Schizophrenia is any of several psychotic mental disorders any characterized by distortions of reality and disturbances of thought and language and withdrawal from social contact (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=schizophrenia).
There are many types of schizophrenia, such as paranoid type schizophrenia, which is characterized by delusions and auditory hallucinations. Disorganised type Schizophrenia is characterized by disorganized, messy speech and also other traits that can interrupt daily life. Catonic type Schizophrenia is characterized by disturbances of movement. Undifferentiated-type Schizophrenia is characterised by all of the above symptoms. Residual-type schizophrenia is characterized by a past history of at least one episode of schizophrenia, but the person currently has no positive symptoms Studies suggest that it is a combination of both nature and nurture that contribute to the onset of the disease.
Schizophrenia has been found to have a high genetic correlation, meaning that if one family member has schizophrenia, there is an increased likelihood that another family member (or future offspring) may also develop it. Of course, while an individual may be predisposed to schizophrenia because of genetics, which is not to say that he will ever develop the disorder. Some researchers feel that there is minimal evidence that exists to prove that schizophrenia is genetic, along with many psychiatrist who believe that the twin studies that have been done to prove that schizophrenia is genetic are wrong. While the percentages of twins that both are schizophrenic are high, they are not the usual 100% or 50% that are normally seen among people with genetically transmitted disorders. The only genetic testing for schizophrenia patients found that in some patients with schizophrenia part of the human chromosome 22 was missing. Though this was only found in a very small percentage of patients. Therefore, there is not enough evidence to form the conclusion that schizophrenia is caused by nature.
The environment in which a person lives can contribute to schizophrenia regardless of genetics. There are many environmental factors which may contribute to schizophrenia. For example, studies show that children born in winter months have a 10% higher risk of developing schizophrenia. A recent research study showed that people who had multiple copies of a version of the COMT gene and who smoked marijuana had a 1,000% increase in their risk of developing schizophrenia. This research explains the increased risk of developing schizophrenia for people who smoke cannabis / marijuana. A recent study done in Finland indicated that adopted children who had a high genetic/biological risk of schizophrenia had an 86% lower rate of developing schizophrenia when brought up in a healthy family compared to a dysfunctional family. In the healthy family only 6% of the children developed schizophrenia, whereas 37% of the children of dysfunctional families developed schizophrenia
So is schizophrenia caused by nature or nurture? Explain.
Do you believe that schizophrenia could one day be eradicated from the world? Explain.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Tourette's Syndrome
By Chris, Joel and TomTourette’s Syndrome
Tourette’s syndrome is a neurological disorder resulting in uncontrollable tics which can manifest physically or vocally.
A person that has Tourette’s syndromeTourette’s syndrome is a non-degenerative neurological disorder that results in physical tics and vocal outbursts that the person cannot control. The tics of a person with Tourette’s syndrome are worsened by stress, and the side-effects of repressive drugs are often worse than the tics themselves. The syndrome can be recognized from the ages of 2 to 21 and usually lasts until death. The cause of Tourette’s syndrome is currently unknown but scientists believe the factors causing it to be both environmental and genetic. Many people diagnosed with Tourette’s syndrome have also been classified as gifted and interestingly enough, many of them also have faster motor co-ordination than their age. The diagnosis of Tourette’s syndrome is up to twelve times more likely to occur in juveniles.
A treatment of Tourette’s syndrome is a various array of medicine that can result in less often or more controlled tics, although many of the people do not want to be treated using this method as it can have side effects worse than the tics themselves. An alternative therapy; still in the test stage, is a new kind of brain surgery. The affects of this treatment can be seen in the story of Bianca Saez; available from http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=630300
1. Although it is accepted that Tourette’s syndrome is caused by genetics (nature) how do you think treatment of a person with the Syndrome (nurture) would affect it? (E.g. the violence of the tics, the ability to suppress tics etc.)
2. Would, in your opinion, nurture affect the likelihood of Tourette’s syndrome developing?
3. How would the level of nurturing affect the types of tics? For example, a sufferer of Tourette’s has mostly violent tics due to a violent parent?
Sources:
1. http://www.tourette.org.au/index.php
2. http://www.tourettes-disorder.com/introduction.html
3. http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=630300
4. http://www.healthscout.com/ency/68/433/main.html
Tourette’s syndrome is a neurological disorder resulting in uncontrollable tics which can manifest physically or vocally.
A person that has Tourette’s syndromeTourette’s syndrome is a non-degenerative neurological disorder that results in physical tics and vocal outbursts that the person cannot control. The tics of a person with Tourette’s syndrome are worsened by stress, and the side-effects of repressive drugs are often worse than the tics themselves. The syndrome can be recognized from the ages of 2 to 21 and usually lasts until death. The cause of Tourette’s syndrome is currently unknown but scientists believe the factors causing it to be both environmental and genetic. Many people diagnosed with Tourette’s syndrome have also been classified as gifted and interestingly enough, many of them also have faster motor co-ordination than their age. The diagnosis of Tourette’s syndrome is up to twelve times more likely to occur in juveniles.
A treatment of Tourette’s syndrome is a various array of medicine that can result in less often or more controlled tics, although many of the people do not want to be treated using this method as it can have side effects worse than the tics themselves. An alternative therapy; still in the test stage, is a new kind of brain surgery. The affects of this treatment can be seen in the story of Bianca Saez; available from http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=630300
1. Although it is accepted that Tourette’s syndrome is caused by genetics (nature) how do you think treatment of a person with the Syndrome (nurture) would affect it? (E.g. the violence of the tics, the ability to suppress tics etc.)
