Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Genetics chapter 2
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
It is undoubtedly evident that the field of psychology is becoming increasingly reliant on genetic explanations of human behaviour. It’s undisputable power and potential that it holds for the study offers exciting new developments on levels and quantity that many other sciences can simply not match; yet this over reliance on genetic explanations has caused many issues within the field of developmental psychology, where environmental issues are being ignored completely.
Perhaps up until only a few years ago, developmental psychology has been untouched by the era of genetics. While other fields around it grew and adapted to the scientific principle, developmental psychology was still heavily reliant on environmental influences. The rejection of genetic explanations was primarily due to its lack of insight it could provide for the field. Now however, it is becoming worryingly only reliant on this field of thought as genetic advancements increase at an alarming rate. There is no doubt that genetics can provide answers, it would be foolish to dispute in the face of such hard-hitting evidence.
If any area of research is going to hold a genetic basis, facial recognition in children is going to. It is the beginnings of attachment, the basis of social interaction and is vital for infant and caregiver interaction. Therefore it would be obvious that such a skill would have the possibilities to be innate, however new research suggest that this it is also genetic. After Thomas’ researched the theory, he suggested that even with all other variables taken into consideration, there is unlikely to be any variation let to attribute to no familial environment rendering face recognition ability essentially all genetic. It’s not just the ‘normal’ ...
... middle of paper ...
... that holds great potential for developmental psychology. The future of genetics is pointing towards an era that can realistically be entirely reliant on genetics. As McKuskis points out, ‘Scientists’ growing ability to read and write in the language of the genes has already explained some of the once-mysterious basic concepts of genetics’.
It is self-evident that even in an era of genetics, psychological studies of environmental influences are not irrelevant, and in some cases vital for the field of developmental psychology. Genetics does have the potential to be viewed as sole influence on development, but for now there are too many issues surrounding genetics to be considered so. It is an ideological and vain hope that whiles such issues as gene-environment interactions, colorations and epigenetics goes un-answered, that we can ignore environmental influences.
The Nurture vs. Nature has been a long standing debate amongst psychologists. This psychological controversy questions whether or not the environment has more or less to do with the outcome of a child’s psychological development than the genetics involved. The nurture side of the argument is highly illustrated by the memoir The Other Wes Moore, by Wes Moore, due to the fact that both of their lives although starting off similar, ended dramatically different.
The main idea behind this paper was to answer this question: "Who are you?" The article makes you think about how psychologists are able to determine whether a trait being physical or psychological is hereditary, is it taught over your upbringing by your parents, or is that just part of your own personal make up. The article states that “most humans feel that the way that they act and perceive the world is built around an environmental basis rather than being a genetic trait. ”(Are You a Natural)
“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)
Today, realising that genes and environment cooperate and interact synergistically, traditional dichotomy of nature vs. nurture is commonly seen as a false dichotomy. Especially operant conditioning, i.e. the learning of the consequences of one's own behavior can lead to positive feedback loops between genetic predispositions and behavioral consequences that render the question as to cause and effect nonsensical. Positive feedback has the inherent tendency to exponentially amplify any initial small differences. For example, an at birth negligible difference between two brothers in a gene affecting IQ to a small percentage, may lead to one discovering a book the will spark his interest in reading, while the other never gets to see that book. One becomes an avid reader who loves intellectual challenges while the other never finds a real interest in books, but hangs out with his friends more often. Eventually, the reading brother may end up with highly different IQ scores in standardized tests, simply because the book loving brother has had more opportunities to train his brain. Had both brother received identical environmental input, their IQ scores would hardly differ.
...s may never agree on a conclusive degree to which both nature and nurture play roles in human development, but over the years, more improved studies have shown that both are crucial aspects. With all the knowledge we are gaining from these studies, it would be quite limiting to believe that a criminal and his actions are the sole result of heredity. Even in people who do not commit crimes, genes themselves are affected by the prenatal environment. Undoubtedly, the fetus experiences changes in environment, forcing possible changes in heredity and reactionary response. We are likely to never find the answer to how much or how little either, nature or nurture, impacts our lives, but at least we can agree that they both do, in fact, have major roles. Our development is not the culmination of heredity alone, but of a tangled web of experiences and genetics entwined.
Not everything lies in nature; nurture also plays a big role in our behavior. Craig Venter, an American biologist quoted in Ridley’s article, says that “the wonderful diversity of ...
Every individual has a biological influence on their development; two individuals combine their genetic information to create a new organism, carrying biological predispositions that will shape their expressed behaviors and characteristics. However, Susan Griffin, author of the essay “Our Secret,” argues that while genetic influences are significant, they are not the sole contributors to an individual’s development. Throughout her essay, Griffin reveals to her readers that the presence of external, uncontrollable factors from an individual’s environment can be equally influential as they diverge the individual off of the predetermined path of life created by biological factors.
In this essay I intend to discuss two psychological theories of development; The psychodynamic approach and the behavioural approach. In order to do this, I will outline each theory and explain how it accounts for psychological development, health and behaviour of the individual. In addition to this, I will explain how an understanding of these theories relates to care and would help a care professional to support an individual in a care setting.
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...
Developmental theories are broken up into two perspectives; Life-course, and Latent Trait. These perspectives may answer questions on why juveniles have grown to lead a destructive life-style and why others grow out of their delinquency. Latent trait explains that some tendencies we are may be born with and how important it is to be there for our children. Our parenting skills do have a profound effect on how our children may lack self control or have an impulsive behavior.
...criterion that true science is progressive. It has proven able to successfully account for apparent anomalies and generate novel predictions and explanations and therefore has the hallmarks of a currently progressive research program capable of providing us with new knowledge of how the mind works (Ketellar and Ellis 2000). A glance at the Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology (2005), edited by David Buss, shows just how vigorous and productive the field is. Important challenges remain in the discipline, however. The most important are determining the role of domain-specific versus domain-general processes and integrating evolutionary psychology with other behavioral sciences like genetics, neuroscience, and psychometrics (Buss 2004; Rice 2011). Even though critics will remain, Evolutionary Psychology will remain as a scientific discipline for the foreseeable future.
Undoubtedly, humans are unique and intricate creatures and their development is a complex process. It is this process that leads people to question, is a child’s development influenced by genetics or their environment? This long debate has been at the forefront of psychology for countless decades now and is better known as “Nature versus Nurture”. The continuous controversy over whether or not children develop their psychological attributes based on genetics (nature) or the way in which they have been raised (nurture) has occupied the minds of psychologists for years. Through thorough reading of experiments, studies, and discussions however, it is easy to be convinced that nurture does play a far more important in the development of a human than nature.
Child growth and development is a process that consists of some building blocks, which are components that combine in an infinite number of ways (Cherry, n.d.). As a result of the variations of building blocks in a child’s development, educators, psychologists, and philosophers have been constantly engaged in the debate of nature versus nurture debate. Many researchers agree that child development is a complex interaction between his/her genetic background (nature) and his/her environment (nurture). In essence, some developmental aspects are strongly affected by biology whereas other aspects are influenced by environmental factors. From the onset of an individu...
Heredity Versus Environment - The Nature-nurture Controversy, Exploring Heredity And Environment: Research Methods, Beyond Heritability
In relation to childhood development, there are several factors experts consider that affect the process. One factor that is usually considered to affect development is of genetic origin, where traits or genes from the parents are said to be handed down to their offspring ( citation ). However, the researcher will not dwell on this topic further, but instead focus on another factor that will be more related to the topic-- environmental factors. Development in a child occurs as s/he interacts with the different stimuli in the environment (Myers 1992).