Information

Why do people love nature?

Why do people love nature?



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

I wonder why we feel happy and comfortable when seeing the view of trees, green plants and flowers. Why do we admire sea, waves, fishes inside pure water and sun set? why do we love seeing the view of sky, moon and stars? Why people love nature even it is not real like a Picture on a computer?

To be more clear, People love seeing sea but the don't feel the same when they see a cup of water although they both are water.

Is it pure psychological reason? or There are some other biological reasons or chemistry of the brain?

Thank you very much,


People love nature because truth, nature/natural experience, and reality go hand in hand. Nature provides serenity, beauty, and calm. Our world of experience is what gives us, and provides for, life. Ultimately and fundamentally, the integrated extensiveness (and sensibility) of being and experience go hand in hand, as the self represents, forms, and experiences a comprehensive approximation of experience in general by combining conscious and unconscious experience. In fact, we always begin with typical/ordinary and common experience in establishing physical fundamentals/truths. Experience is the best teacher, and the creations of our thought that replace nature/natural experience, such as TV and mirrors, maximally reduce the integrated extensiveness of space/our experience. A true, extensive, integrated, and natural balance of being and experience is best. Balance and completeness go hand in hand. If we walk away from reality, reality walks away from us.


The Psychology Of Loves That Last A Lifetime

The trifecta of a romantic relationship -- intense love, sexual desire and long-term attachment -- can seem elusive, but it may not be as uncommon or unattainable in marriages as we've been conditioned to think.

"We are born to love," writes anthropologist and author of Why We Love, Helen Fisher. "That feeling of elation that we call romantic love is deeply embedded in our brains. But can it last?"

The science tells us that romantic love can last -- and more than we often give it credit for. As a culture, we tend to be pretty cynical about the prospect of romantic love (as opposed to the 'other' loves -- lust and long-term attachment) enduring over time and through obstacles, and for good reason. Roughly 50 percent of marriages end in divorce, with 2.4 million U.S. couples splitting in 2012. And among those that stay together, marital dissatisfaction is common.

In long-term partnerships that do succeed, romantic love tends to fade into companionship and a love more akin to friendship than to that of a couple in love.

But no matter how cynical we are about the prospect of life-long love, it still seems to be what most Americans are after. Romantic love is increasingly viewed as an essential component of a marriage, with 91 percent of women and 86 percent of American men reporting that they would not marry someone who had every quality they wanted in a partner but with whom they were not in love.

This type of love is good for both our marriages and our health. Romantic love -- free from the craving and obsession of the early stages of falling in love --can and does frequently exist in long-term marriages, research has found, and it's correlated with marital satisfaction, and individual well-being and self-esteem.

Although science has given us some insight on the nature of love and romantic relationships, this fundamental domain of human existence remains something of a mystery. Love, particularly the long-lasting kind, has been called one of the "most studied and least understood areas in psychology."

There may be more questions than answers at this point, but we do know that both being in love and being married are good for your physical and mental health. And psychologists who study love, marriage and relationships have pinpointed a number of factors that contribute to long-lasting romantic love.

Here are six science-backed secrets of couples that keep intense romantic love alive for decades and entire lifetimes.

Life-long romance IS possible.

Despite high rates of divorce, infidelity and marital dissatisfaction, it's not all hopeless -- far from it, in fact. A 2012 study of couples who had been married for a decade, published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science, found that 40 percent of them said they were "very intensely in love." The same study found that among couples who were married 30 years or more, 40 percent of women and 35 percent of men said they were very intensely in love.

But don't be convinced solely by what these couples reported -- research in neuroscience has also proven that intense romantic love can last a lifetime.

A 2011 study published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience looked the brain regions activated in individuals in long-term romantic partnerships (who had been married an average of 21 years), and compared them with individuals who had recently fallen in love. The results revealed similar brain activity in both groups, with high activity in the reward and motivation centers of the brain, predominantly in the high-dopamine ventral tegmental area (VTA). The findings suggest that couples can not only love each for long periods of time -- they can stay in love with each other.

Sustaining romantic love over the course of many years, then, has a positive function in the brain, which understands and continues to pursue romantic love as a behavior that reaps cognitive rewards, according to positive psychology researcher Adoree Durayappah.

"The key to understanding how to sustain long-term romantic love is to understand it a bit scientifically," Durayappah wrote in Psychology Today. "Our brains view long-term passionate love as a goal-directed behavior to attain rewards. Rewards can include the reduction of anxiety and stress, feelings of security, a state of calmness, and a union with another."

They maintain a sense of "love blindness."

When we first fall in love with someone, we tend to worship the ground they walk on and see them as the most attractive, smartest and accomplished person in the room. And while we might eventually take our partner off of this pedestal after months and years of being together, maintaining a sense of "love blindness" is actually critical to long-lasting passionate love.

A University of Geneva review of nearly 500 studies on compatibility couldn't pinpoint any combination of two personality traits in a relationship that predicted long-term romantic love -- except for one. One's ability to idealize and maintain positive illusions about their partner -- seeing them as good-looking, intelligent, funny and caring, or generally as a "catch" -- remained happy with each other on nearly all measures over time.

They're always trying new things together.

Boredom can be a major obstacle to lasting romantic or companionate love, and successful couples find ways to keep things interesting.

Psychological research has suggested that couples who experience the most intense love are the ones who not only experience a strong physical and emotional attraction to one another, but also who enjoy participating in new or challenging “self-expanding” activities together, Psychology Today reported.

"Novel and arousing activities are, well, arousing, which people can misattribute as attraction to their partner, reigniting that initial spark," writes Amie Gordan in the Berkeley Science Review.

They avoid neediness by preserving their independence.