2. Would, in your opinion, nurture affect the likelihood of Tourette’s syndrome developing?
3. How would the level of nurturing affect the types of tics? For example, a sufferer of Tourette’s has mostly violent tics due to a violent parent?
Sources:
1. http://www.tourette.org.au/index.php
2. http://www.tourettes-disorder.com/introduction.html
3. http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=630300
4. http://www.healthscout.com/ency/68/433/main.html
Perception
Does our perception form from nature or nurture? Gestalt’s perception theory proves that humans will generally group things in colour, shape, size and distance (relativity). Let’s use two imaginary figures, Tom and Suzy. Having a look at the diagram above, Tom and others would generally “group” the items in rows according to colour (similarity).
However, some Suzy and others would argue that the correct way of grouping is actually in columns. This is because they see the similarity in shape and sizes instead of colour, making them group the items in columns. It has been noted that Suzy’s parents group the objects above in rows. Referring to the earlier paragraph, it appears that our perception is possibly formed by nature. Science states that we inherit 40-50% from each parent, and less than 10% is gained from the environment. This might not be true in all cases as seen in the example. Suzy’s parents and Suzy perceived things differently from one another, and therefore argues a controversy towards genetically inherited abilities (perception in this case). So is our perception actually formed by nurture? The social learning theory states that children learn by observing other people’s actions. The likelihood of repetition is depended on an expected positive outcome. It could have been possible for other people’s perception to influence Suzy’s way of grouping. This relates to the theory of conformity as most people would conform due to low self-esteem while within a large group. Nurture may explain these certain aspects, but it cannot fully prove that our perception is formed by it. Not everyone is able to see in the same way, and will therefore not force themselves to conform towards other’s beliefs. The worldwide nature vs. nurture debate has so far stated that both elements must work together as a continuum in order to help us function. Environmental factors and genetic abilities are needed to produce our perception; nurture helps bring out our natural perception and perhaps modify it a bit.
What is your opinion about the formation of our perception?
Would it be possible to change our perception overtime?
What sort of methods could be used to change our perception?
P.S. please comment on the picture above, rows or columns? (Rows are these things ----columns are these )
Composed by Tiffany and Alex. Ray “the cool one”
Due: Monday 25th May, 2009
Bibliography
Acton, G. (2001, May 17). Behaviour Genetics. Retrieved May 19, 2009, from Great ides in Personality: http://www.personalityresearch.org/bg.html
Heffner Media Group.Inc. (2004, April 21). Psychology 101. Retrieved May 18, 2008, from AllPsych Online: http://allpsych.com/psychology101/perception.html
Depression
Depression is a mental health disorder where the sufferer exhibits symptoms such as feelings of anxiety, hopelessness, and guilt, loss of interest in hobbies, decreased energy, difficulty concentrating, irritability, headaches, and chronic pain.Scientists believe that depression is caused when there is a chemical imbalance of three major neurotransmitters (transmitters of electrical messages between brain cells) in the brain. These neurotransmitters are known as dopamine, serotonin, and norepinephrine. Is this imbalance just a part of a person’s genes? Or does the balance of these chemicals change in response to what is happening in the outside world?
In Russia, testing was done on 177 male adolescents from a juvenile detention centre. They were each given structured diagnostic interview to diagnose depression, tested for the levels of neurotransmitters, and given a questionnaire to assess aspects of maternal parental rearing. The results of this test showed that neither nature nor nurture could solely be the cause of depression, and instead showed that the subjects with both a rejecting mother and a specific form of the dopamine transporter gene were at a higher risk of developing major depression.
Obviously there is a combination of psychological, biological and emotional factors that will affect the development of depression, but we still don’t fully understand the roles each of these play in the development, and to what extent they each will affect the development of depression.
Information From:
http://mentalhealth.about.com/od/depression/a/depression1.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080115102642.htm
http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=By_Illness&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7725
Questions:
What roles do you think nature and nurture each play in depression?
To what extent do you think each nature and nurture affect the development of depression?
How do you think this will affect treatment of depression?
http://mentalhealth.about.com/od/depression/a/depression1.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080115102642.htm
http://www.nami.org/Template.cfm?Section=By_Illness&template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7725
Questions:
What roles do you think nature and nurture each play in depression?
To what extent do you think each nature and nurture affect the development of depression?
How do you think this will affect treatment of depression?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Intelligence
Intelligence: Nature vs. Nurture
By Mark & Jordan
Definition: WordNet states that intelligence is the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience. This definition itself gives off the feeling that intelligence comes under nurture, as one can only grow in intelligence from experience.
Proof for Nurture:
James Flynn, a political scientist from New Zealand has noticed that IQ levels globally have been rising at approximately three points per decade.
The reason behind this increase, suggested by Ulric Neisser, could be due to the bombardment of visual image learning such as advertisements, posters, video games, and television instead of learning through audio and lingual teachings. As children are so highly exposed to these visual images, they are becoming more competent and smarter visually, which assists them in performing highly in IQ tests which are dominated by visual puzzles.
Further proof for the nature side of the argument is the study of feral children. These are children that have been brought up by animals and then found to have drastically lower intelligence and little likeness to regular humans. The case of the feral chills known as “Victor” supports such thoughts. He was found at the age of seven in a French forest and studied by physician, Jean-Marc-Gaspard Itard. He attempted to teach Victor, but normal intelligence was never achieved. This demonstrates that early learning is instrumental in a child’s intelligence as an adult.
Proof for Nature:
The “Two Jims” is one of many twin studies conducted to test whether through different upbringing; the two would have dramatically different lives. The “two Jims” is one of the best experiments to support the Nature side of the Nature Vs. Nurture debate on intelligence.
