Explain how policy makers who strongly emphasize nature versus those who strongly emphasize nurture might differ in their approach to improving children’s well being. Which policy would you be more likely to support and why?
Nature vs. Nurture has been a long standing debate in the field of social psychology arguing the extent to which behavior is inherited or influenced by environmental factors. The extreme pro-nature position states that behavior is hardwired into humans by biological factors such as genes and hormones. On the other hand, the extreme pro-nurture position states that behavior is learned through culture, relationships and other environmental factors. However, I strongly believe that both, nature and nature, play an important role in shaping a human’s behavior and its not just ‘nature’ or ‘nurture’, but a combination of both, ‘nature and nurture’.
One of the psychologists who was pro-nature was Francis Galton who believed that intelligence was hardwired into humans and not affected by environment. His suggested policy of improving well being of humans, in general, was through eugenics. Eugenics is “selective breeding policies that only allow the brightest adults to reproduce” (394). Since, pro-nature policy makers believe that everything is programmed into humans, one of the policies they would pursue in order to improve children’s well-being would be one similar to eugenics, which involve allowing only the fittest children to survive. The pro-nature policymakers would give money to the brighter children and completely ignore the existing struggling children thinking that the bright children were born smart while the struggling children were not. A second policy that pro-nature policy makers would follow is Cloning. Cloning involves manipulation of DNA, which consists of thousands of genes, and can help alter behavior of children.
Conversely, some of the psychologists who believed that environmental influences are extremely important in...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document