“Were you raised in a barn?” is a common expression used somewhat frequently. This expression is typically humorous and is said to someone who lacks manners or is ignorant; as if this person was raised without learning basic etiquette. This phrase shows the nurture and environment that comes with shaping an individual’s behavior. The ongoing discourse between nature and nurture discusses what impacts an individual’s mind. Nature refers to genetic inheritance, something an individual would inherit from their parents, while nurture refers to environmental influences like how a person grew up. While genetics undoubtedly plays a role in shaping human development, nurture exerts more of an influence on individuals’ growth and progression. The environment …show more content…
nurture debate is serial killers. The majority of serial killers did the things they did because of the nurturing environment that they grew up in. They were abused, neglected, had an extremely dysfunctional family, or even just observed lots of violence as children, and as a result, developed an extreme obsession and fascination with crimes. Because they were exposed to such horrendous things at an extremely young age, their development differed from other kids. Traumatic experiences like those that shape an individual’s psychological and emotional development. The environment that was presented to them significantly influenced the traits that these people grew to have. Though genetics does serve an important role in the development of a person, it is more like a guide. It is important, just less important than the environment someone is surrounded by. Genetic factors simply set up a kind of blueprint for the brain. The human brain will recognize how something is supposed to be. Ultimately, the brain adapts and changes in response to the environment. The brain is constantly being shaped and reshaped by the environment, which is what ultimately affects the way an individual
Have you ever wondered, or thought where you have got your personality from? The debate over nature versus nurture is whether people like identical twins, for example, are born and raised by genetics,(nature) and if they are born and raised by influences and influenced by the environment around them(nurture). The debate over nature versus nurture is very important and cannot be ignored. Identical twins are different in many ways. Studies have shown that nurture, is more dominant than nature. My personality has also changed in many ways as I have been raised. So as you can see I am on the nurture side by far.
In the well-received novel “Pudd’nhead Wilson,” Mark Twain skillfully addresses the ancient argument about the origin of one’s character and whether it’s derived from his nature or his surroundings. We can best see this battle between nature versus nurture by inspecting the plot lines that follow the characters Thomas a Becket Driscoll, Valet de Chambre, and Roxana the slave. Thomas was born into a wealthy white family while Roxy birthed Chambers into a life of slavery. It seemed as though each would have gone their separate ways into opposite walks of life, but Roxy secretly swapped the children, which destined each to their counterintuitive fates. Through their words and actions, Tom, Chambers, and Roxy have proven the idea that one’s behaviors and desires are a result of his upbringings and the environment he lives in rather than by his innate nature.
Susan Evers and Sharon McKendrick, the famous identical twins from the movie The Parent Trap, were separated at a young age by their divorcing parents. Sharon grew up in Boston to a socialite mother while Susan grew up in California on her father’s ranch. Sharon had structure while Susan’s life was very laid back. They looked the same and liked many of the same things, yet their personalities were very different. What is responsible for these differences? Is it simply that they are two different people with different interests and preferences? Or did the environments that they grew up in play a part in making who they are? In the nature vs. nurture controversy, nature proclaims that our genetic make-up plays the primary role in human development, while nurture declares that our environment dictates our development.
The case of whether serial killers are born with the lust to kill or if they are truly victims of their environment has been a hot debated question by both psychologists and the FBI today. A serial killer is traditionally defined as one that kills 3 or more people at different times with “cooling off” periods in between kills. Both psychological abuse as a child and psychological disorders are to blame for the making of a killer. The nature vs. nurture debate is best applied to the mysterious behaviors and cases of serial killers and their upbringing and environment. Nature is the genetic and biological connections a person has, personality traits, and how genetic make-up all relates to a killer. Nurture is examining the upbringing and environment that a person is around that affects what a person becomes. In some cases however, the effects of only upbringing or only biological problems were the reasons certain serial killers committed crimes. Although there is no definitive answer to what plays the bigger role: nature or nurture, they both are contributing factors that make a serial killer. These deviants of society are afflicted with problems in either their upbringing or have psychological disorders, and are able to blend into our everyday lives with no apparent differences, yet they wreck havoc through their unremorseful killings.
The issue of whether or not criminal or aggressive behavior and violence is caused by biological or environmental factors has proven to be one that has caused a dispute for many years now. The biological or genetic factor of violent/criminal or aggressive behavior is certainly a much talked about topic. The idea that certain individuals could be predisposed to violence is something definitely deserving of doing research about. The nature vs. nurture topic has been a continuing debate for many aspects of human behavior, including aggression/violent behavior and criminal behavior. There have been many studies indicating that chemical relationships between hormones and the frontal lobe of the brain may play a key role in determining aggressive behavior as well as genetics, while other studies have explored environmental and social factors that have been said to control patterns in human aggression. Aggressive/violent behavior can’t be answered directly if it is caused by either nature or nurture; instead it is believed that both cause it.
The argument of nature vs. nurture is a long-standing one in the psychological and social worlds. It is the argument about whether we are ruled by our genes or our upbringing. It is my thought that neither is true. It is nature working with nurture which determines our personality and our lifestyle.
Nature versus nurture is a commonly debated topic in the scientific world. For example were all child molesters abused as children themselves or are their genes or other factors to blame for their bad decisions? Genes seem to determine much about children, such as eye color and height, but do they also determine behavior and overall health, or is the environment the children were raised in to blame? For example, when a child is misbehaving, is it the parents responsibility to take the blame for their offspring's behavior due to how they have chosen to raise their son or daughter, or is the child's genetic makeup to blame for their faults? Can a child's environment override the genes a child is born with?
