their children?
• Should parents allow their children to play violent video games?

Entertainment

• Should all actors be paid the same regardless of gender or ethnicity?
• Should all award shows be based on popular vote?
• Who should be responsible for paying taxes on prize money, the game show staff or the contestants?
• Should movies and television shows have ethnicity and gender quotas?
• Should newspapers and magazines move to a completely online format?
• Should streaming services like Netflix and Hulu be free for students?
• Is the movie rating system still effective?
• Should celebrities have more privacy rights?

Arts & Humanities

• Are libraries becoming obsolete?
• Should all schools have mandatory art or music courses in their curriculum?
• Should offensive language be censored from classic literary works?
• Is it ethical for museums to keep indigenous artifacts?
• Should digital designs be considered an art form? 
• Should abstract art be considered an art form?
• Is music therapy effective?
• Should tattoos be regarded as “professional dress” for work?
• Should schools place greater emphasis on the arts programs?
• Should euthanasia be allowed in hospitals and other clinical settings?
• Should the government support and implement universal healthcare?
• Would obesity rates lower if the government intervened to make healthy foods more affordable?
• Should teenagers be given access to birth control pills without parental consent?
• Should food allergies be considered a disease?
• Should health insurance cover homeopathic medicine?
• Is using painkillers healthy?
• Should genetically modified foods be banned?
• Should there be a tax on unhealthy foods?
• Should tobacco products be banned from the country?
• Should the birth control pill be free for everyone?

If you need more help brainstorming topics, especially those that are personalized to your interests, you can  use CollegeVine’s free AI tutor, Ivy . Ivy can help you come up with original persuasive speech ideas, and she can also help with the rest of your homework, from math to languages.

Do Your Research

A great persuasive speech is supported with plenty of well-researched facts and evidence. So before you begin the writing process, research both sides of the topic you’re presenting in-depth to gain a well-rounded perspective of the topic.

Understand Your Audience

It’s critical to understand your audience to deliver a great persuasive speech. After all, you are trying to convince them that your viewpoint is correct. Before writing your speech, consider the facts and information that your audience may already know, and think about the beliefs and concerns they may have about your topic. Then, address these concerns in your speech, and be mindful to include fresh, new information.

Have Someone Read Your Speech

Once you have finished writing your speech, have someone read it to check for areas of strength and improvement. You can use CollegeVine’s free essay review tool to get feedback on your speech from a peer!

Practice Makes Perfect

After completing your final draft, the key to success is to practice. Present your speech out loud in front of a mirror, your family, friends, and basically, anyone who will listen. Not only will the feedback of others help you to make your speech better, but you’ll become more confident in your presentation skills and may even be able to commit your speech to memory.

Hopefully, these ideas have inspired you to write a powerful, unique persuasive speech. With the perfect topic, plenty of practice, and a boost of self-confidence, we know you’ll impress your audience with a remarkable speech!

Related CollegeVine Blog Posts

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Affective Science
• Biological Foundations of Psychology
• Clinical Psychology: Disorders and Therapies
• Cognitive Psychology/Neuroscience
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational/School Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems of Psychology
• Individual Differences
• Methods and Approaches in Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational and Institutional Psychology
• Personality
• Psychology and Other Disciplines
• Social Psychology
• Sports Psychology
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Nature and nurture as an enduring tension in the history of psychology.

• Hunter Honeycutt Hunter Honeycutt Bridgewater College, Department of Psychology
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190236557.013.518
• Published online: 30 September 2019

Nature–nurture is a dichotomous way of thinking about the origins of human (and animal) behavior and development, where “nature” refers to native, inborn, causal factors that function independently of, or prior to, the experiences (“nurture”) of the organism. In psychology during the 19th century, nature-nurture debates were voiced in the language of instinct versus learning. In the first decades of the 20th century, it was widely assumed that that humans and animals entered the world with a fixed set of inborn instincts. But in the 1920s and again in the 1950s, the validity of instinct as a scientific construct was challenged on conceptual and empirical grounds. As a result, most psychologists abandoned using the term instinct but they did not abandon the validity of distinguishing between nature versus nurture. In place of instinct, many psychologists made a semantic shift to using terms like innate knowledge, biological maturation, and/or hereditary/genetic effects on development, all of which extend well into the 21st century. Still, for some psychologists, the earlier critiques of the instinct concept remain just as relevant to these more modern usages.

The tension in nature-nurture debates is commonly eased by claiming that explanations of behavior must involve reference to both nature-based and nurture-based causes. However, for some psychologists there is a growing pressure to see the nature–nurture dichotomy as oversimplifying the development of behavior patterns. The division is seen as both arbitrary and counterproductive. Rather than treat nature and nurture as separable causal factors operating on development, they treat nature-nurture as a distinction between product (nature) versus process (nurture). Thus there has been a longstanding tension about how to define, separate, and balance the effects of nature and nurture.

• nature–nurture
• development
• nativism–empiricism
• innate–learned
• behavioral genetics
• epigenetics

Nature and Nurture in Development

The oldest and most persistent ways to frame explanations about the behavioral and mental development of individuals is to distinguish between two separate sources of developmental causation: (a) intrinsic, preformed, or predetermined causes (“nature”) versus (b) extrinsic, experiential, or environmental causes (“nurture”). Inputs from these two sources are thought to add their own contribution to development (see Figure 1 ).

Figure 1. The traditional view of nature and nurture as separate causes of development. In the traditional view, nature and nurture are treated as independent causal influences that combine during development to generate outcomes. Note that, during development, the effects of nature and nurture (shown in horizontal crossing lines) remain independent so that their effects on outcomes are theoretically separable.

Because some traits seem to derive more from one source than the other, much of the tension associated with the nature–nurture division deals with disagreements about how to balance the roles of nature and nurture in the development of a trait.

Evidence of Nature in Development

Evidence to support the nature–nurture division usually derives from patterns of behavior that suggest a limited role of environmental causation, thus implying some effect of nature by default. Table 1 depicts some common descriptors and conditions used to infer that some preference, knowledge, or skill is nature based.

Table 1. Common Descriptors and Associated Conditions for Inferring the Effects of Nature on Development

It is important to reiterate that nature-based causation (e.g., genetic determination) is inferred from these observations. Such inferences can generate tension because each of the observations listed here can be explained by nurture-based (environmental) factors. Confusion can also arise when evidence of one descriptor (e.g., being hereditary) is erroneously used to justify a different usage (e.g., that the trait is unlearned).

The Origins of Nature Versus Nurture

For much of recorded history, the distinction between nature and nurture was a temporal divide between what a person is innately endowed with at birth, prior to experience (nature), and what happens thereafter (nurture). It was not until the 19th century that the temporal division was transformed into a material division of causal influences (Keller, 2010 ). New views about heredity and Darwinian evolution justified distinguishing between native traits and genetic causes from acquired traits and environmental causes. More so than before, the terms nature and nurture were often juxtaposed in an opposition famously described by Sir Francis Galton ( 1869 ) as that between “nature versus nurture.”

Galton began writing about heredity in the mid-1860s. He believed we would discover laws governing the transmission of mental as well as physical qualities. Galton’s take on mental heredity, however, was forged by his desire to improve the human race in a science he would later call “eugenics.” In the mid- 19th century , British liberals assumed humans were equivalent at birth. Their social reform efforts were geared to enhancing educational opportunities and improving living conditions. Galton, a political conservative, opposed the notion of natural equality, arguing instead that people were inherently different at birth (Cowan, 2016 ), and that these inherited mental and behavioral inequalities were transmitted through lineages like physical qualities. Because Galton opposed the widely held Lamarckian idea that the qualities acquired in one’s lifetime could modify the inherited potential of subsequent generations, he believed long-lasting improvement of the human stock would only come by controlling breeding practices.

To explain the biological mechanisms of inheritance, Galton joined a growing trend in the 1870s to understand inheritance as involving the transmission of (hypothetical) determinative, germinal substances across generations. Foreshadowing a view that would later become scientific orthodoxy, Galton believed these germinal substances to be uninfluenced by the experiences of the organism. His theory of inheritance, however, was speculative. Realizing he was not equipped to fully explicate his theory of biological inheritance, Galton abandoned this line of inquiry by the end of that decade and refocused his efforts on identifying statistical laws of heredity of individual differences (Renwick, 2011 ).

Historians generally agree that Galton was the first to treat nature (as heredity) and nurture (everything else) as separate causal forces (Keller, 2010 ), but the schism gained biological legitimacy through the work of the German cytologist Auguste Weismann in the 1880s. Whereas Galton’s theory was motivated by his political agenda, Weismann was motivated by a scientific, theoretical agenda. Namely, Weismann opposed Lamarckian inheritance and promoted a view of evolution driven almost entirely by natural selection.

Drawing upon contemporary cytological and embryological research, Weismann made the case that the determinative substances found in the germ cells of plants and animals (called the “germ-plasm”) that are transmitted across generations were physically sequestered very early in embryogenesis and remained buffered from the other cells of the body (“somato-plasm”). This so-called, Weismann’s barrier meant that alterations in the soma that develop in the lifetime of the organism through the use or disuse of body parts would not affect the germinal substances transmitted during reproduction (see Winther, 2001 , for review). On this view, Lamarckian-style inheritance of acquired characteristics was not biologically possible.

Galton and Weismann’s influence on the life sciences cannot be overstated. Their work convinced many to draw unusually sharp distinctions between the inherited (nature) and the acquired (nurture). Although their theories were met with much resistance and generated significant tension in the life sciences from cytology to psychology, their efforts helped stage a new epistemic space through which to appreciate Mendel’s soon to be rediscovered breeding studies and usher in genetics (Muller-Wille & Rheinberger, 2012 ).

Ever since, psychology has teetered between nature-biased and nurture-biased positions. With the rise of genetics, the wedge between nature–nurture was deepened in the early to mid- 20th century , creating fields of study that focused exclusively on the effects of either nature or nurture.

The “Middle Ground” Perspective on Nature–Nurture

Twenty-first-century psychology textbooks often state that the nature–nurture debates have been resolved, and the tension relaxed, because we have moved on from emphasizing nature or nurture to appreciating that development necessarily involves both nature and nurture. In this middle-ground position, one asks how nature and nurture interact. For example, how do biological (or genetic) predispositions for behaviors or innate knowledge bias early learning experiences? Or how might environmental factors influence the biologically determined (maturational) unfolding of bodily form and behaviors?

Rejection of the Nature–Nurture Divide

For some, the “middle-ground” resolution is as problematic as “either/or” views and does not resolve a deeper source of tension inherent in the dichotomy. On this view, the nature–nurture divide is neither a legitimate nor a constructive way of thinking about development. Instead, developmental analysis reveals that the terms commonly associated with nature (e.g., innate, genetic, hereditary, or instinctual) and nurture (environmental or learned) are so entwined and confounded (and often arbitrary) that their independent effects cannot be meaningfully discussed. The nature–nurture division oversimplifies developmental processes, takes too much for granted, and ultimately hinders scientific progress. Thus not only is there a lingering tension about how to balance the effects of nature and nurture in the middle-ground view, but there is also a growing tension to move beyond the dichotomous nature–nurture framework.

Nativism in Behavior: Instincts

Definitions of instinct can vary tremendously, but many contrast (a) instinct with reason (or intellect, thought, will), which is related to but separable from contrasting (b) instinct with learning (or experience or habit).

Instinct in the Age of Enlightenment

Early usages of the instinct concept, following Aristotle, treated instinct as a mental, estimative faculty ( vis aestimativa or aestimativa naturalis ) in humans and animals that allowed for the judgments of objects in the world (e.g., seeing a predator) to be deemed beneficial or harmful in a way that transcends immediate sensory experience but does not involve the use of reason (Diamond, 1971 ). In many of the early usages, the “natural instinct” of animals even included subrational forms of learning.

The modern usage of instincts as unlearned behaviors took shape in the 17th century . By that point it was widely believed that nature or God had implanted in animals and humans innate behaviors and predispositions (“instincts”) to promote the survival of the individual and the propagation of the species. Disagreements arose as to whether instincts derived from innate mental images or were mindlessly and mechanically (physiologically) generated from innately specified bodily organization (Richards, 1987 ).

Anti-Instinct Movement in the Age of Enlightenment

Challenges to the instinct concept can be found in the 16th century (see Diamond, 1971 ), but they were most fully developed by empiricist philosophers of the French Sensationalist tradition in the 18th century (Richards, 1987 ). Sensationalists asserted that animals behaved rationally and all of the so-called instincts displayed by animals could be seen as intelligently acquired habits.

