Genetic Vulnerability Essay

For centuries, human’s behavior has been the center of attention not just for scientists, but also psychologist, scientist, and physiologies have always questioned what the root or main factor that contributes to a person's personality, sexuality; in other words, their entire behavior. Nature v.s. nurture has been one of the biggest debates that the scientific world has faced. Nature states that genes are responsible for human behavior, sexuality, and predisposition to certain diseases. On the other hand, nurture is defined as the theory that says all the contrary compared to nature. According to the nurture theory, the environment is the main factor that contributes to someone’s behavior, sexuality, and predisposition to diseases. This debate goes back to the era of the great philosopher Plato (428-348 B.C.E); who stated that temperament and intelligence are innate. Also, this debate has caused disagreement in two of the major psychologists known to mankind, Lev Vygotsky and Jean Piaget. The disagreement originated when Vygotsky stated that the cognitive development of a child is mainly influenced by

Research shows that mental health can be a mix of nurture and nature. As individual’s environment and experience may dictate how they react physically and mentally to a situation for example, if a child has observed their parents being concerned about weight they are more likely to be concerned about weight in later life however, this can be linked to the nature

The biggest controversy in psychology today is whether genetics or one’s environment plays a role in the behavior of the individual. Psychologists have researched and developed different theories to explain the reason for the way humans think and behave. The behavior of individuals is either inherited or learned. In my opinion, I believe that nurture plays a big role in the individual’s behavior. Kendra Cherry states, “Nurture refers to all the environmental variables that impact who we are, including our early childhood experiences, how we were raised, our social relationships, and our surrounding culture” (1). People have become who there are because of the environment they were exposed to in their childhood years. The behavior of people is influenced be the environment that surrounds them and can changed many times through one’s lifetime. People have different personalities a person’s

375). For example, a person with a chronic condition such as cancer or heart disease may already have difficulty managing his/her condition and have less physical ability to cope with stress than someone without such condition. He or she may also be at risk or have other comorbidities, with each affecting the other. Moreover, resilience may be further decreased by their marginalized or disenfranchised status. They may be unable to maintain a full-time job, therefore, have inadequate salary and live at or below poverty level. This, in turn, “has an impact on his or her ability to secure adequate and/or safe housing, essential health care, and pharmacological services” (Lundy & Janes, 2009, p. 616). Therefore, vulnerability results from the combined effects of limited resources, which create a more hazardous situation (Stanhope & Lancaster, 2014b).

The behaviourist approach believes that people, as well as animals, are controlled by their surrounding environment which has a direct impact upon their behaviour and whether they would suffer from mental illness (McLeod, S. 2007). Whereas the biological approach views genes, chromosomes and the nervous system as contributing factors to mental health and the way people behave, this theory believes that people have inherited traits of mental illness which may have adapted through evolution. These perspectives argue whether nature (biological) or nurture (behaviourist) have an influence over life and life decisions which has caused numerous ongoing debates (McLeod, S. 2007).

What is it that truly shapes people today? Where do our behaviors, beliefs, characteristics, and attitudes come from? The great psychological debate of nature versus nurture has been brought upon many ways of being for many years. One of the most contradicting arguments is whether or not depression is caused by genetics or if it is completely based on our environment, how we grow up, and what we are exposed to as a child. Is it really in our blood, or is it from social media and the people around us? The growth and development of children has been a topic of confusion and debate for a long time, especially with the major issue of depression defeating many young people nowadays.

Vulnerability is defined as susceptibility or increased risk for health problems (DeChesnay, 2008).  A group of individuals are considered at higher risk for illness when their physical, emotional, psychological, or social health, is compromised (Aday, 2001).  There are many leading causes for why a population is considered at higher risk; socioeconomic, age, gender, demographics, personal, and cultural backgrounds are some of the key factors (Aday, 2001; Sebation, 1996). Individuals can become vulnerable at any time because of change in life circumstances, placing them at higher risk. One group

The classic debated topic of Nature versus Nurture has been and will always be a quarrelsome subject in the scientific world. Meaning, the issue of the level to which environment and heredity sway behavior and development in a person. Nature can be defined as, behaviors due to heredity. This means the behaviors is based on the inherited makeup of an individual and is an influence of the growth and development of that individuals’ all through life. On the other hand nurture is causes of behaviors that are environmental. This Intel’s the influence is from the individual’s parents, siblings, family, friends and all other experiences that individual exposed to during life. However, these concept of ideas supports the inborn genetic framework,

Everyone is potentially vulnerable at some point over the extent of one’s lifetime. More specifically, everyone is potentially at risk of poor physical, psychological, or social health. The word vulnerable is defined by the Merrian-Webster’s Dictionary as “capable of being physically wounded” or “open to attack or damage”. Commonly, the word vulnerability indicates one’s susceptibility to health problems, harm or neglect. Some however, maybe more or less susceptible or at risk of poor health at different times in their lives, while certain individuals and communities are more likely to be at risk than others at any given point in time (Aday, 1994). Thus, vulnerable populations may be defined as social groups with an increased susceptibility to adverse health outcomes (Flaskerud & Winslow, 1998).

Love has a lot to do with race it has a way of bringing out both good and bad in some people and unfortunately in some cases the issues of love and race are taken too far. In today’s society it is not as much of an issue to see interracial couples together as it used to be in the past, but that does not mean that it is not still an issue for some people. Throughout the semester we have studied different ways that not only in the cases of love but also family, friendship, and community are affected by racial issues both past and present, which only goes to show that racism still exists in our world today despite all of the progressions that we have made towards fixing the issue.

The novel “Frankenstein,” written by Mary Shelley in 1818, suggests that nurture has a stronger influence on a life form than nature. The nature vs. nurture argument is said to be one of the oldest in the history of psychology and is also one of the most widely debated. It argues whether we are influenced by our genes and hereditary (nature) or our surroundings and upbringing (nurture). I will be investigating whether or not a person is influenced more by nature or nurture and how each one is capable of impacting a person’s life, mental outlook, or actions. Opinions on this topic vary from person to person and critic to critic.

Many internal and external components collide in order to create individual personalities, behaviors unique to every individual person. The argument of genetic makeup versus environmental influences, however, has researchers working to determine what really defines us. Some say genotypes control the way people think,how they feel, and the ways in which they behave. Others choose to believe that the environment alone in itself is ultimately the determinant for making each individual human into who they are.

The fear of genetic discrimination is a phobia gripping many people around the world. People find themselves asking, could my genetic information raise my health bills? Could this cause me to be rejected from a job opportunity? These anxieties are causing people to lash out at genetic research, and ultimately the human genome project. People do not want our understanding of human genomics to advance. This is because the risks of the development of the technology could inflict on them. A major risk is genetic discrimination. I believe that genetic discrimination is wrong and governments should continue to prevent it because it is an invasion of privacy, it violates equity, and it could really hurt people with genetic

There have been many debates about the human behavior and the reason why the human body reacts the way it does. These different states have people questioning how do we come up with these behaviors. Does nature or nurture have an influence on our behavior? Or is it a combination of the two? How are the mind and the body working together? This paper will explain a portion of the nature and nurture debate and the dualism between the mind and the body.

The development of human being during the entire course of life, focus on biological and psychological growth (Berk, 2010). Human development hold several outcomes that are altered by both positive and negative influences. Genetic (nature) and environmental (nurture) influences place significant impact on human development. In fact, Pinker (2004) submits that behavior is the result of a complex collaboration among inheritance and environmental factors in human development, ultimately supporting that nature-nurture work collectively (Pinker, 2004).