Nature Vs Nurture Debate

This can be applied to the behaviors of criminals. According to Fishbein (1990, pg.37), “behavior [is] primarily attributed to inherited predispositions and genetic influences.” Nurture is the environmental influence that shape human behavior (Fishbein, 1990, pg.37). Human genetics and environmental factors contribute to the uniqueness to a person’s behavior. However, there are underlying qualities in a criminal’s historical background. Aspects of the nature and nurturing of a criminal behavior includes some problems with earlier biological explanations and some recent biological explanations which have overcome the weaknesses of

One of today's greatest areas of controversy in the study of human behavior is the nature-nurture debate. The nature argument is that human behavior is determined by our inheritance or genetic structure. The nurture argument is that human behavior is the result of learning and experience from outside factors such as family, religion, media and peers. A question that has been long debated by psychologist and criminologist is whether a serial killer has a weird fate to be a killer or inherently got passed these “evil genes”. This is so controversial because this is what is argued when convicting someone innocent or guilty. Is someone truly guilty of a crime if they are born with a mental illness? It's hard to understand what drives

The Nature and Nurture debate, one of the oldest debates in the history of psychology, questions whether or not criminal behaviour is a result of the nature of a person, meaning something that lies in their genes causing a person to act in a certain way, or nurture, the environment, therefore criminal behaviour as a result of a person’s life experiences (Sincero, 2012). This essay shall look in depth and answer to how the four areas of criminal behaviour, which are biological, sociological, psychological and environmental, as part of the nature and nurture debate, can explain criminality and deviance. This will be done by discussing a number of theories and experiments that have come to the surface over time. Researching the nature and nurture debate, it is shown that the debate continues to interest people today, mainly because of what is thought will be the outcome of these findings, which is preventing people turning to criminal behaviour by understanding people’s genetics, how they were born and avoid situations that lie in the environment to stop them interacting with criminal activities.

The world we live in, we like to depend on scientific findings to reason our claims. This reaction paper will analyze the findings by Mathew Jones and will critique specific sections on "Genetic Research Summarized" and "The Resulting Concern". Now if we solely depend on genetics to defend or accuse individuals of being a criminal it will not be an efficient strategy in the criminal justice system. Furthermore, although American Criminal Justice upholds the notion of free will, it has been discriminatory towards a marginalized population of the United States itself. So being dependent on such findings there will be a higher probability of wrong people being trialed because then the idea of free will and genetically findings will be in conflict.

In psychology, it has long been debated whether nature or nurture influence human behaviours more extensively. This has captured the interest of many psychologists as determining an answer can improve society. For instance, if it is proven that nurture significantly impacts human development greater than nature, we can nurture children to abstain from violence and drugs, resulting in a decrease of crime in society. Nurture refers to the environmental factors and thus the experiences and upbringing of people were studied to see how it affected their development. For example, the Zimbardo Prison Study, Harlow’s Monkey Experiments, and Genie are all exceptional examples of how nurture affects cognitive development and behaviors. Conversely, nature refers to the genetic factors that affect human development. To support this argument that genetics play a more significant role in human behaviours and development, psychologists focused on studying siblings and children. More specifically, The Boy With No Penis, the Jim siblings, and Sandra Scarr’s observations were studied to further understand the heritability of certain behavioral traits and the undeterring quality of nature. By examining these experiments and studies, a possible answer can be reached.

In Nature vs. Nurture Debate by CommonLit Staff, the authors talks about the quarrels between nurture and nature, nurture being the development through “environmental influences”; meanwhile, nature being the traits passed down from biological parents to the child, and Huck’s nature side, in comparison, is more noticeable than his nurture side. Had Huck’s nurture side been more apparent than his nature side, he would be like just any other kids— one who follows the rules of society. Since his nature side is greater, even though readers do not know what his nature sides are, he is able to do whatever he wants. In Twain’s book, the Widow Douglas tries to civilize Huck, but he dislikes being civilized; therefore, his nature side is dominant which

One of the huge problems with the nature vs. nurture debate is that people often forget to include religion, beliefs, and God into the discussion. Religion, especially Christianity, plays a large role in the development of a person, being in part nature and nurture. Several people grow up believing God is real and He loves and nurtures everyone, and this can in turn give them an instinct to care and nurture others. But God also gives each person a natural instinct to love and protect others because He created mankind in His likeness, and His love is endless. The article Nature vs Nurture – Which Side is God On? makes the point that “God did not create us to be bad (it’s our nature). Nor does God provide an environment for us where we have to

The three founding fathers of Biological theories are Cesare Lombroso, Raffaele Garofalo and Charles Goring which studied geneticists to explaining criminals. Therefore genes of children that display aggression or violent traits can be tendency of their parents’ genes. “Criminologist once again began to consider the possibility that there are indeed traits that predispose a person to criminality and that these traits may be passed from parent to child through the genes” (Adler, Muller & Laufer, 1991). This brings in play our genetics in which chromosomes we received from parents could produce higher probability of criminal offspring. Also studies have been conducted on adopted children to find genetic predisposition to criminality.