For Sensationalists, instincts, as traditionally understood, did not exist. Species-specificity in behavior patterns could be explained by commonalities in physiological organization, needs, and environmental conditions. Even those instinctual behaviors seen at birth (e.g., that newly hatched chicks peck and eat grain) might eventually be explained by the animal’s prenatal experiences. Erasmus Darwin ( 1731–1802 ), for example, speculated that the movements and swallowing experiences in ovo could account for the pecking and eating of grain by young chicks. The anti-instinct sentiment was clearly expressed by the Sensationalist Jean Antoine Guer ( 1713–1764 ), who warned that instinct was an “infantile idea” that could only be held by those who are ignorant of philosophy, that traditional appeals to instincts in animals not only explained nothing but served to hinder scientific explanations, and that nothing could be more superficial than to explain behavior than appealing to so-called instincts (Richards, 1987 ).

The traditional instinct concept survived. For most people, the complex, adaptive, species-specific behaviors displayed by naïve animals (e.g., caterpillars building cocoons; infant suckling behaviors) appeared to be predetermined and unlearned. Arguably as important, however, was the resistance to the theological implications of Sensationalist philosophy.

One of the strongest reactions to Sensationalism was put forward in Germany by Herman Samuel Reimarus ( 1694–1768 ). As a natural theologian, Reimarus, sought evidence of a God in the natural world, and the species-specific, complex, and adaptive instincts of animals seemed to stand as the best evidence of God’s work. More so than any other, Reimarus extensively catalogued instincts in humans and animals. Rather than treat instincts as behaviors, he defined instincts as natural impulses (inner drives) to act that were expressed perfectly, without reflection or practice, and served adaptive goals (Richards, 1987 ). He even proposed instincts for learning, a proposal that would resurface in the mid- 20th century , as would his drive theory of instinct (Jaynes & Woodward, 1974 ).

Partly as a result of Reimarus’ efforts, the instinct concept survived going into the 19th century . But many issues surrounding the instinct concept were left unsettled. How do instincts differ from reflexive behaviors? What role does learning play in the expression of instincts, if any? Do humans have more or fewer instincts than animals? These questions would persist well into the first decades of the 20th century and ultimately fuel another anti-instinct movement.

Instinct in the 19th Century

In the 19th century , the tension about the nature and nurture of instincts in the lifetime of animals led to debates about the nature and nurture of instincts across generations . These debates dealt with whether instincts should be viewed as “inherited habits” from previous generations or whether they result from the natural selection. Debating the relative roles of neo-Lamarckian use-inheritance versus neo-Darwinian natural selection in the transmutation of species became a significant source of tension in the latter half of the 19th century . Although the neo-Lamarckian notion of instincts as being inherited habits was rejected in the 20th century , it has resurged in recent years (e.g., see Robinson & Barron, 2017 ).

Darwinian evolutionary theory required drawing distinctions between native and acquired behaviors, and, perhaps more so than before, behaviors were categorized along a continuum from the purely instinctive (unlearned), to the partially instinctive (requiring some learning), to the purely learned. Still, it was widely assumed that a purely instinctive response would be modified by experience after its first occurrence. As a result, instinct and habit were very much entangled in the lifetime of the organism. The notion of instincts as fixed and unmodifiable would not be widely advanced until after the rise of Weismann’s germ-plasm theory in the late 19thcentury .

Given their importance in evolutionary theory, there was greater interest in more objectively identifying pure instincts beyond anecdotal reports. Some of the most compelling evidence was reported by Douglas Spalding ( 1844–1877 ) in the early 1870s (see Gray, 1967 ). Spalding documented numerous instances of how naïve animals showed coordinated, seemingly adaptive responses (e.g., hiding) to objects (e.g., sight of predators) upon their first encounter, and he helped pioneer the use of the deprivation experiment to identify instinctive behaviors. This technique involved selectively depriving young animals of seemingly critical learning experiences or sensory stimulation. Should animals display some species-typical action following deprivation, then, presumably, the behavior could be labeled as unlearned or innate. In all, these studies seemed to show that animals displayed numerous adaptive responses at the very start, prior to any relevant experience. In a variety of ways, Spalding’s work anticipated 20th-century studies of innate behavior. Not only would the deprivation experiment be used as the primary means of detecting native tendencies by European zoologists and ethologists, but Spalding also showed evidence of what would later be called imprinting, critical period effects and evidence of behavioral maturation.

Reports of pure instinct did not go unchallenged. Lloyd Morgan ( 1896 ) questioned the accuracy of these reports in his own experimental work with young animals. In some cases, he failed to replicate the results and in other cases he found that instinctive behaviors were not as finely tuned to objects in the environment as had been claimed. Morgan’s research pointed to taking greater precision in identifying learned and instinctive components of behavior, but, like most at the turn of the 20th century , he did not question that animal behavior involved both learned and instinctive elements.

A focus on instinctive behaviors intensified in the 1890s as Weismann’s germ-plasm theory grew in popularity. More so than before, a sharp distinction was drawn between native and acquired characteristics, including behavior (Johnston, 1995 ). Although some psychologists continued to maintain neo-Lamarckian notions, most German (Burnham, 1972 ) and American (Cravens & Burnham, 1971 ) psychologists were quick to adopt Weismann’s theory. They envisioned a new natural science of psychology that would experimentally identify the germinally determined, invariable set of native psychological traits in species and their underlying physiological (neural) basis. However, whereas English-speaking psychologists tended to focus on how this view impacted our understanding of social institutions and its social implications, German psychologists were more interested in the longstanding philosophical implications of Weismann’s doctrine as it related to the differences (if any) between man and beast (Burnham, 1972 ).

Some anthropologists and sociologists, however, interpreted Weismann’s theory quite differently and used it elevate sociology as its own scientific discipline. In the 1890s, the French sociologist Emil Durkheim, for example, interpreted Weismann’s germinal determinants as a generic force on human behavior that influenced the development of general predispositions that are molded by the circumstances of life (Meloni, 2016 ). American anthropologists reached similar conclusions in the early 20th century (Cravens & Burnham, 1971 ). Because Weismann’s theory divorced biological inheritance from social inheritance, and because heredity was treated as a generic force, sociologists felt free to study social (eventually, “cultural”) phenomena without reference to biological or psychological concerns.

Anti-Instinct Movement in the 1920s

Despite their differences, in the first two decades of the 20th century both psychologists and sociologists generally assumed that humans and animals had some native tendencies or instincts. Concerns were even voiced that instinct had not received enough attention in psychology. Disagreements about instincts continued to focus on (the now centuries old debates of) how to conceptualize them. Were they complex reflexes, impulses, or motives to act, or should instinct be a mental faculty (like intuition), separate from reasoning and reflex (Herrnstein, 1972 )?

In America, the instinct concept came under fire following a brief paper in 1919 by Knight Dunlap titled “Are There Any Instincts?” His primary concern dealt with teleological definitions of instincts in which an instinct referred to all the activities involved in obtaining some end-state (e.g., instincts of crying, playing, feeding, reproduction, war, curiosity, or pugnacity). Defined in this way, human instincts were simply labels for human activities, but how these activities were defined was arbitrarily imposed by the researchers. Is feeding, for instance, an instinct, or is it composed of more basic instincts (like chewing and swallowing)? The arbitrariness of classifying human behavior had led to tremendous inconsistencies and confusion among psychologists.

Not all of the challenges to instinct dealt with its teleological usage. Some of the strongest criticisms were voiced by Zing-Yang Kuo throughout the 1920s. Kuo was a Chinese animal psychologist who studied under Charles Tolman at the University of California, Berkeley. Although Kuo’s attacks on instinct changed throughout the 1920s (see Honeycutt, 2011 ), he ultimately argued that all behaviors develop in experience-dependent ways and that appeals to instinct were statements of ignorance about how behaviors develop. Like Dunlap, he warned that instincts were labels with no explanatory value. To illustrate, after returning to China, he showed how the so-called rodent-killing instinct in cats often cited by instinct theorists is not found in kittens that are reared with rodents (Kuo, 1930 ). These kittens, instead, became attached to the rodents, and they resisted attempts to train rodent-killing. Echoing the point made by Guer, Kuo claimed that appeals to instinct served to stunt scientific inquiry into the developmental origins of behavior.

But Kuo did not just challenge the instinct concept. He also argued against labeling behaviors as “learned.” After all, whether an animal “learns” depends on the surrounding environmental conditions, the physiological and developmental status of the animal, and, especially, the developmental (or experiential) history of that animal. Understanding learning also required developmental analysis. Thus Kuo targeted the basic distinction between nature and nurture, and he was not alone in doing so (e.g., see Carmichael, 1925 ), but his call to reject it did not spread to mainstream American psychologists.

By the 1930s, the term instinct had fallen into disrepute in psychology, but experimental psychologists (including behaviorists) remained committed to a separation of native from acquired traits. If anything, the dividing line between native and acquired behaviors became more sharply drawn than before (Logan & Johnston, 2007 ). For some psychologists, instinct was simply rebranded in the less contentious (but still problematic) language of biological drives or motives (Herrnstein, 1972 ). Many other psychologists simply turned to describing native traits as due to “maturation” and/or “heredity” rather than “instinct.”

Fixed Action Patterns

The hereditarian instinct concept received a reboot in Europe in the 1930s with the rise of ethology led by Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen, and others. Just as animals inherit organs that perform specific functions, ethologists believed animals inherit behaviors that evolved to serve adaptive functions as well. Instincts were described as unlearned (inherited), blind, stereotyped, adaptive, fixed action patterns, impervious to change that are initiated (released) by specific stimuli in the environment.

Ethologists in 1930s and 1940s were united under the banner of innateness. They were increasingly critical of the trend by American psychologists (i.e., behaviorists) to focus on studying on how a limited number of domesticated species (e.g., white rat) responded to training in artificial settings (Burkhardt, 2005 ). Ethologists instead began with rich descriptions of animal behavior in more natural environments along with detailed analyses of the stimulus conditions that released the fixed action patterns. To test whether behavioral components were innate, ethologists relied primarily on the deprivation experiment popularized by Spalding in the 19th century . Using these methods (and others), ethologists identified numerous fascinating examples of instinctive behaviors, which captured mainstream attention.

In the early 1950s, shortly after ethology had gained professional status (Burkhardt, 2005 ), a series of challenges regarding instinct and innateness were put forth by a small cadre of North American behavioral scientists (e.g., T. C. Schneirla, Donald Hebb, Frank Beach). Arguably the most influential critique was voiced by comparative psychologist Daniel Lehrman ( 1953 ), who presented a detailed and damning critique of deprivation experiments on empirical and logical grounds. Lehrman explained that deprivation experiments isolate the animal from some but not all experiences. Thus deprivation experiments simply change what an animal experiences rather than eliminating experience altogether, and so they cannot possibly determine whether a behavior is innate (independent of experience). Instead, these experiments show what environmental conditions do not matter in the development of a behavior but do not speak to what conditions do matter .

Lehrman went on to argue that the whole endeavor to identify instinctive or innate behavior was misguided from the start. All behavior, according to Lehrman, develops from a history of interactions between an organism and its environment. If a behavior is found to develop in the absence of certain experiences, the researcher should not stop and label it as innate. Rather, research should continue to identify the conditions under which the behavior comes about. In line with Kuo, Lehrman repeated the warning that to label something as instinctive (or inherited or maturational) is a statement of ignorance about how that behavior develops and does more to stunt than promote research.

Lehrman’s critique created significant turmoil among ethologists. As a result, ethologists took greater care in using the term innate , and it led to new attempts to synthesize or re-envision learning and instinct .

Some of these attempts focused on an increased role for learning and experience in the ontogeny of species-typical behaviors. These efforts spawned significant cross-talk between ethologists and comparative psychologists to more thoroughly investigate behavioral development under natural conditions. Traditional appeals to instinct and learning (as classical and operant conditioning) were both found to be inadequate for explaining animal behavior. In their stead, these researchers focused more closely on how anatomical, physiological, experiential, and environmental conditions influenced the development of species-typical behaviors.

Tinbergen ( 1963 ) was among those ethologists who urged for greater developmental analysis of species-typical behaviors, and he included it as one of his four problems in the biological study of organisms, along with causation (mechanism), survival value (function), and evolution. Of these four problems, Tinbergen believed ethologists were especially well suited to study survival value, which he felt had been seriously neglected (Burkhardt, 2005 ).

The questions of survival value coupled with models of population genetics would gain significant momentum in the 1960s and 1970s in England and the United States with the rise of behavioral ecology and sociobiology (Griffiths, 2008 ). But because these new fields seemed to promote some kind of genetic determinism in behavioral development, they were met with much resistance and reignited a new round of nature–nurture debates in the 1970s (see Segerstrale, 2000 ).