Neediness is the enemy of long-lasting desire (an important component of romantic love), according to psychologist and Mating in Captivity author Esther Perel. In a popular TED Talk, Perel asks, "Why does sexual desire tend to fade over time, even in loving relationships?"

Neediness and caretaking in long-term partnerships -- which can easily result from looking to the partnership for safety, security and stability -- damper the erotic spark, Perel explains. But if couples can maintain independence and witness each other participating in individual activities at which they're skilled, they can continue to see their partner in an ever-new light.

"When I see my partner on their own doing thing in which they are enveloped, I look at this person and I momentarily get a shift of perception," Perel says. "[We] stay open to the mysteries that are standing right next to each other. What is most interesting is that there is no neediness in desire. There is no caretaking in desire."

So if you're looking to keep that spark going, give your partner the space to do what they're good at -- and make sure to take the opportunity to observe them in their element, when they are "radiant and confident," says Perel.

Their passion for life carries over into their relationship.

Psychologists have found that a strong passion for life can help to sustain passion in a life-long romantic relationship. The 2012 Stony Brook University study examining personality qualities that predicted long-term passionate love found that individuals who exhibit excitement for all that life has to offer are more likely to find success in their romantic partnerships.

"People who approach their daily lives with zest and strong emotion seem to carry these intense feelings over to their love life as well," Susan Krauss Whitbourne, Ph.D., wrote in Psychology Today. "If you want your relationship to have passion, put that emotional energy to work in your hobbies, interests, and even your political activities."

They see their relationship as a journey together towards self-fulfillment.

Whereas individuals used to be more likely to look to marriage for safety and security, the societal standard has shifted such that more men and women enter into marriage looking for self-actualization and personal fulfillment. Such a marriage can be more satisfying for both partners, but requires each partner to invest more time and energy into the partnership for it to be successful.

"The average marriage today is weaker than the average marriage of yore, in terms of both satisfaction and divorce rate, but the best marriages today are much stronger, in terms of both satisfaction and personal well-being, than the best marriages of yore," Eli J. Finkel, a professor of social psychology at Northwestern University wrote in a New York Times op-ed, describing this shift from companionate to self-expressive marriages.

Rather than looking to marriage to serve our basic needs for survival and companionship, we're now seeing marriage as a vehicle for self-fulfillment. This new directive can help to facilitate long-term romantic love, so long as each partner is willing and able to put more of their resources into the relationship.

"As the expectations of marriage have ascended Maslow’s hierarchy, the potential psychological payoffs have increased," Finkel noted, "but achieving those results has become more demanding."


Keys to the Psychology of Connection

We said at the beginning that getting along with someone isn’t the same as connecting with them. That’s something we all experience every day.

In our daily environments, which could be our jobs, schools, neighborhoods, or recreational spaces, we certainly meet a lot of people. We coexist with all of them. But, throughout our lives we only manage to “connect” deeply with a few.

Judith E. Glaser, an organizational psychologist and anthropologist at Harvard University, is one of the most referenced scholars in the study and application of what we call “Deep Connection.”

Something she explains to us in many of her books and other works is that we all have an internal voice that quickly tells us if something or someone may be significant to us.

This thing we call “intuition” actually has a specific spot in our brains. We’ll look at some keys next…

Deep Connection: When Our Brain “Lights Up”

Our brain is an entity ruled by a series of very basic needs. Sociability is one of them. So, when in our daily lives we meet people our brain, to say it one way, “lights up.” One of the first areas to react is the medial prefrontal cortex.

But there’s another much deeper, more mysterious, and fascinating part that lights up like a Christmas tree.

This is when we meet someone we connect more intensely with. This area can be found right where the temporal lobe and the parietal lobe come together.

Neuroscientists tell us this is where our judgments unfold. It’s where our most abstract, most complex, and sometimes most inexplicable cognitive processes occur.

Processes that Govern the Psychology of Connection

We’ve all heard about how sometimes all it takes to connect with someone is a look. We should say that this little tidbit is a half-truth and doesn’t really get at the heart of what we think of as “deep connection.”

True experts in the field indicate that this intimate and revealing bond crosses many more borders.

  • Deep connection goes beyond simple “looks” because it originates out of interaction and behavior. But it especially happens through an important, magical word: “sharing.”
  • When we share intimacy with someone, when we tell them secrets, share values and passionswith them, our brain releases oxytocin.

Neuropsychologists explain that oxytocin is the neurotransmitter that is an essential ingredient when we’re building these significant connections with our best friends or partners.

By inviting these significant people to this very private, deep part of our brain, we feel safe, comfortable, and trusted… but above all, happy.

To wrap up, while it’s not exactly easy to build this kind of connection, these magical, strong relationships, let’s not give up hope.

We just need to apply three simple factors to our daily interactions: closeness, trust, and sincerity.

The results will come in their own time and when it happens, we’ll know. Our brain and heart will respond intensely to this special person.


The Psychology of Human Bonding | Why Do We Love Our Pets So Much?

Most of us treat our pets like members of the family: we enjoy their company and we do everything we can to ensure their happiness and wellbeing, including providing them with veterinary care and emergency veterinary services when they are sick or injured. But it is not immediately obvious why human beings should bond so closely to members of other species, partly because we are virtually unique as a species in the fact that we choose to do so. In captivity, certain different types of animals can form social bonds and in the wild, some species coexist with others. However, this occurs much more often in the context of a symbiotic relationship than for friendship or companionship. Symbiotic relationships include situations where species benefit from one another’s protection from predators or parasites. More broadly, it seems obvious that many animal species have a capacity to form close friendships with other species, as is evident in the way that our pet cats and dogs and many other types of pets (eventually) form close social bonds despite being different species that may be naturally antagonistic to one another or even predator and prey in the wild.

