Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 2

Essay 4 1) Considering the nature and nurture debate in psychology, please use both sides of the debate and

explain what you believe causes this behavior (either mental deficiencies or criminal behavior)? After Galtons initial address on the subject of nature vs nurture over 100 years ago, scientists, psychologists, and scholars alike have yet to come to a definitive conclusion on what actually causes us to think the way we think or behave like we do. Is it nature? Or is it nurture? While many argue that it is one or the other, there are those that argue that is both. However, even at the arrival of an agreement on this great debate, it is still uncertain which weights in higher: nature or nurture. With that being said, I believe criminal behavior is the result of both nature and nurture with a higher involvement of nature. I say this because some behaviors seem to be impossible to have been developed through environmental outlets or influences. I asked myself how could a 10 year old sheltered child develop a tendency of thievery if they have never been directly exposed to it. Im no scientist or geneticist, but Im going to say heredity. Perhaps this childs father/mother, or great grandfather/grandmother had a sort of fondness for for kleptomania. While doing research, I learned that studies have shown that an adoptive child with criminal biological parents are four times more likely to commit a crime in their lifetime than other non-adopted individuals. Meanwhile, adoptive individuals with both criminal biological parents and criminal adoptive parents are 14 times more likely to commit a crime. (459) This type of information led me to believe that the nature vs nurture debate may need to be reworded to nature amongst nurture debate. 2) Considering what you know about psychological research on people, discuss both sides of the ethical issue, individual rights vs. greater good, of sterilizing less desirables? Inconsideration or violation of individual rights is usually frowned upon in my book. I guess you can say Im pro-choice or an advocate for human rights in that sense. When one hears the phrase, sterilizing less desirables, one cant help but to shiver in disgust. However this is just at first mention. Sadly, if psychological evaluation and extensive research has deemed sterilizing less desirables the best thing to do, it must have been something to it. The fight for the greater good usually consists of some type of ethical breach. Although this doesnt make it okay (to disregard an individuals rights), it does lessen the blow once you factor in how it may help society. However, the lines soon become blurred and doubled, and we forget to act upon what is right and what is wrong concerning individuals and those as a group.

The pursuit to create a utopia may even lead to something great that will never be. Although made to be interpreted as factual, some aspects of science are not concrete. Especially genetics and heredity which is driven by chance and not absoluteness. Who is to say that someone suffering from a mental deficiency, leads a criminal lifestyle, or has a low IQ would reproduce offspring with exhibiting those same type of behaviors? Although probable, it is also uncertain. Therefore, taking away and persons right to reproduce based on their behavior can be a dangerous thing. References Levine, Andrea. Onkal, Rustem. Payne, Jack. Vernon, Nate."Neuroscience Of Intelligence." Macalester College: Private Liberal Arts College. Prof. Eric Wiertelak, 2005. Web. 30 Nov. 2011. <http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/whathap/ubnrp/intelligence05/Rheredity.ht ml>. Wood, E. Samuel.Wood, Ellen Green, and Denise Boyd. "Chapter 9." Mastering the World of Psychology. 4th ed. New Jersey: Pearson, 2011. 223-225, 495. Print.