In biology, there is a concept of learned behavior that pertains to human children just as much as animals. A traumatic experience or loss/lack in a child’s home life undoubtedly has negative psychological effects of the child. However, there was a discovery of the shopping model effect, which is when children that later become adults actively seek out peers who are most like them (Miller). The purpose of this idea is to support nativism and the fact that genetics are what mainly influence crime since it would then mean that a “good kid” happening to regularly hang out with the “bad kids” is not wrongfully or mistakenly doing so, but really because the “bad” was in him all along.

On November 15, 1959, four members of the prosperous Clutter family were murdered for seemingly no reason. This led many people to come up with their own ideas of what happened that night. This debate may be answered by psychology. One question that psychologists have is whether people are controlled more by their nature-genetics-or nurture-how they were raised (Mcleod 1). This debate can be used to discuss the motive of murderers, and argue for or against the death penalty in their case. Richard ¨Dick¨ Hickock and Perry Edward Smith, the ¨Clutter Killers,¨ are a perfect example of the nature vs. nurture debate. Perry was more influenced by nurture, while Dick was more influenced by nature.

There are theories in criminology that suggest a person’s biological make up can be used to predict antisocial behavior and future crime (7). Little evidence is found determining if a sequence of DNA is responsible for violent actions. The suggested experiment in the scenario is questionable. Using data sampling from incarcerated youth to find a 75% accuracy with procedures of brain scans, DNA testing, and blood analysis doesn’t correlate. The reason being that it excludes other factors that may be responsible for their history of violence. To use a sketchy method to predict antisocial behavior hinders children’s social growth; on top of that it’s unethical and unfair to predict and label antisocial behavior. While individuals may exhibit antisocial

Nature against nurture – that’s one of the most popular questions ever studied in psychology. Even today no one knows for sure what’s more valuable for our human development – nurture or nature. Many researches, experiments and discussions have been conducted to answer this question, but positive results are still unavailable. In this nature vs nurture essay you’ll find a brief history, significant characteristics of the nature versus nurture problem and fresh original thoughts on the

Researchers have also looked at criminal behavior from a genetic aspect. In fact, "behavioral genetic research has show that genes influence individual differences in a wide range of human behaviors -cognition, academic achievement, personality and temperament (including such traits as aggression and hostility), psychopathology, and even vocational interests and social attitudes" (Meadows, 2010, P.16). There may in fact be a connection between how an individual is wired and the behavior that results. This does not necessarily mean that some individuals are inevitably going to become a criminal. However, some individuals may simply have a greater tendency "to be more aggressive and thus less likely to control emotions absent some type of positive interventions" (Meadows, 2010, P. 16). Furthermore, genetic research looks at the heritability of certain disorders and specific genes that

Violent crime is a completely human characteristic. It has dominated our history books, been sensationalized by the media and created a pervasive fear which dominates our culture. Is there a way to possibly prevent violent crime? Neurocriminology, a classification of criminology centered on neuroscience and its relationship between the causes and cures of crime, may have the answer to that question. Adrian Raine, a criminal psychologist for more than thirty years, proposes that criminal behavior may have its origins in heredity and biology and future criminal tendencies can be predicted in children. Professor Raine’s discoveries can potentially thwart violent crime activity by identifying genetic markers which are characteristic of violent offenders. If so, what are the moral and ethical dilemmas society will now have to contend with when tagging certain individuals as natural-born killers? Despite this milestone discovery, many questions stills persist such as how society will react. In addition, though potential criminal behavior may be prevented by examining genetic markers, the moral and ethical implications of neurocriminology, may lead to discrimination and the further criminalization of poverty.

For more than a century, researchers and psychologists, such as Sir Francis Galton, Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud and many others, have been trying to understand how people are transformed by their environment. Researchers have mainly argued whether it is in fact our environment or rather genetics, our biological pre-wiring, which has influenced human behavior. This concept ultimately facilitated what is now known as the Nature versus Nurture debate. The Nature aspect states that human behavior is predetermined by our inherited genes or is the product of our innate behavior. The Nurture side of the disagreement postulates that human behavior stems from acquired attributes through individual learning and experiences. Correspondingly, the Object Relations Theory in psychoanalytic psychology supports the position that a person’s natural environment (i.e. family, peers, acquaintances, society) forms human development. The Object Relations theory stresses that it is the relationships between people, more specially family, often between mother and child, that crafts the human psyche.