РефератыИностранный языкNaNature Vs Nuture Essay Research Paper Nurture

Nature Vs Nuture Essay Research Paper Nurture

Nature Vs Nuture Essay, Research Paper


Nurture Versus Nature


The question of what is the greatest factor in the development of


human intelligence, sociability, interpersonal skills, and personality has been


debated as long as modern humanity has had the capacity to wonder about it.


Depending on the intellectual background or mindset of any individual asked,


the answer will vary. Some social scientists and theorists argue in behalf of


the effect of the environment in which a child is raised as the primary


influence. Many of those most thoroughly grounded in medical or physical


science traditions can point to a number of ways, in which one’s genetic code


at birth, is the determining factor of how well or how thoroughly one?s


intelligence develops. The proliferation of the so-called ?genius? sperm


banks that exist give proof to how seriously that premise is believed by many.


Not surprisingly, the number and type of studies that exist correspond


with the particular belief pattern, or at least is biased, in favor of the thoughts


and belief patterns of the individual researcher. According to Bettelheim


(1998), some researchers are looking for a genetic basis for common,


everyday behaviors, including sexuality, violence, and risk-taking. There is


an ongoing debate, sometimes a heated one, over how much biology controls


what a person does; the flip side of the debate asks whether society relies too


much on science without enough focus on the undeniably important aspects


of the parents’ and caregivers’ of a child to appropriately nurture his or her


growth. Some feel the importance of social/economic conditions and life in


the home is downplayed far too much. Advocates on the nurture side of the


argument point to the fact that the input of the child?s role model is of far


greater importance than any aspect of genetic make up.


Of course, culture serves as yet another point of argument in the debate.


Two sides of the issue exist in terms of cultural expectation for development


of intelligence. First is the idea that an infant, born into a more advanced


culture and presented with a greater number of entrenched cultural


opportunities, is certain to garner a greater level of intelligence. The


opposite, and equal argument, is that innate intelligence is best developed in


the infant born into a culture more holistically and intuitively developed,


perhaps even ?primitive? by some standards. And yet, the issue of culture


ultimately can be reduced to ?nurture vs nature? as well. The cultural


implications and training that surround a child?s upbringing are certainly key


components in how that child will be nurtured throughout childhood.


Herbert (1997) points out that in many ways the view of mental illness as


a brain disease has been of vital importance in the work to reduce the stigma


of frightening and misunderstood illnesses such as schizophrenia and


depression. And yet, it still serves as an example of the broad-based efforts to


?biologize? American culture. For both political and scientific reasons — and


it is generally difficult to separate the two — everything from criminal


behavior to substance abuse to sexual orientation is seen today less as a


matter of choice than of genetic destiny. Even basic personality is proving out


to be much more of a genetic inheritance than had ever been previously


assumed. Almost every month, if not more often, there is a report of a new


gene for one trait or another. Such a significant realignment of the cultural


perception has numerous political and personal implications.


At the individual level, according to Herbert (1997), a belief in


the power of genes necessarily diminishes the potency of such personal


qualities as will, capacity to choose, and sense of responsibility for those


choices. The argument proposes that if one’s actions are determined by one’s


individual?s genes, he or she should not be considered accountable


for . . . whatever! It allows the alcoholic, for example, to act as a helpless


victim of biology rather than as a willful agent with independent behavioral


control. Genetic determinism can free victims and their families from


guilt–or lock them in their suffering. Therein lies the root of the nature vs.


nurture merry-go-round. Genetic determinism can have paradoxical


consequences at times, leading to disdain and exclusion for the disadvantag

ed


rather than sympathy and inclusion. Cultural critics are beginning to sort out


the unpredictable politics of biology, focusing on four traits: violence, mental


illness, alcoholism, and sexual orientation.


Herbert (1997) also adds that whatever is currently going on in the midst


of the bold new genetic discoveries being made, it’s clear that a very real


mistrust of genetic power and genetic applications is both misleading and


disconcerting, if not out-and-out frightening for the general public. The


simplistic shorthand used in discussing genetic advances has led to the


widespread misunderstanding of DNA’s real powers. In general, the public


must be provided with more easily accessible information instead of moving


toward the trend of ?dumbing down? information for public consumption.


Herbert (1997) gives the example of how geneticists say they’ve found a gene


for a particular trait, when what they actually mean is that people carrying a


certain “allele”–a variation in a stretch of DNA that normally codes for a


certain protein–will develop the given trait in a standard environment. The


last few words–”in a standard environment”–are very important, because


what scientists are not saying is that a given allele will not necessarily lead to


that trait in every environment. It is neither fair, nor ethical, for the public to


be mislead into thinking that science has ?found the gene? that causes this or


that problem so it can now be ?fixed.?


It’s hard to emphasize too much what a radical rethinking of the


nature-nurture debate this represents. When most people think about heredity,


they still think in terms of classic genetics: one gene, one trait. But for most


complex human behaviors, this is far from the reality that recent research is


revealing. A more accurate view very likely involves many different genes,


some of which control other genes, and many of which are controlled by


signals from the environment. Therefore, actual biological/genetic make-up


can be and is influenced by the level of nurturing that trait receives. The


process of nurturing, however, may be environmental, emotional, or


biological itself.


The emerging view of nature–nurture is that many complicated


behaviors probably have some measure of genetic loading that gives some


people a susceptibility — for schizophrenia, for instance, or for aggression.


But the development of the behavior or pathology requires more– an


environmental “second hit.” This second hit operates, counter-intuitively,


through the genes themselves to “sculpt” the brain. So with depression, for


example, it appears as though a bad experience in the world–for example, a


devastating loss–can actually create chemical changes in the body that affect


certain genes, which in turn affect certain brain proteins that make a person


more susceptible to depression in the future. Nature or nurture? Just as bad


experiences can turn on certain vulnerability genes, rich and challenging


experiences have the power to enhance life, again acting through the genes.


Perhaps certain genetic components are especially receptive to certain


nurturing behaviors. For example, talent and intelligence, both appear


extraordinarily malleable.


The reason the debate regarding issues of nature opposed to issues of


nurture has remained so controversial and such a hot debate topic is the


simple fact that, with every new day, new information is discovered or


understood. If the mechanical, human-created world of the Internet


supposedly doubles its information every month, why should it be difficult to


expect the collective human consciousness and awareness of genetic


capabilities to follow similarly remarkable patterns of growth and


development?


Bettelheim, Adriel (1998, April 3) Biology and


behavior., CQ Researcher, v8 n13, pp. 291(18).


Gregory, Richard L. (1987) The Oxford Companion to the


Mind (New York, NY; University of Oxford Press), pp. 376.


Herbert, Wray (1997, April 21) Politics of biology: how


the nature vs. nurture debate shapes public policy and our


view of ourselves., U.S. News & World Report,


v122 n15, pp. 72(7).


McGue, Matt (1989, August 17) Nature-nurture and


intelligence., Nature, v340 n6234, pp. 507(2).


Zabludoff, Marc (1997, October) Behaving ourselves.,


Discover, v18, n10, pp.10.

Сохранить в соц. сетях:
Обсуждение:
comments powered by Disqus

Название реферата: Nature Vs Nuture Essay Research Paper Nurture

Слов:1483
Символов:10376
Размер:20.27 Кб.