However, not all ethologists abandoned the instinct concept. Lorenz, in particular, continued to defend the division between nature and nurture. Rather than speaking of native and acquired behaviors, Lorenz later spoke of two different sources of information for behavior (innate/genetic vs. acquired/environmental), which was more a subtle shift in language than it was an actual change in theory, as Lehrman later pointed out.

Some ethologists followed Lorenz’s lead and continued to maintain more of a traditional delineation between instinct and learning. Their alternative synthesis viewed learning as instinctive (Gould & Marler, 1987 ). They proposed that animals have evolved domain-specific “instincts to learn” that result from the its genetic predispositions and innate knowledge. To support the idea of instincts for learning, ethologists pointed to traditional ethological findings (on imprinting and birdsong learning), but they also drew from the growing body of work in experimental psychology that seemed to indicate certain types of biological effects on learning.

Biological Constraints and Preparedness

While ethology was spreading in Europe in the 1930s–1950s, behaviorism reigned in the United States. Just as ethologists were confronted with including a greater role of nurture in their studies, behaviorists were challenged to consider a greater role of nature.

Behaviorists assumed there to be some behavioral innateness (e.g., fixed action patterns, unconditioned reflexes, primary reinforcers and drives). But because behaviorists focused on learning, they tended to study animals in laboratory settings using biologically (or ecologically) irrelevant stimuli and responses to minimize any role of instinct (Johnston, 1981 ). It was widely assumed that these studies would identify general laws of learning that applied to all species regardless of the specific cues, reinforcers, and responses involved.

Challenges to the generality assumption began to accumulate in the 1960s. Some studies pointed to failures that occurred during conditioning procedures. Breland and Breland ( 1961 ), for example, reported that some complex behaviors formed through operant conditioning would eventually become “displaced” by conditioned fixed action patterns in a phenomenon they called “instinctive drift.” Studies of taste-aversion learning (e.g., Garcia & Koelling, 1966 ) also reported the failure of rats to associate certain events (e.g., flavors with shock or audiovisual stimuli with toxicosis).

Other studies were pointing to enhanced learning. In particular, it was found that rats could form strong conditioned taste aversions after only a single pairing between a novel flavor and illness. (This rapid “one trial learning” was a major focus in the research from Niko Tinbergen’s ethological laboratory.) Animals, it seemed, had evolved innate predispositions to form (or not form) certain associations.

In humans, studies of biological constraints on learning were mostly limited to fear conditioning. Evidence indicated that humans conditioned differently to (biologically or evolutionarily) fear-relevant stimuli like pictures of spiders or snakes than to fear-irrelevant stimuli like pictures of mushrooms or flowers (Ohman, Fredrikson, Hugdahl, & Rimmö, 1976 ).

These findings and others were treated as a major problem in learning theory and led to calls for a new framework to study learning from a more biologically oriented perspective that integrated the evolutionary history and innate predispositions of the species. These predispositions were described as biological “constraints” on, “preparedness,” or “adaptive specializations” for learning, all of which were consistent with the “instincts to learn” framework proposed by ethologists.

By the 1980s it was becoming clear that the biological preparedness/constraint view of learning suffered some limitations. For example, what constraints count as “biological” was questioned. It was well established that there were general constraints on learning associated with the intensity, novelty, and timing of stimuli. But, arbitrarily it seemed, these constraints were not classified as “biological” (Domjan & Galef, 1983 ). Other studies of “biological constraints” found that 5- and 10-day old rats readily learned to associated a flavor with shock (unlike in adults), but (like in adults) such conditioning was not found in 15-day-old rats (Hoffman & Spear, 1988 ). In other words, the constraint on learning was not present in young rats but developed later in life, suggesting a possible role of experience in bringing about the adult-like pattern.

Attempts to synthesize these alternatives led to numerous calls for more ecologically oriented approaches to learning not unlike the synthesis between ethology and comparative psychology in the 1960s. All ecological approaches to learning proposed that learning should be studied in the context of “natural” (recurrent and species-typical) problems that animals encounter (and have evolved to encounter) using ecologically meaningful stimuli and responses. Some argued (e.g., Johnston, 1981 ) that studies of learning should take place within the larger context of studying how animals develop and adapt to their surround. Others (Domjan & Galef, 1983 ) pointed to more of a comparative approach in studying animal learning in line with behavioral ecology that takes into account how learning can be influenced by the possible selective pressures faced by each species. Still, how to synthesize biological constraints (and evolutionary explanations) on learning with a general process approach remains a source of tension in experimental psychology.

Nativism in Mind: Innate Ideas

Nativism and empiricism in philosophy.

In the philosophy of mind, nature–nurture debates are voiced as debates between nativists and empiricists. Nativism is a philosophical position that holds that our minds have some innate (a priori to experience) knowledge, concepts, or structure at the very start of life. Empiricism, in contrast, holds that all knowledge derives from our experiences in the world.

However, rarely (if ever) were there pure nativist or empiricist positions, but the positions bespeak a persistent tension. Empiricists tended to eschew innateness and promote a view of the mental content that is built by general mechanisms (e.g., association) operating on sensory experiences, whereas nativists tend to promote a view of mind that contains domain-specific, innate processes and/or content (Simpson, Carruthers, Laurence, & Stich, 2005 ). Although the tension about mental innateness would loosen as empiricism gained prominence in philosophy and science, the strain never went away and would intensify again in the 20th century .

Nativism in 20th Century Psychology: The Case of Language Development

In the first half of the 20th century , psychologists generally assumed that knowledge was gained or constructed through experience with the world. This is not to say that psychologists did not assume some innate knowledge. The Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget, for example, believed infants enter the world with some innate knowledge structures, particularly as they relate to early sensory and motor functioning (see Piaget, 1971 ). But the bulk of his work dealt with the construction of conceptual knowledge as children adapt to their worlds. By and large, there were no research programs in psychology that sought to identify innate factors in human knowledge and cognition until the 1950s (Samet & Zaitchick, 2017 )

An interest in psychological nativism was instigated in large part by Noam Chomsky’s ( 1959 ) critique of B. F. Skinner’s book on language. To explain the complexity of language, he argued, we must view language as the knowledge and application of grammatical rules. He went on to claim that the acquisition of these rules could not be attributed to any general-purpose, learning process (e.g., reinforcement). Indeed, language acquisition occurs despite very little explicit instruction. Moreover, language is special in terms of its complexity, ease, and speed of acquisition by children and in its uniqueness to humans. Instead, he claimed that our minds innately contain some language-specific knowledge that kick-starts and promotes language acquisition. He later claimed this knowledge can be considered some sort of specialized mental faculty or module he called the “language acquisition device” (Chomsky, 1965 ) or what Pinker ( 1995 ) later called the “language instinct.”

To support the idea of linguistic nativism, Chomsky and others appealed to the poverty of the stimulus argument. In short, this argument holds that our experiences in life are insufficient to explain our knowledge and abilities. When applied to language acquisition, this argument holds children’s knowledge of language (grammar) goes far beyond the limited, and sometimes broken, linguistic events that children directly encounter. Additional evidence for nativism drew upon the apparent maturational quality of language development. Despite wide variations in languages and child-rearing practices across the world, the major milestones in language development appear to unfold in children in a universal sequence and timeline, and some evidence suggested a critical period for language acquisition.

Nativist claims about language sparked intense rebuttals by empiricist-minded psychologists and philosophers. Some of these retorts tackled the logical limitations of the poverty of stimulus argument. Others pointed to the importance of learning and social interaction in driving language development, and still others showed that language (grammatical knowledge) may not be uniquely human (see Tomasello, 1995 , for review). Nativists, in due course, provided their own rebuttals to these challenges, creating a persistent tension in psychology.

Extending Nativism Beyond Language Development

In the decades that followed, nativist arguments expanded beyond language to include cognitive domains that dealt with understanding the physical, psychological, and social worlds. Developmental psychologists were finding that infants appeared to be much more knowledgeable in cognitive tasks (e.g., on understanding object permanence) and skillful (e.g., in imitating others) than had previously been thought, and at much younger ages. Infants also showed a variety of perceptual biases (e.g., preference for face-like stimuli over equally complex non-face-like stimuli) from very early on. Following the standard poverty of the stimulus argument, these findings were taken as evidence that infants enter the world with some sort of primitive, innate, representational knowledge (or domain-specific neural mechanisms) that constrains and promotes subsequent cognitive development. The nature of this knowledge (e.g., as theories or as core knowledge), however, continues to be debated (Spelke & Kinzler, 2007 ).

Empiricist-minded developmental psychologists responded by demonstrating shortcomings in the research used to support nativist claims. For example, in studies of infants’ object knowledge, the behavior of infants (looking time) in nativist studies could be attributed to relatively simple perceptual processes rather than to the infants’ conceptual knowledge (Heyes, 2014 ). Likewise, reports of human neonatal imitation not only suffered from failures to replicate but could be explained by simpler mechanisms (e.g., arousal) than true imitation (Jones, 2017 ). Finally, studies of perceptual preferences found in young infants, like newborn preferences for face-like stimuli, may not be specific preferences for faces per se but instead may reflect simpler, nonspecific perceptual biases (e.g., preferences for top-heavy visual configurations and congruency; Simion & Di Giorgio, 2015 ).

Other arguments from empiricist-minded developmental psychologists focused on the larger rationale for inferring innateness. Even if it is conceded that young infants, like two-month-olds, or even two-day-olds, display signs of conceptual knowledge, there is no good evidence to presume the knowledge is innate. Their knowledgeable behaviors could still be seen as resulting from their experiences (many of which may be nonobvious to researchers) leading up to the age of testing (Spencer et al., 2009 ).

In the 21st century , there is still no consensus about the reality, extensiveness, or quality of mental innateness. If there is innate knowledge, can experience add new knowledge or only expand the initial knowledge? Can the doctrine of innate knowledge be falsified? There are no agreed-upon answers to these questions. The recurring arguments for and against mental nativism continue to confound developmental psychologists.

Maturation Theory

The emergence of bodily changes and basic behavioral skills sometimes occurs in an invariant, predictable, and orderly sequence in a species despite wide variations in rearing conditions. These observations are often attributed to the operation of an inferred, internally driven, maturational process. Indeed, 21st-century textbooks in psychology commonly associate “nature” with “maturation,” where maturation is defined as the predetermined unfolding of the individual from a biological or genetic blueprint. Environmental factors play a necessary, but fundamentally supportive, role in the unfolding of form.

Preformationism Versus Epigenesis in the Generation of Form

The embryological generation of bodily form was debated in antiquity but received renewed interest in the 17th century . Following Aristotle, some claimed that embryological development involved “epigenesis,” defined as the successive emergence of form from a formless state. Epigenesists, however, struggled to explain what orchestrated development without appealing to Aristotelean souls. Attempts were made to invoke to natural causes like physical and chemical forces, but, despite their best efforts, the epigenesists were forced to appeal to the power of presumed, quasi-mystical, vitalistic forces (entelechies) that directed development.

The primary alternative to epigenesis was “preformationism,” which held that development involved the growth of pre-existing form from a tiny miniature (homunculus) that formed immediately after conception or was preformed in the egg or sperm. Although it seems reasonable to guess that the invention and widespread use of the microscope would immediately lay to rest any claim of homuncular preformationism, this was not the case. To the contrary, some early microscopists claimed to see signs of miniature organisms in sperm or eggs, and failures to find these miniatures were explained away (e.g., the homunculus was transparent or deflated to the point of being unrecognizable). But as microscopes improved and more detailed observations of embryological development were reported in the late 18th and 19th centuries , homuncular preformationism was finally refuted.

From Preformationism to Predeterminism

Despite the rejection of homuncular preformationism, preformationist appeals can be found throughout the 19th century . One of the most popular preformationist theories of embryological development was put forth by Ernst Haeckel in the 1860s (Gottlieb, 1992 ). He promoted a recapitulation theory (not original to Haeckel) that maintained that the development of the individual embryo passes through all the ancestral forms of its species. Ontogeny was thought to be a rapid, condensed replay of phylogeny. Indeed, for Haeckel, phylogenesis was the mechanical cause of ontogenesis. The phylogenetic evolution of the species created the maturational unfolding of embryonic form. Exactly how this unfolding takes place was less important than its phylogenetic basis.