However, there are also other hypotheses, such as the biophilia proposed by Edward O. Wilson in 19841 (Harvard University Press), that suggest other explanations for the affinity of human beings toward other animal species. Specifically, Wilson argued that during evolutionary periods in early hominid history, there was a distinct survival advantage to observing and remaining close to other animals living in nature. The existence of other species thriving within an environment was consistent with the availability of essential life-sustaining elements (such as fresh water and edible vegetation) and early humans who gravitated toward animals had a distinct survival advantage over any early humans who kept their distance from animals. More fundamentally, and possibly for reasons that also relate to why animal-assisted therapy can improve human psychological wellbeing, there seems to be something inherently positive about being in the close proximity of other thriving living things.

Psychologists explain our affection for our pets in terms of several different possible contributing factors. First, humans have been breeding the species that we adopt as pets most frequently to have the physical characteristics that appeal to us, such as large eyes in relation to the head, in particular. All dogs are members of the same species (Canis familiaris), whether the short, squished noses of brachycephalic canine species like those of the Pug and Bulldogs, the floppy ears of the Labradors and Retrievers, or the skin folds of the Shar Pei, those characteristics were all products of artificial selection by human beings. They appeal to us the way they do simply because we bred them in the first place as much for those physical features that we consider so “cute” as for their other breed-specific characteristics and capabilities. The fact that we typically “infantilize” our pets (meaning that we treat them like infants throughout their entire lives) may have a lot to do with the emotions they evoke in us in conjunction with way the physical characteristics that we have bred into them appeal to our subconscious nurturing instincts.

Similarly, because our pets are entirely dependent on us, they probably trigger some of the same protective and nurturing instincts as do our own children. It is rewarding and “validating” to us to have another being be so dependent on us.

This concept of validation is extremely significant throughout the field of human psychology. Essentially, it means that we derive psychological comfort and satisfaction from being perceived positively by others, and especially, from being perceived the way we perceive ourselves. In human relationships, even the deepest love is “conditional” and with the possible exception of parental love for children, the love we may have for others today can change or even disappear altogether based on the choices, values, and beliefs of people we love, tomorrow. Meanwhile, the love that our pets (particularly our dogs and pet birds) have for us is virtually “unconditional.” Whereas we might sometimes lose the respect and love of other people because of things that we do or because of things they may find out they do not like about us, once we have an established bond with our pets, they continue to love us regardless of any personal flaws that might cause other people to stop loving us.

Therefore, our love for our pets is probably a function of multiple factors that contribute simultaneously to our deep affection for them. We may have evolutionary tendencies to derive comfort from being around other living things we have bred into our pets the very characteristics that make them most appealing to us our pets fulfill our need for validation because of their perpetual dependence on us and (perhaps most of all), our pets love us unconditionally and in a way that is less susceptible to being lost than the love of other human beings.


What Is The Nature Vs. Nurture Psychology Debate, And How Does It Affect Me?

What causes mental health issues? The question is one that has been studied extensively over the years, with each condition being examined. Yet, in most cases, no one clear answer has been found. One reason for this is the ongoing nature vs. nurture psychology debate.

The History Of Nature Vs. Nurture Debate

The nature vs. nurture psychology debate has been going on for thousands of years. It was first discussed in Ancient Greece when the philosopher Galen suggested that personality arose from variations in bodily fluids. Then, in 1874, Sir Francis Galton used the terms nature and nurture when he wrote his theory on intelligence and personality as being determined by heredity.

About the same time, John Locke stated that children were born as a blank slate, and all their characteristics came from what they learned. During the 1900s, behavioral and psychoanalytic theory relied heavily on the assumption that environment and learning were the most important factors in mental health.

Later on, in the 1900s, as studies on genetics and neuroscience became more common, there was a shift back towards the nature end. Nonetheless, research continued to suggest that both nature and nurture were as equally important. Presently, the old nature vs. nurture debate is in deadlock, with both factor being as impactful.

The Nature Side

In psychology, nature is defined as the biological factors that influence your psychological makeup. Your genetic code is the source of your nature. Your genes determine your brain structure and brain chemistry that ultimately shape your thought processing, emotions, and behaviors.

How Can Nature Be Changed?

If heredity were the only cause of mental conditions, there would be no hope for someone with mental health issues, unless that nature could be changed. For thousands of years, it was thought that nature couldn't be changed. Once the genetic code is created during conception, an embryo is destined to be mentally healthy or not. In this event, if genetics were the primary factor, this would present a relatively hopeless situation for people with mental conditions.

In recent years, many options have been offered to change the physical properties of the brain. Some of the most common ones include, medications that change the chemical properties of the brain, and Electroconvulsive therapy that changes the physical structure of the brain.


Source: rawpixel.com

Also, all sorts of diets, relaxation techniques, and brain-training gadgets and machines have been proposed as ways to change the brain. Examples include light-and-sound machines, neurofeedback devices, and electric or magnetic stimulation devices.

The Nurture Side

The nurture side of the debate focuses on environment and learning. Nurture includes the type of parenting you received as an infant and child. You're also nurtured by teachers, the community, and the culture at large. Nurture continues throughout your life, as you learn from various teachers, role models, college instructors, and community leaders.

Nurture also includes all the experiences you have. If you experience psychological trauma, it's a part of your nurture, even though it is a negatively nurturing experience. When you interact with people socially, those interactions become a part of your nurturing as well, good or bad.

Nurturing can also include anything you learn, whether it's from books, websites, classes, or on-the-job training. Learning can happen anywhere you go, at any time, and from any source. Since your environment is included in your nurture, anything you come in contact with can be included.

How Can Nurture Be Changed?

