Genes Debate
Genes are units of hereditary information that tell the organism to
produce a particular chemical, or to display a particular
characteristic, e.g. blue eyes or brown hair. In this genes debate,
genes are said to not only display these physical characteristics, but
also determine our social behavior (contrary from being a result of
who we are from the way we are socialized).
In the past, biological determinism has been used to justify racism,
sexism and class inequalities. However, recent claims of biological
determinism seem to be more outstanding and more scientific. The most
well-known version of genetic determinism is sociobiology, advocated
by E. O. Wilson. The theory is: “social behavior is determined
biologically through our genes, which are in turn the products of
million years of evolution.” Tiger, Fox and Wilson all argue that it
is natural for males to be more aggressive and dominant than females.
Although Wilson admits that men and women can choose to behave
differently from those which he says are natural, but he says that if
they do, they will cause society problems because they’re going
against what they’re supposed to naturally do. Therefore, this implies
that it’s useless to fight for women’s equality because men and women
are born different and unequal.
Subsequently, consider this: If white people are on average more
intelligent than black people (because of supposedly genetically
inherited intelligence differences), it’s impossible to achieve
equality between ethnic groups. If crime were mainly the result of
individuals with “crime genes”, it’s useless to try to reduce the
level of crime thro...
... middle of paper ...
...would be favoured by sociobiologists. Humans develop as social,
cooperative, language-using toolmakers. It’s unreasonable to assume
that humans could be biologically or genetically determined for
competitiveness and inequality.
The conclusion is, there is much more to social behaviour and social
structures than genetic determinism because evidence against genetic
determinism is tremendous. What appears to be purely biological, such
as disease, even has a social factor behind it (e.g. pollution).
Perhaps there are other reasons why ideas of biological determinism
persist. According to Rose, Lewontin, Kamin and Gould, biological
determinism lets the government of the hook when social-related
problems arise, because they would be able to blame the individual
instead of on the way the society is supposed to be organised.
Biological Trait Theory has been found to have influences in neurophysiology, or the way the brain’s nervous system functions. When the part of the brain that controls fear, aggression, and social interactions, the amygdala, occurs in lower volumes, these traits will appear later in someone’s life. Other research cases have shown that psychopathic behaviors can occur when an individual’s amygdala functions at a lower efficiency or has certain deficits. One study, led by Yu Gao of the University of Pennsylvania, suggests that tendencies that may indict this event can occur before any crimes are committed. Another part of the brain, the anterior cingulate cortex, or the ACC, which plays an important role in controlling behavior and impulses,
In today’s society, one is constantly surrounded by individuals with different behaviors. Some will sacrifice his or her life for a complete stranger. However, there is some individuals who would take advantage of the weak and poor for his or her own personal gain. Now the question arises, what makes human beings behave the way they do? Being the topic of conflict of psychology for years, one usually turns to the nature verses nurture theory for the answer to that question. Some believes that a person is born with a certain personality, others believe it is an individual’s atmosphere that determines his or her attitude, and some even trusts the idea that it is a combination of genes and environment that dictates the conduct of an individual.
We have known for centuries that traits are passed from parents to offspring. What has not always been understood is how traits are determined. One explanation that appealed to scientist for many centuries was that traits of parents were blended, or mixed in offspring. The blending hypothesis accounted for many observable traits and was widely accepted for many years. However, the idea of blending could not account for the appearance of unexpected traits in some offspring. It was not until scientist discovered the cellular basis of life that the inheritance of traits was better understood.
Since we’ve started to genetically engineer sheep, a brain disease called Scrapie has appeared. What makes this disease different though is that is can be both genetic and transmitted. This has caused governments take extreme measures, such as preventing people from eating meat from the animals. Next, in 1885 Francis Galton invented the word Eugenic to describe the selective breeding of only the most capable people in society. He thought that this would eventually eliminate imperfections with human beings. Finally, to conclude our summary of Genome, the topic of free will. Although we are created by genes, our outside environment shapes who we are and how we act, essentially giving us freedom to choose who we are. Now, lets take a glimpse at one of the many controversial topics included in the
A complex and relatively new field of study, behavioral genetics is particularly interesting because is sheds light on the inner workings of a favorite subject: ourselves. Human behavioral genetics is broadly defined as the examination and characterization of genes as a basis for human behavior. The link between genetics and behavior was first recognized by Sir Francis Galton, a 19th century scientist and cousin of the very famous Charles Darwin, who studied the heritability of mental abilities of close relatives and family members (Stigler, 2010). Since then, genetics has been linked to many more behavioral phenotypes from eating and mating activities to substance abuse, social attitudes, violence and mental abilities. Geneticists are able to study this by analyzing parallels in physical and behavioral characteristics of families and populations (Rothstein, 2005). However, as with many other new scientific fields, the study of behavioral genetics and its implications has been the subject of increasing scrutiny and co...
