Nature vs Nuture Essay Example

The cultural implications and training during a child's upbringing greatly influence their nurturing throughout childhood. According to Herbert (1997), viewing mental illness as a brain disease has played a crucial role in reducing the stigma surrounding misunderstood illnesses like schizophrenia and depression.

It is increasingly believed that genetics, rather than choice, plays a major role in determining various aspects of human behavior such as criminal behavior, substance abuse, sexual orientation, and personality traits. However, the intersection of politics and science makes it challenging to distinguish between these two factors. This cultural shift has significant implications for both individuals and society as a whole. Every month brings new discoveries about genes associated with different traits, prompting a reassessment of the influence genetics has on personal and political levels. On an individual level, embracing the power of genes diminishes the importance of personal qualities like willpower, decision-making ability, and responsibility for one's choices (Herbert 1997).

The argument suggests that if an individual's actions are impacted by their genetic composition, they should not be accountable for their deeds. This perspective allows individuals dealing with alcoholism, for example, to view themselves as powerless victims of biology rather than intentional agents with authority over their conduct. Genetic determinism has the capability to alleviate victims and their families from guilt feelings or restrict them to their affliction.

Within this lies the core of the ongoing debate between nature and nurture. The concept of genetic determinism can sometimes have contradictory outcomes, which can result in the disadvantaged being treated with disdain and exclusion instead of sympathy and inclusion. Cultural critics are now evaluating the unpredictable implications of biology, particularly in relation to four specific characteristics:

violence, mental illness, alcoholism, and sexual orientation.

According to Herbert (1997), the general public has a misleading and alarming distrust and fear of genetic power and applications. The use of simplistic language in discussions about genetic advancements has caused widespread misunderstanding of DNA's true capabilities. Instead of simplifying information, it is important to provide easily accessible knowledge to the public. For instance, Herbert (1997) points out that geneticists often claim to have discovered a gene for a specific trait when they actually mean that individuals carrying a certain allele, which is a variation in DNA, will develop the trait in a standard environment. However, it should be noted that the presence of the allele does not guarantee that the trait will appear in every environment. Deceiving the public into believing that science has identified the gene responsible for certain issues and suggesting they can now be fixed is both unjust and unethical.

The nature-nurture debate is experiencing a profound reconsideration that should not be underestimated. The conventional understanding of genetics, where each trait is attributed to a single gene, no longer applies to intricate human behaviors. Recent studies suggest that a more precise perspective entails multiple genes, some of which govern other genes, and many of which are affected by environmental cues. As a result, the biological and genetic makeup of an individual can be influenced by the extent of nurturing that particular trait receives.

The process of nurturing can vary in terms of environmental, emotional, or biological factors. The current understanding is that complex behaviors often have a genetic component that predisposes certain individuals to conditions such as schizophrenia or aggression. However, the expression of these

behaviors or pathologies requires an additional environmental factor, known as a "second hit." Interestingly, this second hit influences genes themselves and shapes brain structure. In the case of depression, for example, it seems that a negative experience like extreme loss can trigger chemical changes in the body that affect specific genes. These genes then impact certain brain proteins and increase susceptibility to future depression.

The topic of nature versus nurture is a highly debated and controversial subject. It is believed that both positive and negative experiences can influence certain genes, either activating them or strengthening their effects. Some genetic components may be more responsive to specific nurturing behaviors. For instance, it has been demonstrated that talent and intelligence can be greatly shaped. As our understanding of new information grows every day, the nature versus nurture debate becomes increasingly intricate. Given the exponential growth of internet-based knowledge, we can reasonably expect similar advancements in our collective human consciousness and awareness of genetic capabilities.

Bibliography

1. Bettelheim, Adriel (1998, April 3) Biology and behavior.
2. CQ Researcher, v8 n13, pp. 291(18). Gregory, Richard L. (1987) The Oxford Companion to the Mind (New York, NY; University of Oxford Press), pp. 376.
3. University of Oxford Press), pp. 376.

Herbert, Wray (1997, April 21) discusses the politics of biology and how the nature vs. nurture debate impacts public policy and our self-perception.

507(2). Zabludoff, Marc (1997, October) Behaving ourselves., Discover, v18, n10, pp.10.