Nature vs Nurture
In his book, the universally acclaimed and bestseller "The Selfish Gene", Richard Dawkins presents his viewpoint that living organisms are but "survival machines", that "the individual [is a] selfish machine, programmed to do whatever is best for its gene as a whole." In fact, this is the central concept in his book that he brings across. An individual's behaviour and actions are 100% determined by its genes and the individual behaves in accordance to ensure the best persistence of its gene in any circumstances. There is no doubt where Dawkins stands on the nature vs nurture issue. He regards genes- the "replicator" as the brain that determines the resultant individual as a temporary storage unit until it is next passed on and he disregards the individual as a mere holding unit- the "vehicles".
I do not however agree on the totalitarian effect of genes on an individual. I believe that nature and nurture interacts to bring about the complete individual. In this essay, I shall use the impact of nature vs nurture on IQ of people to illustrate my viewpoint. This is because the inherent interest of researchers as people on the factors that influence IQ has allowed a wealth of references to be discussed as below.
In "The Bell Curve", the assertion that "intelligence" has a genetic basis was impressed upon the public. Further, its authors R.J. Herrnstein and C. Murray claim, "because IQ is in large measure genetically determined, it is therefore resistant to educational and environmental interventions." ("Re-examining the Bell Curve" by S.E. Fienbeg and D.P. Resnick, published in "Intelligence, Genes and Success") Among their tabulations included references to the research data gathered by F. Galton, the cent...
... middle of paper ...
...eaders, dramatic change in serotonin content has occurred. The serotonin levels of the former leaders had fallen while those of the former followers have risen. This is amazing because this thus proves that environmental factors can actually influence the workings of our gene products, in a behavioural trait that in normal circumstances would only require the control of genetic factors.
In conclusion, with regards to the evidence of the interactive nature of genes and environment on the individual's development as discussed above, I believe that both nature and nurture plays a part in the individual's development.
References:
Living With Our Genes; Dean Hamer and Peter Copeland ( Doubleday 1998)
Intelligence, Genes and Success; ed by Devlin B. et al ( Springer-Verlag New York, Inc 1997)
The Selfish Gene; Richard Dawkins (Oxford University Press 1989)
...imately failing to do so. Maybe there is a gem that you hold up as a standard for what you are looking for. Carver never describes self love, maybe it is left out because that is the elusive love the Mel McGinnis is struggling to find and in this story at least fails to find. Finding only self hate instead. The last two sentences suggest this story could be about anyone including yourself. “I could hear my heart beating. I could hear everyone’s heart. I could hear the human noise we sat there making, not one of us moving, not even when the room went dark.” “What creates tension in a piece of fiction is partly the way the concrete words are linked together to make up the visible action of the story. But it's also the things that are left out, that are implied, the landscape just under the smooth (but sometimes broken and unsettled) surface of things.: (ShopTalk)
Vince Foster suicide perhaps is not as mysterious as the conspiracy theory let us to believe. Maybe it was just a suicide, or perhaps Vince could not deal with the Capitol’s twists and turns of politics. In this study, we will explore two articles based on the premises that Vince depression was the catalyst that led him to commit suicide. The third article review brings us back to the conspiracy circle, why news agencies wanted to kill the story so fast. The deeper we go, the more twisted the story line appears. I propose to you that, Vince Foster did not commit suicide.
In chapter one of “The Selfish Gene,” Dawkins speaks about how Darwin was the first person to develop a good theory to answer the question of “why are people?” he goes on to explain how Darwin explained that evolution occurs when a person has the qualities that allow humans to survive at the expense of other individuals. In addition, he writes of how Darwin explains how to pass on genes, generation after generation, through offspring. Everyone knows of Darwin’s theory of evolution, but Dawkins tries to introduce a particular interpretation of the evolutionary process. He believes that evolution should not be studied at the level of singular individuals or groups, but instead at the level of genes. He also believed that there are two main characteristics of genes manifested during the struggle for survi...
Different people define success in many different ways. What is considered success by one person may be viewed as failure by another person. Randy Shilts, a homosexual newspaper reporter / author, attempts to make fundamental changes in America’s opinion on AIDS. In Randy Shilts’s essay, "Talking AIDS to Death," he speaks of his experiences as an "AIDS celebrity." At the core of Shilts’s essay is the statement, "Never before have I succeeded so well; never before have I failed so miserably"(221). Shilts can see his accomplishments from two points of view- as a success and as a failure. Despite instant fame, Shilts is not satisfied with the effects his writings has on the general public. Shilts’s "success" and reasons for failure can both be considered when one decides whether or not his efforts were performed in vain.
