Nature verses Nurture Debate: Is Criminal Behavior Inherited or Made - Essay Example

Nature verses Nurture debate, is criminal behavior inherited or made? There is talk now of studying whether anti-social and criminal behavior could be genetic. I believe a more enlightening study would be the effects of environment on a person's psyche. Matt Ridley, an Oxford-trained zoologist and science writer whose latest book is Nature via Nurture: Genes, Experience, and What Makes Us Human (2003a), wrote an impressively clear and fascinating piece on “What Makes You Who You Are”. Summarizing his argument in a Time magazine article, Ridley (2003b) wrote, "Genes are not static blueprints that dictate our destiny. How they are expressed--where and when they are turned on or off and for how long--is affected by changes in the womb, by the environment and by other factors" (p. 56). Note also that the title of Ridley's book does not use the comparison of nature versus nurture, but via nurture, a comparison that conveys succinctly the sense of his article and of my column for this month. According to this view, it is not a question of whether our children's genes (nature) will single-handedly determine their potential for gifted development, but how the complex routes by which our efforts (nurture) and their fortuitous circumstances might work together to activate those genes. (Ridley, M., 2003). Though our now-changing thinking that development of one's potential is no longer only about the environment in which one happens to be conceived and remains to grow and develop, we need to consider multiple environments that might enhance opportunities. In this thinking mode, Subomik, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Arnold (2003) revisited the idea that there are choices of environmental factors that can ideally enhance or impede talent development. Fortunately, our optimism as primary educators in the past often led us to believe that, since there was only a limited amount of control over each child's genetic heritage, we would just have to focus on making the best possible use of whatever environment we could provide. In this vein of thinking, scientists have begun recently to discover and emphasize the intricate connection and interplay between our nature (genetic blueprint) and our nurture (the specifics of the ways in which the environment interacts on those genetic map points). We might then assume that Bill Gates did not become the fantastically wealthy technological wizard he is simply because he inherited such a unique set of genes. More complexly, he developed a rich number of specific abilities, supported fortuitously by the environment into which he was born and the continuing guidance of parents and teachers in a setting richly endowed with available resources that he sensibly and may have even wisely chosen to apply. We might also realize that accused East Coast sniper John Lee Malvo did not become the decadent criminal he currently stands accused of being simply because his genetic blueprint was flawed, nor only because he endured such a dysfunctional youth. Instead, a complex set of interacting circumstances brought him into contact with questionable resources that he chose to assimilate. Perhaps it was because he sensed a lack of options or was influenced by negative human interactions--a convoluting path for the generic heritage he brought with him--with his resources perhaps even turning off genes important to a more positive development. Thus, in fact, we have to consider just how parents, family, and society became the "promoters" and "enhancers" of Gates' and Malvo's biologically installed individual maps for each of their unique developmental paths. On yet another plane, other authors have examined how much and what kind of help a child might need in developing exceptional abilities in different domains in and beyond school-based contexts. Useful to your thinking at this point would be information on the ecological theories of Bronfenbrenner and Lerner regarding how we might envision the host of environments and their convoluting interactions that our children will encounter. A description of these critical environmental factors and how to enhance or impede talent development is clearly presented by Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Arnold in Rethinking Gifted Education (2003). These basic ecological ideas are central because they remind prospective teachers that there are a multitude of environmental factors and rich interactions between factors that they need to consistently think of as unending possibilities for switching on a hidden talent, supporting an existing one, or even redirecting a natural ability no matter what esoteric nature it might represent. (Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Arnold, K. D, 2003) Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, and Arnold (2003) described Bronfenbrenner's system of hierarchical levels or spheres of our environment from the micro system of child and parent, to the mesosystem of family and school and immediate community, to the macrosystem of cultural and even global options. Further, we are reminded that all this is affected by a chronosystem in which we live. For example, just think about how most of us don't compute mathematical problems with an abacus as once was done, or as was later done with a slide rule, or even with mechanical calculators; instead, can now resort to a tiny handheld computer for instant verification. Lerner, on the other hand, reminds us that we as parents are also affected by our environment, which leads to a reciprocal, dynamic process between the factors that shaped us and those that are shaping our children. We can then see this reciprocal process in the way in which an educated and economically stable family can afford special programs for their children or in how homeless families who must focus on survival rather than enrichment might have to withhold those resources for their children's emerging talents. (Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Arnold, K. D, 2003) Thus Olszewski-Kubilius and Limburg-Weber (2003) emphasized what parents might do beyond school options, rather than depending entirely upon school programs. Further, in Moving Into the Foreefield of Life: Hope-Filled Invitations, Barbara Myers (2003) focused on how we need to manage pre-K and kindergarten introductions for our children to ensure that the environment is right for their genetically influenced abilities and that the timing of experiences is right for optimal influence. There is much to give us optimism for our guidance task in this entire array. (Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Limburg-Weber, L, 2003) In this report, I have tried to emphasize that knowledge of genetic manipulations and brain development may well be the clearest way to understand just how potential is unlocked. These factors can show us what part we might play in making sure our offspring are prepared to take advantage of the unlocking. Thus, it is up to us to make sure that our children are ready for the chance and planned events of placement in particular environments. These ideas have risen and been advanced by the human genome project, whose proponents now assure us that specific genes for specific attributes are distributed in specific ways across our biological map for development. However, as yet, they are not able to predict all the possible dynamic mechanics for turning on and off still unknown alternatives to energize those genes. We each become who we are and what we can do as the result of a very complex array of DNA (visually portrayed in the Ridley article) interacting with a complex set of dynamically convoluting planned, chance, and coincidental environmental events. So, too, when we focus on the gifted or extraordinary abilities in our developing children, we need to look at how we might approach their unique development and what part we might best play in identifying, releasing, and supporting their individual array of potentials. (Haensly, P. A., & Lee, K, 1999) Thus to live in an inner-city ghetto, where everywhere one looks one sees desolation, filth, and crime, must certainly destroy hope. "Keep hope alive" isn't just a catchy political chant; it's as necessary to a person's life as are food and water. To deprive someone of all hope is to destroy his spirit, his energy, his self-worth, his endeavors. Children living in this kind of environment have no idea of what life could be, and how much differently they would feel about themselves and others if they lived in a better place. The goals of governments at all levels should be renovate and rebuild and create clean, decent living quarters in the inner cities so those unfortunate people forced to live there, and also the homeless, are provided for. I see instead a sort of "let them eat cake" attitude: Camden built an aquarium, Newark is building an arts center, the federal government spends millions studying obscure insects' mating habits, etc. And people in terrible need are abandoned to a wretched life, and blamed for their anger. Psychiatrists say environment can play a very large role in how a person feels and behaves. If there is no hope and no knowledge of how life could be better, humans lose sensitivity and respect for themselves and others, and act out in anger. Reference Haensly, P. A., & Lee, K. (1999). Gifted potential and emerging abilities in young children: As influenced by diverse backgrounds. Gifted Education International, 14, 133-150. Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Limburg-Weber, L. (2003). Early years, early gifts: How parents and teachers can recognize and develop the young child's talents, pp 90 Olszewski-Kubilius, L. Limburg-Weber, and S. Pfeiffer (Eds.), Early gifts: Recognizing and nurturing children's talents (pp. 1-18). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press Ridley, M., with Coburn, T. (June 2, 2003b). What makes yon who you are. Time, 161(22), 54-63 Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Arnold, K. D. (2003). Beyond Bloom: Revisiting environmental factors that enhance or impede talent development. In J. H. Borland, (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 227-238). New York: Teachers College Press. Read More