But what makes man what he is? Is it his sheer genetic makeup, or is it the way he was raised? The nature vs. nurture debate has raged on for centuries, but neither side has been able to prove their point indefinitely. The aspect within this debate comes to the question of; did the aspects of our behavior become because we inherited our characteristics from our parents know as the Nature? The other question leads up to our behavior of; did we get our characteristics from what we learned from the environment through experience? Both of these arguments are neither right nor wrong and can work in many situations. People known as empiricists look towards the human mind saying that at birth the mind is a tabula rasa, meaning a blank slate and filled up with the result of experience and supporting the Nurture aspect. I pretend that coffee helps but i’m still a bitch So when an infant forms an attachment with the mother than he/she is responding from the love and attention, which the mother is giving to the infant. This interaction goes along with the language and any other thing the mother does towards the infant. The infant starts imitating the speech of others and the cognitive Albert Camus once said, “Man is the only creature who refuses to be what he is.”
Click to buy it on Linkhay
see more on Bepkitchen
I pretend that coffee helps but i’m still a bitch mug
Even today we see displays of the contrast between genetics and learned behaviors, some of which are athletics, intelligence, medical histories, etc. Every person is completely unique, a combination of genetic makeup and environment make an individual who they are. Though the argument has never been settled, both sides of the Nature vs. I pretend that coffee helps but i’m still a bitch Nurture debate hold enough evidence to make a strong case for their beliefs. Those on the nature side believe that all aspects of a person’s being are granted to him or her through the genetics at birth. Every ounce of ability, intelligence, and personality are derived from the ancestry of the person in question. Those who propose the nurture side of the argument believe that the source of a person’s intelligence, personality, and abilities are developed through experiences in their life and the environment in which they were raised in. They believe the traits that are developed by humans are in direct correlation to the positive or negative environment where an individual is raised. Experts have argued over nature or nurture for centuries, but there is still no answer to the age old issue. An English scientist named On November 15, 1959, four members of the prosperous Clutter family were murdered for seemingly no reason. This led many people to come up with their own ideas of what happened that night. This debate may be answered by psychology.
How to get it?
One question that psychologists have is whether people are controlled more by their nature-genetics-or nurture-how they were raised (Mcleod 1). This debate can be used to discuss the motive of murderers, and argue for or against the death penalty in their case. Richard ¨Dick¨ Hickock and Perry Edward Smith, the ¨Clutter Killers,¨ are a perfect example of the nature vs. nurture debate. Perry was more influenced by nurture, while Dick was more influenced by nature. Perry Smith´s early childhood affected his actions. I pretend that coffee helps but i’m still a bitch Perry´s journals and interviews reveal that he did not have a healthy childhood. In his court ordered autobiography, Perry states “My mother was always drunk, never in a fit condition to properly provide and care for us. I run as free & wild as a coyote. Their was no rule or discipline, or anyone to show me right from wrong” (Capote 174). Since Perry was never taught right from wrong, it is more difficult to blame him for his actions. It is very possible that he did not know that killing the Clutter family was wrong.