You do have direct control over your environment in many cases, at least as an adult. When you're an infant or a child, you have little choice but to accept the environment you're given. But, as an adult, you can seek out different experiences.

You can educate yourself or find a mentor to teach you what they know. You can go to a counselor and learn new ways to think about your mental health issues. You can learn relaxation techniques and coping skills.

How Twin Studies And Adoption Studies Have Changed The Debate

When researchers started conducting twin studies, the nature vs. nurture debate could be more accurately evaluated. Because identical twins share nearly all the same genetic information, the effects of their nurture were much more obvious. If their biology is the same, the differences must be due to their environment and learning. Adoptive siblings that are raised in the same environment, too, can give clues as to the role of nature in creating differences.

Examples Of Nature Vs. Nurture In Psychology

In every area of human thought, emotion, and behavior, the nature vs. nurture debate is being manifested. The following are a few of those areas.

Intelligence

Both twin and adoption studies have been conducted to find out whether intelligence is carried in the genetic code or created through nurture. Twins that were raised apart still had similar IQs. On the contrary, children who were adopted by the same family with no genetic history in common were no more similar in IQ than children who had never even met each other. Therefore, it was concluded that IQ was largely determined by genetic factors.

Yet, the debate hasn't been completely settled for intelligence. A brochure by the Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation suggests that intelligence can be increased by improving mental efficiency. Techniques that can be used for this purposeinclude relaxation training, transcendental meditation, yoga, autogenic therapy, and biofeedback.

Personality

Another question within the nature vs. nurture debate is whether personality comes from biological or environmental factors. Twins who were raised apart tend to have more shared personality traits than do random paired strangers. Some scientists suggested that the similarities had more to do with the matching appearances than with the genetic heritability of personality. However, when tested in clinical studies, the hypothesis was found to be unfounded.

Another study found that of all the personality disorders recognized by the DSM-II-R, only antisocial personality seemed to be inherited through genes. Paranoid, schizoid, schizotypal, borderline, histrionic, narcissistic, avoidant and dependent, passive-aggressive, and obsessive-compulsive personality disorders appearedto be caused primarily by environmental rather than genetic factors.

Anxiety Disorders

While it might seem that anxiety is mainly induced by environment, a genetic component plays a role, as well. In one study of family risk and genetic causes for anxiety disorders, researchers found that panic disorders were 43% inherited and generalized anxiety disorders were 32% inherited. The other 57% and 68% respectively were due to non-shared environmental factors.

The Interactionist Position

So, you might wonder, if some conditions have both a genetic and an environmental component, is there a point in having a nature vs. nurture debate? There is a third way to think of these issues. It's called the interactionist position. When you take this position, you recognize that both nature and nurture play a part in most psychological similarities and differences.

Most researchers recognize the contributions of both nature and nurture to mental health issues. The real question is how much influence is induced by nature and how much from nurture. Once researchers pin down the percentages, the path to treatment becomes clearer.

Why Does It Matter?

Your position in this debate may determine how you'll go about addressing your mental health issues. If you believe that only genetic factors are at the root of your problems, you may feel powerless to change them. You may spend a lot of time playing the "blame game." Or you may, on the other hand,turn to activities like diet change, medications, or biofeedback, in an effort, to change your biological makeup.

If you believe that nurture is most important, you may also blame others, such as your parents and teachers, for not teaching you the right lessons during your childhood. On the other hand, there's so much you can do to change your environment and learning now that this view opens up a wide range of treatment options.

If you take an interactionist position, you can work with all the factors that might influence you. You can take prescription medications, make lifestyle changes, or practice brain games. You can also seek new learning experiences and find out how to change your thoughts and behaviors through therapy.

Mental health issues are sometimes difficult to overcome, especially if they're rooted both in your biology and your early environment. With the right help, you can make lasting changes. You can talk to a licensed therapist at BetterHelp.com for convenient online therapy. Through various forms of therapy, you can change the outcome of your mental health issues for the better.

Why is Nature Vs Nurture important to psychology?

The nature versus nurture debate is the extent to which aspects of our behavior are the product of either inherited (i.e., nature) or learned (i.e., nurture) influences. Nature is what we think of as what we are pre-destined to become and is influenced by genetic inheritance (i.e., hair color). On the other hand, nurture is the influence of external factors after conception (i.e., personality characteristics).

Breaking down nature versus nurture within the psychological sciencedisciplines involves a discussion around the two extreme schools of thought &ndash Nativism and Empiricism. The first is nativism. Eye color, hair texture, skin pigmentation and predisposition to genetic diseases are all a function of the genes we inherit. These facts have led nativists to speculate whether psychological characteristics such as behavioral tendencies, personality attributes, and mental abilities are also genetically influenced. The basic assumption amongst nativists is that the characteristics of the human species is entirely a product of evolution and individual differences can be explained by each person&rsquos unique genetic code.

Empiricism is the opposite of nativism in that it takes the extreme nurture position. Their basic assumption is that at birth, the human mind is a blank slate, or a tabula rasa, and that it is gradually filled as a result of experience. Psychological characteristics and behavioral differences that emerge from birth through childhood are the results of learning and being part of an environment.

Researchers in the field of behavioral genetics study how genes affect behavior and therefore relate variation in behavior between people. Behavioral genetics allows psychology to quantify just how much nature and nurture impact specific psychological traits. One way to do this is to study relatives who share the same genes but a different environment. Adoption also acts a natural experiment that allows researchers to determine whether certain traits are more or less a product of either nature or nurture or a combination of the two. Studies have consistently shown that adopted children show greater physical resemblance to their biological parents, rather than their adoptive parents.

