Nature v/s Nurture in Human behaviour development

People behave differently when exposed to similar circumstances; behaviour is an element of genetic factors, attitude, social norms and perceived behavioural conduct that stimulates a response to a certain action or situation.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Nature v/s Nurture in Human behaviour development specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Psychologists have continued debate whether behaviour is a function of nature or nurture. Genetics predispositions  endow human beings with inborn abilities and traits, whereas socialisation process shapes the inborn abilities and traits (Wendy,1999). This paper looks into how genetic predispositions  (nature) and environment (nurture) factors shapes human behaviour. Human behaviour development Debates on whether human behaviour is affected by nurture or nature started getting attention in the 13th century when some psychologists supported genetic predispositions  (nature theory of human behaviour) whereas others were of the opinion that the determinant of human behaviour is the socialization that a person has undergone through (empiricism theory of human behaviour). Recent research and developments in psychology has found that both nature and nurture have a role to play in human behaviour development. Biological processes (nature) A child is a product of its mother and father; physical attributes that the parents had are more likely to be seen in the child. The child may look like the mother or the father and sometimes a relative. The child has these genetic attributes; they are hereditary. When it comes to someone’s behaviour, intelligence, attitude and character, the effect of hereditary aspects is minimal although it has a part to play. Genetics endows human beings with inborn abilities and traits, they are different in different people; these inborn traits can be traced down a certain family despite the socialisation process its people h ave undergone. For example, some families are highly tempered while others prefer a peaceful process of solving issues (Vadackumchery Kattakayam, 2000). Scientists are of the opinion that abstract characters like intelligence, personality, and sexual orientation can be traced in someone’s deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) analysis. A persons DNA is a factor of biological genetics. Studies done on identical twins have shown that they are different in their own way; however, there are some behaviour traits similar to them whether they have been raised under the same condition or different circumstances.Advertising Looking for essay on psychology? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Their reasoning, attitude and sexual orientation have a great deal of similarities. These similarities are proving that they have some genetic attributes deeply instilled in their behaviour. Genetic theory of schizophrenia supports that children born by depressed or stress families are more likely to be stressed later in life whether they have been brought up in the family or not. For example, the world’s concordance rate stands at 1%, however the rate is more in MZ twins than in DZ twins where the rates are 50% and 17% respectively. Research on gender attributes of human being has shown that the identity of whether one is a man or a woman is developed at birth. Some attributes cannot be shaped by socialisation factors for example the differences at adolescent and the effect it has on male and female behaviour. In the support of genetic theory of gender identity, a research was done on Reimer twins, the twins were born male with XY sex chromosomes. After an accident surgery, one of the children was raised as a girl. At later stages in life before and after adolescence, the child refused to be socialized as a girl and developed male socialisation. This supported existence of male genetics that had been developed in the child at birth. Some drawbacks of the theory of nature are that when adopted, it can be used to reinforce and justify indiscipline in the community like criminal acts  or justify  divorce. People may believe that people doing such criminal acts are doing it beyond their control since the genetic powers in them have the control over their behaviour. The concepts of â€Å"born a criminal†, or â€Å"born holy†, may be used to define someone’s character. Of late, there is a heated debate whether gays and lesbianism should be accepted in the society; some supporters are using the theory of nature to support the behaviour (Shaffer    Kipp, 2009). Nurture and human behavior According to empiricism theory of human behaviour, human behaviour is shaped by socialisation that a person has undergone. The choice of one’s actions, attitudes, perception and personality are shaped by the socialisation that starts before a child’s birth and is unending.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Nature v/s Nurture in Human behaviour development specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More At birth, a child is seen as innocent; mentors, peers and the environment around him or her shape the character and attitude he or she develops. Supporters of the theory do not discount that hereditary factors affect human behaviour but are of the opinion that they do not matter. Their influence is only that a person has to be born with some attributes that are reshaped and changed by the environment they are brought up. They are of the opinion that environmental factors are responsible of human behaviour. No man was born a criminal but the criminality in him or her was developed through the process of socialisation. The theory is of the opinion that the learnt behaviour can be changed or moulded by use of appropriate reward/punishment reinforcing mechanism. People learn through observation and imitation of ro le models and the learnt traits are reinforced through the process called vicarious reinforcement. For example, a child may observe an adult being generous, and then the adult gets respect and praise from his peers. A child observing such behaviour may decide to imitate and as a result moulds its behaviour to develop a generous personality trait. B. F. Skinner’s early experiments theory of operant conditioning supports the nurture theory of human behaviour. He demonstrated that human behaviour is moulded through stimulus. In the theory of operant conditioning, certain behaviour exists in the society if the consequences of such behaviour are known. Some people have the