Neither James knowing of each other’s existence throughout growing up, raised by two different families. However, when the two James’ were reunited at the age of 39, they were uncannily similar. “Both worked as part-time deputy sheriffs, both had abilities in mechanical drawing and carpentry, both liked maths but disliked spelling,” (semester 1 blog, 2009)
This shows that even though different families raised them, both excelled and enjoyed similar academic fields.
Conclusion:
One should think of intelligence as a rubber band. Rubber bands come in different sizes: some are quite small, while others are fairly large. Each of us is born with a certain amount of intelligence; just picture it as a particular rubber band. That’s the nature part. If we nurture that intelligence, we can help it develop. That would be the equivalent of stretching the rubber band.
There is, however, a limit to how much we can stretch a rubber band. We can stretch a large rubber band much farther than we can stretch a small rubber band. Nurturing intelligence is like stretching a rubber band. A gifted child has the intelligence that is equivalent to a large rubber band. If we challenge a gifted child, we stretch his or her intelligence. The same is true for any child. The more we challenge that child, the more we stretch the intelligence.
However, based on the fact that the evidence for Intelligence being caused by Nurture, one has to accept that it is the dominating reason behind intelligence.
Questions:
- With the evidence gathered here, what is your opinion on the topic? Is Intelligence related to Nature or Nurture?
- If more experiments were to be conducted, would it be possible to find a better method of increasing intelligence through nurture?
Bibliography:
· Bainbridge, Carol. "Creating Gifted Children - Nature or Nurture?" Creating Gifted Children - Nature or Nurture? About.com. 24 May 2009, URL accessed: http://giftedkids.about.com/od/gifted101/qt/nature_nurture.htm>.
· Erupting Mind (2009) Intelligence, Nature or Nurture viewed 24th May 2009 (http://www.eruptingmind.com/nature-nurture-intelligence/)
· Nature Vs. Nature in Intelligence (2005) Viewed 24th May 2009 (http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L4 1IntelligenceNatureVsNurture.html)
· "Nature vs Nurture in Intelligence." Wilderdom - a project in natural living & transformation. 10 Apr. 2005. 24 May 2009, URL accessed: http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L4-1IntelligenceNatureVsNurture.html#EvidenceNature>.
· O’Neil, S. (2009) Semester 1 2009 Nature Vs. Nurture : Twin studies Viewed 24th May 2009 (http://semester12009naturevsnurture.blogspot.com/)
By Mark & Jordan
Definition: WordNet states that intelligence is the ability to comprehend; to understand and profit from experience. This definition itself gives off the feeling that intelligence comes under nurture, as one can only grow in intelligence from experience.
Proof for Nurture:
James Flynn, a political scientist from New Zealand has noticed that IQ levels globally have been rising at approximately three points per decade.
The reason behind this increase, suggested by Ulric Neisser, could be due to the bombardment of visual image learning such as advertisements, posters, video games, and television instead of learning through audio and lingual teachings. As children are so highly exposed to these visual images, they are becoming more competent and smarter visually, which assists them in performing highly in IQ tests which are dominated by visual puzzles.
Further proof for the nature side of the argument is the study of feral children. These are children that have been brought up by animals and then found to have drastically lower intelligence and little likeness to regular humans. The case of the feral chills known as “Victor” supports such thoughts. He was found at the age of seven in a French forest and studied by physician, Jean-Marc-Gaspard Itard. He attempted to teach Victor, but normal intelligence was never achieved. This demonstrates that early learning is instrumental in a child’s intelligence as an adult.
Proof for Nature:
The “Two Jims” is one of many twin studies conducted to test whether through different upbringing; the two would have dramatically different lives. The “two Jims” is one of the best experiments to support the Nature side of the Nature Vs. Nurture debate on intelligence.
Neither James knowing of each other’s existence throughout growing up, raised by two different families. However, when the two James’ were reunited at the age of 39, they were uncannily similar. “Both worked as part-time deputy sheriffs, both had abilities in mechanical drawing and carpentry, both liked maths but disliked spelling,” (semester 1 blog, 2009)
This shows that even though different families raised them, both excelled and enjoyed similar academic fields.
Conclusion:
One should think of intelligence as a rubber band. Rubber bands come in different sizes: some are quite small, while others are fairly large. Each of us is born with a certain amount of intelligence; just picture it as a particular rubber band. That’s the nature part. If we nurture that intelligence, we can help it develop. That would be the equivalent of stretching the rubber band.
There is, however, a limit to how much we can stretch a rubber band. We can stretch a large rubber band much farther than we can stretch a small rubber band. Nurturing intelligence is like stretching a rubber band. A gifted child has the intelligence that is equivalent to a large rubber band. If we challenge a gifted child, we stretch his or her intelligence. The same is true for any child. The more we challenge that child, the more we stretch the intelligence.
However, based on the fact that the evidence for Intelligence being caused by Nurture, one has to accept that it is the dominating reason behind intelligence.
Questions:
- With the evidence gathered here, what is your opinion on the topic? Is Intelligence related to Nature or Nurture?
- If more experiments were to be conducted, would it be possible to find a better method of increasing intelligence through nurture?
Bibliography:
· Bainbridge, Carol. "Creating Gifted Children - Nature or Nurture?" Creating Gifted Children - Nature or Nurture? About.com. 24 May 2009, URL accessed: http://giftedkids.about.com/od/gifted101/qt/nature_nurture.htm>.
