Week 5 DQ 1 Posted: Sat 05/28/2011 06:25 PM , by:Instructor
In this scenario, the problem is that Jimmy has aggressive behavior. The issue lies in where this aggressive behavior comes from. In the case of Sally, she thinks that the environment led to his aggressive behavior (nurture); however, Bob imagines aggressive behavior to be part of being a boy, leaving it up to his nature. While I believe it’s true that television exacerbates the issue, there is an inherent aggressiveness in boys that can push them more steadily towards violent behavior than in girls.
At the same time, that same assumption could be the thing that pushes boys toward violence – it is expected of them and therefore they decide to act according to these expectations. If it were not typically thought that boys are aggressive, would Jimmy live in an environment that could encourage that, and would he act on it? This is a tough question to consider for this and many other situations.
Derek, I agree with your assertion that television violence certainly does not help the problem, and I think that that behavior should be discouraged. Parents are able to change the way their children act, lending credence to the idea that nurture is a greater contributor to human behavior than nature. The idea of the father perpetuating the notion of male aggression is a strong one, and I agree that it must play a factor.
Re: Week 5 DQ 1 Posted: Mon 05/30/2011 04:43 PM , by: George
George, I think you have the assessment of the problem and issue correct. I also think that nature and nurture may both play a part in this behavior, at least to some extent. It all depends on the types of programs Jimmy is actually watching, as well as the history of violence in his home and neighborhood, not to mention his family. Closer monitoring of him is indeed the answer.
Week 5 DQ 2 Posted: Sat 05/28/2011 06:25 PM , by: Instructor
I am firmly of the belief that, while nature does still have a bit of an influence on our behavior and psychological makeup, the environment and our own upbringing tend to have a greater hold on what we do and why we do it. A child of the 1800s would act differently than if the same child were born today. Cultural influences and social attitudes would be drastically changed from one generation to the next, and that ends up telling us what we like and what we are to do. We can only really pick from those options, after all, and the attitudes and likes of our parents also give us a limited number of things to choose from.
If we were not sentient, we would act according to our instincts completely; but since we have free will and a sense of self, we can merely extrapolate from that instinct and build on it with our own wants and needs.
Re: Week 5 DQ 2 Posted: Mon 05/30/2011 08:57 AM , by: Derek
Derek, I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion on what influences behavior – it should be both nature and nurture. The role of parents in the nurturing and raising of this child is very important, as they are forming the basis for the child’s own judgment, weighing their values against what nature tells them to do. These childhood influences are a major part of what makes up people’s personalities.
Re: Week 5 DQ 2 Posted: Tue 05/31/2011 02:36 PM , by: George
George, I also agree that there is a very good reason to believe that nature and nurture are both big influences on behavior. At the same time, I also share your preference for nurture, as I think that our status as sentient beings precludes us from being entirely creatures of habit. Defying your nurturing environment is, indeed, too rare to really count as a possibility for nature winning out.
Re: Week 5 DQ 2 Posted: Tue 05/31/2011 07:39 PM , by: Latonya
Latonya, I also think your assessment of nature and nurture is very much correct. While our parents provide the majority of our guidance, it is very easy to see how nature can also play a part, as we grow up and leave the influence of our original environment. We have to reconcile how we feel with how we were raised, and make our decisions based on those instincts.
Week 5: DQ1 Posted: Mon 05/30/2011 05:21 AM , by: Instructor
While people want to legalize drugs in order to make a criminal action not criminal, there might be even worse consequences to that action than keeping it illegal. Illicit drug use is a strong issue, wherein the consequences of that issue include possible incarceration, health detriments and death. The issue of drug use would then become a problem if it were legalized. The problem would spread to those who would not normally try drugs, but for the fact that it has become legal.
It might even increase crime, due to the legalization likely making drugs more expensive, leading people to turn to desperate measures to get cheaper, less safe and reliable product. Illegal distribution is a fact of life and a certainty in the industry; the problem would be what to do about that once legalization is off the table. It cannot be further legalized, and therefore no simple solution can be reached.
Re: Week 5: DQ1 Posted: Mon 05/30/2011 04:42 PM , by: David
David, you have a really interesting perspective on legalization of drugs, most of which I agree with. I do agree that drugs can kill, and that more people would get on drugs if they were legalized. What do you think about some drugs that some argue are not harmful, like marijuana? It is an interesting idea for me, as apparently many studies have concluded there are no narcotic or health detriments to it. With that in mind, is your argument that drugs are harmful completely true of all drugs?
Re: Week 5: DQ1Posted: Tue 05/31/2011 05:09 AM , by: Derek
Derek, you have a great point that people simply don’t know what the consequences of legalization would be. While it might be nice to get some extra tax money, illegal distribution will still happen, and it is possible for crime and unemployment to increase. However, we must keep in mind that it is up to the individual whether or not they commit a crime or do not work, and so those factors are not entirely dependent on the legalization of drugs.
Week 5: DQ2 Posted: Tue 05/31/2011 05:17 AM , by: Instructor
Nature versus nurture is most certainly an issue. It does not deal with any direct conflict, merely a difference in explanation. The issue of nature versus nurture lies in what primarily drives us to our actions; is it something in our genetic makeup as a man or woman, or something that was imprinted on us via our parents or other cultural influences?
It is an important question to ask, because nurture driving our actions gives us a measure of control over our lives and how we teach our children to act. However, if it is nature-based, there is little we can do to control it. The answer to this question helps to determine just how much control we have in our actions and influences. I posit that it is a combination of the two; there is a part of us that hardwires our basic desires, but our influences shape those basic instincts into our real attitudes and behaviors.
Re: Week 5: DQ2 Posted: Tue 05/31/2011 04:43 PM , by: David
David, I also believe that this is an issue. I am interested, however, in figuring out why you don’t think this is a problem. I think it’s not a problem because it is just a dilemma to be worked out, and not something that is causing harm. Do our genes determine what we will do, or do our experiences shape us as people and give us the tools to make our own minds?