Most embryologists were not impressed with recapitulation theory. After all, the great embryologist Karl Ernst von Baer ( 1792–1876 ) had refuted strict recapitulation decades earlier. Instead, there was greater interest in how best to explain the mechanical causes of development ushering in a new “experimental embryology.” Many experimental embryologists followed the earlier epigenesists by discussing vitalistic forces operating on the unorganized zygote. But it soon became clear that the zygote was structured, and many people believed the zygote contained special (unknown) substances that specified development. Epigenesis-minded experimental embryologists soon warned that the old homuncular preformationism was being transformed into a new predetermined preformationism.

As a result, the debates between preformationism and epigenesis were reignited in experimental embryology, but the focus of these debates shifted to the various roles of nature and nurture during development. More specifically, research focused on the extent to which early cellular differentiation was predetermined by factors internal to cells like chromosomes or cytoplasm (preformationism, nature) or involved factors (e.g., location) outside of the cell (epigenesis, nurture). The former emphasized reductionism and developmental programming, whereas the latter emphasized some sort of holistic, regulatory system responsive to internal and external conditions. The tension between viewing development as predetermined or “epigenetic” persists into the 21st century .

Preformationism gained momentum in the 20th century following the rediscovery of Mendel’s studies of heredity and the rapid rise of genetics, but not because of embryological research on the causes of early differentiation. Instead, preformationism prevailed because it seemed embryological research on the mechanisms of development could be ignored in studies of hereditary patterns.

The initial split between heredity and development can be found in Galton’s speculations but is usually attributed to Weismann’s germ-plasm theory. Weismann’s barrier seemed to posit that the germinal determinants present at conception would be the same, unaltered determinants transmitted during reproduction. This position, later dubbed as “Weismannism,” was ironically not one promoted by Weismann. Like nearly all theorists in the 19th century , he viewed the origins of variation and heredity as developmental phenomena (Amundson, 2005 ), and he claimed that the germ-plasm could be directly modified in the lifetime of the organism by environmental (e.g., climactic and dietary) conditions (Winther, 2001 ). Still, Weismann’s theory treated development as a largely predetermined affair driven by inherited, germinal determinants buffered from most developmental events. As such, it helped set the stage for a more formal divorce between heredity and development with the rise of Mendelism in the early 20th century .

Mendel’s theory of heredity was exceptional in how it split development from heredity (Amundson, 2005 ). More so than in Weismann’s theory, Mendel’s theory assumed that the internal factors that determine form and are transmitted across generations remain unaltered in the lifetime of the organism. To predict offspring outcomes, one need only know the combination of internal factors present at conception and their dominance relations. Exactly how these internal factors determined form could be disregarded. The laws of hereditary transmission of the internal factors (e.g., segregation) did not depend on the development or experiences of the organism or the experiences the organism’s ancestors. Thus the experimental study of heredity (i.e., breeding) could proceed without reference to ancestral records or embryological concerns (Amundson, 2000 ). By the mid-1920s, the Mendelian factors (now commonly called “genes”) were found to be structurally arranged on chromosomes, and the empirical study of heredity (transmission genetics) was officially divorced from studies of development.

The splitting of heredity and development found in Mendel’s and Weismann’s work met with much resistance. Neo-Lamarckian scientists, especially in the United States (Cook, 1999 ) and France (Loison, 2011 ), sought unsuccessfully to experimentally demonstrate the inheritance of acquired characteristics into the 1930s.

In Germany during the 1920s and 1930s, resistance to Mendelism dealt with the chromosomal view of Mendelian heredity championed by American geneticists who were narrowly focused on studying transmission genetics at the expense of developmental genetics. German biologists, in contrast, were much more interested in the broader roles of genes in development (and evolution). In trying to understand how genes influence development, particularly of traits of interest to embryologists, they found the Mendelian theory to be lacking. In the decades between the world wars, German biologists proposed various expanded views of heredity that included some form of cytoplasmic inheritance (Harwood, 1985 ).

Embryologists resisted the preformationist view of development throughout the early to mid- 20th century , often maintaining no divide between heredity and development, but their objections were overshadowed by genetics and its eventual synthesis with evolutionary theory. Consequently, embryological development was treated by geneticists and evolutionary biologists as a predetermined, maturational process driven by internal, “genetic” factors buffered from environmental influence.

Maturation Theory in Psychology

Maturation theory was applied to behavioral development in the 19th century in the application of Haeckel’s recapitulation theory. Some psychologists believed that the mental growth of children recapitulated the history of the human race (from savage brute to civilized human). With this in mind, many people began to more carefully document child development. Recapitulationist notions were found in the ideas of many notable psychologists in the 19th and early 20th centuries (e.g., G. S. Hall), and, as such, the concept played an important role in the origins of developmental psychology (Koops, 2015 ). But for present purposes what is most important is that children’s mental and behavioral development was thought to unfold via a predetermined, maturational process.

With the growth of genetics, maturational explanations were increasingly invoked to explain nearly all native and hereditary traits. As the instinct concept lost value in the 1920s, maturation theory gained currency, although the shift was largely a matter of semantics. For many psychologists, the language simply shifted from “instinct versus learning” to “maturation versus practice/experience” (Witty & Lehman, 1933 ).

Initial lines of evidence for maturational explanations of behavior were often the same as those that justified instinct and native traits, but new embryological research presented in the mid-1920s converged to show support for strict maturational explanations of behavioral development. In these experiments (see Wyman, 2005 , for review), spanning multiple laboratories, amphibians (salamanders and frogs) were exposed to drugs that acted as anesthetics and/or paralytics throughout the early stages of development, thus reducing sensory experience and/or motor practice. Despite the reduced sensory experiences and being unable to move, these animals showed no delays in the onset of motor development once the drugs wore off.

This maturational account of motor development in amphibians fit well with contemporaneous studies of motor development in humans. The orderly, invariant, and predictable (age-related) sequential appearance of motor skills documented in infants reared under different circumstances (in different countries and across different decades) was seen as strong evidence for a maturational account. Additional evidence was reported by Arnold Gessell and Myrtle McGraw, who independently presented evidence in the 1920s to show that the pace and sequence of motor development in infancy were not altered by special training experiences. Although the theories of these maturation theorists were more sophisticated when applied to cognitive development, their work promoted a view in which development was primarily driven by neural maturation rather than experience (Thelen, 2000 ).

Critical and Sensitive Periods

As the maturation account of behavioral development gained ground, it became clear that environmental input played a more informative role than had previously been thought. Environmental factors were found to either disrupt or induce maturational changes at specific times during development. Embryological research suggested that there were well-delineated time periods of heightened sensitivity in which specific experimental manipulations (e.g., tissue transplantations) could induce irreversible developmental changes, but the same manipulation would have no effect outside of that critical period.

In the 1950s–1960s a flurry of critical period effects were reported in birds and mammals across a range of behaviors including imprinting, attachment, socialization, sensory development, bird song learning, and language development (Michel & Tyler, 2005 ). Even though these findings highlighted an important role of experience in behavioral development, evidence of critical periods was usually taken to imply some rigid form of biological determinism (Oyama, 1979 ).

As additional studies were conducted on critical period effects, it became clear that many of the reported effects were more gradual, variable, experience-dependent, and not necessarily as reversible as was previously assumed. In light of these reports, there was a push in the 1970s (e.g., Connolly, 1972 ) to substitute “sensitive period” for “critical period” to avoid the predeterminist connotations associated with the latter and to better appreciate that these periods simply describe (not explain) certain temporal aspects of behavioral development. As a result, a consensus emerged that behaviors should not be attributed to “time” or “age” but to the developmental history and status of the animal under investigation (Michel & Tyler, 2005 ).

Heredity and Genetics

In the decades leading up to and following the start of the 20th century , it was widely assumed that many psychological traits (not just instincts) were inherited or “due to heredity,” although the underlying mechanisms were unknown. Differences in intelligence, personality, and criminality within and between races and sexes were largely assumed to be hereditary and unalterable by environmental intervention (Gould, 1996 ). The evidence to support these views in humans was often derived from statistical analyses of how various traits tended to run in families. But all too frequently, explanations of data were clouded by pre-existing, hereditarian assumptions.

Human Behavioral Genetics

The statistical study of inherited human (physical, mental, and behavioral) differences was pioneered by Galton ( 1869 ). Although at times Galton wrote that nature and nurture were so intertwined as to be inseparable, he nevertheless devised statistical methods to separate their effects. In the 1860s and 1870s, Galton published reports purporting to show how similarities in intellect (genius, talent, character, and eminence) in European lineages appeared to be a function of degree of relatedness. Galton considered, but dismissed, environmental explanations of his data, leading him to confirm his belief that nature was stronger than nurture.

Galton also introduced the use of twin studies to tease apart the relative impact of nature versus nurture, but the twin method he used was markedly different from later twin studies used by behavioral geneticists. Galton tracked the life history of twins who were judged to be very similar or very dissimilar near birth (i.e., by nature) to test the power of various postnatal environments (nurture) that might make them more or less similar over time. Here again, Galton concluded that nature overpowers nurture.

Similar pedigree (e.g., the Kallikak study; see Zenderland, 2001 ) and twin studies appeared in the early 1900s, but the first adoption study and the modern twin method (which compares monozygotic to dizygotic twin pairs) did not appear until the 1920s (Rende, Plomin, & Vandenberg, 1990 ). These reports led to a flurry of additional work on the inheritance of mental and behavioral traits over the next decade.

Behavioral genetic research peaked in the 1930s but rapidly lost prominence due in large part to its association with the eugenics movement (spearheaded by Galton) but also because of the rise and eventual hegemony of behaviorism and the social sciences in the United States. Behavioral genetics resurged in the 1960s with the rising tide of nativism in psychology, and returned to its 1930s-level prominence in the 1970s (McGue & Gottesman, 2015 ).

The resurgence brought with a new statistical tool: the heritability statistic. The origins of heritability trace back to early attempts to synthesize Mendelian genetics with biometrics by Ronald Fisher and others. This synthesis ushered in a new field of quantitative genetics and it marked a new way of thinking about nature and nurture. The shift was to no longer think about nature and nurture as causes of traits in individuals but as causes of variation in traits between populations of individuals. Eventually, heritability came to refer to the amount of variance in a population sample that could be statistically attributed to genetic variation in that sample. Kinship (especially twin) studies provided seemingly straightforward ways of partitioning variation in population trait attributes into genetic versus environmental sources.

Into the early 21st century , hundreds of behavioral genetic studies of personality, intelligence, and psychopathology were reported. With rare exceptions, these studies converge to argue for a pervasive influence of genetics on human psychological variation.

These studies have also fueled much controversy. Citing in part behavioral genetic research, the educational psychologist Arthur Jensen ( 1969 ) claimed that the differences in intelligence and educational achievement in the United States between black and white students appeared to have a strong genetic basis. He went on to assume that because these racial differences appeared hereditary, they were likely impervious to environmental (educational) intervention. His article fanned the embers of past eugenics practices and ignited fiery responses (e.g., Hirsch, 1975 ). The ensuing debates not only spawned a rethinking of intelligence and how to measure it, but they ushered in a more critical look at the methods and assumptions of behavioral genetics.

Challenges to Behavioral Genetics

Many of the early critiques of behavioral genetics centered on interpreting the heritability statistic commonly calculated in kinship (family, twin, and adoption) studies. Perhaps more so than any other statistic, heritability has been persistently misinterpreted by academics and laypersons alike (Lerner, 2002 ). Contrary to popular belief, heritability tells us nothing about the relative impact of genetic and environmental factors on the development of traits in individuals. It deals with accounting for trait variation between people, not the causes of traits within people. As a result, a high heritability does not indicate anything about the fixity of traits or their imperviousness to environmental influence (contra Jensen), and a low heritability does not indicate an absence of genetic influence on trait development. Worse still, heritability does not even indicate anything about the role of genetics in generating the differences between people.

Other challenges to heritability focused not on its interpretation but on its underlying computational assumptions. Most notably, heritability analyses assume that genetic and environmental contributions to trait differences are independent and additive. The interaction between genetic and environmental factors were dismissed a priori in these analyses. Studies of development, however, show that no factor (genes, hormones, parenting, schooling) operates independently, making it impossible to quantify how much of a given trait in a person is due to any causal factor. Thus heritability analyses are bound to be misleading because they are based on biologically implausible and logically indefensible assumptions about development (Gottlieb, 2003 ).

Aside from heritability, kinship studies have been criticized for not being able to disentangle genetic and environmental effects on variation. It had long been known that that in family (pedigree) studies, environmental and genetic factors are confounded. Twin and adoption studies seemed to provide unique opportunities to statistically disentangle these effects, but these studies are also deeply problematic in assumptions and methodology. There are numerous plausible environmental reasons for why monozygotic twin pairs could resemble each other more than dizygotic twin pairs or why adoptive children might more closely resemble their biological than their adoptive parents (Joseph & Ratner, 2013 ).