· Erupting Mind (2009) Intelligence, Nature or Nurture viewed 24th May 2009 (http://www.eruptingmind.com/nature-nurture-intelligence/)
· Nature Vs. Nature in Intelligence (2005) Viewed 24th May 2009 (http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L4 1IntelligenceNatureVsNurture.html)
· "Nature vs Nurture in Intelligence." Wilderdom - a project in natural living & transformation. 10 Apr. 2005. 24 May 2009, URL accessed: http://www.wilderdom.com/personality/L4-1IntelligenceNatureVsNurture.html#EvidenceNature>.
· O’Neil, S. (2009) Semester 1 2009 Nature Vs. Nurture : Twin studies Viewed 24th May 2009 (http://semester12009naturevsnurture.blogspot.com/)
Eating Disorders
It is commonly believed that eating disorders are a consequence of societal pressure and the nurturing of a person. In our society, the media and other portrayals of the body show an ideal, thin body. It is suggested that body dissatisfaction drives people for thinness.(insert picture 1)What Causes Eating Disorders?
Those who have relatives with eating disorders have a 10 times greater lifetime risk of developing an eating disorder (Tiemeyer, 2009). The cause of the connection is highly debateable.
Studies have found that people with bulimia nervosa often come from a family environment where they have been subjected to physical, emotional or sexual abuse. It has also been noted that those who come from a family where body image is considered important are more susceptible to importance.
Specific traits increase the risk of anorexia. People who eventually develop an eating disorder may:
· Have low self esteem
· Are perfectionist
· Are highly critical of themselves
· Have depression or similar mental disorders
· Are adolescents
· Had problems during birth
· Have Hormonal Abnormalities
No matter how predisposed one is to developing an eating disorder, eating disorders can often only be triggered by traumatic life experiences.
“Doctors studying the causes of the eating disorders anorexia and bulimia believe it has less to do with media images of slim-figured models and more to do with biological and genetic factors“(BBC, 1999). (insert picture 2)
By comparing the genes of people suffering from eating disorders
to those who aren’t, scientists have found specific genes which may make a person more susceptible to anorexia. Scientists have found numerous chromosomes that they claim are responsible anorexia and other eating disorders. Low or high levels of the chemical messenger, serotonin may attribute to the likelihood of one developing an eating disorder appears to run in the genetics of some families. Family and twin studies have found that genetic factors account for than 56%-76% of the variance in development of anorexia (Tiemeyer, M, 2008).The controversy lies as to whether or not the link between eating disorders and family is caused by the environment that one has been subjected to, or genetics.
Questions:
What do you think? Are eating disorders are predominantly caused by social/family/media pressure (nurture) or genetics (nature)?
Information gathered from:
http://www.psychiatric-disorders.com/articles/eating-disorders/bulimia/bulimia-causes.php
http://www.psychiatric-disorders.com/articles/eating-disorders/anorexia/anorexia-causes.php
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/259226.stm
http://eatingdisorders.about.com/od/riskfactors/a/heritability.htm
http://eatingdisorders.about.com/od/riskfactors/f/edsgenetic.htm
http://news.msu.edu/story/792/
BY:Alex, Cathy, Katy
Monday, June 1, 2009
Obsessive Compulsive Disorder
Obsessive – compulsive disorder is an anxiety mental disorder characterised by involuntary intrusive thoughts and compulsive behaviors.
CASE STUDY
‘Some kids like to wash their hands, but Sarah does it too much. She wants to stop, but her hands just don't feel clean enough and she can't make herself turn off the water. Sometimes she scrubs her hands until they are red and raw. After eating, she feels she has to wash again.
Because she spends so much time washing, Sarah has to rush to get to school on time. At school, she tries not to touch doorknobs or handrails, worrying that if she does she may catch a serious disease. Sometimes, Sarah gets behind in her classwork because she feels that she needs to keep checking it over and over.
During a quiz or test Sarah checks and rechecks every answer and erases anything that isn't perfectly straight or neat. Sometimes she erases so hard it tears the paper, but she can't help it. Sarah gets a bad feeling that if everything isn't exactly right, something terrible may happen. All this worrying, checking, and fixing takes so long that Sarah hardly ever finishes the test before time is up. So even though she knows the work, she often gets an incomplete mark or even fails.
Sarah tries so hard to hide her habits. She worries that she might be going crazy or that people would think she's weird if they knew what she was doing. Sarah knows that the time she spends washing and checking could be spent having fun with friends or doing her schoolwork, but she can't seem to stop herself. That's because Sarah has obsessive-compulsive disorder(OCD).’
Obsessive compulsive disorder can occur through teachings and habits in which are exploded at a time where the person is either under stress or something is worrying them. It can run through genes as if the mother or father is always obsessing over something, there is a good chance the child will.
OCD is fundamentally a part of ones nature, coming through genes and natural abilities, however the nurtured effect could prevent someone from having this difficulty. For example, if a childs mother and extended family has/had OCD, the child is very likely to have it too. However if the child is separated from her/his mother/family at birth, his new home could nurture him out of having OCD.
Questions:
1. With the evidence shown above, do you believe that this is a case of Nature or Nurture?
2. If your parents have OCD do you believe that your guaranteed to be diagnosed with OCD?
CASE STUDY
‘Some kids like to wash their hands, but Sarah does it too much. She wants to stop, but her hands just don't feel clean enough and she can't make herself turn off the water. Sometimes she scrubs her hands until they are red and raw. After eating, she feels she has to wash again.
Because she spends so much time washing, Sarah has to rush to get to school on time. At school, she tries not to touch doorknobs or handrails, worrying that if she does she may catch a serious disease. Sometimes, Sarah gets behind in her classwork because she feels that she needs to keep checking it over and over.
