Question

video transcript:

>> The talking: I mean, she just came out that way. She just the minute she was born she screamed loudand she's never stopped talking. I mean she's--it's got to come from us: we're just very social people. And our entire families from his side to my side just very social people love to talk. So that's genetics all the way, and she is stubborn like her mother, and so yeahgenetics definitely play a role.

>> Yeah. I think in he's such a physical kid I think that comes from both his mom and and yeah just his love for running around and you know playing with balls: he's always talking about you know how... >>

The scooters . >> Yeahthe scootersriding on the skateboards and skiing. He justhe wants to do it all, and I think that comes from his mom and me.

1—In what ways were these parents accurate in their attribution of "nature" rather than "nurture" to their children's characteristics?

2—In what ways may these parents be inaccurate in their attribution of "nature" rather than "nurture" regarding their children's attributes?

3- What types of behaviors or attributes did the parents claim came from genes?

4- Do you think that the parents accurately assessed what attributes may be genetic? Why, or why not?

Answer 1

Greetings of the day!

Answer:

Introduction

Nature explanations of behaviour

In Sociology, we are looking at human behaviour. Human behaviour is the term we use that refers to all of the things that people do. There are many ways of explaining why certain people do things in particular ways.

Some biologists and psychologists think that people behave as they do because they are animals who primarily act according to their instincts. This is known as the “nature theory” of human behaviour. Other scientists and psychologists are researching whether our behaviour is “genetic” i.e. certain types of behaviour are passed down from parent to child. Again, this is a nature theory of human behaviour because it supports the belief that our behaviour is pre-programmed to a large extent. For example, it has been debated whether there is a criminal gene which means some people are more likely to commit crime.

Nurture explanations of behaviour

Nurture arguments focus on the way people are brought up and how their environment moulds their personality and behaviour. Sociologists argue that some people are brought up to be kind and caring, and others are brought up to display very different forms of behaviour. An individual’s personality and identify are moulded and developed in response to their social environments and the people they meet. They are by taught others around them telling them what is right and wrong, including teachers, siblings and most importantly parents. This is why sociologists study the family and education (the two topics on the AS course) amongst other topics because it allows to investigate how these institutions effect human behaviour.

Why do sociologists believe nurture arguments are more accurate?

We have two different ways of explaining human behaviour. One uses nature to explain behaviour, the other uses nurture. The question is, which is the best explanation? If you explain human behaviour as being the same as animal behaviour, that means that humans would all behave in the same way. French cats behave in the same way as British cats. Do British people behave like French people? People in Britain do tend to behave in a similar way. They do similar things and wear certain types of clothing. Do all people all over the world behave in the same way? Sociologists tend to say ‘no’ and use three types of evidence to prove the point.

1) Historical Evidence against Nature theories

Nature arguments suggest human behaviour isn’t dissimilar to animal behaviour, which is based on automatic responses and pre-determined modes of behaviour or that our behaviour is pre-determined by our genes. However, human behaviour has changed significantly throughout history whilst animal behaviour has changed only slightly over a very long period of time. This suggests humans interact with their environments in a unique manner, both moulding and being moulded by it.

Rapidly changing gender roles are one example against nature theories of behaviour

2) Anthropological Evidence against Nature theories

The second argument uses anthropological evidence. Anthropologists are people who study and compare societies from all over the world. If our behaviour was in our genes then people all around the world would behave in the same way. This is because other than the external physical difference between humans, the actual biological difference between people from different parts of the world is tiny. However, anthropologists show that people behave differently in different societies.

Tribal societies with different norms and values are good evidence against nature theories of behaviour

So we can see that someone’s gender, ethnicity and class can strongly affect their life chances. Society, through institutions such as the family, media, education and the police effects different group’s behaviour. This is a fact, because we can very accurately make generalisations about the expected behaviour of these groups in society. Your behaviour isn’t as unique and individual as you think.

Nurture assumes that correlations between environmental factors and psychological outcomes are caused environmentally. For example, how much parents read with their children and how well children learn to read appear to be related. Other examples include environmental stress and its effect on depression.

However, behavioral genetics argues that what look like environmental effects are to a large extent really a reflection of genetic differences (Plomin & Bergeman, 1991).

People select, modify and create environments correlated with their genetic disposition. This means that what sometimes appears to be an environmental influence (nurture) is a genetic influence (nature).

So, children that are genetically predisposed to be competent readers, will be happy to listen to their parents read them stories, and be more likely to encourage this interaction.

1—In what ways were these parents accurate in their attribution of "nature" rather than "nurture" to their children's characteristics?

