Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Psychology The Great Nature vs Nurture Debate The Great Nature vs Nurture Debate The Great Nature vs. Nurture Debate No change in circumstances can repair a defect of character. One of the great controversial debates in Psychology is determining if characteristics and behavior are primarily due to genetics or the environment. We can now readily accept that genes determine our eye color, height, blood type, and other biological factors. Do these same genes that determine anatomy also determine our tendency towards traits such as violence, homosexuality or alcoholism? Some Psychologists, such as Freud, will argue that the home environment is primarily responsible for molding personality, while others cry genotype. There have been countless studies to find out if our destiny is written in our genes or determined by circumstance. Attempting to ascertain whether people are genetically programmed to be good-natured or prone to violence, sober or alcoholic, homosexual or heterosexual has perplexed man since the beginning of history. Nature vs. nurture purists believe that we are either molded entirely by our surroundings or our genetic make-up, however, it is not necessarily so black and white. Characteristics such as homosexuality, alcoholism, and violence are determined by both environmental and genetic factors. Nature or nurture? The media reports numerous acts of violence every day, for example, in 1998, a 15-year-old boy in a small Oregon town took a gun to school one day and randomly opened fire on a crowded cafeteria. Was this horrific act a product of nurture or nature? This individual was supposedly raised in a loving, supportive, two-parent home with a strong moral upbringing, yet his obsession with weapons and violence may have led to this tragedy. It is possible that Kip Kinkle was exposed to a great deal of violence on television and in the media, but it is also likely that, due to a glitch in his “mainframe”, he was predisposed to violence, hence the attraction to it. If media exposure is to blame, then it is conceivable to assume that all children will eventually display similar behavior. To examine another theory, Dean Hamer, a geneticist at the National Institute of Health, has found evidence that biology could play a part in determining violent behavior (Pool, 1997). He found that low serotonin levels in the brain contribute to violent tendencies. So which theory explains Kinkle’s outburst of seemingly senseless brutality? Based on the evidence that he was raised in a wholesome community, the most comfortable answer is a biological dysfunction he was born with, perhaps low serotonin production. We as a society do not want to believe that we are capable of producing abhorrent individuals, therefore it is easy to choose nature over nurture as an explanation, even though it is most likely a combination of the two. One of today’s most controversial arguments is whether homosexuality is due to chromosomal predetermination or a conscious decision. This argument is fueled by religious conviction, scientific findings, and standard social structure. Individuals with certain religious beliefs that cannot believe that God would make or accept a homosexual support their thoughts by quoting from The Bible, specifically Leviticus. To defend that theory, passages such as Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is abomination”, or, Leviticus 20:13, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them”, are cited. Based on biblical reference, these particular individuals interpret that being homosexual is purely a conscious decision, and could not possibly be genetic. Through testing, scientific researchers have found a link between biology and homosexuality. An article found in Discover Magazine supports this theory. “…Hamer found that some male homosexuality is passed through the maternal side. So he began his search on the X chromosome, which males get only from their mothers. From each subject he isolated and identified the same set of 22 markers -- short, easily distinguished stretches of DNA that vary from person to person and that geneticists use to flag a particular spot on a chromosome. If two brothers shared a marker, chances were pretty good that they shared the genes in the neighborhood of that marker as well. Thirty-three of the 40 pairs of brothers, Hamer found, shared the same set of five markers in a region of the chromosome called Xq28, far too many to be a coincidence. Somewhere in that region, he concluded, was a gene or genes contributing to the homosexuality of these men.” (Pool, 1997). Another study conducted by Bailey and Pillard found that of gay men who had a twin or adopted brother, 52% of the identical twins, 22% of fraternal twins, and only 11% of the adoptive brothers were gay. These results suggest that there is a genetic predisposition to homosexuality (Weiten, 1998). From a societal standpoint, acceptance of either theory or belief is not necessarily relevant. America’s archetypal relationship is heterosexual. Although recent breakdowns of social norms have allowed homosexual couples