During a quiz or test Sarah checks and rechecks every answer and erases anything that isn't perfectly straight or neat. Sometimes she erases so hard it tears the paper, but she can't help it. Sarah gets a bad feeling that if everything isn't exactly right, something terrible may happen. All this worrying, checking, and fixing takes so long that Sarah hardly ever finishes the test before time is up. So even though she knows the work, she often gets an incomplete mark or even fails.
Sarah tries so hard to hide her habits. She worries that she might be going crazy or that people would think she's weird if they knew what she was doing. Sarah knows that the time she spends washing and checking could be spent having fun with friends or doing her schoolwork, but she can't seem to stop herself. That's because Sarah has obsessive-compulsive disorder(OCD).’
Obsessive compulsive disorder can occur through teachings and habits in which are exploded at a time where the person is either under stress or something is worrying them. It can run through genes as if the mother or father is always obsessing over something, there is a good chance the child will.
OCD is fundamentally a part of ones nature, coming through genes and natural abilities, however the nurtured effect could prevent someone from having this difficulty. For example, if a childs mother and extended family has/had OCD, the child is very likely to have it too. However if the child is separated from her/his mother/family at birth, his new home could nurture him out of having OCD.
Questions:
1. With the evidence shown above, do you believe that this is a case of Nature or Nurture?
2. If your parents have OCD do you believe that your guaranteed to be diagnosed with OCD?
Manners and Swearing
Manners and Swearing are common issues in today’s society. It seems we are becoming more and more tolerant of bad language, and therefore using it more often. But where do manners and swearing come from? And what causes this behaviour to take place?
(Roberts 2009) suggests that “as a child grows under the eyes of the parents and other adults, he/she develops his/her own unique personality. Some of the traits are inherited or hereditary. His/her physical features, such as height and colour of the skin and mental characteristics, such as aesthetic talents are passed from the parent’s genes. However, a child’s environment is as important as their genes. His/her upbringing, healthcare, education, abundance or deficiency or love, family members, etc, influence the growth of the child and moulds his/her personality.”
If this is true, it suggests that their environment can influence a person’s personality. Behaviour is one way some people express their personality, and manners or swearing are a part of a person’s behaviour.
There are many ways a person can acquire certain habits like manners or swearing. They can be learned through peers or even teachers at school. If a child’s peers swear around them, they will pick up language they may otherwise not have learnt. Teachers through reprimand influence manners, for instance when a student displays bad manners and/or swears, the teacher will punish them and therefore teach them better manners.
Parents would also greatly influence a person’s manners or swearing, as when children are young, they are very impressionable and very attached to their parents, and therefore they learn from their parents what manners are acceptable, and would also learn language from their parents, so if they are overheard swearing, the child may pick up this language.
Etiquette classes are also offered to try to teach people manners. These classes have a high level of success, so therefore are able to teach people manners, despite a person’s nature or previous upbringing. (Lusk 2007)
So, consider the above points about manners and swearing and decide whether they are a product of nature or nurture?
Information gathered from:
(Roberts 2009) suggests that “as a child grows under the eyes of the parents and other adults, he/she develops his/her own unique personality. Some of the traits are inherited or hereditary. His/her physical features, such as height and colour of the skin and mental characteristics, such as aesthetic talents are passed from the parent’s genes. However, a child’s environment is as important as their genes. His/her upbringing, healthcare, education, abundance or deficiency or love, family members, etc, influence the growth of the child and moulds his/her personality.”
If this is true, it suggests that their environment can influence a person’s personality. Behaviour is one way some people express their personality, and manners or swearing are a part of a person’s behaviour.
There are many ways a person can acquire certain habits like manners or swearing. They can be learned through peers or even teachers at school. If a child’s peers swear around them, they will pick up language they may otherwise not have learnt. Teachers through reprimand influence manners, for instance when a student displays bad manners and/or swears, the teacher will punish them and therefore teach them better manners.
Parents would also greatly influence a person’s manners or swearing, as when children are young, they are very impressionable and very attached to their parents, and therefore they learn from their parents what manners are acceptable, and would also learn language from their parents, so if they are overheard swearing, the child may pick up this language.
Etiquette classes are also offered to try to teach people manners. These classes have a high level of success, so therefore are able to teach people manners, despite a person’s nature or previous upbringing. (Lusk 2007)
So, consider the above points about manners and swearing and decide whether they are a product of nature or nurture?
Information gathered from:
Lusk, R. 2007, Swearing in Public is Not a Criminal Offences, Rocky Mountain Collegian, Colorado, viewed 22 May 2009,
Roberts, M. 2009, Infancy and Pre-school Nursing, Muslim Information Resources, London, viewed 22 May 2009,
Blog Written by: Caitlin Haynes, Mandy Cripps, Victoria Denny
Roberts, M. 2009, Infancy and Pre-school Nursing, Muslim Information Resources, London, viewed 22 May 2009,
Blog Written by: Caitlin Haynes, Mandy Cripps, Victoria Denny
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Aggression and Violence
The Nature of Aggression and Violence… or is it Nurture?
A division of the Nature vs. Nurture debate is whether violence and aggression is caused by nature or nurture. Aggression has been characterized as, “deliberately unfriendly behaviour” and violence has been defined as, “the exertion of force so as to injure or abuse”. However, all of you reading probably know what aggression and violence is and have experienced it or used it. The real question is not if you have seen it but what causes aggression and violence? Nature or Nurture?