Another way researchers have studied nature versus nurture is through twin studies. Identical twins share the same genes whereas fraternal twins share 50% of their genes. Like adoption studies, twin studies support that psychological traits are extremely inheritable, about 50% on average. In a Twins in Early Development Study, there was found to be correlations between twins on a range of behavioral traits such as personality (empathy and hyperactivity) and the reach of phonetics.

Nature versus nurture is just one way that developmental psychology tries to explain and understand the differences in human behavior and how genetic and environmental factors contribute to those differences.

Is Developmental Psychology a nature or nurture?

Developmental psychology is the scientific study of changes that occur in human beings over the course of their lives and examines change and development across a broad range of topics, such as motor skills, cognitive development, problem-solving skills, personality and emotional development, among others.

When explaining development, considering both nature and nurture is important. Developmental psychology seeks to answer two big questions around nature versus nurture. The first is how much weight does each contribute? And the second is how do nature and nurture interact? Developmental psychology considers both nature and nurture when it comes to explaining human development since they are both seen as playing a crucial role in determining the development of personality and other behaviors.

Was Freud nature or nurture?

Sigmund Freud stated that events in our childhood have a great influence on our adult lives, shaping our personality characteristics. Freud was of the belief that parenting is of primary importance to a child&rsquos development. These aspects of the theory led Freud to believe early childhood was crucial to the development of personality as an adult. In fact, he focused primarily on the first five years of life as being critical to healthy outcomes.

While Freud was primarily interested in how nurture influences a person&rsquos behavior, Freud&rsquos theory of aggression is steeped in nature. Freud believed that aggression was an innate drive propelled by thoughts and feelings of the subconscious mind. Unlike his belief that personality traits are influenced by a person&rsquos environment during early childhood, he saw aggression as something that was innate in everyone.

Despite Freud&rsquos flourishing success and contributions to the psychology field, it is clear that even he struggled with the nature versus nurture debate.

How does nature and nurture affect personality?

As discussed above, there are various schools of thoughts around whether nature or nurture influence personality. However, the contemporary school of thought is that person&rsquos personality is multi-faceted and is therefore a combination of both influences, rather than one being solely responsible.

Personality is not determined by any single gene. Rather, genes work together to determine certain actions. There is no &ldquoIQ gene&rdquo that determines intelligence. Genes are also not so powerful that they can control or create our personalities solely by themselves. In the same way that personality is not determined solely by genes, it is also not solely determined by environmental influences. Personality is affected by both genetic and environmental influences and because of this, it is something that can continue to be shaped throughout a person&rsquos life.

How does nature and nurture affect intelligence?

Intelligence is a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon that cannot simply be boiled down to whether one&rsquos genetics or environment influence intelligence.

Throughout the history of psychology, the nature versus nurture debate has caused quite a bit of controversy. Eugenics, for example, was a movement heavily influenced by the nativist approach.

Psychologist Francis Galton, a cousin of naturalist Charles Darwin, coined the terms nature versus nurture as well as eugenics and believes that intelligences were the result of genetics. Galton believed that intelligent individuals should be encouraged to marry and have many children, while less intelligent individuals should be prevented from reproducing.

Today, the majority of experts believe that a combination of nature and nurture impact behavior and development, including intelligence.

How does nature and nurture influence child development?

In the past, children were viewed as blank slates, which led to parents believing they could mod their child&rsquos development solely through their actions. The idea put a lot of pressure on parents as it suggested that any decision would impact their child. We now know that this is not the case as their genetic makeup influences aspects of their behavior and personality. Beginning at conception, how a child develops and behaviors is partly influenced by the genes they inherit. Examples of nature influencing characteristics include sleeping behavior and parts of a child&rsquos personality. However, the child&rsquos environment plays a crucial role in influencing which genetic influences play a prominent role.

The reality is that nature and nurture both play a crucial role in influencing child development. In fact, new research demonstrates that environmental influences can actually affect genetic expression and whether or how the genes are expressed in the first place. The research found that adverse fetal and early childhood experiences can, and oftentimes do, lead to physical and chemical changes in the brain that can last a lifetime. Additionally, the study found that variations in DNA sequences between individuals influences the way genes are expressions, but the environment in which one develops, before and soon after birth, provides an impactful experience that chemically modify certain genes.

What are the 6 principles of nurture?

The six principles of nurture include: environmental variables, childhood experiences, how we were raised, social relationships, surrounding culture, and having a sense of belonging.

Is anxiety caused by nature or nurture

Around 40 million people are diagnosed with anxiety annually. When it comes to mental illness, the nature nurture debate can be quite helpful in shedding light on why some people develop issues whereas others do not. Anxiety researchers cite social learning theory as significant to the development of clinical anxiety conditions. Four ways the development of anxiety can be explained is:

  1. Exposure to a traumatic event can lead to fear and anxiety.
  2. Anxiety and fear are learned by people through watching the reactions and experiences of those around them.
  3. Simply talking about situations, objects, or people can lead to fear or anxiety.
  4. Children may negatively reinforce anxiety by avoiding it, which can lead to the development of a clinically significant anxiety condition.

On the other side of the debate, nature plays a pivotal role in understanding anxiety. Twin studies on anxiety disorders have found a genetic foundation for developing anxiety. One study found that there is around 30% for a &ldquomoderate genetic risk&rdquo for an anxiety disorder to be diagnosed if another family member has a diagnosis. However, gene-mapping findings have been less clear. This has led researchers to believe that there may be different genes responsible for the development of specific anxiety disorders, such as Generalized Anxiety Disorder.

When it comes to the nature nurture discussion for just about any topic, it becomes clear that both likely play a role in determining why certain behaviors and health problems arise.

Is aggression Nature or nurture?

