Nature vs Nurture

I used to be an avid proponent for the "nurture" side of things.  I felt that if I child chronically misbehaved, it must fall on the parents', not teaching them properly or perhaps modelling inappropriately.  I felt that the environment created the person we all grow to become.

However, I'm older now.  I've been around the block a few times, I'm a parent of three children and I've watched other children and their parents interact as well.  This is also not my first soft science course.  Over the past year, I've taken three other psychology courses and now I'm in this sociology course.  And although I wouldn't say those courses or my experience has made me completely change my mind and go to the other side of the spectrum and argue "nature", I can certainly see why those who are adamant about nature having a stronger influence would feel that way.

My first experience that I can think of, that caused me to re-evaluate my position was my senior year in highschool.  One of my best friends, who had been brought up in a very strict Christian home and taught his whole life that homosexuality was sinful and wrong, was experiencing the most difficult struggle of his life.  As much as he wanted to be interested in girls, as much as he wanted to be heterosexual, he felt that his urges, natural urges were stearing him down another path.  The inner conflict and turmoil that he felt between his "head" and his "heart" was tearing him apart, and as much as I tried, I couldn't help him find that inner peace.  I saw first hand that there is a possibility that our sexuality might be genetically based.  Fortunately my friend has come to terms with his sexuality and he is happy with his life decisions now.  My suspicions that sexuality might be more genetic than environment was further confirmed in one of my psychology classes this past year, when it was discussed that there is actual research now with twins that points to the possibility that being "gay" might be predetermined.

Another reason why I think nature has a bigger influence is my own children and their dispositions.  Both my husband and I are quiet, respectful people.  We've always been the "good" kids that followed the rules and were rarely in trouble.  However, my husband's siblings aren't all like that, and in fact a couple of them are very much "trouble-makers".  When are children were younger, they were very good children.  They were polite, respectful.  I could take them anywhere with no fear of them misbehaving.  Both my husband and I employ an active, authoritative parenting style where mutual respect is expected.  But as my daughter grows older, some of her actions I just do not understand at all.  It scares me, but her actions and beliefs remind me of one of my husband's siblings--whom she has never had contact with.

I, like many things in my life, tend to "side" with the middle man on the nature vs nurture debate.  I think we all have genetically predisposed characteristics and many of those can be brought out or subdued by our environment.

I think this makes sense from a scientific point of view as well.  Take some of the more common diseases for example and how the environment can affect them.  Take shingles.  The virus, similiar to the chicken pox virus, can lay dormant in our nervous system of years, decades even.  But it only takes an environmental factor, such as extreme stress, to make that virus "wake up" and next thing we know we have the symptoms of the disease and are left wondering where we could have possibly came into contact with it.

From more of a psychological perspective, someone who is less genetically prone to depression, but is having a very rough time in life, may fair better than someone who is prone to depression.  In human development and even some parenting classes, we are told that our children are born with different temperaments, but how we react ("goodness of fit") to those temperaments will determine how well the interactions between ourselves and children will work out.  This is an example of now nature and nurture interact.  Just because we have a "difficult" child does not mean that raising that child will be "difficult".  As parents we have to adjust how we react and interact so that the family unit can remain optimally functional.

I think that nature certainly has a lot to say with human behavior.  But how the environment interacts with nature is equally important. 

BBC's portrayal of America

Hugh Laurie on BBC

My first impression when I first watched this was that I felt offended.  But I couldn't put my finger on why I was offended, at first.  I watched it a couple more times.  That's when I realized that BBC was portraying Americans as self-absorbed and underdressed.  By the gentleman at the end coming in in a suite, it only pushes that sentiment even further.

I come from a very patriotic and proud family.  It pains me to think that other countries see our country like that.  I blame the people in this country who do not appreciate what this country has to offer and feels that they are owed something for this, and I wish that other countries would realize that that's only a small part of our population.

Ethical Sociological Experimentation

Experimentation is a key part of scientific process.  But in the psychological and sociological sciences, where human beings are often the "guinea pigs", it is important to always ensure that the steps towards scientific discovery are ethical.  But what does this mean?

The three things that all scientists should keep in mind are: 1) obtain the informed consent of the participants, 2) protect them from harm and discomfort, and 3) treat information about individual participation confidentially.  But how easy is it to follow these three guidelines?  Because human behavior and reactions are difficult to predict due to our wide variations, it is not always easy to predict what may happen during a sociological experimentation.  We saw this in the 1970s Stanford Prison Experiment. 

The participants in the Stanford Prison Experiment certainly were harmed, not only psychologically but also in other negative aspects.  That, I do not believe is the question.  The question is, was the experiment unethical?  In the video clip, it is said the results surprised everyone, including Dr. Zimbardo.  This tells me that prior to the actual experiment, not all possible outcomes were or could have been predicted, and we can assume that it was not developed with the intent to put the participants into harms way, in any way.  Furthermore, the experiment was originally intended to last two weeks, but was terminated after just six days, once the participant's well-being had been jeopardized.

In conclusion, the experiment, since it was presumably the first of it's kind, was not an unethical experiement for it's time.  The outcomes were not predicted and surprised everyone, but once it was established that the wellbeing of the participants were being jeopardized the experiement was ended, keeping the participant's best interest in mind.  However, to duplicate this experiment, as is often done in science in hopes to duplicate results, would possibly be unethical, since it is evident now that participants could possibly be harmed.