There have been studies conducted that illustrate levels of serotonin, testosterone, and the frontal lobe brain chemistry may play a key factor in how aggressive and violent someone is. Such a study is where Terrie Moffitt and colleagues measured blood serotonin levels of 781 21-year-old men and women. After the study they concluded that, "in this study, elevated whole blood serotonin was a characteristic of violent men.” This study was also supported by (Meloy, 1988; Raine, 1993) who both found a link between serotonin levels and aggression. There have also been cases where people have had biological or psychical damage to their Hypothalamus, Limbic System or Frontal Lobe. Consequently they exhibited high levels of aggression and could become randomly violent.
However, there are just as many studies and theories that illustrate that violence and aggression is caused by nurture. (Lykken, 1995) found that some environmental factors can lead to aggression and violence. Family d
iscord, abuse, sexualised environments and peers are some of the environmental factors that could contribute to a person becoming aggressive or violent. Other theories such as the Social Learning Theory can support and explain how people become aggressive and violent. People may see their role models exhibiting aggressive or violent behaviour and if the role model is rewarded for the behaviour than the original person will copy the behaviour. If the aggressive or violent behaviour then works for the original person then they will use it again and again. They may then become a role model for somebody and that person may copy the aggressive or violent behaviour. So aggression and violence could just be a behaviour that is pasted on from generation to generation as they see it works for other people.
Questions:
· So is aggression and violence caused by nature or nurture?
· Do you think that aggression and violence can ever totally be stopped? Why or why not?
A division of the Nature vs. Nurture debate is whether violence and aggression is caused by nature or nurture. Aggression has been characterized as, “deliberately unfriendly behaviour” and violence has been defined as, “the exertion of force so as to injure or abuse”. However, all of you reading probably know what aggression and violence is and have experienced it or used it. The real question is not if you have seen it but what causes aggression and violence? Nature or Nurture?
There have been studies conducted that illustrate levels of serotonin, testosterone, and the frontal lobe brain chemistry may play a key factor in how aggressive and violent someone is. Such a study is where Terrie Moffitt and colleagues measured blood serotonin levels of 781 21-year-old men and women. After the study they concluded that, "in this study, elevated whole blood serotonin was a characteristic of violent men.” This study was also supported by (Meloy, 1988; Raine, 1993) who both found a link between serotonin levels and aggression. There have also been cases where people have had biological or psychical damage to their Hypothalamus, Limbic System or Frontal Lobe. Consequently they exhibited high levels of aggression and could become randomly violent.
However, there are just as many studies and theories that illustrate that violence and aggression is caused by nurture. (Lykken, 1995) found that some environmental factors can lead to aggression and violence. Family d
iscord, abuse, sexualised environments and peers are some of the environmental factors that could contribute to a person becoming aggressive or violent. Other theories such as the Social Learning Theory can support and explain how people become aggressive and violent. People may see their role models exhibiting aggressive or violent behaviour and if the role model is rewarded for the behaviour than the original person will copy the behaviour. If the aggressive or violent behaviour then works for the original person then they will use it again and again. They may then become a role model for somebody and that person may copy the aggressive or violent behaviour. So aggression and violence could just be a behaviour that is pasted on from generation to generation as they see it works for other people.Questions:
· So is aggression and violence caused by nature or nurture?
· Do you think that aggression and violence can ever totally be stopped? Why or why not?
Sources:
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Drug Addiction
Drug Addiction: Nature OR Nurture?
Is drug abuse the result of how we are brought up and raised, or is it the result of our genes? Are we born with it? This blog will explain the relationship between drug addiction and the nature – nurture debate.
It is believed that the use of drugs is a combination of both nature and nurture. This means that drug use is caused by someone’s upbringing and childhood AND is also the result of our genes and has therefore been with us since birth. There are various forms of evidence to support both sides.
Kranzler said “It is now widely accepted that genetic variation predisposes to alcohol and drug dependence, but it's also very clear that without environmental factors—including access to alcohol and drugs—addictions don't occur,”
There is evidence that heredity plays a significant role in increasing the chance of an individual developing an addiction to illicit drugs, alcohol, and tobacco. Researchers have contrasted alcoholism rates of adoptees born to alcoholic parents with those born to non-alcoholic parents. One study found higher alcoholism rates in sons whose natural parents were alcoholics than in sons whose natural parents were non-alcoholics.
The following case study showed the symptoms of babies born with drug addictions.
The number of babies born to drug addicted mothers has almost doubled in the last five years, it has been revealed. Last year there were 1,970 women who were addicted to drugs at the time of the birth, compared to 1,057 back in 2003.Of those 1,970 women with a drug dependency, 1,211 babies were born with their mother's addiction as the habit was passed on whilst the baby was still in the womb. It means that every day, five drug addict mums give birth to a baby and of those births three babies will suffer the withdrawal symptoms of their mother's addiction.The symptoms associated with babies who are addicted to drugs are a loud, high-pitched crying, sweating and stomach upsets. (http://yr10psychology.blogspot.com/2008/11/topic-10-drug-addiction.html )
Questions:
With the evidence gathered here, what is your opinion on the topic? Is drug addiction related to Nature or Nurture?
If someone were to do more experiments on this topic, do you think it is possible to find a better method of helping addicts if drug addiction was caused by Nature?
Sophie and Lucy
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Topic # 4: Artificial Selection
Darwin argues that those characteristics we might think to be specifically human—physical strength and health, morality, and intelligence—were actually achieved by natural selection. From this, he infers two related eugenic conclusions.
First, if the desirable results of strength, health, morality, and intelligence are caused by natural selection, then we can improve them by artificial selection. We can breed better human beings, even rise above the human to the superhuman. Since human beings have been raised above the other animals by the struggle to survive, they may be raised even higher, transcending human nature to something—who knows?—as much above men as men are now above the apes.