potential of being thieves, but when they consider the consequences that they will have when they steal, they opt to change their behaviour. On the other hand, the theory goes in line with Sigmund Freud theory X of motivation, where they observe that human beings are lazy generally but they work in recognition o f the benefits of hard work. Hard work as a human behaviour is developed from the benefits that human beings expect from the virtue but nobody was born a hard worker (Garcà ­a, Elaine,   Richard, 2004). The sense of humour is thought to be a learnt behaviour that is influenced and shaped by the culture and environment that human beings are exposed. This explains why humour in certain area is not as humorous in another area. The theory is supported by differences that exist in identical twins, it argues that if the socialisation process has no effect on human behaviour, then identical twins should be exactly the same whether raised under the same conditions or not.Advertising Looking for essay on psychology? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More Another observation is seen in discipline forces, why the police and armed forces are likely to think, behave and respond to similar situations in the same way is explained by their behaviour modification that takes place when they are under training. They usually are from diverse background but when on training their behaviour is moulded to behave in a similar manner. The behaviour of human being is moulded by the environment that he or she is living in, for example, before school going age, a child have some behaviour that has been instilled by early care givers may it be parents or baby sitters. When time comes to go to school, the child is exposed to a different environment that he or she needs to adjust his or her behaviour if he has to cope in the environment. Teachers’ advice children on how they should relate with each other. In the efforts of reinforcing good behaviour, teachers give rewards and punish children. In this case, the rewarded child learns the benefit of good behaviour or a certain virtue while other admires and moulds their behaviour in anticipation of rewards in the future (Cartwright, 2001). Conclusion Human behaviour is an element of biological and socialisation factors. People are born with some character traits that are dominant and run down a family. As one matures, the environment a person is socialized in moulds his or her characters, attitude, personality, and behaviour. Both supporters of nature theory and empiricism theory agree that nature and nurture shapes human behaviour, the contentious issue is which of the two is most dominant. References Cartwright, J. (2001).Evolutionary explanations of human behaviour. New York: Routledge. Garcà ­a, C.,  Elaine L.,   Richard, M. (2004). Nature and nurture: the complex interplay of genetic and environmental influences on human behavior and development. New York: Routledge. Shaffer, D.,    Kipp, K. (2009).Developmental Psychology: Childhood and Adolescence .New Jersey: Cen gage Learning. Vadackumchery, J., Kattakayam, J. (2000). Human behaviour and law enforcement. New Delhi: APH Publishing. Wendy, M. (1999). The nature-nurture debate: the essential readings. Massachusetts: Wiley-Blackwell. This essay on Nature v/s Nurture in Human behaviour development was written and submitted by user Victor Mancha to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

World War Two caused America to reluctantly abandon the policy of Isolationism Essays

World War Two caused America to reluctantly abandon the policy of Isolationism Essays World War Two caused America to reluctantly abandon the policy of Isolationism Paper World War Two caused America to reluctantly abandon the policy of Isolationism Paper I have mixed feelings about whether World War Two spelt the end of US Isolationism. I believe that to some extent this time was the least Isolationist the US had ever been, however, in my opinion American interests always focused worldwide despite some presidents isolationist foreign policies. Churchill wanted the United States involved in the war, openly seeking a fighting incident that would bring the neutral nation into the conflict. On August 4, 1941, Churchill and Roosevelt met for the first time, after corresponding for two years. The Atlantic Charter was one result of their meeting; another was the beginning of a deep personal friendship. They shared several common characteristics: both came from elite backgrounds, both were patricians, and both saw their roles as democratic noblemen. Churchill returned to England and told his War Cabinet that Roosevelt would wage war but would not declare it. The incident Churchill needed occurred on September 4, 1941, when the USS Greer, on a mail run to Iceland, was involved in a fighting incident with a German U-boat. In his subsequent address to the nation, FDR tended to distort the actual facts, using the occasion to begin unrestricted convoying and a limited, defensive naval war. Then on October 31, 1941, a German U-boat torpedoed a U.S. ship. This signaled what was to be the end of American neutrality. The bombing of Pearl Harbor in December, 1941, marked the definite end of American isolationism in practical terms. During the war, the U.S. sent troops to Asia, Africa and Europe. After the wars end, the remnants of the League of Nations re-formed as the United Nations, and this time the United States was front and center. Under the Truman Doctrine, American economic and military aid went to nations threatened by communism. The Marshall Plan helped rebuild Europe and the Cold War made an American military presence abroad a foregone conclusion for the next 50 years. Roosevelt did not live long enough to see the war unfold though after declaring war he suddenly died of a brain hemorrhage. Roosevelt was replaced by Harry Truman. The US had avoided war in World War One because of many factors economic reasons and public opinion being the most important ones. However by 1945 things had changed and Truman looked upon the war as a brilliant opportunity. Fuelled by German Hatred after the events of Pearl Harbour, Truman had the public on his side. He had the backing of Congress and his own personal views that the US needed war as an economic opportunity (selling munitions) and his slogan to make the world safe for democracy. (Safe from German Imperialism.) With all of these positive factors the US entered a war of opportunities. Abroad, World War II brought an end to American isolationism. In