The debate concerning nature versus nurture is among the oldest in the field of psychology. It revolves around the relative input of environmental and genetic factors in human development. While some scientists hold that an individual's personality is determined by genetic predilections (nature), others contend that what affects people more are their life experiences, the manner in which they are taught, as well as the environment that they are raised (nurture). However, it is most likely that both nurture and nature have a role in the way an individual turns out, and the true answer regarding which factor tips the scale remains hazy.
Philosophers such as Descartes and Plato believed that some things are innate and occur naturally without the intervention of environmental influences. Others such as John Locke were of the conviction that the mind is influenced by the way an individual is nurtured (Michie 1329). Locke suggested that the mind starts as a blank slate (tabula rasa), and everything constitutes an individual is determined by his or her experiences. Those in favor of a strictly heredity view are known as nativists while those who hold the position that human attributes and behavior result from a learning process are known as empiricists.
According to nativists, the traits and differences that are indiscernible at birth, but which surface later as a person grows, are considered the product of maturation. Put in a different way, nativists content that all people have an internal "biological clock" that activates and deactivates various behaviors in a predetermined manner (Nevid 329). An example of the way this clock works is the physical development of the human body. There is a marked pattern of development among both males and females, with the body undergoing certain changes at different phases of an individual's life, from infancy through puberty and finally to adulthood.