Nature or Nurture?
The Determination of Human Behaviour
The nature versus nurture debate has spanned over decades, and is becoming more heated in the recent years. Following the mapping of the human genome, scientists are pursuing the possibility of controlling human behaviour such as homicidal tendencies or insanity through the manipulation of genes. Is this possible for us to ensure that humans behave in certain ways under certain circumstances in future?
This is highly doubtful, as the determination of human behaviour depends not only on genes (nature), but also on the environment (nurture). It is usually the “joint product of genes and environment”, one of the first principles in Leda Cosmides and John Tooby in “Evolutionary
Psychology: Nature and Nurture” (attached). This remains our group’s thesis.
Introduction
Take for example this Calvin and Hobbes strip.
We assume that duplication is the same as cloning and therefore the two Calvins are genetically similar. Hobbes (that is the tiger) implies in the last frame that the two are similar in behaviour. Ignoring the absurdity, it brings us to a question: Do genetically similar people behave the same way? That is, can nature alone determine how one behaves?
This seems quite impossible. Take another fictitious, but thought-provoking, example in
Mowgli, from “The Jungle Book” by Rudyard Kipling. He is genetically similar to all human beings and much less so to wolves, bears and panthers, but he behave more like the wild animals. In this case, it is certainly clear that nature alone cannot determine human nature. The environment makes a difference.
Behaviour genetics
Behaviour genetics is the study of the extent to which heredity (genes) influence human behaviour. Genes are found in chromosomes which are made up of deoxyribonucleic acid
(DNA). Our DNA strand determines not only our physical characteristics (known to soem as our genetic architecture) but also our psychological make up. The human genome project has isolated certain genes responsible for certain behaviour traits. For example dopamine is responsible for “risk-seeking” behaviour, as well as hyperactivity (The Economist June 1st).
Although the probability of altering genetic make-up and therefore human behaviour is
...
... middle of paper ...
...nbsp; The effects of the environment also does not explain why some traits runs in the family.
Charles Darwin, father of behaviour genetics, noted in 1872 that a gentleman had a habit of raising his arm in front of his face when sleeping and dropping it with a jerk hence hitting his nose (Darwin, C. The expression of the emotions in man and animals) This is an uncommon trait. However, years after his death, his son and daughter are also found with the same trait.
Environment cannot give a suitable explanation for this trait. It also does not explain how identical twins who grow up apart can have the same behaviourism and why while biological children tend to behave like their parents whereas most adopted children do not. (As found by the twin study and adopted study of University of Lousiana )
Conclusion
Therefore, it can be concluded that neither nature and nurture is exclusively responsible for determining human behaviour. Although genes contribute to our physical characteristics
(some of which affects our behaviour) and our psychological frame of mind, our experience and education are also important in determining who and what we are.
Rage and vengeance are very familiar emotions that are expressed by the creature. Because these feelings are human flaws in character, the creature allows these hurtful emotions to hurt his character of “kindness and gentleness”. Deeply hurt by such an attack for his good deed, his ire is provoked and like a human would, he reacts impulsively. A spectrum of
Ekman, P. (2009). Darwin's Contributions to Our Understanding of Emotional Expressions.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.
The nature vs. nurture debate: the nature side, are those such as biologists, psychologists and others in the natural sciences, argue that behavioral traits can be explained by genetics. Those taking the nurture side are sociologists and others in the social sciences, they argue that human behavior is learned and shaped through social interaction. This argument should be dismissed because you don’t have to look far to see that both genetics and our environment, plays a role in who we are and our behaviors. (Glass). The point is there is a complex relationship between nature and nurture, either one alone is insufficient to explain what makes us human. (Colt). Our heredity gives us a basic potential,...