The nature vs. nurture controversy has been one of the oldest and most incessant debates throughout history. The disputation of this debate has generated numerous hypotheses, and explorations by various researchers, however, it has not been clearly determined as to whether a person is biologically determined or whether they are shaped by the environment. Nature’s theory holds that a person’s mental ability is sustained by what he or she is born with genetically. Conversely, the argument that a person’s environment plays a large role in his or her mental aptitude is nurture. Despite the numerous and overwhelming experiments that have been fulfilled by theorists who support the nature theory, I strongly believe that the environment around a person, on the other hand, is ever-changing and offers more opportunities for growth and variation.
nurture argument. Theorists have wondered how much of development is affected by genetics and the environment. Ultimately, nature and nurture intertwine to shape the lives of children. Nature may predispose children to certain behaviors if placed in specific environments, however the timing of the environmental exposure and the child’s natural tendencies also play a role. Theorists have also discussed the extent to which development is universal and how much of it is unique to individuals. There are consistencies that have been noted universally yet; theorists have observed variations in their competency in different tasks and way of life that may be contributed to genetics or the environment. Lastly, theorists debate about whether changes in development can be portrayed as qualitative where it involves dramatic changes or quantitative in which development is a steady progression. These debates have merits independently but require each other for a better understanding of child
There is no denying that there are problems with the marijuana laws currently in place in the United States. Left and right, there are people using marijuana with blatant disregard to the fact that it is, in fact, prohibited. The black market for marijuana is surging out of control. As a result of this, drug-related street crimes have become more prevalent, which, in turn, has increased the number of offenders in prison for those crimes. This is very costly to the United States government. Also, there are personal dangers involved with buying drugs on the black market. By legalizing marijuana, the government could help solve the problems caused by the laws that are currently in place.
Saunders suggests erroneously that it may not be the case that talents and abilities are equally distributed across the classes. Saunders claims that there are genetic differences in aptitude between social classes as measured by IQ tests. Saunders furthermore claims that it is normal to expect successful middle class parents to pass on genetic advantages to their offspring again agreeing with the environment factor of the nature nurture debate.
One of the immediate favorable reasons for legalizing marijuana is the tax the government could place on it. A tax on legal marijuana could bring in millions of dollars in pure revenue. Just as legalizing weed could bring in money, it could also save money. Some of the money that goes into searching out for illegal weed would not have to be used. People who originally got weed illegally could then get it in completely legal ways.
First, the legalization of marijuana would have a tremendous economic impact. Since “marijuana is thought to be the second most profitable cash crop in the United States,” (Erb __) the government could control and then tax the drug if it is legal. This would mean that an enormous amount of money could be raised through the taxing of the drug. A recent study at Harvard estimated that “marijuana legalization would yield tax revenue of $2.4 billion dollars annually if marijuana were taxed like all other goods and $6.2 billion annually if marijuana were taxed at rates comparable to those on alcohol or tobacco” (Miron ____). The money raised from this tax could be used to improve schools, roads, and public parks. In the end, legalizing marijuana would be a great benefit to the economy.
As a mother, I am shocked and dismayed by the general acceptance of the myth of genetic determinism. One's environment, including people one interacts with, has an undeniable influence on how one develops. Nonetheless, many scientists disregard the impact of environment on one's intelligence. I do not deny that one's biology is a crucial part of one's identity. Inheritance of physical traits is obvious. Children often look "just like" their father or mother, or another relative. One's genes determine eye and hair color, height and body build. I believe, however, that what makes us human is not something that can be found in...
“The term “nature versus nurture” is used to refer to a long-running scientific debate. The source of debate is the question of which has a greater influence on development: someone's innate characteristics provided by genetics, or someone's environment. In fact, the nature versus nurture debate has been largely termed obsolete by many researchers, because both innate characteristics and environment play a huge role in development, and they often intersect”. (Smith, 2010 p. 1)
Human intelligence is an eel-like subject: slippery, difficult to grasp, and almost impossible to get straight [3]. Many scientist and psychologist have made numerous attempts to come up with an explanation for the development of human intelligence. For many years, there has been much controversy over what intelligence is and whether it is hereditary or nurtured by the environment. Webster's dictionary defines intelligence as "the ability to acquire and apply knowledge; which includes a sensing an environment and reaching conclusions about the state of that environment [7]. In this paper I am going to examine the factors, which make up ones intelligence. I will be investigating whether or not intelligence is fostered by genetic heritance or nurtured by ones environment.
During the time when the general public believes the only way to contract HIV/AIDS is to be homosexual, an addict, or prostitute, Fisher being a white, heterosexual, married mother of two from an upper-class family who contracted the virus from her husband is herself the certifying ethos of this speech (1). She tactfully uses her own circumstances and diagnosis to embody the plight of all in the AIDS community and shows that no one is exempt from this deadly disease. She emphatically states that HIV does not care about race, age, gender, sexual orientation, or political affiliation; all that it asks is “Are you human?” (2). She ceases to be the exception and gains the attention and respect of the American people when she aligns herself with others with HIV/AIDS with her statement:
On the ‘nature’ side of the debate is the psychometric approach, considered to be the most dominant in the study of intelligence, which “inspired the most research and attracted the most attention” (Neisser et al. 1996, p. 77). It argues that there is one general (‘g’) factor which accounts for intelligence. In the 1880s, Francis Galton conducted many tests (measuring reaction times to cognitive tasks), (Boundless 2013), in order to scientifically measure intelligence. These tests were linked to the eugenic breeding programme, which aimed to eliminate biologically inferior people from society. Galton believed that as intelligence was inherited, social class or position were significant indicators of intelligence. If an individual was of high social standing, they would be more intelligent than those of a lower position. However he failed to show any consistency across the tests for this hypothesis, weakening his theory that social class correlated with intelligence. Nevertheless, his creation of the intelligence test led many to continue to develop...