• Nature is what we think of as pre-wiring and is influenced by genetic inheritance and other biological factors while nurture is generally taken as the influence of external factors after conception i.e. the product of exposure, experience, and learning on an individual. The nature-nurture debate is concerned with the relative contribution that both influences human social behavior
• It is widely accepted now that heredity and the environment do not act independently. Instead of defending extreme nativist or environmentalist views, most psychological researchers are now interested in investigating the ways in which nature and nurture interact. In psychopathology, this means that both a genetic predisposition and appropriate environmental triggers are required for a mental disorder to develop. This realization is especially important given the recent advances in genetics. The Human Genome Project, for example, has stimulated enormous interest in tracing types of behavior to particular strands of DNA located on specific chromosomes. If these advances are not to be abused then there will be a need of more general understanding of the fact that biology interacts with both the cultural context and the personal choices that people make about how they want to live their lives. There is no neat and or a simple way of unraveling these different and reciprocal influences on human behavior.
• Many studies in the past have linked genes with offensive bevaviour, but the results have often been inconsistent. A recent study by researchers in Montreal, Canada, though, found that genetics may indeed play a key role in violent behaviour.
• The team from Universite de Montreal found that certain polymorphism (change of form) of MAOA gene may disrupt the regulation of emotions and behavioural inhibition in the brain.
• “The study found that men with a less frequent variant of the MAOA gene (approximately 30 percent of them) were at a higher risk of exhibiting anti-social behaviour in adolescence and in early adulthood compared to those without this variant, but who also have been exposed to violence as children,” informs Dr Manish Jain, senior consultant (psychiatrist) from BLK Super Speciality Hospital in the capital.
• “It implies that even when exposed to the same environment some may develop anti-social traits based on their genetics while others may not,” Dr Jain told IANS.
• According to Dr Sameer Malhotra, director (mental health and behavioural sciences) at Max Super Specialty Hospital, personality profile of an individual is influenced by both genes and environment he lives in.

2—In what ways may these parents be inaccurate in their attribution of "nature" rather than "nurture" regarding their children's attributes?

• “Through genes, one inherits vulnerability factor. Environmental factors in conjunction with the vulnerability can influence behaviour. Anti-social behaviour is linked to conduct disorder in childhood. At times, association with family history of alcoholism or drug abuse and aggression are also observed,” Dr Malhotra said.
• “High levels of neurotransmitter dopamine that is involved in the regulation of emotions and problems in the frontal brain cortex are also reported in such people,” he adds.
• Other experts feel that people who are victims themselves or have witnessed violence in childhood are more likely to have anti-social tendencies as teenagers and adults.
• “The impact on personality would depend on overall environment and positive experiences and the resolution of past experiences, but statically, this statement would be correct that there would be more chances of aggressive tendencies in the absence of support and intervention,” explains Dr Samir Parikh, director, department of mental health and behavioral sciences, Fortis Healthcare.
• “There are many social psychological factors which have a significant impact and to say what percentage would be genes would still need more research though,” he adds.
• Recently, a criminologist Dr JC Barnes from University of Texas at Dallas found that genes can be a strong predictor of whether someone strays into a life of crime.
• The research focussed on whether genes are likely to cause a person to become a life-course persistent offender, which is characterised by anti-social behaviour during childhood that may later progress to violent or serious criminal acts.
• “The overarching conclusions were that genetic influences in life-course persistent offending were larger than environmental influences,” says Dr Barnes.
• There is no specific gene for criminal behaviour as crime is a learned behaviour. “But there are likely to be hundreds, if not thousands, of genes that will incrementally increase your likelihood of being involved in a crime even if it only ratchets that probability by one percent,” he points out. “It still is a genetic effect. And it’s still important.”
• Although research has not concluded genetic basis for delinquent tendencies, the influence of genetics and environment combined cannot be ignored.
• “The child’s initial behaviours and learning are moulded through parenting and family interaction. The temperament with which the child is born along with parenting behaviour styles influence one another,” explains Dr Shobhana Mittal, consultant psychiatrist at Cosmos Institute of Mental Health abd Behavioural Sciences in New Delhi.
• Children from broken homes, single parents or from families where there is substance abuse, physical, verbal, emotional or sexual abuse tend to have poor family bonding. Disrupted family atmospheres affect the overall emotional health of the child as well as contribute to the child’s personality and coping abilities.
• “With immature coping skills, children at times do not understand how to manage anger, frustration resulting in anger outbursts or aggressive behaviour. This further makes the child vulnerable to external influence from their peers,” elaborates Dr Sunil Mittal, director at Cosmos Institute of Mental Health and Behavioural Sciences (CIMBS), in New Delhi.
• “A recent genetic analysis of almost 900 offenders in Finland revealed two genes associated with violent repeat offenders were the MAOA gene and a variant of cadherin 13 (CDH13) gene. Those with these genes were 13 times more likely to have a history of repeated violent behaviour,” Dr Jain told IANS.
• Although the role of genes cannot be overlooked any more, the jury may still be out on a definite answer.
• But as the experts point out, if a lethal gene is lurking there somewhere, it may make a person a little more prone to act out the bad experiences in life.

3- What types of behaviors or attributes did the parents claim came from genes?

They claimed that, this is because of genetics that-

• The minute she (the child) was born she screamed loud and ,she's never stopped talking.
• It has come from them as they're just very social people and their entire families from her husband's side to her side just very social people and they all love to talk.
• she is stubborn like her mother.
• his love for running around and playing with balls, always talking about her
• He justhe wants to do scootersriding on the skateboards and skiing.which has come from his mom and father.

4- Do you think that the parents accurately assessed what attributes may be genetic? Why, or why not?

Yes, I feel, they are partially correct, as studies suggest that both nature and nurture (genetics as well as environmental influence ) plays a role in shaping up the social behavior of children. Heriditary along with the bringing and rearing up of children , peer influence, learning by observing the environment and parenting also effects the behavior.