Examples of nature influencing aggression include Sigmund Freud&rsquos belief that aggression is innate and therefore is influenced by nature. In contrast to this view, Albert Bandura&rsquos social learning theory states that aggression is learned from the environment through observation and imitation. In 1961, Bandura sought to prove this through his famous Bobo Doll experiment. During the experiment, 24 children were shown an aggressive model, 24 children were shown a non-aggressive model, and 24 children were shown no model. The study found that children are able to learn social behavior such as aggression through the process of observing another person&rsquos behavior.

Is high IQ nature or nurture?

A high IQ is not determined by nature or nurture, rather it is a combination of the two. As stated previously, there is no single &ldquoIQ gene&rdquo that will predetermine whether a person is destined to have a higher IQ than someone else. Rather, it is a combination of genetic predisposition and environmental influences that truly impact a person&rsquos IQ.

Does nature affect intelligence?

Intelligence is a complex trait that is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors. Intelligence is strongly influenced by the environment a person grows up in. Many psych reports show that factors related to a child&rsquos home environment and parenting, education and availability of learning resources, and nutrition are just some of the environmental contributions to a person&rsquos intelligence. Examples of nature influencing intelligence have been studied extensively, however the studies have not conclusively identified any genes that play a major role in differences in intelligence.

Which one is more important between nature and nurture?

The current school of thought is that nature and nurture are equally important and that both influence a person&rsquos overall behavior and personality.

Why is nurture important?

While certain genetic factors may create an increased chance for a particular illness or behavior, the probability that a person develops either is oftentimes dependent on environment. One example of this is that the basis for addiction is not thought to be entirely genetic by most researchers. Environmental aspects, such as the habits of parents, friends, or a partner might also be significant factors contributing to whether a person develops an addiction. Similarly, researchers found that while a family history of mental health conditions was the second strongest predictor of mental illness, the strongest predictors were life events and experiences, such as childhood bullying, abuse, or other trauma. Nurture plays a crucial role in how we develop and evolve into who we are in the world.

How do you nurture yourself?

There are many ways to nurture yourself and doing so will have many positive impacts. A technique for treating yourself better is by developing your &ldquoInner Nurturing Parent.&rdquo Even if you did not have the most nurturing of familial relationships, you can create your inner nurturing parent by forgiving your past mistakes, making every effort to keep yourself healthy and safe,to love and support yourself. Some tips to get started include telling yourself &ldquoI love you and appreciate who you are&rdquo at the end of each day or saying &ldquoI believe in you&rdquo when you&rsquove had a particularly tough day. Making time each day for things you enjoy and prioritizing your health and well-being by starting a weekly exercise routine are other ways to begin to nurture yourself.

What is a nurturing woman?

There is no one &ldquoright&rdquo way to be a nurturing person. However, some characteristics of a nurturing person is someone who makes an effort to keep loved ones healthy and safe, listens to and acknowledges their feelings, forgives mistakes, and lets their loved ones know how loved they are. A nurturing person makes mistakes, lets others know when they have made a mistake and accepts responsibility for those mistakes.


Why do men find blonde women so very attractive?

Carole replies:
Ten years after he published On the Origin of Species in 1859, Darwin started to research the sexual selection of blonde hair in women in preparation for his book The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex, which was published in 1871. Unfortunately he was unable to find enough data to support his theory that blonde hair is sexually selected and had to drop the subject.

Today there are plenty of theories about the evolution of blonde hair and the science of genetics has furthered the debate. Research on variation in human hair colouration has shown that mutations in genes that are involved in the synthesis of melanin pigments are largely responsible. Individuals with lower levels of a melanin pigment called eumelanin are likely to have blonde hair. 1

There is no single gene for blue eyes and blonde hair, but these adaptations are often found expressed together because the genes for each trait are located close together on the same chromosome.

It has been theorised that the blonde hair and blue eyes seen in Caucasians are recent adaptations, dating from approximately 11,000 years ago. The traits are thought to have evolved among northern European tribes at the end of the last ice age. Although both natural and sexual selection have played a part in the evolution of the blue-eyed blonde, sexual selection was probably the primary force.

As regards natural selection, depigmentation allows greater penetration of the skin by ultraviolet B (UVB), which is needed to synthesise previtamin D3. Northern Europe has fewer hours of sunlight compared with Africa, so the theory is that tribes migrating into Europe underwent a genetic mutation that resulted in the depigmentation of skin and hair. 2

Sexual selection would certainly have been a powerful driving force behind evolution in northern Europeans. Late Palaeolithic females in southern Europe and Africa could forage for food and feed themselves and their infants, with males occasionally supplementing their diet with meat. In northern Europe, however, where ice covered much of the terrain, people were dependent on meat. Bands of men went in search of herds of prehistoric bison or mammoth. These hunting trips were dangerous, resulting in many fatalities.

It has been suggested that as a result this was a time of intense sexual rivalry between females due to their numbers exceeding those of males. 3 At any given time far more fertile women than men were left unmated, so females had to compete for mates and for a favourable share of meat. The theory is that when given the choice, Pelaeolithic males chose blondes, who stood out from their rivals.

In addition, before bottles of hydrogen peroxide became available, blonde hair in females could be interpreted as an honest signal of youth and therefore reproductive fitness. This is because postmenopausal women rarely retain the flaxen locks of their youth, of course eventually becoming grey grannies.

Interestingly, Aboriginal tribes have evolved blonde hair in females independently of the Nordic blonde. 3 As this has occurred in an environment not lacking UVB this suggests that sexual selection has been more important than the forces of natural selection. But in some parts of the world, such as central Africa, mutations that result in albinism (or a significant depigmentation) of a baby can provoke fear and superstition and sometimes even infanticide. Colour mutations can only proliferate in populations if they are seen as desirable and are sexually selected for.

