Nature vs Nurture: Do Genes Or Environment Matter More? Essay

Throughout history, studies have shown that who you become later in life is determined at birth, that one’s genes solely influence who they grow up to be. To some extend this may be true however, new research concluded that the environment and experiences someone experiences as a child can be just as influential as genetic makeup. These studies have led to the Nature verses Nurture debate, with the nature side being one’s heredities and the nurture side, childhood experiences and relationships. This controversy has largely impacted the criminal world, as law enforcement tries to understand why some people commit horrendous acts. Nature vs. Nurture specifically comes into play when trying to understand the psychology of a serial killer, as

These researchers have concluded that there is a strong correlation between the environment and the social behaviors and mental behaviors of a human being in the future. The most critical of these time periods are the childhood of the child and the social groups that the person has been emerged around in the adolescent ages. One of the most widely used studies is the Twin Study where two twins with a very similar genetic makeup are raised in different environments to see how much change there is in their behavior. These twins almost share 100% of their genes however, it has been shown that the only behavior that has been affected is their personality. Yet the personality has been observed to be different by 54% compared between twins who are raised in different environments (DANIEL GOLEMAN 1986). Showing that nurture is a lot more in control of how one acts and how they are more influenced by their environment. It becomes dangerous when one’s environment can begin to affect their behavior, as they can stray for the worst and make situations like past serial killers come true. Personality being affected by the environment can not be prevented, however, the type of environment that will influence future personalities can be changed and made for the better. They can be improved upon to prevent any future serial killers from being

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.

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.

The battle between nature and nurture has been everlasting, a constant debate about what exactly causes criminal behaviour. Psychologists have identified important information and have created assumptions as to why individuals commit crimes. The two most significant clarifications lie in genetic and environmental aspects, which conveys to the nature and nurture controversy. Some believe that criminals are born, these are philosophers who argue that genetics play an important part in how a person behaves. Some believe criminals are made and influenced by society, these are philosophers who argue that it is the environment in which the person is in, such as a person's interaction with society that structures the behaviour

As many people have begun to pay attention to formation of personality, the debate over nature vs. nurture has raged for a long time and this issue is still controversial. However, as shown the

The often debated concept of Nature vs. Nurture has in recent years become less of a polarizing topic. With advancements in psychology and biology, the factors that go into the etiology of certain disorders and diseases have become more clear, but also less clearly distinct from one another. The lines between the impacts of environmental factors or biological factors on human lives are becoming more and more blurred. In particular, social anxiety acts as an excellent example of how these factors can become intermixed to create the symptomology of a disorder. It has become clear to modern scientists that social anxiety disorder results from a complex interplay between environmental and biological factors.

Biological theories sought to determine a biological defect inside individuals that caused a predisposition towards criminal behaviour. For instance, the notion that antisocial and aggressive behaviour is influenced by genetics is strongly supported through research based on twin studies, adoption studies, twins reared apart and molecular

One of the oldest arguments in psychology is the debate between nature vs nurture. Nature being our genetics determining our behavior, personality traits, and abilities, while nurture being our environment, upbringing, and life determining our behavior. One of the most prompted debates on the subject is genetic and environmental influences on criminal behavior. The question often being whether its the blame of a human being’s inherited genes that makes them a criminal or the surroundings in which they are raised develops that outcome. Research has been done on this debate from numerous studies, and the overall conclusion being that both genes and environment play a part in the criminal behavior involving an individual. The reason being, having inherited genes for corrupted behavior doesn’t decide the operations of a person, on the other hand if they are subjected to the correct surroundings, then their chances increase for engaging in criminal or anti-social behavior.

For centuries, criminologists and scholars alike have explored different theories to help determine what causes one to engage in deviant behavior. In this paper, I will discuss one of the longest standing criminological disputes, nature versus nurture. After describing both theories in detail, I will determine whether I believe our intelligence, behaviors, and personality traits are genetically predetermined or if they are a product of our environment and the way in which we were raised.

One of the most commonly used debates in the history of psychology is that of nature vs nurture. Does one's surroundings affect the person they become, or are they genetically programmed at birth to act as they do? Thanks to explanations from either side of this debate, an excuse for the crazed actions of an individual can be found in both their birth and their own personal upbringing.

This is possibly one of the hardest debates to try and describe to someone. On its face, it’s pretty

The argument of “Nature versus Nurture” is one that has been going on for many years. Are certain traits, such as how individuals thing and act, genetically inherited from parents or other relatives? Or are these traits actually learned behaviors the individual developed over the course of its life, crafted by experiences and treatment methods? Understanding the relationship between genetics and environment is important because if people know how to produce a desirable temperament in an individual, they can have a healthier, happier, more productive animal. Studies indicate that temperament, in the Merino breed of sheep at least, is linked to genetics more than environment, and the sheep industry will benefit from a large boom in production if sheep are bred to have a calm temperament.

For years psychologists and researchers have argued what makes people commit crimes and what puts them at a higher risk. Does genetics have an influence on a person's ability to commit a crime? Or is it the environment a person is raised into that shape’s their ability to commit a crime. The basis for this argument is the historical philosophical reference of nature versus nurture.

Psychologically, nature can be termed as the genetic predispositions impact on human traits. Nurture on the other hand, refers to the influence that learning has on the behavior of persons. The influence of learning is exclusively obtained from the environment. Scholars and lay people continue to argue about whether the strengths and weaknesses of people are as a result of their inherited traits or the ones acquired through learning from the environment. Great social implications have been drawn from the results of this debate. These implications occur in the sense that the intelligence showcased by people depends on their acquired or learned traits. With respect to the inherited traits, there are various traits that are biologically