In a study conducted in 1983, researchers studied more than 350 pairs of twins in order to research if human personality traits were largely inherited or learned. Daniel Goleman, author of “Major Personality Study Finds that Traits are Mostly Inherited,” shares with his audience the parameters and results of this elaborate twin study. Goleman introduces his reader to Auke Tellegen, a psychologist and principal researcher on the long-term study, performed at the University of Minnesota, discovered that the human traits most strongly determined by heredity were leadership, obedience to authority, and even traditionalism. He would surely argue that heredity, more than influence of experience, is more responsible for development in human traits. Tellegen may have substantiating facts that nature is more predominant in a mere handful of traits, but what about the several other traits he failed to test? It is possible for a person who shows leadership and obedience during one part of their life to have an experience in which their obedience and leadership is thwarted. The study Tellegen conducted could not have been without environmental influence. Every single one of the participants, whether a twin or not, had environmental experiences separate from the others. Since every person experiences and responds to environmental stimuli differently, how can several prior years of experience be measured in order to present an unbiased result in this study? Unquestionably, it is impossible. Just as this particular study failed to take into consideration a persons’ prior experiences, it also failed to consider the probability of future environmental factors that could affect the traits Tellegen focused on in his study. Although difficu...
For a long time, psychologists have been debating the theories of nature vs. nurture. Psychologist often discussed whether genetics or environment affects a person’s behavior. Theorists believe that not only does genetics affects a person’s behavior, but the environment also plays a role. Although many theorists believe either environment or genetics affect a mind of a serial killer, in fact, both environment and genetics affect a mind of a serial killer because genetics affect behavioral disorders while environment affects social disorders and both disorders can create violent behaviors.
Fyodor Dostoevsky, the author of Crime and Punishment, describes a sick man’s dream as, "often extraordinarily distinct and vivid and extremely life-like. Such morbid dreams always make a strong impression on the dreamer's already disturbed and excited nerves, and are remembered for a long time.” (author, page number) Rodya Raskolnikov endures dreams that have important meanings and are somewhat symbolic of his character. Raskolnikov is seen as a sick man, because of his belief in the ideas of the Ubermensch, (one man is above all Christian morals of society) and Nihilism, (the rejection of all religions) as justifications to murder. The novel Crime and Punishment takes place in Russia during the 1800’s when the ideas of the Ubermensch
I believe that people are a byproduct of both their inherited and inborn characteristics, as well as their environment. The nature versus nurture debate has long been a hot debate in the psychology world with evidence supporting both sides of the argument. It is hard to determine whether nature or nurture has more of an influence on our behaviors. For instance, you have a child who is a bully in a classroom. The question is then raised, is this child a bully because his genetic makeup created him to be more aggressive and less empathetic? Or is this child a bully because his home life fosters and rewards him for being aggressive? Or is his home life one where the parents are negligent and aggressive towards the child? If all of the above scenarios were true, then it would be relatively easy to state that the child’s bullying behavior is a byproduct of both his nature and his nurturing. Now let’s look at a professional athlete. Some say a person is born with the skill, hence the phrase natural born athlete. Now a child could be born with the innate aptitude to be an all-star athlete, however, no skill can succeed without practice. Therefore, that would bring to reason that a child could not have any skill to begin with, but with practice they become an all-star athlete. Both of these examples (the bully and the athlete) portray the interconnected and complex ideal of nature versus nurture, with neither providing substantial evidence that
Nurture versus nature has been a subject of debate for some time when it comes to serial killers. One of the most interesting studies regarding whether traits are a results of nurture or nature comes from the Minnesota Study of Twins Reared apart. This study was led by Professor Thomas Joseph Bouchard Jr. of Minnesota University. The study evaluated identical twins who were separated at birth and raised in different families. The study found that an identical twin reared away from their co-twin had an equal chance of being similar to one another in relation to their personality, interests, and attitudes as a twin who was raised in the same household with their co-twin.
Noted psychologist Jerome Kagan once said "Genes and family may determine the foundation of the house, but time and place determine its form" (Moore 165). The debate on nature versus nurture has been a mystery for years, constantly begging the question of whether human behavior, ideas, and feelings are innate or learned over time. Nature, or genetic influences, are formed before birth and finely-tuned through early experiences. Genes are viewed as long and complicated chains that are present throughout life and develop over time. Nature supporters believe that genes form a child's conscience and determine one's approach to life, contrasting with nature is the idea that children are born “blank slates,” only to be formed by experience, or nurture. Nurture is constituted of the influence of millions of complex environmental factors that form a child's character. Advocators of nature do not believe that character is predetermined by genes, but formed over time. Although often separated, nature and nurture work together in human development. The human conscience is neither innate from birth or entirely shaped through experience, instead, genetics and environmental influences combine to form human behaviorism, character, and personality traits that constantly change and develop throughout life.
In 1874, Francis Galton said, “Nature is all that a man brings with him into the world; nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth”. The human body contains millions upon millions of cells and each of these cells contains hereditary information and DNA. However, there is no proof that the information carried in these genes predetermines the way in which we behave. I believe it is our life experiences and what we see and are told that shape the way in which we behave. Therefore, it appears to me that nurturing plays a far more governing and dominant role in a human being’s development rather than nature.
The nature versus nurture debate is an old issue within the field of psychology. “The nature-nurture issue is a perennial one that has resurfaced in current psychiatry as a series of debates on the role that genes (DNA) and environments play in the etiology and pathophysiology of mental disorders” (Schaffner) The debate is essentially about what is inherited (nature) and what is experienced by environmental factors (nurture) and how they affect human development. Naturally, the nature versus nurture debate relates to many controversies such as intelligence, gender identities, violent behaviors, and sexual orientation. There are countless studies on whether intelligence is an inherited trait or if it is influenced by environmental factors.