Second, if good breeding gives us better results, pushing us up the evolutionary slope, then bad or indiscriminate breeding drags us back down. "If…various checks…do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men," Darwin groaned, "the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule."
What about the link to Hitler? The first, most important thing to understand is that the link between Darwin and Hitler was not immediate. Darwin's eugenic ideas were spread all over Europe and America, until they were common intellectual coin by Hitler's time. Secondly, we misunderstand Hitler's evil if we reduce it to anti-Semitism. Hitler's anti-Semitism had, of course, multiple causes, including his own warped character. That having been said, Nazism was at heart a racial, that is, a biological political program based up evolutionary theory. It was "applied biology," in the words of deputy party leader of the Nazis, Rudolph Hess, and done for the sake of a perceived greater good, racial purity, that is, for the sake of a race purified of physical and mental defects, imperfections, and racial inferiority.
The proposed ruthlessness of his solution was in direct imitation of nature conceived according to Darwinism. "Just as Nature concentrates its greatest attention, not to the maintenance of what already exists but on the selective breeding of offspring in order to carry on the species, so in human life also it is less a matter of artificially improving the existing generation—which, owing to human characteristics, is impossible in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred—and more a matter of securing from the very start a better road for future development."
How do we secure a better road for future development? By ensuring that only the best of the best race, the Aryan race, breed, and pruning away all the unfit and racially inferior. That isn't just a theory; it's eugenic Darwinism as a political program. As Hitler made clear, "the State is looked upon only as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind." Jews have to be pruned away, but also Gypsies, Slavs, the retarded, handicapped, and anyone else that is biologically unfit.
Information gathered from:
Wiker, B. Dr (2008) Darwin’s Dystopia, Retrieved 7th October 2008 from http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2020937/posts
Question:
· If you could have tried to prevent Hitler from going through with his enforced selective breeding what arguments would you have put forward?
Answer the above question by responding to this post.
When you post a comment, tick the anonymous box and then finish your response with your first name and class only.
Please remember all comments are moderated.
First, if the desirable results of strength, health, morality, and intelligence are caused by natural selection, then we can improve them by artificial selection. We can breed better human beings, even rise above the human to the superhuman. Since human beings have been raised above the other animals by the struggle to survive, they may be raised even higher, transcending human nature to something—who knows?—as much above men as men are now above the apes.
Second, if good breeding gives us better results, pushing us up the evolutionary slope, then bad or indiscriminate breeding drags us back down. "If…various checks…do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men," Darwin groaned, "the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule."
What about the link to Hitler? The first, most important thing to understand is that the link between Darwin and Hitler was not immediate. Darwin's eugenic ideas were spread all over Europe and America, until they were common intellectual coin by Hitler's time. Secondly, we misunderstand Hitler's evil if we reduce it to anti-Semitism. Hitler's anti-Semitism had, of course, multiple causes, including his own warped character. That having been said, Nazism was at heart a racial, that is, a biological political program based up evolutionary theory. It was "applied biology," in the words of deputy party leader of the Nazis, Rudolph Hess, and done for the sake of a perceived greater good, racial purity, that is, for the sake of a race purified of physical and mental defects, imperfections, and racial inferiority.
The proposed ruthlessness of his solution was in direct imitation of nature conceived according to Darwinism. "Just as Nature concentrates its greatest attention, not to the maintenance of what already exists but on the selective breeding of offspring in order to carry on the species, so in human life also it is less a matter of artificially improving the existing generation—which, owing to human characteristics, is impossible in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred—and more a matter of securing from the very start a better road for future development."
How do we secure a better road for future development? By ensuring that only the best of the best race, the Aryan race, breed, and pruning away all the unfit and racially inferior. That isn't just a theory; it's eugenic Darwinism as a political program. As Hitler made clear, "the State is looked upon only as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind." Jews have to be pruned away, but also Gypsies, Slavs, the retarded, handicapped, and anyone else that is biologically unfit.
Information gathered from:
Wiker, B. Dr (2008) Darwin’s Dystopia, Retrieved 7th October 2008 from http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2020937/posts
Question:
· If you could have tried to prevent Hitler from going through with his enforced selective breeding what arguments would you have put forward?
Answer the above question by responding to this post.
When you post a comment, tick the anonymous box and then finish your response with your first name and class only.
Please remember all comments are moderated.
Monday, May 4, 2009
Topic #3: Nurturing
While studies of children who have suffered severe deprivation are generally unpleasant, they provide valuable insight into the impact that environmental experiences have on the development of the individual. There is much evidence to suggest that early learning environments literally shape the developing brain (Nelson, 1999).
Some studies have involved mistreated children who, tragically, have spent their first years in cupboards, attics and other restricted environments. When first discovered, these children are usually mute, retarded and emotionally damaged.
Some suffer from deprivation dwarfism, a condition characterised by stunted physical growth associated with stress, isolation or general deprivation. Efforts to teach such severely deprived children to speak and behave normally rarely succeed.
Case Study: ‘Closet child’ now with loving parents:
Becky’s story began to unfold when the Sheriff’s Department responded to a tip like hundreds of others. They found Becky in urine-soaked clothes, asleep on a hard cot in her parents’ bedroom.
‘She was almost like an animal,’ one of the deputies reported. Her world then was the bedroom and its closet, in which she was kept for untold hours. Now Becky lives in a spacious foster home.
Since Becky’s rescue, she has gained 12 pounds and grown 6 inches. But she is still a mite, for she weighed only 24 pounds and stood only 32 inches tall last April.