There are higher numbers of females born blonde than males and retention of blonde hair into adulthood is a sexually selected indicator of fitness in females. 4 Caucasian blondes are usually slightly higher in oestrogen than brunettes and are likely to exhibit other infantile sexually selected traits (indicating low levels of testosterone) that are considered desirable by males, for example finer facial features, smaller nose, smaller jaw, pointed chin, narrow shoulders, smooth skin and less body hair, and infantile behaviour such as higher energy levels and playfulness. 5

Another possible reason for Nordic gentlemen preferring blondes is to assure their paternity. The genes for blue eyes and blonde hair are recessive, meaning both parents must have the genes for them to be expressed in their offspring. 6 So it has been proposed that blue-eyed men prefer blue-eyed women as mates because they have some degree of certainty over fatherhood. A blue-eyed male with a brown-eyed mate would not have the same assurance the resulting brown-eyed infant was his child and therefore worthy of a slice of the mammoth he risked his life trapping and slaughtering and then spent days dragging back across miles of icy tundra.

This would also help to explain the existence of blond males. Blond hair in males does not correlate with oestrogen levels as it does in females and blond hair in males is not a known indicator of fitness as it is in females. In addition, females don't select for physical appearance to the degree that men do. For a female to choose a blond male he must be able to deliver resources (mammoth), as his blond hair alone is not enough to turn her on.

Blondes do not seem to have lost any of their popularity since the end of the last ice age. Research suggests that blondes feature more often as Playboy centerfolds than they do in women's magazines, and the percentage of blondes in each type of magazine exceeds the base rate of blondes in the normal population. 7

This would suggest that the selection pressures that shaped the standards of Western female beauty in the late-Palaeolithic are still the same today, and it may well explain why you are attracted to blonde women.


So, can gossip be good for you?

&ldquoPeople are really resistant to thinking about gossip as anything but a bad behavior,&rdquo says Robbins. And Feinberg notes that there are some types of gossip that should be avoided, such as gossip that is purely harmful and serves no greater purpose &mdash like mean comments about someone&rsquos looks.

In such a scenario, &ldquoyou&rsquore not learning anything,&rdquo Robbins adds. &ldquoNo one is benefiting.&rdquo

There&rsquos also a physiological distinction to be drawn between active and passive participation in gossip. Matthew Feinberg, an assistant professor of organizational behavior at the University of Toronto&rsquos Rotman School of Management, and his colleagues explored this in a 2012 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. When subjects heard about another person&rsquos anti-social behavior or an injustice, their heart rates increased. When they were able to actively gossip about the person, or the situation, on the other hand, it soothed them and brought their heart rates down. The act of gossiping, Feinberg explains, &ldquohelps calm the body.&rdquo

In addition, Feinberg&rsquos research has shown that gossip can promote cooperation by spreading important information. &ldquoWhen people say &lsquoyour reputation precedes you,&rsquo it&rsquos because they have heard gossip about that person,&rdquo he says, which &ldquocan be extremely useful.&rdquo That said, disseminating or not correcting gossip you know to be untrue doesn&rsquot have any pro-social benefit.

In another of Feinberg&rsquos studies, a group of participants identified members who behaved selfishly via gossip, and promptly kicked them out. In the study, participants were divided into subgroups, and then each person was given a number of points representing small sums of money. Each participant could contribute these points to their group &mdash in which case, the points would be doubled and redistributed equally &mdash or keep them for themselves. Armed with the knowledge of their peers&rsquo decisions, participants then played the game over again in different groupings. Crucially, they could inform their new groups how much someone had contributed in earlier exercises, and could vote to exclude someone who had behaved selfishly from a round entirely.

Having eliminated those bad apples, remaining participants were then able to work more harmoniously and inflate their collective pot. Individuals who had given less than half their points initially increased their contributions by the end of the latter rounds, while those who had been excluded gave significantly more after they were allowed back into the game, conforming to the less selfish behavior.

Gossiping also says something about the relationships people have with each other. &ldquoIn order to gossip, you need to feel close to people,&rdquo says Stacy Torres, assistant professor of sociology at the University of California, San Francisco, who has studied gossip in older adults. &ldquoThere&rsquos an intimacy&rdquo to sharing experiences and feeling like you&rsquore on the same page about others, she points out. Torres&rsquo research has found that gossip can stave off loneliness, while other studies have found it can facilitate bonding and closeness and serve as a form of entertainment.

So, keep on talking. And when your conversation turns to gossip, as it inevitably will, remember that some good can come of it &mdash with the right intentions, of course.

The original version of this story misstated the methodology of research published in the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science in 2019. It is a meta-analysis of gossip as a behavior, not a study.


Beauty as the Center of Life

In the late 19th century, many artists, writers, and painters identified themselves with what became known as the aesthetic movement. This began in the 1860s and was concentrated mostly in England and France. Aesthetes placed beauty above all things and argued that its worship and creation should be the center of life.

Many loathed the hideous new factories and huge industrial towns and longed to return to the simplicity and beauty of the medieval world. In England, this led to the formation of a new artistic school known as the Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood. The artists involved sought to recapture the mystic beauty and craftsmanship of the medieval period and tried to do so in their paintings and designs. Many supported and defended this group, such as the Oxford professors and art critics John Ruskin and Walter Pater (both tutors to the young Oscar Wilde, who was to become perhaps the most famous of the aesthetes).

Aesthetes believed that beauty should be everywhere, woven into the fabric of everyday life, from the way you dressed to the way you decorated your home. In 1873, for example, Pater published Renaissance Studies and concluded it with a passionate call for people to live their lives by a philosophy of beauty. Ruskin believed that a reverence for beauty would also lead to a more humane and moral society. If you loathe ugliness, you will behave decently because cruelty is ugly. For Wilde, the love and creation of beauty was the purpose and meaning of life itself.