Even though the social cognitive perspective focuses on the attitude and perspective when it comes to understanding social psychology and research. Evolutionary psychology is an important factor when it comes to the researching the roles of individuals in society due to their biological and genetic makeup. because The phenomenological perspective has a really important role when it comes to research because it speaks on how individuals and groups interpret certain situations., The behavior learning perspective relates to the research of the social psychologist because it teaches you about how certain actions and behaviors are learned through observation of others behaviors, and The gender role concept is important also when we have looking
Nature vs. nurture has been one of the oldest and most debated topics among psychologists over the years. This concept discusses whether a child is born into this world with their developmental work cut out for them or if a child is a “blank slate” and their experiences are what shape them into who they are. Over the years and plenty of research, psychologists have all mostly come to agree that it’s a little bit of both. Children are both born with some genetic predispositions while other aspects of the child’s development are strongly influenced by their surrounding environment. This plays into the criminal justice system when discussing where criminal behavior stems from. Is a criminal’s anti-social behavior just part of their DNA or is it a result of their upbringing? The answer to this question is not definite. Looking at research a strong argument can be made that criminals developed their anti-social patterns through the atmosphere in which they were raise, not their DNA.
Wilson, James and Herrnstein, Richard. "Crime & Human Nature: The Definitive Study of the Causes of Crime" New York: Free Press, 1998.
In their research article, “Genetic modification and genetic determinism”, David B. Resnik and Daniel B. Vorhaus argue that all the nonconsequentialist arguments against genetic modification are faulty because of the assumption that all the traits are strongly genetically determined, which is not the case. Resnik and Vorhaus dispel four arguments against genetic modification one-by-one. The freedom argument represents three claims: genetic modification prevents the person who has been modified from making free choices related to the modified trait, limits the range of behaviors and life plans, and interferes with the person 's ability to make free choices by increasing parental expectations and demands (Resnik & Vorhaus 5). The authors find this argument not convincing, as genes are simply not “powerful” enough to deprive a person of free choice, career and life options. In addition to that, they argue that parental control depends not on genetic procedure itself, but rather on parents’ basic knowledge of what the results of the modification should be. In a similar fashion, the giftedness arguments, which states that “Children are no longer viewed as gifts, but as
Pure determinism, biology, genetic, the nature in the nature-nurture debate, is the more palatable theory for many intellectuals because it is physical. Scientist can actually compare brain sizes and genetic markers, for example. There are those that will not
Ronald M. Green answers that there are four major objections to the concept of ‘building babies” through gene engineering, arguing that basic human nature counters the possibility that parental love or people’s appreciation of their nature counters the possibility that parental love or people’s appreciation of their natural abilities will decline; that a society making extensive use of gene manipulation is as likely to move towards egalitarianism as toward oligarchy; and that no religion expressly forbids genetic engineering. Green’s major four points are first, they worry about the effect of genetic selection on parenting. He states that will the ability to choose our children’s biological inheritance lead parents to replace unconditional love with a consumerist mentality that seeks perfections? Second, they ask weather gene manipulation will diminish our freedom by making us creatures of our genes or our parents’ whims. An example Green uses is “In his book Enough, the techno- critic Bill Mckibben asks: if I am a world- class runner, but my parents inserted the “Sweatworks2010 Gene Pack” in my genome, can I really feel pride in my accomplishments? Third, he states that many critics feat that reproductive genetic will widen our social division as the affluent “buy” more competitive abilities of their offspring. Green also states that will we eventually see “speciation,” that emergence to two
The Effects of Nature and Nurture on Shaping of Behavior The nature/nurture investigation has been studied for many years by psychologists and it is a subject that is still in debate today. It brings up the question, how is our behaviour shaped, and the two sides of the answer are nature and nurture. Behaviour in the context of a human being can be described as; the way humans act and think in situations. What is meant by nature and nurture?
Throughout history, our society’s socialization, or lifelong social experiences, has been debated upon quite vigorously. It is quite evident that we all obtain certain characteristics and abilities through heredity factors, but many still argue that this is not the only explanation for how our lives are determined. The argument of nature versus nurture is still being discussed by many, although both have been seen to have an impact on our life experiences.
A long time ago, possibly two hundred years ago, many major discoveries were made by scientists. The chemistry, mathematics and technology of that time was discovered and/or developed. However, one thing they could not understand was genetics which then resulted in them making assumptions and their own conclusions about different ethnic groups. Most of these assumptions were false, which is why they are classified as pseudo-scientific. These same assumptions and conclusions led to prejudice and discrimination for the races that were “classified” as inferior - the most prominent of these being black Africans. (Grant, 1999)
“We have been very conditioned by the cultures that we come from and are usually very identified with the particular gender that we happen to be a member of.” This quote by Andrew Cohen explains partially how gender identity develops, through the conditioning of our environments. The most influential factor of gender development, however, is still a very controversial issue. An analysis of the gender identification process reveals two main arguments in what factor most greatly contributes to gender development: biology differences (nature) or the environment (nurture).