In the well-received novel “Pudd’nhead Wilson,” Mark Twain skillfully addresses the ancient argument about the origin of one’s character and whether it’s derived from his nature or his surroundings. We can best see this battle between nature versus nurture by inspecting the plot lines that follow the characters Thomas a Becket Driscoll, Valet de Chambre, and Roxana the slave. Thomas was born into a wealthy white family while Roxy birthed Chambers into a life of slavery. It seemed as though each would have gone their separate ways into opposite walks of life, but Roxy secretly swapped the children, which destined each to their counterintuitive fates. Through their words and actions, Tom, Chambers, and Roxy have proven the idea that one’s behaviors and desires are a result of his upbringings and the environment he lives in rather than by his innate nature.
According to National Geographic, scientists have sequenced the genome factor of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 98.5% similar to the ape species. The chimpanzee is our closest relative in the animal kingdom; however, some people are not aware of our resembling traits with chimpanzees. Jane Goodall’s, In the Shadow of Man, describes some similar traits humans and chimpanzees have such as their facial expressions and emotions, use of tools, and diet.
their nature or instincts, in others, their nurture or upbringing. The article also debates that the question
Classical conditioning refers to a type of learning in which a previously neutral stimuli took on the ability to stimulate a conditioned response in an individual (Gormezano & Moore, 1966). To prove that environment was more impactful than genetics, Watson conducted an experiment on an infant, little Albert. Initially, Albert showed little fear towards rats. When Watson repeatedly exposed Albert to the rat accompanied by a loud noise, the latter began to develop fear towards not just the rat but also other furry animals. Watson successfully showed that the acquisition of a phobia can be explained by classical conditioning (Watson & Watson, 1921). Regardless of their genes, the associations of the right stimuli can result in the development of a new behaviour in any individual.
“The term “nature versus nurture” is used to refer to a long-running scientific debate. The source of debate is the question of which has a greater influence on development: someone's innate characteristics provided by genetics, or someone's environment. In fact, the nature versus nurture debate has been largely termed obsolete by many researchers, because both innate characteristics and environment play a huge role in development, and they often intersect”. (Smith, 2010 p. 1)
Segal, Nancy L. Entwined Lives: Twins and What They Tell Us about Human Behavior. New York: Dutton, 1999. Print.
In Martel’s book, she labeled Richard Parker as the “alpha” of the food chain, due to its strength and capabilities to survive in nature. She described how tigers are beautiful creatures, yet are fearsome and dangerous they can be. Respect is one word she used to show how a person sees this animal. Comparing to the hyena, people dissed the savagery of the hyena and their gruesome attitude towards nature and how it lacks of many things due to its appearance. However, on the other hand all people see the tiger’s sophistication to hunt
In the adopting method, behavioral geneticists study children adopted shortly after birth. By comparing their abilities and personality traits to those o their adoptive family members with whom they live and those of their biological parents whom they may have met, researchers can disentangle the effect of heredity and environment (Plomin et al., 19...
Heredity Versus Environment - The Nature-nurture Controversy, Exploring Heredity And Environment: Research Methods, Beyond Heritability
Height, hair color, eye color and sex are just a few examples of ways our DNA has shaped us. But could it be possible that our DNA also effects the way we behave in society. It is possible that genetics effect us is more ways that we may have imagined. Dr. Peter B. Neubaur believes that shyness, eating disorders, obsessive behavior and psychological illness can all be traced back to our genetics. Sexual orientation is also believed to be derived from genes in our body which determine what sexual preference we prefer. Violence and other types of crimes can be linked back throughout a person’s lineage to witness that other family members have been committed similar crimes without ever meeting one and other.
First, we shall discuss the similarities these two creatures share. One of the most obvious similarities between these two animals is that they both have hair and are domesticated animals kept as pets. They require love and affection from their owner, and return that love and affection if owners show it towards them. Another thing is
The problem of heredity and environment must be thought of not only as specific to each characteristic and to each environment, but as specific to each individual in respect to each of his characters and to each factor of environment. We cannot speak of a good or of a bad environment except in terms of a particular characteristic of particular individual and particular environmental factors ( John Mcleish).