some of the same privileges as heterosexual couples such as health insurance and legal marriage, homosexuality is still largely unaccepted. Like the black community of the 1950s and 1960s, homosexuals face heavy discrimination and hate crimes, but unlike the black community, are not allowed the privilege of legal marriage. In most states, a homosexual marriage is not recognized even if the couple was wed in a state that does recognize homosexual union (like Hawaii). For these reasons, it is difficult to believe that one would choose a homosexual lifestyle. It is a possibility that in some cases traumatic events in a person’s life may make homosexuality an attractive option. An example is a woman who is repeatedly abused by men may feel that she cannot trust them and is only able to find safety with women. Although the cause of alcoholism is not known, biochemical imbalances in the brain and heredity have been acknowledged in playing a role. Scientists believe that genes are likely responsible for addictive disorders, but have not conclusively identified a specific gene that puts people at risk. Epidemiological studies have shown evidence of heredity’s role, for example, an identical twin of an alcoholic is twice as likely as a fraternal twin to have an alcohol-related disorder (Hales, 1998). While some diseases, like cystic fibrosis are apparently caused by a defect in a single gene, conditions like alcoholism, drug abuse, anxiety and depression are “very complex disorders,” said Kathleen Merikangas, a geneticist at Yale Medical School. “A large number of genes, and interactions among genes, are involved.” Dr. David Goldman, a researcher at the National Institute for Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, said two suspicious mutations have been discovered in the genes of alcoholics, but they are not the sole cause of the disease. He noted that during Prohibition, alcoholism decreased, demonstrating that environment affects behavior (Boyd, 1996). Again, no definitive evidence to support either heredity or environment exclusively. Based on the research I have done on the nature vs. nurture issue, I am still convinced that both factors must come in to play to shape our uniqueness. I do not feel that someone is necessarily born a violent killer that wakes up one day and decides to act on impulse. I feel that it is entirely possible that exposure to weapons and violence can activate a curiosity that leads to a violent act, but in most cases I would say a biochemical disorder is the most likely culprit. I am not convinced that we have discovered every symptom of every disorder, and I am not sure we ever will. Regarding homosexuality, with the exception of the traumatized individual who turns to it for safety, I strongly believe it is a predetermined trait. I do not have an answer for the fifty- percent of identical twins that are not gay in the studies except that maybe we don’t know all there is to know about identical twins. I can’t explain why I prefer the opposite sex, I just do, and I can’t imagine that a homosexual would have any more of an explanation that I do for their own sexual orientation. With alcoholism, I would have to lean towards the environment as the primary influencing factor. From a personal perspective, I should be an alcoholic by all rights. Nearly my entire family on my mother and father’s sides is composed of alcoholics, either recovered or not, and my environment growing up for the first 11 years of my life was with a bi-polar alcoholic. Somehow I managed to escape the disease (at least thus far), but I know that not everyone does. In my case you could say environment caused me not to be an alcoholic because of my negative exposure to it, I could not imagine living my life in such a way. Genetics may play a role in determining alcoholism, but that does not explain the individuals who develop the disorder, but do not have it in their family history (if that is possible in our day and age). I also do not feel we should rule out the possibility that the disorder skips generations. I think both sides of the nature vs. nurture issue are correct to varying degrees depending on the issue. Obviously we are not able to change our height, shoe size, or natural hair color, but if we are plagued with a trait that is not considered “normal” that we want to change and have the ability to do so, by all means we should. It comes down to what is in our entire character makeup, and our ability to overcome the negative influences of our environment and take steps to modify the glitches in our personalities, that determines who and how we are. Bibliography: Works Cited Boyd, Robert S. “Scientists Debate How Much Genes Determine Destiny.” Tribune News, August 6, 1996. Hales, Dianne. An Invitation to Health. 8th ed. California: Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1999. Pool, Robert. “Portrait of a Gene Guy”. Discover October 1997: 50-56. Weiten, Wayne. Psychology: Themes & Variations. 4th ed. California: Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1998. Word Count: 1619
Copyright © 2005 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved.