Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Psychology today/nature vs nurture
Nature vs. Nature
Nature vs. Nature
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The nature versus nurture debate is one of the oldest and most controversial issues in psychology. The debate is concerned with whether heredity or the environment most impacts human psychological development. So, which possesses a more substantial role in creating a villain? Some may state that a villain is born inherently evil in their nature. However, many studies in sociology and psychology suggest an opposing view; almost any of us can be nurtured into an evil being. People often find themselves being nurtured through the influence of social roles. Social Roles refer to the expectations, responsibilities, and behaviors we adopt in certain situations. The ideas for expected or “normal” behavior are reinforced both by the individual and …show more content…
This idea is supported in the novel Frankenstein on the monster’s journey to Geneva, where he saves a young girl from drowning in a stream. The monster’s actions are “rewarded” with a gunshot to his body from the man accompanying the young girl, who believes the monster is the girls attacker. After these events took place, the monster explains, “This was then the reward of my benevolence! I had saved a human being from destruction, and as a recompense, I now writhed under the miserable pain of a wound, which shattered the flesh and bone. The feelings of kindness and gentleness which I had entertained but a few moments before gave place to hellish rage and gnashing of teeth. Inflamed by pain, I vowed eternal hatred and vengeance to all mankind” (Shelley, 168). Clearly, the monster displayed his internal righteousness through his heroic actions. However, the man who shot Frankenstein's creation denies him any opportunity to embody this role of a hero and overall good being by labeling him as a villain instead. The creature is denied any social role other than that of a monster. Therefore, that is the role he assumes in society; an evildoer. Need experiment evidence+analysis. Need analysis between the
In Frankenstein, various themes are introduced. There are dangerous knowledge, sublime nature, nature versus nurture, monstrosity, and secrecy and guilt. I chose a main theme as nature versus nurture. Nature is some traits that a person is born with, and nurture is an environment that surrounds a person. The novel indirectly debates whether the development of individual is affected more by nature or by nurture through Victor and the Monster.
The Creature, Victor Frankenstein’s creation, is shaped into a monster through its experiences, instead of the nature of itself, which is more expected. Victor Frankenstein, on the other hand, is shaped into a monster because of his mind’s power-hungry nature. Victor treats his creature poorly and he himself becomes wicked. While the Creature also becomes wicked in the end, its actions are more justified because multiple people treated it poorly, causing the Creature to lash out. Even though Victor Frankenstein and the Creature both turn into wicked monsters, to some extent, only one of
Critic Northrop Frye says, “Tragic heroes tower as the highest points in their human landscape that they seem the inevitable conductors of the power about them, the great trees more likely to be struck by lightning than a clump of grass. Conductors may of course be instruments as well as victims of the divine lightning”. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein greatly exhibits the theme of the consequence of knowledge and irresponsibility among others through its tragic hero, Victor Frankenstein. Northrop Frye’s quote is certainly true when looking at Frankenstein’s situation. Victor is a victim of his divine lightning, and ultimately causes much trouble for himself; however, Victor also serves as the tragic hero in the lives of the monster, his family, and his friends.
Nature vs. nurture has been one of the oldest and most debated topics among psychologists over the years. This concept discusses whether a child is born into this world with their developmental work cut out for them or if a child is a “blank slate” and their experiences are what shape them into who they are. Over the years and plenty of research, psychologists have all mostly come to agree that it’s a little bit of both. Children are both born with some genetic predispositions while other aspects of the child’s development are strongly influenced by their surrounding environment. This plays into the criminal justice system when discussing where criminal behavior stems from. Is a criminal’s anti-social behavior just part of their DNA or is it a result of their upbringing? The answer to this question is not definite. Looking at research a strong argument can be made that criminals developed their anti-social patterns through the atmosphere in which they were raise, not their DNA.
“In the long run, we shape our lives, and we shape ourselves. The process never ends until we die. And the choices we make are ultimately our own responsibility.” (Eleanor Roosevelt). This is just one of the infinite examples of how human nature has been explored by so many different people. Each and every human is born with the capability of making their own choices. The decisions that they will make in the future will determine how evil they are viewed by others. Although one’s nature and nurture do affect their life, it is their own free will that determines whether or not they are evil.
Nature and nurture are no longer a debate; we see the two working together in concert to produce a genuine expression of the individual. The personalities and habits humans acquire in their lives is as much a biological evolution as it is a social or cultural acclimatization. While some people still have the argument that it is nature or it is nurture many people have come to the realization that is has to be both. Both nature and nurture developed who we are and what we become. So the question would remain which one influences us more on if we become a criminal. In that it is meant people that live outside the acceptable social norms of that society that may involve punishment or rehabilitation. The impression that people become criminals due to their inheritable factor has not been a popular idea amongst criminologist and has incited anger amongst a lot of them. There have been amazing findings in the fields of genetics that have encouraged a biological evaluation in other social sciences. This has also steered to the appearance of a criminology sub-field called Biocriminology.