Why Our Connection with Nature Matters

Nature is good for us. There’s plenty of evidence that exposure to nature is good for people’s health, well-being and happiness – with green spaces even promoting prosocial behaviours . Less is known about why nature is good for us. Simply put, nature is good for us because we are part of nature. We are human animals evolved to make sense of the natural world and this embeddedness in the natural world can often be forgotten and overlooked.

Mentally, we can become disconnected from nature because we’re now deeply embedded in a human-made world. Emerging research is showing that knowing and feeling this connection with nature is also good for us, and it helps bring about the wider health benefits of exposure to nature. Knowing your place in nature brings meaning and joy.

My research is focussed on understanding and increasing this connection with nature because being connected is associated with greater pro-nature conservation behaviours and our own well-being. Having a connection with nature is beneficial for the well-being of both humans and the natural world.

Our first intervention to improve nature connection was purposefully simple, something all of us can do each and every day, in most things we do. It is simply taking notes of ‘ 3 Good Things in Nature‘ each day, from noticing the song of a bird to the breeze in a tree. We found writing down three good things in nature each day for a week led to sustained increases in nature connection – and that increase was linked with improvements in psychological health.

We’ve also been involved in larger-scale projects, The Wildlife Trust’s 30 Days Wild campaign set out to encourage people to value nature more highly in their own life, with an emphasis on commonplace and accessible nature experiences. Over the last couple of years over 40,000 people have taken part. Our evaluation found that participants had sustained increases in happiness, health, connection to nature and pro-nature behaviours.

This was an excellent outcome, but for me, the key point was that the improvement in health was influenced by the improvement in happiness (which makes sense), but this relationship was mediated by the increase in connection to nature. So spending time in nature helps people feel happier and more connected, and being both happy and connected makes people feel healthier.

As part of my work to find ways to improve our connection to nature, I also do research into understanding what individual differences make us connected. For example, simply reflecting on our nature – self-directed thinking and those reflective thoughts that can improve our self-knowledge. This is a genuine interest about one’s own values and attitudes, and can also involve reflection on the emotions that contribute to our concept of self, one that might include the natural world, which is our connection with nature.

This fits well with my definition of nature connection, ‘a realisation of our shared place in nature, which affects our being – how we experience the world here and now our emotional response, beliefs and attitudes towards nature’.

Interestingly, in our research self-refection emerged as a greater predictor of connection to nature than mindfulness . By looking inward we can realise a closer connection to nature. From an applied perspective, we should find ways to promote self-reflection, places to pause in nature, and ways to prompt reflection.

Finally, there is plenty of evidence that nature is good for us, but how does being in nature impact on our emotions, body and well-being? To explain the benefits of nature we need to understand our emotions and their underlying physiology. Our latest work presents three dimensions of emotion and supporting evidence to show how nature regulates emotions and the heart.

The three dimensions are that humans can experience threat, drive and contentment. Each dimension brings different feelings (such as anxiety, joy, and calm), and different motivations (avoid, pursue and rest), each releasing various hormones in the body.

For well-being, we need a balance between the three dimensions happiness and satisfaction comes through balancing threat, drive and contentment. For example, when our threat response is overactive, an unbalance caused by being constantly driven at work, for example, our positive emotions are reduced, and we can become anxious or depressed.

We re-analysed previous Japanese shinrin-yoku (forest bathing) studies that had compared how the body reacts to being immersed in nature (woodland), to being in an urban environment. The results of the analysis supported the story told above. Finding that being in the woods was calming, activating the parasympathetic nervous system associated with contentment. Whereas the urban environment stimulated the sympathetic nervous system associated with drive and threat.

Threat, drive and contentment, and their links to our mind and bodies, are easily understood in the context of our everyday lives, providing an accessible physiological based narrative to help explain the benefits of nature.

Such a neurophysiological and evolutionary explanation provides a compelling argument to convince others of the role of, and need for, nature in our everyday lives. With interventions such as ‘3 Good Things in Nature’ and ’30 Days Wild’ providing simple ways to help engage people with nature each day, through both celebrating and reflecting on nature. All because doing so is good for nature, and good for you.

Dr Miles Richardson is a chartered psychologist and chartered ergonomist.

Disclaimer: Psychreg is mainly for information purposes only. Materials on this website are not intended to be a substitute for professional advice, diagnosis, medical treatment, or therapy. Never disregard professional psychological or medical advice nor delay in seeking professional advice or treatment because of something you have read on this website. Read our full disclaimer here.


Keeping the Fires Burning

Some of us may have committed ourselves to the fantastical notion that romance is just an act of spontaneous combustion. But, Needle says it’s time to ditch the myth.

“Get rid of the myth that these things should just happen spontaneously and that there is something wrong with the relationship because you are not all over each other every minute, as when you began the relationship,” Needle says. “The truth is that you have to put in time and energy and make a conscious effort to sustain the relationship and the passion.”

Healthy relationships require regular communication, she adds.

“Basic communication with your partner on a daily basis is important to continue connecting on an emotional level,” Needle says. “Also, remind yourself why you fell in love with this person.”

Predictability can also dampen desires, so couples should strive to keep a sense of adventure and surprise alive in their relationships.

“Break the predictable pattern every so often,” Needle advises.

People can let their partners know how much they love them by the little things they do every day.

“To be romantic is to make a choice to wake up each day and ask yourself what you can do today to let your lover know they are adored,” Kane says. “Have fun in your romance and remember that the more effort you put into your romantic relationship, the more love you will receive in return. Be the partner that you seek and live a life filled with passion and romance.”


Watch the video: Altai. Søholdere. Agafya Lykova og Vasily Peskov. Sibirien. Teletskoye-søen. (August 2022).