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

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.

1. Which one, genetics (nature) or the environment (nurture), do you think plays a larger role in the development of who you are? Please provide me with what percentage you think each contributes, e.g., 50% genetics/50% environment.

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

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

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.

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

From Dr. Money’s perspective, raising Bruce as a girl would allow him to live a “normal” life, if he were to live his life without a penis, he would be seen as an outsider and rejected from society. He also suggested to put Bruce on estrogen, but also surgically give him a cosmetic vagina. Dr. Money explained to Ron and Janet that Bruce/Brenda, would psychologically mature as a woman, and be attracted to men, as well as be able to have sexual intecourse, without a problem. According to Bruce’s parents, there was no reason “that it shouldn’t work” (50). However, they could have thought it out thoroughly, what if Brenda didn’t feel comfortable in her own skin? Would she feel as though something is wrong with her? This is where the topic of

In reading stories about identical twins my point of view is easily understood. Various types of psychologist have analyzed the study of identical twins. It shows that individuals with the same genetic make-up can be totally different, when it comes to personality. Nurture promotes the twins to grow up as separate individuals. Its a lot better if a twin has his or her own personality rather than the same exact personality of the other half. I think this great debate weighs heavier on the nurture side. As a child my parents, and sibling overshadowed my genetic make-up. No matter how much I thought my physical traits made me behave. It did not affect me more than the things that I had seen and been exposed to. The more things that I had seen around and experienced made me the person that I am today. If my genetic make-up was totally different, to a certain extent, I am sure that I?d behave the same way that I do presently. There are exceptions to that. For instance if I were six foot five and one hundred and ninety pounds, I?d most likely be in the NBA and be really rich. I think if I was really rich and in the NBA I wouldn?t have the same worries that I have today. Even if before I were in the NBA I would have lots of attention and have a lot more confidence. So to an extent I would change a little if my genetic make-up were different. In a sense, genetic make-up is just a competitor to the environmental 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

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

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.

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.

1) Use the example of feral children to construct an argument in the nature versus nurture debate.

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.

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