Evaluating "Nature vs. Nurture" Analytical Essay by scribbler
Evaluating "Nature vs. Nurture"
Looks at the debate around the term "nature versus nurture" from its origin to present day.
# 152919 | 865 words | 7 sources | MLA | 2013 |
Published on May 01, 2013 in Psychology (Physiological) , Philosophy (Science) , Biology (Genetics)
$19.95 Buy and instantly download this paper now
This paper explains that the "nature vs. nurture" or "stability vs. change" arguments, first used scientifically by Victorian Sir Francis Galton, half-cousin to Charles Darwin, remain quite controversial even today. Next, the author reviews this concept in the framework of Mary Shelley's novel "Frankenstein" and in the scientific exploration of the human genome and modern genetics studies. The paper underscores that many scientists now believe that "nature versus nurture" is a fallacy to be replaced by a newer way of thinking that there are certainly hereditary characteristics but social and culture situations still have a very strong effect.
From the Paper:"Another way to emphasize this point is with Mary Shelley's novel Frankenstein. In the novel, nature (from what the monster was created) clearly takes a back seat to the psychological effects of external sociological and internal family influences that are responsible for shaping an individual psyche are most remarkable. The change in the Monster's temperament illustrates that initially benevolent natures can become perverted through rejection by socialized individuals, thus anticipating the nature/nurture debate. The modern reader, then, even steeped in contemporary science, sees the extreme truth in the creature - the passion for life, the simple joy in wanting to belong to a family, and the intrinsic results of the earliest definition of evil - that of the absence of good.
"As the scientific exploration of the human genome and genetics improves, one might believe that the debate would be less controversial and more rigid. In fact, it is just the opposite. The more we know about genes, DNA, and a predisposition of traits, the more we ask whether traits are actually real. For instance, decades of research has been devoted to the "trait" of human intelligence and the calculating of the real I Q. for different populations."
Sample of Sources Used:
- Bartlett, A. "Keeping the Monster at a Distance: Artifical Humanity and Victimary Otherness - Frankenstein and the Problem of Modern Science." 2007-8. Antropoetics. October 2010 <http://www.anthropoetics.icla.edu/ap1303/1301bartlett.htm>.
- Bulmer, M. Francis Galtron: Pioneer of Heredity and Biometry. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003.
- Carlson, N. et al. Pscyhology: The Science of Behavior. Toronto: Pearson, 2003.
- Dusheck, J. "The Interpretation of Genes." Natural History (2002): 34-89.
- Pinker, S. "Why Nature and Nurture Won't Go Away." Fall 2004. Harvard University- Daedalus. October 2010 <http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/papers/nature_nurture.pdf>.
Cite this Analytical Essay:
Evaluating "Nature vs. Nurture" (2013, May 01) Retrieved June 04, 2023, from https://www.academon.com/analytical-essay/evaluating-nature-vs-nurture-152919/
"Evaluating "Nature vs. Nurture"" 01 May 2013. Web. 04 June. 2023. <https://www.academon.com/analytical-essay/evaluating-nature-vs-nurture-152919/>