A more recent challenge to behavioral genetics came from an unlikely source. Advances in genomic scanning in the 21st century made it possible in a single study to correlate thousands of genetic polymorphisms with variation in the psychological profiles (e.g., intelligence, memory, temperament, psychopathology) of thousands of people. These “genome-wide association” studies seemed to have the power and precision to finally identify genetic contributions to heritability at the level of single nucleotides. Yet, these studies consistently found only very small effects.

The failure to find large effects came to be known as the “missing heritability” problem (Maher, 2008 ). To account for the missing heritability, some behavioral geneticists and molecular biologists asserted that important genetic polymorphisms remain unknown, they may be too rare to detect, and/or that current studies are just not well equipped to handle gene–gene interactions. These studies were also insensitive to epigenetic profiles (see the section on Behavioral Epigenetics), which deal with differences in gene expression. Even when people share genes, they may differ in whether those genes get expressed in their lifetimes.

But genome-wide association studies faced an even more problematic issue: Many of these studies failed to replicate (Lickliter & Honeycutt, 2015 ). For those who viewed heritability analyses as biologically implausible, the small effect sizes and failures to replicate in genome-wide association studies were not that surprising. The search for independent genetic effects was bound to fail, because genes simply do not operate independently during development.

Behavioral Epigenetics

Epigenetics was a term coined in the 1940s by the developmental biologist Conrad Waddington to refer to a new field of study that would examine how genetic factors interact with local environmental conditions to bring about the embryological development of traits. By the end of the 20th century , epigenetics came to refer to the study of how nongenetic, molecular mechanisms physically regulate gene expression patterns in cells and across cell lineages. The most-studied mechanisms involve organic compounds (e.g., methyl-groups) that physically bind to DNA or the surrounding proteins that package DNA. The addition or removal of these compounds can activate or silence gene transcription. Different cell types have different, stable epigenetic markings, and these markings are recreated during cell division so that cells so marked give rise to similar types of cells. Epigenetic changes were known to occur during developmental periods of cellular differentiation (e.g., during embryogenesis), but not until 2004 was it discovered that these changes can occur at other periods in the life, including after birth (Roth, 2013 )

Of interest to psychologists were reports that different behavioral and physiological profiles (e.g., stress reactivity) of animals were associated with different epigenetic patterns in the nervous system (Moore, 2015 ). Furthermore, these different epigenetic patterns could be established or modified by environmental factors (e.g., caregiving practices, training regimes, or environmental enrichment), and, under certain conditions, they remain stable over long periods of time (from infancy to adulthood).

Because epigenetic research investigates the physical interface between genes and environment, it represents an exciting advance in understanding the interaction of nature and nurture. Despite some warnings that the excitement over behavioral epigenetic research may be premature (e.g., Miller, 2010 ), for many psychologists, epigenetics underscores how development involves both nature and nurture.

For others, what is equally exciting is the additional evidence epigenetics provides to show that the genome is an interactive and regulated system. Once viewed as the static director of development buffered from environment influence, the genome is better described as a developing resource of the cell (Moore, 2015 ). More broadly, epigenetics also points to how development is not a genetically (or biologically) predetermined affair. Instead, epigenetics provides additional evidence that development is a probabilistic process, contingent upon factors internal and external to the organism. In this sense, epigenetics is well positioned to help dissolve the nature–nurture dichotomy.

Beyond Nature–Nurture

In the final decades of the 20th century , a position was articulated to move beyond the dichotomous nature–nurture framework. The middle-ground position on nature–nurture did not seem up to the task of explaining the origins of form, and it brought about more confusion than clarity. The back-and-forth (or balanced) pendulum between nature- and nurture-based positions throughout history had only gone in circles. Moving forward would require moving beyond such dichotomous thinking (Johnston, 1987 ).

The anti-dichotomy position, referred to as the Developmentalist tradition, was expressed in a variety of systems-based, metatheoretical approaches to studying development, all of which extended the arguments against nature–nurture expressed earlier by Kuo and Lehrman. The central problem with all nativist claims according to Developmentalists is a reliance on preformationism (or predeterminism).

The problem with preformationism, they argue, besides issues of evidence, is that it is an anti-developmental mindset. It presumes the existence of the very thing(s) one wishes to explain and, consequently, discourages developmental analyses. To claim that some knowledge is innate effectively shuts down research on the developmental origins of that knowledge. After all, why look for the origins of conceptual knowledge if that knowledge is there all along? Or why search for any experiential contributions to innate behaviors if those behaviors by definition develop independently of experience? In the words of Developmentalists Thelen and Adolph ( 1992 ), nativism “leads to a static science, with no principles for understanding change or for confronting the ultimate challenge of development, the source of new forms in structure and function” (p. 378).

A commitment to maturational theory is likely one of the reasons why studies of motor development remained relatively dormant for decades following its heyday in the 1930–1940s (Thelen, 2000 ). Likewise, a commitment to maturational theory also helps explain the delay in neuroscience to examine how the brain physically changes in response to environmental conditions, a line of inquiry that only began in the 1960s.

In addition to the theoretical pitfalls of nativism, Developmentalists point to numerous studies that show how some seemingly native behaviors and innate constraints on learning are driven by the experiences of animals. For example, the comparative psychologist Gilbert Gottlieb ( 1971 ) showed that newly hatched ducklings display a naïve preference for a duck maternal call over a (similarly novel) chicken maternal call (Gottlieb, 1971 ), even when duck embryos were repeatedly exposed to the chicken call prior to hatching (Gottlieb, 1991 ). It would be easy to conclude that ducklings have an innate preference to approach their own species call and that they are biologically constrained (contraprepared) in learning a chicken call. However, Gottlieb found that the naïve preference for the duck call stemmed from exposure to the duck embryos’ own (or other) vocalizations in the days before hatching (Gottlieb, 1971 ). Exposure to these vocalizations not only made duck maternal calls more attractive, but it hindered the establishment of a preference for heterospecific calls. When duck embryos were reared in the absence of the embryonic vocalizations (by devocalizing embryos in ovo ) and exposed instead to chicken maternal calls, the newly hatched ducklings preferred chicken over duck calls (Gottlieb, 1991 ). These studies clearly showed how seemingly innate, biologically based preferences and constraints on learning derived from prenatal sensory experiences.

For Developmentalists, findings like these suggest that nativist explanations of any given behavior are statements of ignorance about how that behavior actually develops. As Kuo and Lehrman made clear, nativist terms are labels, not explanations. Although such appeals are couched in respectable, scientific language (e.g., “X is due to maturation, genes, or heredity”), they argue it would be more accurate simply to say that “We don’t know what causes X” or that “X is not due to A, B, or C.” Indeed, for Developmentalists, the more we unpack the complex dynamics about how traits develop, the less likely we are to use labels like nature or nurture (Blumberg, 2005 ).

On the other hand, Developmentalists recognize that labeling a behavior as “learned” also falls short as an explanatory construct. The empiricist position that knowledge or behavior is learned does not adequately take into account that what is learned and how easily something is learned depends on (a) the physiological and developmental status of the person, (b) the nature of the surrounding physical and social context in which learning takes place, and the (c) experiential history of the person. The empiricist tendency to say “X is learned or acquired through experience” can also short-circuit developmental analyses in the same way as nativist claims.

Still, Developmentalists appreciate that classifying behaviors can be useful. For example, the development of some behaviors may be more robust, reliably emerging across a range of environments and/or remaining relatively resistant to change, whereas others are more context-specific and malleable. Some preferences for stimuli require direct experience with those stimuli. Other preferences require less obvious (indirect) types of experiences. Likewise, it can still be useful to describe some behaviors in the ways shown in Table 1 . Developmentalists simply urge psychologists to resist the temptation to treat these behavioral classifications as implying different kinds of explanations (Johnston, 1987 ).

Rather than treat nature and nurture as separate developmental sources of causation (see Figure 1 ), Developmentalists argue that a more productive way of thinking about nature–nurture is to reframe the division as that between product and process (Lickliter & Honeycutt, 2015 ). The phenotype or structure (one’s genetic, epigenetic, anatomical, physiological, behavioral, and mental profile) of an individual at any given time can be considered one’s “nature.” “Nurture” then refers to the set of processes that generate, maintain, and transform one’s nature (Figure 2 ). These processes involve the dynamic interplay between phenotypes and environments.

Figure 2. The developmentalist alternative view of nature–nurture as product–process. Developmentalists view nature and nurture not as separate sources of causation in development (see Figure 1 ) but as a distinction between process (nurture) and product (nature).

It is hard to imagine any set of findings that will end debates about the roles of nature and nurture in human development. Why? First, more so than other assumptions about human development, the nature–nurture dichotomy is deeply entrenched in popular culture and the life sciences. Second, throughout history, the differing positions on nature and nurture were often driven by other ideological, philosophical, and sociopolitical commitments. Thus the essential source of tension in debates about nature–nurture is not as much about research agendas or evidence as about basic differences in metatheoretical positions (epistemological and ontological assumptions) about human behavior and development (Overton, 2006 ).