When she was found, Becky couldn’t even crawl; now she walks. Then, she knew only a few words – now she speaks in sentences. She is, except for the hurt in her eyes, almost like any toddler.
But Rebecca is no toddler. She is nine years old and her paediatrician says she may never catch up.
Information gathered from:
Van Lersel et al. (2005) Nelson Psychology, Thomson Nelson, pg. 114
Questions:
· If most of our development is due to nature, why didn’t Becky go through the normal stages of development?
· What possible explanations could there be for why Becky’s development hasn’t caught up?
Answer the above question by responding to this post – you may wish to do some additional research regarding the critical and sensitive period.
When you post a comment, tick the anonymous box and then finish your response with your first name and class only.
Please remember all comments are moderated.
Some studies have involved mistreated children who, tragically, have spent their first years in cupboards, attics and other restricted environments. When first discovered, these children are usually mute, retarded and emotionally damaged.
Some suffer from deprivation dwarfism, a condition characterised by stunted physical growth associated with stress, isolation or general deprivation. Efforts to teach such severely deprived children to speak and behave normally rarely succeed.
Case Study: ‘Closet child’ now with loving parents:
Becky’s story began to unfold when the Sheriff’s Department responded to a tip like hundreds of others. They found Becky in urine-soaked clothes, asleep on a hard cot in her parents’ bedroom.
‘She was almost like an animal,’ one of the deputies reported. Her world then was the bedroom and its closet, in which she was kept for untold hours. Now Becky lives in a spacious foster home.
Since Becky’s rescue, she has gained 12 pounds and grown 6 inches. But she is still a mite, for she weighed only 24 pounds and stood only 32 inches tall last April.
When she was found, Becky couldn’t even crawl; now she walks. Then, she knew only a few words – now she speaks in sentences. She is, except for the hurt in her eyes, almost like any toddler.
But Rebecca is no toddler. She is nine years old and her paediatrician says she may never catch up.
Information gathered from:
Van Lersel et al. (2005) Nelson Psychology, Thomson Nelson, pg. 114
Questions:
· If most of our development is due to nature, why didn’t Becky go through the normal stages of development?
· What possible explanations could there be for why Becky’s development hasn’t caught up?
Answer the above question by responding to this post – you may wish to do some additional research regarding the critical and sensitive period.
When you post a comment, tick the anonymous box and then finish your response with your first name and class only.
Please remember all comments are moderated.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Topic # 2: Twin Studies
The Two Jims
Jim Springer and Jim Lewis are identical twins who were separated at four weeks of age, adopted by different families and reunited at the age of 39.
Unknown to each other, both families named the boys James. Both James’ grew up not knowing of the other, yet there were some uncanny similarities. Both worked as part-time deputy sheriffs, both had abilities in mechanical drawing and carpentry, both liked maths but disliked spelling, both drove the same type of car and each had married women named Linda. Both had sons, one of who was named James Alan and the other named James Allan. The twin brothers also divorced their wives and married other women - both named Betty. And they both owned dogs which they named Toy.
The twins were not similar in all facets of their lives; one expressed himself better orally; the other was better at writing. Initially, they wore their hair completely differently. One Jim preferred to wear his hair slicked back with sideburns; the other wore his over his forehead.
Information gathered from:
Funny Emails (2008) Retrieved 7th October 2008 from, treebeard31.wordpress.com/.../
Van Lersel et al. (2005) Nelson Psychology, Thomson Nelson, pg. 113
Questions:
· How do twin studies such as these add to the nature vs. nurture debate?
· Are the 2 Jims clearly a case of nature?
· What other information would it be interesting to compare?
Answer the above questions by responding to this post.
When you post a comment, tick the anonymous box and then finish your response with your first name and class only.
Please remember all comments are moderated.
Jim Springer and Jim Lewis are identical twins who were separated at four weeks of age, adopted by different families and reunited at the age of 39.
Unknown to each other, both families named the boys James. Both James’ grew up not knowing of the other, yet there were some uncanny similarities. Both worked as part-time deputy sheriffs, both had abilities in mechanical drawing and carpentry, both liked maths but disliked spelling, both drove the same type of car and each had married women named Linda. Both had sons, one of who was named James Alan and the other named James Allan. The twin brothers also divorced their wives and married other women - both named Betty. And they both owned dogs which they named Toy.
The twins were not similar in all facets of their lives; one expressed himself better orally; the other was better at writing. Initially, they wore their hair completely differently. One Jim preferred to wear his hair slicked back with sideburns; the other wore his over his forehead.
Information gathered from:
Funny Emails (2008) Retrieved 7th October 2008 from, treebeard31.wordpress.com/.../
Van Lersel et al. (2005) Nelson Psychology, Thomson Nelson, pg. 113
Questions:
· How do twin studies such as these add to the nature vs. nurture debate?
· Are the 2 Jims clearly a case of nature?
· What other information would it be interesting to compare?
Answer the above questions by responding to this post.
When you post a comment, tick the anonymous box and then finish your response with your first name and class only.
Please remember all comments are moderated.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Topic #1: Personal Reflection
"You are either a product of your genes and biology (nature), or what you are is
due to experience and environment (nurture)." Cardwell &
Flanagan (2003) Psychology AS, Nelson Thornes, pg. 159
Before exploring this in psychological terms, what is your reaction to this debate?
Using your own experiences to date do you believe your current behaviour is due to biological or environmental factors?
Answer the above question by responding to this post.
When you post a comment, tick the anonymous box and then finish your response with your first name and class only.
Please remember all comments are moderated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)