In understanding the behavioral, mental and sexual development of a child, several theories have been forwarded by psychologists. One of the theories that try to dig further into why the responses to circumstances between the males and females are essentially different but the same within the same gender is the nature versus nurture theory. There are some experts convinced that males and females are biologically wired differently in their brains, which makes their behaviors different. These are the proponents of nature. There are those of the opinion that the environment that a person grows up in conditions them to react to circumstances in a particular way. This second view belongs to the proponents of nurture. How true does each of the above claims sound convincing?
In the cognitive development of children, there is a group experts holding the view that children have ability to influence their environment actively while others contend that children are just passive recipients of social conditioning that later influences much of their behavior as they grow up. Would it be correct to claim that the former premise is the same as claiming that children are small adults, as was claimed by Darwin? Problems faced in early life by children tend to make some of them become very resilient and strong willed individuals in their later life. Some of these childhood calamities include broken families, violence and poverty. At the same time, these conditions make others become delinquents in their later lives, such as involving themselves in crimes or drugs. What are the possible explanations for the seemingly different outcomes from the same exposure in childhood?