• Amundson, R. (2000). Embryology and evolution 1920–1960: Worlds apart? History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences , 22 , 335–352.
• Amundson, R. (2005). The changing role of the embryo in evolutionary thought: Roots of evo-devo . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
• Blumberg, M. S. (2005). Basic instinct: The genesis of novel behavior . New York, NY: Thunder’s Mouth Press.
• Breland, K. , & Breland, M. (1961). The misbehavior of organisms. American Psychologist , 16 , 681–684.
• Burkhardt, R. (2005). Patterns of behavior: Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and the founding of ethology . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Burnham, J. C. (1972). Instinct theory and the German reaction to Weismannism. Journal of the History of Biology , 5 , 321–326.
• Carmichael, L. (1925). Heredity and environment: Are they antithetical? The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 20 (3), 245–260.
• Chomsky, N. (1959). A review of B. F. Skinner’s verbal behavior. Language , 35 , 26–57.
• Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Connolly, K. (1972). Learning and the concept of critical periods in infancy. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology , 14 (6), 705–714.
• Cook, G. M. (1999). Neo-Lamarckian experimentalism in America: Origins and consequences. Quarterly Review of Biology , 74 , 417–437.
• Cowan, R. S. C. (2016). Commentary: Before Weismann and germplasm there was Galton and eugenics: The biological and political meaning of the inheritance of acquired characteristics in the late 19th century . International Journal of Epidemiology , 45 , 15–20.
• Cravens, H. , & Burnham, J. C. (1971). Psychology and evolutionary naturalism in American thought, 1890–1940. American Quarterly , 23 , 635–657.
• Diamond, S. (1971). Gestation of the instinct concept. History of the Behavioral Sciences , 7 (4), 323–336.
• Domjan, M. , & Galef, B. G. (1983). Biological constraints on instrumental and classical conditioning: Retrospect and prospect. Animal Learning & Behavior , 11 (2), 151–161.
• Dunlap, K. (1919). Are there any instincts? Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 14 , 307–311.
• Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius . London, U.K.: Macmillan.
• Garcia, J. , & Koelling, R. A. (1966). Relation of cue to consequence in avoidance learning. Psychonomics , 4 (1), 123–124.
• Gottlieb, G. (1971). Development of species identification in birds . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Gottlieb, G. (1991). Experiential canalization of behavioral development: Results. Developmental Psychology , 27 (1), 35–39.
• Gottlieb, G. (1992). Individual development and evolution: The genesis of novel behavior . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Gottlieb, G. (2003). On making behavioral genetics truly developmental. Human Development , 46 , 337–355.
• Gould, J. L. , & Marler, P. (1987). Learning by instinct. Scientific American , 256 (1), 74–85.
• Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Norton.
• Gray, P. H. (1967). Spalding and his influence on research in developmental behavior. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences , 3 , 168–179.
• Griffiths, P. E. (2008). Ethology, sociobiology, and evolutionary psychology. In S. Sarkar & A. Plutnsky (Eds.), A companion to the philosophy of biology (pp. 393–414). New York, NY: Blackwell.
• Harwood, J. (1985). Geneticists and the evolutionary synthesis in interwar Germany. Annals of Science , 42 , 279–301.
• Herrnstein, R. J. (1972). Nature as nurture: Behaviorism and the instinct doctrine. Behaviorism , 1 (1), 23–52.
• Heyes, C. (2014). False belief in infancy: A fresh look. Developmental Science , 17 (5), 647–659.
• Hirsch, J. (1975). Jensenism: The bankruptcy of “science” without scholarship. Educational Theory , 25 , 3–27.
• Hoffman, H. , & Spear, N. E. (1988). Ontogenetic differences in conditioning of an aversion to a gustatory CS with a peripheral US. Behavioral and Neural Biology , 50 , 16–23.
• Honeycutt, H. (2011). The “enduring mission” of Zing-Yang Kuo to eliminate the nature–nurture dichotomy in psychology. Developmental Psychobiology , 53 (4), 331–342.
• Jaynes, J. , & Woodward, W. (1974). In the shadow of the enlightenment. II. Reimarus and his theory of drives. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences , 10 , 144–159.
• Jensen, A. (1969). How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement. Harvard Educational Review , 39 , 1–123.
• Johnston, T. (1981). Contrasting approaches to a theory of learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 4 , 125–173.
• Johnston, T. (1987). The persistence of dichotomies in the study of behavior. Developmental Review , 7 , 149–172.
• Johnston, T. (1995). The influence of Weismann’s germ-plasm theory on the distinction between learned and innate behavior. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences , 31 , 115–128.
• Jones, S. (2017). Can newborn infants imitate? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science , 8 , e1410.
• Joseph, J. , & Ratner, C. (2013). The fruitless search for genes in psychiatry and psychology: Time to reexamine a paradigm. In S. Krimsky & J. Gruber (Eds.), Genetic explanations: Sense and nonsense (pp. 94–106). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Keller, E. F. (2010). The mirage of space between nature and nurture . Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
• Koops, W. (2015). No developmental psychology without recapitulation theory . European Journal of Developmental Psychology , 12 (6), 630–639.
• Kuo, Z. Y. (1930). The genesis of the cat’s response to the rat. Journal of Comparative Psychology , 11 , 1–36.
• Lehrman, D. S. (1953). A critique of Konrad Lorenz’s theory of instinctive behavior. Quarterly Review of Biology , 28 , 337–363.
• Lerner, R. (2002). Concepts and theories of human development (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Lickliter, R. , & Honeycutt, H. (2015). Biology, development and human systems . In W. Overton & P. C. M. Molenaar (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology and developmental science . Vol. 1: Theory and method (7th ed., pp. 162–207). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
• Logan, C. A. , & Johnston, T. D. (2007). Synthesis and separation in the history of “nature” and “nurture.” Developmental Psychobiology , 49 (8), 758–769.
• Loison, L. (2011). French roots of French neo-Lamarckisms,1879–1985 . Journal of the History of Biology , 44 , 713–744.
• Maher, B. (2008). Personal genomes: The case of the missing heritability . Nature , 456 , 18–21.
• McGue, M. , & Gottesman, I. I. (2015). Behavior genetics . In R. L. Cautin & S. O. Lilienfeld (Eds.), The encyclopedia of clinical psychology (Vol. 1). Chichester, U.K.: Wiley Blackwell.
• Meloni, M. (2016). The transcendence of the social: Durkheim, Weismann and the purification of sociology . Frontiers in Sociology , 1 , 1–13.
• Michel, G. F. , & Tyler, A. N. (2005). Critical period: A history of transition of questions of when, to what, to how . Developmental Psychobiology , 46 (3), 156–162.
• Miller, G. (2010).The seductive allure of behavioral epigenetics. Science , 329 (5987), 24–27.
• Moore, D. S. (2015). The developing genome. An introduction to behavioral epigenetics . New York, NY: Oxford University Press
• Morgan, C. L. (1896). Habit and instinct . New York, NY: Edward Arnold.
• Muller-Wille, S. , & Rheinberger, H.-J. (2012). A cultural history of heredity . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Ohman, A. , Fredrikson, M. , Hugdahl, K. , & Rimmö, P.A. (1976). The premise of equipotentiality in human classical conditioning: Conditioned electrodermal responses to potentially phobic stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General , 105 (4), 313–337.
• Overton, W. F. (2006). Developmental psychology: Philosophy, concepts, methodology. In R. Lerner (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 1. Theoretical models of human development (pp. 18–88). New York, NY: Wiley.
• Oyama, S. (1979). The concept of the sensitive period in developmental studies. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly , 25 (2), 83–103.
• Piaget, J. (1971). Biology and knowledge: An essay on the relation between organic regulations and cognitive processes . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Pinker, S. (1995). The language instinct: How the mind creates language . London, U.K.: Penguin.
• Rende, R. D. , Plomin, R. , & Vandenberg, S. G. (1990). Who discovered the twin method? Behavioral Genetics , 20 (2), 277–285.
• Renwick, C. (2011). From political economy to sociology: Francis Galton and the social-scientific origins of eugenics . British Journal for the History of Science , 44 , 343–369.
• Richards, R. J. (1987). Darwin and the emergence of evolutionary theories of mind and behavior . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
• Robinson, G. E. , & Barron, A. B. (2017). Epigenetics and the evolution of instincts. Science , 356 (6333), 26–27.
• Roth, T. L. (2013). Epigenetic mechanisms in the development of behavior: Advances, challenges, and future promises of a new field . Development and Psychopathology , 25 , 1279–1291.
• Samet, J. , & Zaitchick, D. (2017). Innateness and contemporary theories of cognition . In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy . Stanford, CA: Stanford University.
• Segerstrale, U. (2000). Defenders of the truth: The battle for science in the sociobiology debate and beyond . New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Simion, F. , & Di Giorgio, E. (2015). Face perception and processing in early infancy: Inborn predispositions and developmental changes . Frontiers in Psychology , 6 , 969.
• Simpson, T. , Carruthers, P. , Laurence, S. , & Stich, S. (2005). Introduction: Nativism past and present . In P. Carruthers , S. Laurence , & S. Stich (Eds.), The innate mind: Structure and contents (pp. 3–19). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
• Spelke, E. , & Kinzler, K. D. (2007). Core knowledge . Developmental Science , 10 (1), 89–96.
• Spencer, J. P. , Samuelson, L. K. , Blumberg, M. S. , McMurray, R. , Robinson, S. R. , & Tomblin, J. B. (2009). Seeing the world through a third eye: Developmental systems theory looks beyond the nativist-empiricist debate. Child Development Perspectives , 3 , 103–105.
• Thelen, E. (2000). Motor development as foundation and future of developmental psychology. International Journal of Behavioral Development , 24 (4), 385–397.
• Thelen, E. , & Adolph, K. E. (1992). Arnold L. Gesell: The paradox of nature and nurture. Developmental Psychology , 28 (3), 368–380.
• Tinbergen, N. (1963). On the aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie , 20 , 410–433.
• Tomasello, M. T. (1995). Language is not an instinct. Cognitive Development , 10 , 131–156.
• Winther, R. G. (2001). Weismann on germ-plasm variation. Journal of the History of Biology , 34 , 517–555.
• Witty, P. A. , & Lehman, H. C. (1933). The instinct hypothesis versus the maturation hypothesis. Psychological Review , 40 (1), 33–59.
• Wyman, R. J. (2005). Experimental analysis of nature–nurture. Journal of Experimental Zoology , 303 , 415–421.
• Zenderland, L. (2001). Measuring minds. Henry Herbert Goddard and the origins of American intelligence testing . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Psychology. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 19 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.80.151.41]
• 185.80.151.41

Character limit 500 /500

Nature Essay for Students and Children

500+ words nature essay.

Nature is an important and integral part of mankind. It is one of the greatest blessings for human life; however, nowadays humans fail to recognize it as one. Nature has been an inspiration for numerous poets, writers, artists and more of yesteryears. This remarkable creation inspired them to write poems and stories in the glory of it. They truly valued nature which reflects in their works even today. Essentially, nature is everything we are surrounded by like the water we drink, the air we breathe, the sun we soak in, the birds we hear chirping, the moon we gaze at and more. Above all, it is rich and vibrant and consists of both living and non-living things. Therefore, people of the modern age should also learn something from people of yesteryear and start valuing nature before it gets too late.

Significance of Nature

Nature has been in existence long before humans and ever since it has taken care of mankind and nourished it forever. In other words, it offers us a protective layer which guards us against all kinds of damages and harms. Survival of mankind without nature is impossible and humans need to understand that.

If nature has the ability to protect us, it is also powerful enough to destroy the entire mankind. Every form of nature, for instance, the plants , animals , rivers, mountains, moon, and more holds equal significance for us. Absence of one element is enough to cause a catastrophe in the functioning of human life.

We fulfill our healthy lifestyle by eating and drinking healthy, which nature gives us. Similarly, it provides us with water and food that enables us to do so. Rainfall and sunshine, the two most important elements to survive are derived from nature itself.

Further, the air we breathe and the wood we use for various purposes are a gift of nature only. But, with technological advancements, people are not paying attention to nature. The need to conserve and balance the natural assets is rising day by day which requires immediate attention.

Get the huge list of more than 500 Essay Topics and Ideas

Conservation of Nature

In order to conserve nature, we must take drastic steps right away to prevent any further damage. The most important step is to prevent deforestation at all levels. Cutting down of trees has serious consequences in different spheres. It can cause soil erosion easily and also bring a decline in rainfall on a major level.

Polluting ocean water must be strictly prohibited by all industries straightaway as it causes a lot of water shortage. The excessive use of automobiles, AC’s and ovens emit a lot of Chlorofluorocarbons’ which depletes the ozone layer. This, in turn, causes global warming which causes thermal expansion and melting of glaciers.

Therefore, we should avoid personal use of the vehicle when we can, switch to public transport and carpooling. We must invest in solar energy giving a chance for the natural resources to replenish.

In conclusion, nature has a powerful transformative power which is responsible for the functioning of life on earth. It is essential for mankind to flourish so it is our duty to conserve it for our future generations. We must stop the selfish activities and try our best to preserve the natural resources so life can forever be nourished on earth.

{ “@context”: “https://schema.org”, “@type”: “FAQPage”, “mainEntity”: [ { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “Why is nature important?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “Nature is an essential part of our lives. It is important as it helps in the functioning of human life and gives us natural resources to lead a healthy life.” } }, { “@type”: “Question”, “name”: “How can we conserve nature?”, “acceptedAnswer”: { “@type”: “Answer”, “text”: “We can take different steps to conserve nature like stopping the cutting down of trees. We must not use automobiles excessively and take public transport instead. Further, we must not pollute our ocean and river water.” } } ] }

Customize your course in 30 seconds

Which class are you in.

• Travelling Essay
• Picnic Essay
• Our Country Essay
• My Parents Essay
• Essay on Favourite Personality
• Essay on Memorable Day of My Life
• Essay on Knowledge is Power
• Essay on Gurpurab
• Essay on My Favourite Season
• Essay on Types of Sports

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Download the App

Essay Sample: Nature Versus Nurture

26 March, 2020

7 minutes read

Author:  Kate Smith

This sample is a great example of the compare and contrast essay writing. It presents two points of view on what influences the development of a personality the most - genetics or environmental factors. Don't hesitate to read it to see what such a type of essay should look like when written professionally!

Nature and nurture is a hotly contested argument concerning what influences the behavior and personality attributes of individuals. Nature is entirely dependent on the genetic combination of an individual which dictates their character and appearance. On the other hand, nurture is dependent on the environmental factors that an individual gets exposed to which end up shaping his or her personality. Nature and nurture influence individuals to a certain extent because individuals get exposed to both of them in one way or the other dictating their development process.

Nature principle holds that biological characteristics of individuals get inherited from the genetic makeup in their lineage. Character traits such as height, weight, vulnerability to certain illnesses and skin complexion are inherited and determined by the genetic combination of individuals. Such biological combination is usually similar amongst individuals who are blood relatives, and for this reason, they tend to have almost a uniform genetic combination. Moreover, other behavioral, mental and personality attributes are also a reflection of our genetic makeup and usually inherited from individuals’ close blood relatives (Kong et al. 2018). Through the traits, it is easier to identify closely related individuals just by looking at their appearance and conduct.

Besides, specific characteristics do not become evident during birth, and when a person reaches a certain age, for instance, during puberty, that is when the hidden attributes begin showing up. The biological clock guides such characteristics, and when the right time comes, the physical and behavioral attributes mature and become conspicuous. Such traits get programmed in a way that for them to grow visible, they will take a certain period to develop. Moreover, they are also dependent on other biological factors within our bodies for them to manifest. However, the traits still maintain the genetic combination and the similarity of a specific lineage.

Note that our company provides academic writing help. You can buy a narrative essay (or any other type) written from scratch by our  essay writer .

