Brain-Behavior and Nature-Nurture: Two Interacting Scientific Debates Whether there is more behind human behavior than can be explained solely by neural phenomena has been the subject of much time-worn scientific and philosophical debate. In regards to this question, two primary classes of alternative explanations come to mind: the human soul and the environment. The former of these involves a possible internal, individualistic force guiding behavior beyond the guides provided by the brain; many feel that the topic of the human soul is best left in the realm of the philosophical. Environmental influences on behavior, however, are quite pertinent to scientific investigations into the brain/behavior dichotomy. Whether and to what extent one’s environment effects one’s behavior, personality, even destiny is embodied by the widely publicized and highly politicized nature-nurture debate.
According to the article, people with alcoholism have been known to have problems with skills in their prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain that controls decision-making and emotions. These same people show exaggerated neural responses in the dorsal striatum due to alcohol-related cues. This information shows that excessive drinking can affect learning and control of behavior and emotion. This information can be helpful in my paper because it explains that alcohol is a disease that affects the brain and it will help me try to prove my point of view. Meyer, Roger E.
Thirdly, will contrast and compare the two and research’s impact on the case studies in regards to nature vs. nurture and finally, will conclude with the impact of the nature-nurture debate and twin and adoption studies. “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) Nature, which is also known as hereditary, is the genetic makeup (DNA) that an individual carries from birth until death.
Although Science is largely composed of observation, experiments and their results, it raises controversy because imagination and perspective play a key role in those interpretations. As we know that imagination and perspective vary with each person due to education, background, and experience; how is it possible that we can assign a concrete truth to such a varied conceptualization. Thus, we cannot formulate any concrete truth. In this sense I see Scientists more as Philosophers. Another issue I find when dealing with traditional scientific theories is that Science often fails to provide theories and explanations for phenomenon's that hold truth and validation in both a scientific context and the context of the human mind.
In these human sciences, a theory is researched and applied in order to understand a unique concept of human behaviour. On the other hand in the natural experimental sciences, consisting of biology, chemistry and physics, an experiment is carried out in order to test the cause and effect of a theory or hypothesis based on features of the physical world. The application of the methodologies and techniques of the natural sciences to human beings is strongly opposed by critics, and many argue that meaningful ... ... middle of paper ... ...hriftlichen (1857/1858) und in der letzten gedruckten Fassung (1882)(Vol. 1). Frommann-Holzboog.
"The moderation by the serotonin transporter gene of environmental adversity in the aetiology of mental illness: review and methodological analysis." Molecular Psychiatry 13.2 (2008): 131-146. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. EBSCO. Web.
This academic writing will focus on psychoactive drugs, which act on the central nervous system altering states of consciousness by changing mood, perception and behaviour (Ryder et al., 2006; Hamilton et al., 2004; Burton, Westen, & Kowalski, 2009). A model is a practical way of explaining why occurrences happen the way they do, models can describe health issue as well as explain why and how the problem occurs (Ryder et al., 2006). Models can also predict what is likely to happen, but what is more important they can be used to plan out interventions to resolve a health issue (Ryder et al., 2006). This essay will describe the public health model and discuss why drugs do not have a fixed and predictable effect. Quite a number of models have been developed to understand drug use and its effect; the public health model integrates the perspectives of other models and focus on three main factors (Ryder et al., 2006; Hester & Miller, 2003; Clapp & Shillington, 2001).
The nature versus nurture debate also explores into many different fields of psy... ... middle of paper ... ...assed down. These studies are on opposite sides of the spectrum but had one common goal and that goal was to figure out if genes or environment affected people the most. How does it affect the field of psychology? The nature versus nurture debate can affect psychology in many different ways. Psychologist will never really know what affects human behavior and thought, nature or nurture.
Scientists and researchers are both trying to figure out which is the main cause in development because it is still unknown on which it is. The best position to side with is nature. Nature is also defined as genetic or hormone based behaviors (Agin). Regardless of the involvement in everyday life, or nurture, this argumentation centers around the effect genes have on human personalities. Although it is understandable on reasons to side with nurture, nature is the better stand in this controversy.
Each raises formidable challenges to the hard-scientific project. Some see the current conflict in American political science as little more than a battle over occupational resources. It is a battle over who gets hired, who gets published, and who leads our professional associations. What meager response the current “Perestroika” protest movement has elicited from hard scientists has focused on these issues. The conflict is partly a battle over scarce resources, but the protesters have also presented a radical critique of hard science as a means to study politics.