the spring of 1945, the US joined delegates from 50 nations in signing the charter for a permanent United Nations, a year before the International Monetary Fund and World Bank were established to promote economic cooperation among nations. But the biggest challenge facing the United States in the postwar world was the souring of relations with the Soviet Union as a result of that countrys domination of Eastern Europe and support of communist insurgencies around the world. As part of the effort to contain the Soviet spread and to revive the economies of Western Europe, the United States launched the European Recovery Program (usually known as the Marshall Plan,) which poured $13 billion of aid into the region. In addition, the US adopted a policy of containment, shoring up non-communist areas in danger of encroachment. Thus, when the Soviet Union blockaded all surface routes into Berlin, the US and Britain launched the Berlin Airlift, supplying the western sectors of the city by air. We do have to question however whether the US was truly Isolationist. It would have been ignorant for any president to ignore world matters as if there was an opportunity for intervention then the US may have been able to capitalize on a situation and gain extra lands. After all, raw materials in the US could not last for ever. In my opinion Truman had no intention of remaining Isolationist for the World War, despite his election pledge of US Isolationism. Throughout the war he supplied Britain with loans and fighting equipment as well s increasing the US armies and Navies and supporting the Ententes blockade of Germany. World War Two was a major point of change for the US. From now on they saw it their duty to intervene in world matters (world policeman) because they were the worlds most influential power, and after all could benefit with the gaining of land and resources from certain countries. Take for example the recent war in Iraq, a country where the US is now gaining valuable amounts of oil from. Although the US role as a world policeman is supposedly world based, in my opinion this is not the case. Take for example events after world war two. There have been major wars in Vietnam and in Iraq, but these were only brought about because of threats to the US country. Indeed the US are reluctant to get involved in any war which has no effect on them. Vietnam was brought about by American fear of Communism, and wars in Iraq because of its valuable resources and the terrorism attacks of September the eleventh. During the Cold War, some Americans argued that the country should withdraw from the United Nations; but the Cold War, as a patriotic and ideological crusade, kept those voices from receiving widespread support. Today, the United States government and military is whatever word would best describe the extreme opposite of isolationist. In my opinion this is how they have always secretly been. US interests were always widespread; its just that when World War Two arrived the US were economically and socially ready to develop a world role. The breakout of war provided a perfect opportunity/excuse for the US to move away from its Isolationist image. The Challenge to Isolationism. 1. What was FDRs immediate response to the outbreak of war in Europe? Roosevelt was re-elected by the US public on the promise that he would keep the US out of World War Two. However he soon realized that war in Europe could lead to war in America and so supported the allied policy of appeasement to ensure peace. Roosevelt wanted to prepare America for the worst though. He believed the security of Europe was crucial to the security of America. He was able to persuade Congress to approve the Naval Expansion Act allowing a 20% increase in the US navy. In 1939, he got an extra $525 million for air defence. At the start of the Second World War, however, the American army still only numbered 185,000. 2. Did a majority of the US public and politicians favour isolationism in the early months of the war? 3. What legislation was included in the Neutrality Act of 4/11/39? During the 1930s, US public opinion as well as several Senators questioned the validity of US involvement in the Great War. The belief became increasingly common that the nation was deceived into taking part in this bloody conflict by Allied propaganda and to serve the interests of profit-thirsty bankers and industrialists. The conclusions of the Nye Committee in 1934, tasked with investigating the excessive profits made by the war armament industry, reinforced the antiwar position of the American people and finalizes the countrys isolationist policy. As a reaction to Germanys re-armament, and to prevent any US involvement in a possible European war, the US Congress voted the Neutrality Act, signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt on August 31, 1935. The Act prohibits trade in military material with warring countries and travel by US nationals on ships belonging to warring countries. It was amended in 1936 to prohibit loans to warring countries, and then in January and March 1937 to include civil wars. At the beginning of WWII, the possibility that Great Britain could be defeated is real and the growing Nazi threat is a cause for fear. Roosevelt realizes that the Neutrality Act imposes restrictions on possible US actions; amendments will be adopted to diminish the legislations scope. Supplying nations at war will be authorized on the cash and carry principle. President declares area around British Isles a combat zone in November 1939, and loans of military material will be possible on a land-lease agreement. Summary of Neutrality Act of 1939; This act repeals the arms embargo and substitutes a policy of cash and carry; prohibits United States vessels and citizens from entering combat zones; establishes the National Munitions Control composed of the Secretaries of States, Treasury, War, Navy, and Commerce. 4. What impact did Hitlers successful Blitzkrieg have on American attitudes? The speed with which the German army overran Western Europe shocked the American public. By June 1940, the Nazis were in control of Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and France. Through the summer and autumn the Battle of Britain was fought with Britain and its empire standing alone against the Nazi threat. The broadcasts of journalist Ed Murrow from London during the Blitz did much to communicate to Americans the intensity of the struggle taking places, and this led to cries from the US public for American intervention in the war.