On the contrary, through nurture, an individual acquires specific attributes from the environment that surrounds them. When a child is born, for instance, its mind is black and empty. It is through its interaction with the surrounding and the people around it that will make the infant acquire some of their traits through learning, observation and aping their conducts. In other words, nurturing is dependent on the environment, experience, and learning as the individual interacts with the environment with time (Vazsonyi, Roberts, Huang & Vaughn, 2015). The way an individual was nurtured or brought up will influence their aspect of child development. Maturation will only affect biological development. The environment plays a vital role in the development process.

Similarly, the type of relationships also plays a crucial role in the nurturing, especially during child development. For instance, an infant develops an emotional attachment to its parents because of the love and affection it receives. Moreover, children who are given proper care and affection will reciprocate the same while growing up. On the contrary, infants who receive harsh treatment from their parents will develop withdrawal symptoms while growing up. Also, the infants also try and learn how and what to talk by studying the speech of those around them. The cognitive development comes from the exposer that the infant receives and conditions surrounding it.

Correspondingly, certain traits are acquired based on what an individual went through. Children who got abused or molested when growing up develop specific antisocial characteristics, for instance, being high tempered, harsh and develops particular disorders. For example, bipolar disorders manifest because an individual underwent harsh treatment which affects their psychological stability after that. Some of them become abusers and molesters in their future relationships as a way of imitating and justifying what they experienced while growing up. Imitation is a way of implementing what the individual has learned during the nurturing process by putting the lessons into practice.

Striking a Balance

However, after careful analysis, psychologists have discovered that both nature and nurture are responsible for the development of an individual. Both factors interact with each other and play a crucial role in shaping up the conduct of an individual (Lux, 2014). For example, in psychopathology, it is argued that both hereditary factors and environmental conditions contribute to the development of mental disorders in individuals. The biological combinations of people closely interact with the socio-cultural set up surrounding them. Individuals are now left to make their own choices in dictating what is suitable for them and what should be left out. Nature and nurture complement each other in shaping an individual.

Conclusively, nature and nurture are broiling discussion, and both sides have valid points to justify their stands. Nature is purely based on the fact that genetic makeup influence how an individual behaves and thinks. Similarly, the natives hold that genetic factors dictate factors such as the appearance, particular illness, and intelligence levels. On the contrary, individuals who believe in nurturing hold that environmental factors are majorly involved in the development process of individuals. Children acquire traits through learning from the people surrounding them and will try to imitate the behavior after that. However, psychologists are trying their level best to strike a balance between the two school of thoughts since both sides hold valid arguments, but both nurture and nature interact with each other during the development process. Nature and nurture cannot get treated in isolation.

Lux, V. (2014). Nature and nurture.  Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology , 1225-1231.

Kong, A., Thorleifsson, G., Frigge, M. L., Vilhjalmsson, B. J., Young, A. I., Thorgeirsson, T. E., … & Gudbjartsson, D. F. (2018). The nature of nurture: Effects of parental genotypes.  Science ,  359 (6374), 424-428.

Vazsonyi, A. T., Roberts, J. W., Huang, L., & Vaughn, M. G. (2015). Why focusing on nurture made and still makes sense: The biosocial development of self-control.  The Routledge international handbook of biosocial criminology , 263-280.

A life lesson in Romeo and Juliet taught by death

Due to human nature, we draw conclusions only when life gives us a lesson since the experience of others is not so effective and powerful. Therefore, when analyzing and sorting out common problems we face, we may trace a parallel with well-known book characters or real historical figures. Moreover, we often compare our situations with […]

Ethical Research Paper Topics

Writing a research paper on ethics is not an easy task, especially if you do not possess excellent writing skills and do not like to contemplate controversial questions. But an ethics course is obligatory in all higher education institutions, and students have to look for a way out and be creative. When you find an […]

Art Research Paper Topics

Students obtaining degrees in fine art and art & design programs most commonly need to write a paper on art topics. However, this subject is becoming more popular in educational institutions for expanding students’ horizons. Thus, both groups of receivers of education: those who are into arts and those who only get acquainted with art […]

A new campaign wants to redefine the word ‘nature’ to include humans – here’s why this linguistic argument matters

Professor of Applied Ecology, University of Reading

Disclosure statement

Tom Oliver has received research funding from BBSRC, NERC and Natural England for quantifying climate change impacts on biodiversity and developing climate adaptation plans for humans and other species. He was affiliated with Defra as a senior scientific fellow on their Systems Research Programme, with the Government Office for Science working on long-term risks to the UK, and spent four years with the European Environment Agency on their scientific committee. He sits on the Food Standards Agency science council and Office for Environmental Protection expert college. He is author of The Self Delusion: The Surprising Science of Our Connection To Each Other and the Natural World, published by Weidenfeld and Nicholson.

University of Reading provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

What does the word nature mean to you? Does it conjure visions of wild places away from the hustle and bustle of people, or does it include humans too? The meaning of nature has changed since the word was first used back as early as the 15th century .

Now a new campaign, We Are Nature , aims to persuade dictionaries to include humans in their definitions of nature. This campaign, a collaboration between a group of lawyers and a design company, involves a petition and open letter , as well as a collection of alternative definitions supplied by various thinkers and authors (including me). Here’s my definition of nature:

The living world comprised as the total set of organisms and relationships between them. These organisms include bacteria, fungi, plants and animals (including humans). Some definitions may also include non-living entities as part of nature – such as mountains, waterfalls and cloud formations – in recognition of their important role underpinning the web of life.

Derived from the Latin natura , literally meaning “birth”, nature used to only refer to the innate qualities or essential disposition of something. But over time, it also began to describe something “other” or separate to humans. For example, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) defines nature as :

The phenomena of the physical world collectively; esp. plants, animals, and other features and products of the Earth itself, as opposed to humans and human creations.

But how did we arrive at such a definition, which hinges on us being apart from, rather than a part of, the natural world? Since the 17th century, a rationalist world view prompted by philosophers such as René Descartes increasingly saw things from a mechanical perspective, comparing the workings of the universe to a great machine. Rather than any kind of divine spirit inhabiting the natural world, this perspective emphasised the split between the human mind and physical matter.

Anything non-human fell into the latter category and was likened to clockwork machinery. But that view has since been found to lead to animal cruelty , and many environmental bodies including the European Environment Agency suggest this disconnect is accelerating the decline of nature.

Is it OK to change words in a dictionary through lobbying? There are two lines of thought here. One might argue yes, if the scientific evidence suggests the distinction between nature and humans is illusory – something I have argued based on findings in biology, ecology and neuroscience.

A dictionary definition represents society’s framing of the natural world. This in turn influences our perception of our place within it – and the actions we take to protect nature. So, the words we use have real-world impacts: they frame how we think and determine how we feel and act. Linguist George Lakoff has argued that they ultimately structure our society.

My children are growing up in a world where humans feel disconnected with nature – indeed, the UK ranks among the most disconnected countries. Research shows this leads people to make fewer positive environmental changes to their behaviour , such as reducing their carbon footprint, recycling, or doing voluntary conservation work.

Conversely, when people feel they are enmeshed with nature, they are not only greener in their behaviour but they tend to be happier . So I absolutely want my kids to grow up feeling they are part of nature.

There are some words that I certainly recommend we use less. I dislike the term “natural capital”, referring to nature as an asset that can be commodified and sold . These words have a place with professional environmentalists and policy, but they can also create psychological distancing and make us care less for natural world.

One sustainability-focused communications agency found the best way to motivate people about protecting nature is through messages based on awe and wonder , rather than the economic value of nature. Scientific studies back this up.

Dangers of controlling language

But I’m torn. Another line of thought suggests it’s not OK to change the meaning of words through lobbying, and that dictionaries should reflect how words are being used – the OED takes this position .

Dystopian fiction, including George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four , highlights the dangers of a world where controlling the language allows control of the population. Dictionaries bowing to pressure from lobbying seems to set a dangerous precedent.

With regards to the meaning of nature, if a word is too broad, it may lose its usefulness in communication, just like a blunt knife is a poor tool for carving food. People wanting to articulate the natural world may simply use other words, such as “environment”. This word is derived from the French environs , explicitly describing something surrounding us.

Environment has already been replacing nature in our modern lexicon. This may reflect a subtle cognitive shift towards increasingly seeing human beings as distinct entities, separate from the natural world.

Nature v environment: tracking the use of these words

But the We Are Nature campaign is not just lobbying the OED based on a preferred use of language. The organisers have collated many historical uses of the word nature from 1850 to the present day, some of which include humans in the meaning, and presented the dictionary with this evidence. In April 2024, as a result, the OED removed the label “obsolete” from a secondary, wider definition of nature comprising “the whole natural world, including human beings”.

But to change the primary definition of nature from “as opposed to humans” to “including humans” will require more people to use the word in a way that reflects how humans are intertwined with the whole web of life.

The great thing is, by doing this, we rekindle the bonds of care towards the living world around us. And by dispelling the illusion of our separation from nature, we can also expect to live happier lives . Words matter – there is restoration and joy from talking about how we are nature.

• Environment
• Oxford English Dictionary
• Give me perspective

Compliance Lead

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

‘That's authoritarianism’: Florida argues school libraries are for government messaging

Public school libraries are “a forum for government speech,” not a “forum for free expression,” according to a legal brief..

Florida’s government is arguing that school districts have a First Amendment right to remove LGBTQ books. 

Or any book, for that matter.

It’s a contention that First Amendment experts and advocates call extreme and chilling . But the state maintains the books on school shelves represent protected government speech. Public school libraries are “a forum for government speech,” it says, not a “forum for free expression.”

“Public-school systems, including their libraries, convey the government’s message,” Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody wrote in a legal brief .

That argument is also being made by lawyers for the school boards in Escambia and Lake counties.

A pair of lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida over the removal of books in both of their school libraries. Notable among those is “And Tango Makes Three,” its authors being plaintiffs. 

The children’s book, based on a true story, about two male penguins raising a chick together was removed in both districts. While Lake County’s school board – which is named in one of the two lawsuits – brought the book back , Escambia County – named in both – still has it removed from school libraries.

Nonetheless, the litigation continues against both school boards.

The state was sued in one of the cases, with Florida Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. and the members of the State Board of Education listed individually as defendants along with the two counties. Authors Justin Richardson and Peter Parnell are joined by a third grade student as plaintiffs in that case.

The other case was filed against Escambia County's school board by free expression group PEN America and Penguin Random House , the nation’s largest publisher, along with authors and parents of students. Nevertheless, the state filed a brief supporting the county and pushing the government speech argument.

Those suing accuse the defendants of violating students’ First Amendment right to receive information as well as unconstitutionally removing books because of LGBTQ and race themes. The defendants, meanwhile, say school library content decisions can’t infringe on the First Amendment — because they’re protected by it.

If the courts are sympathetic to that claim, there could be big consequences for book access in schools and First Amendment law as a whole.

“It would upend 100 years of established First Amendment precedent,” said Peter Bromberg, the associate director of EveryLibrary, a pro-library, anti-book banning organization. “This is such a far departure and would have such a ripple effect.”

Book removal arguments not limited to Florida

Arguments defending book removals as protected government speech aren’t only happening in Florida.

“It’s a theory being advanced by those who would like to limit access to certain ideas or beliefs in libraries,” Deborah Caldwell-Stone, director of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom, said. “Not only in school libraries but public libraries as well.” 

Local officials in Llano County, Texas, for example, are arguing that “content and viewpoint consideration are both inevitable and permissible when weeding books.”  They’re appealing a federal court’s decision ordering them to return removed books to shelves.

In Arkansas, librarians filed suit against a law signed by Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders that went after library materials. Rebuffing the state’s government speech arguments, the federal judge in July  temporarily blocked key portions of the law mandating and outlining public library book challenge policies and criminalizing providing “harmful” books to minors.

“Defendants are unable to cite any legal precedent to suggest that the state may censor non-obscene materials in a public library because such censorship is a form of government speech,” U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks wrote.

Caldwell-Stone anticipates lawsuits will emerge elsewhere, too.

"Should schools be preparing individuals to be broadly educated, to be able to make their own decisions about their lives?" she asked. "Or should schools be indoctrination centers for only one viewpoint that may not even represent the viewpoint of the majority?"

Expert calls Florida's argument for book removal ‘authoritarianism’

First Amendment experts and advocates interviewed by the USA TODAY NETWORK-Florida all had grave warnings about what court support for the state’s argument could mean.

“There’s considerable irony in that those who seek to limit access to books in school libraries often say they’re fighting for parental rights,” said Ken Paulson, director of the Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee State University. “If government speech determines what books can be in the library, the government is essentially saying your children can only see the ideas that the government has approved. 