Andrew Lustig proposed a great question to the readers of Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein, “How far should we go in out efforts to alter nature, including human nature? As stewards of God’s creation what are our responsibilities?” (Lustig 1) This question results in theme of nature vs. nurture in the novel. The nature vs. nurture debate is an important topic in Mary Shelley’s novel Frankenstein. The two central characters, Victor Frankenstein and the creature that he creates; both, characters were raised differently. The nature and the nurture of their upbringing can be a cause of why they are, the way they are. Victor and his creature are subject to very different nurturing styles. Shelley also incorporates the representations of light and fire. This representation is key to the nature vs. nurture discussion in the novel.
As time goes on, many things tend to change, and then they begin to inherit completely different images. Over the years, the character, created by Dr. Victor Frankenstein in Mary Shelley’s famous novel, has changed dramatically. The monster, regularly called “Frankenstein,” has been featured in numerous films, such as Frankenweenie and Edward Scissorhands. Although, the characters in today’s pop culture and the monster in the well-known 1800’s novel have similarities, they are actually very different. The many similarities and differences range from the character’s physical traits and psychological traits, the character’s persona, and the character’s place in the Gothic style.
Many will agree that ones behavior is based on a combination of nature and nurture, however time and time again we see nurture plays a larger role then nature when it comes to how one acts. If we look at The boys from The lord of the flies, as well as when we read monkey love, we see how their environment had such a huge impact on them first with how the boys turned from being responsible, and even coming up with a form of social structure, then ultimately turning completely savage based on following primarily one individual. Secondly Harlow and how he grew up unattached to his mother, and how it played such a huge role in his controversial experiment. Finally we will take a look at Bill Clement, a former NHL player, and how he links success to the act of nurture.
When discussing human characteristics many statements are made regarding whether or not an individual was born with certain traits, or if they were raised in an environment that instilled the traits in them. This conflict is what is known as the nature and nurture argument, and in the study of behavior this argument is difficult to avoid. However the general consensus is that there is interplay between nature and nurture, that the characteristics and mannerisms that make up an individual are not dependent on one or the other. Generally there are two conclusions are made by research that is done concerning this argument; research that concludes that there is interplay and research
In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Victor Frankenstein, the protagonist, produces a monster and instead of teaching his monster the mannerisms and norms of society, he abandons him. Victor expects his monster to make it in the harsh, critical society without being taught correct demeanors because he believes that having correct mannerisms is intuitive. A common viewpoint of the book is that Frankenstein’s monster should receive the blame, because he should have had proper nature, but in reality, society nurtured him to act out. Victor isolated the monster, and other members of society followed in Victor’s example and also treated him as so; which made the creature’s actions monstrous. Frankenstein played God, causing society to view his creature as a monster and as a risk to the public, but Frankenstein did not intend to create the monster as dangerous in nature; society nurtured him to act as a beast.
Many people know that Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein, was part of a family of famed Romantic era writers. Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, was one of the first leaders of the feminist movement, her father, William Godwin, was a famous social philosopher, and her husband, Percy Shelley, was one of the leading Romantic poets of the time ("Frankenstein: Mary Shelley Biography."). What most people do not know, however, is that Mary Shelley dealt with issues of abandonment her whole life and fear of giving birth (Duncan, Greg. "Frankenstein: The Historical Context."). When she wrote Frankenstein, she revealed her hidden fears and desires through the story of Victor Frankenstein’s creation, putting him symbolically in her place (Murfin, Ross. "Psychoanalytic Criticism and Frankenstein.”). Her purpose, though possibly unconsciously, in writing the novel was to resolve both her feelings of abandonment by her parents, and fears of her own childbirth.
Many people believe that psychopaths are creations. People have genetics that make them, though people also have home lives that shape their mentality. The hate that humans receive from their guardians is their first look at life. Throughout existence, different circumstances add attributes to human character. Life is a toss up of Nature vs Nurture; people are born one way, but peer influence makes a person’s well-being. In Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, Shelley creates Victor to be a non-nurturing creator in order to suggest that care in the early stages is fundamental to the development of character.
Mary Shelley in her book Frankenstein addresses numerous themes relevant to the current trends in society during that period. However, the novel has received criticism from numerous authors. This paper discusses Walter Scott’s critical analysis of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein in his Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine Review of Frankenstein (1818).
Lord of the Flies, for example, shows how even boys as young as six years old can revert back to primal instincts (Golding). There is very little truth behind this regression theory. The need for resources is just basic survival, as described in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (Kleinman 120-122). While physiological needs seem cruel and selfish, they are natural in all organisms and do not mean that humans are evil. Some say that humans berate and hurt others because of this inheritance. On the contrary, a “bully” usually bullies because they have been teased or abused before, not because they were born with a trait that made them mean or just became that way naturally. One third of abused children become abusers in the tragic cycle, according to the New York Times (Goleman). This shows that people are not born with hatred and sadness in them; it grows based off of their experiences. While some argue that humans are evil because they fight for resources, this is just survival. And while others say that people are born with an incentive to hurt others, this drive is shaped throughout childhood based off of what one was exposed