“That’s not parental rights,” he added. “That’s authoritarianism.”

Shalini Goel Agarwal, counsel for Protect Democracy, called the state's position a “sweeping argument.”

Agarwal and her organization are representing the plaintiffs in the case against the Escambia County School Board.

“It seems to us that their position is that a school official has unfettered discretion to decide what is in the library, or what library books are taken out, and they can take them out for any reason at all, even for discriminatory reasons,” she said. 

That's exactly what the lawsuit alleges is happening.

“In every decision to remove a book, the School Board has sided with a challenger expressing openly discriminatory bases for the challenge,” the plaintiffs write. “These restrictions and removals have disproportionately targeted books by or about people of color and/or LGBTQ people.”

Over the last couple of years, Gov. Ron DeSantis and the state's Republican-dominated Legislature have passed laws that have led to a barrage of book restrictions and removals in schools. PEN America recently ranked Florida as the nation’s leader in book bans. That term in itself has generated controversy, with many conservatives maintaining "book banning" is a misleading exaggeration.

Still, Florida's laws have also been met with complaints of vagueness , with school districts interpreting them in dramatically different ways. Some haven’t touched their shelves. Others, like Escambia County, have restricted or removed hundreds .

And the argument that Escambia’s actions are protected government speech, Agarwal says, would have a broader effect than just books.

Using the “government speech doctrine (in this case) would basically eviscerate a lot of other areas where people would expect the First Amendment to apply,” she said.

In her case, a group of 23 constitutional scholars from across the nation filed a brief opposing the state and counties’ government speech assertions.

“[We] write to caution the court against adopting the aggressive, unprecedented interpretation of the government speech doctrine,” they said. “The notion that such libraries exist to carry official messaging is profoundly antithetical to their nature and purpose.”

Ashley Moody: 'Compiling library materials is government speech'

Moody contends that Pico’s plurality decision has no strength, especially since it predates court findings on government speech. She points to a decision that found the selection of public park monuments was government speech as an example.

“And because compiling library materials is government speech, the First Amendment does not bar the government from curating those materials based on content and viewpoint,” she wrote.

Spokespeople for the governor’s office and the state Department of Education didn’t respond to requests for comment. But Chase Sizemore, press secretary for the state attorney general's office, said the legal filings “speak for themselves.” 

“State and county employees are responsible for deciding what materials ultimately appear on the shelves of Florida's public-school libraries,” Sizemore wrote in an email. He also said Florida law also gives parents every opportunity for input on those matters. 

“The plaintiffs in this case are arguing that third parties — the authors of the books themselves — can demand that their preferred materials be put in school libraries,” Sizemore wrote. “If that were right, it would negate not only the decisions of the responsible officials, but parental input too.”

What does court precedent say?

Those interviewed by the USA TODAY NETWORK-Florida say they think and hope the defendants' argument will get knocked down.

“It’s fundamental that no government entity can engage in viewpoint discrimination," said Caldwell-Stone of the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. “That’s a basic constitutional guardrail. And those guardrails apply to governments … including school boards. And that’s really what the Supreme Court (has) said.”

In legal filings, the plaintiffs extensively point to the U.S. Supreme Court's 1982 decision in Island Trees Union Free School District v. Pico . In that decision, justices ruled that school boards have “significant discretion to determine the content of their school libraries.” But it said that discretion “may not be exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner.”

The case law doesn’t end there: “Every court that has addressed that issue … has rejected the position that libraries — including school libraries — constitute Constitution-free zones in which government officials can freely discriminate based on viewpoint,” plaintiffs write. 

Despite the cited laws, those interviewed also acknowledged that, generally, there are more wild cards in the judiciary nowadays. The overturning of Roe v. Wade is one example of that.

But Paulson said “fundamental constitutional principles” against the argument are clear. He even added that further judicial scrutiny of the Pico case could end up strengthening it. That decision was a plurality opinion , "in which the court is unable to generate a single opinion that is supported by a majority of the (nine) justices," explained scholars in a National Center for State Courts study.

This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Douglas Soule is based in Tallahassee, Fla. He can be reached at  [email protected] . On X:  @DouglasSoule .

Tyson gives warning to Paul ahead of July fight

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Reporting by Frank Pingue in Toronto, editing by Pritha Sarkar

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

Sports Chevron

Seth Lugo strong again as Royals clip Athletics, 5-3

Seth Lugo piled up 10 strikeouts over 5 2/3 innings and Kyle Isbel hit a home run as the Kansas City Royals beat the visiting Oakland Athletics 5-3 on Saturday.

Chilean rider Jaime Bittner will not be able to compete in equestrian eventing at the Paris Olympics after the death of his mare Eden from an infection, the country's Olympic Committee (COCH) said on Saturday.

• Action/Adventure
• Children's/Family
• Documentary/Reality
• Amazon Prime Video

More From Decider

New Shows & Movies To Watch This Weekend: 'Bridgerton' Season 3 on...

Jax Taylor Admits His "Delivery Is Awful" In 'The Valley': "That's One Of...

What Happened to Regé-Jean Page? Did the Duke Bomb His Movie Star Career...

'9-1-1's Malcolm-Jamal Warner On Amir And Bobby, Working With Peter...

'Unfrosted' Has Everyone Wondering "What's The Deal With Jerry Seinfeld?"

Chrissy Teigen Stuns John Legend On 'The Drew Barrymore Show' With Reveal...

Brooke Shields Flashed Her ‘Mother of the Bride’ Co-Star Benjamin...

Andy Cohen Reveals Sarah Jessica Parker's Reaction When He Suggested Rosie...

Share this:.

• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
• Click to email a link to a friend (Opens in new window)
• Click to copy URL

‘Bridgerton’ Season 3 Episode 3 Recap: Debling or Nothing

Where to stream:.

‘Bridgerton’ Season 3 Filming Locations: Your Guide to Bath, Basildon Park, and Beyond!

‘bridgerton’ season 3 part 1 climaxes with penelope and colin’s steamy carriage ride, ‘bridgerton’ season 3 part 1 ending explained: are penelope and colin getting married.

At the end of Episode 2 of Bridgerton ‘s third season , Colin Bridgerton (Luke Newton) and Penelope Featherington (Nicola Coughlan) engaged in a passionate kiss, after Penelope asked Colin to kiss her just once, lest she die a kiss-virgin. At the beginning of Bridgerton Season 3 Episode 3, we watch a dream sequence: Colin arriving once again to Penelope’s gate and explaining that ever since their kiss, he’s been unable to think of anything but her. They embrace passionately once again. If you’re like me, you assumed this was a dream of Penelope’s because this literally is her actual dream. The twist is that it’s actually Colin who wakes up in a cold sweat. It’s been over a week since their kiss, and a week since Lady Whistledown revealed that Colin had been helping Penelope find a husband. Since then, Colin can’t stop thinking about Penelope, and Penelope hasn’t ventured outside, a social pariah once more.

Of course, since she is Whistledown, this is a problem of her own making, but you’ve got to applaud her for being honest and making herself one of Whistledown’s victims. She knows best of all that as long as the ton is gossiping about something, it’s worthy of making it into Whistledown’s newsletter, even if she has to suffer for it.

When Penelope finally does begin to make appearances in public again, she meets Lord Debling (Sam Phillips), a naturalist who is somehow both a catch (because he’s rich), but also an outsider (because he’s a vegetarian. A right old Regency hippie if ever there was one. He identifies Penelope as an outsider, too, and the pair bond – he doesn’t read Lady Whistledown, so Penelope fills him in on what was written about her, and he actually appreciates the fact that she bucks convention rather than adhering to society’s strict rules. For the first time, Penelope might have found a suitor for herself. (Colin handles this by constantly watching Pen from a distance, jealous now that he’s having sex dreams about her .)

‘Bridgerton’ Season 3: Colin’s Sex Dream About Penelope Is More Important Than You Realize

At a fair celebrating the Hawkins Balloon, a hot air balloon, Penelope tries to flirt with Lord Debling, but she’s got competition: Cressida Cowper, whose top-heavy hair knows no bounds this season, also fancies him, mostly for his money, but she’s already done her homework on him. She borrowed some nature books from Eloise and makes herself sound much more impressive than she is, and Penelope finds herself faking her way through a false love of nature to keep up.

As this is happening, Colin realizes that the hot air balloon has broken free of its ropes. He grabs one and gets the rest of the men in attendance to help land it safely, but it’s headed straight for Penelope.

As Colin wrestles with the ropes, Lord Debling throws himself on Penelope to protect her. It’s a dashing, honorable thing to do, but it also creates an endless cycle of one-upmanship, as Cressida later collapses claiming one of the ropes injured her ankle, seeking help from Debling who is more than happy to shower her and her huge hair that’s full of secrets with his attention. Cressida is our resident mean girl and always has been, but in classic teen movie fashion, we learn that the roots of her mean girl-ness lay with her rich parents’ harsh expectations of her, in this case they need her to land a richie, in the vernacular of Pretty in Pink . She sucks, yes, but her suckiness is not all of her own doing.

Penelope realizes the only way she’ll get through to Debling is with the truth. At a party, she reveals her past phoniness, explaining she’s no nature lover, and she hasn’t been honest with him, and he falls for her candor. He also appreciates the fact that she has her own life and interests, something that not many men do.

Colin has been watching Penelope and Debling all night, and seeks advice from his mother. Violet has never been quiet about what she wants for her children: to find true love and happiness, not simply marriages of convenience or financial comfort. Colin asks how to turn a friendship into a romance, because he can’t stand to watch Penelope flirt with another man any longer, and his mother tells him that the only way her own marriage, which began as a friendship, came to be was when Lord Bridgerton finally came up with the courage to ask her for her hand.

Armed with that information, Colin walks over the Penelope and tells her he needs to ask her a question. Alas, he never gets the chance to because Debling cuts in, asking her to dance.

Bonus Bridgertons:

• We now know that Lady Danbury’s mystery visitor is her own brother, Marcus Anderson. And while we don’t quite know the nature of her relationship with him, we do know that he’s extremely charming because he’s been non-stop flirting with mama Bridgerton. It’s about time Violet got some action on this show!
• Eloise is slowly coming back around to Penelope. Every time she has to deal with Cressida or one of the other shallow girls in her friend pool, you can just tell how much she loathes them and misses Penelope. In this episode, she went so far as to make a visit to the Featheringtons to apologize for spreading the information that Colin was helping Penelope find a husband. She opts not to stay and socialize, but hey, baby steps.
• Now that Francesca is the Queen’s “sparkler,” everyone has high hopes for who will win her over. While the Queen’s pick is Lord Samadani, he’s a little too “I want my future wife to bear eight whole kids” for her taste. Instead, she finds some quiet comfort in the presence of a mysterious, not-chatty stranger.
• Benedict Bridgerton won’t get his own dedicated storyline till at least season four, but he’s certainly getting some action with the arrival of Lady Tilley Arnold (Hannah New), a widow who has recently arrived back on the scene. Arnold looks like a noir femme fatale, which is probably one reason Benedict is so drawn to her. And you thought The Gilded Age was the only show with a hot widow !

Liz Kocan is a pop culture writer living in Massachusetts. Her biggest claim to fame is the time she won on the game show Chain Reaction .

Does 'Yellowstone' Return Tonight? 'Yellowstone's Season 5, Part 2 Premiere Date Info, Kevin Costner Updates, And More

'Live's Kelly Ripa And Mark Consuelos Learn Why Ankle Socks Are "Canceled" From Gen Z Members Of Their Studio Audience

'The Resident's Malcolm-Jamal Warner Says Cast Would Be Open To Returning For A Season 7: "I Think We Would All Jump At The Opportunity"

'Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire' Comes To Digital, But When Will 'Godzilla x Kong' Stream on Max?

PBS's ‘MaryLand’ Introduces ‘Masterpiece’ Fans to the Magical Isle of Man

Is ‘The Iron Claw’ Based on a True Story? Why the Real Von Erich Family Is Even More Tragic Than the Movie

The Federal Register

The daily journal of the united states government, request access.

Due to aggressive automated scraping of FederalRegister.gov and eCFR.gov, programmatic access to these sites is limited to access to our extensive developer APIs.

If you are human user receiving this message, we can add your IP address to a set of IPs that can access FederalRegister.gov & eCFR.gov; complete the CAPTCHA (bot test) below and click "Request Access". This process will be necessary for each IP address you wish to access the site from, requests are valid for approximately one quarter (three months) after which the process may need to be repeated.

An official website of the United States government.

If you want to request a wider IP range, first request access for your current IP, and then use the "Site Feedback" button found in the lower left-hand side to make the request.