Gumtow 1

Rylie Gumtow

Mr. Ventura

English Adv.

November 11, 2020

Mapping Perspectives

The debate of nature vs nurture has been ongoing for 50 years. The initial use of this

theory was first coined by Sir Francis Galton in 1869. The debate is twofold; is human behavior

driven by innate biological factors or is it the product of one’s environment? The Nature vs

Nurture debate involves the extent to which certain aspects of behavior(s) are a product of either

genetics, as stated before, or a learned/environmental influences. As we all know certain

physical characteristics are determined by “genes,” color of eyes and hair. These facts have also

led many to question behavioral traits. Characteristics and differences that are not typically

present at birth, but rather, emerge later in life, may that be through maturity/puberty, where

environmental issues are most prevalent, and therefore, learned. Doing deeper research, it’s

stated that events in our childhood have a great influence on our adult lives, shaping our

personality. Further explaining, the type of parenting when a child is an infant was a crucial mark

and or milestone in cognitive development. Prompting past and present interest on this debate

could potentially date back even before it was first coined in 1869, when they first started

digging deeper into the human psyche raising interest in the topic, in 1869 was when the terms

first started coming to use, because of the fascination linked with understanding the human brain

and how we make certain decisions and what controls emotions inside the brain. This particular
 Gumtow 2

debate is of extreme interest to psychologists, psychiatrists, and perhaps simply just round table

discussion, as the ever evolving question is “What leads people to kill?”

Beginning to discuss the sides of the debate, the discussion at hand is Nature. When

discussing Nature, it has been described as, are we born evil? Is it our genes and hereditary

factors that we derive from and/ or our physical appearance or personality characteristics? (Perry,

Page 2) The article explains the significance of the background of how we derive from Nature

and our development through maturity which impacts our cognitive development through

adulthood. People who care most about this side of the issue agree most with the idea that people

who suffer from psychotic tendencies or mental illnesses are solely “born with it” and is in their

basic nature to commit heinous crimes or to kill. This side is supported by certain people believe

that it’s in their genetic makeup to be who they are and can’t be any other way. The main claim

is that if the parent is one way the child will be the same, referring back to their genetic makeup,

and they can’t change who they are. This side of the issue supports that people are predetermined

to who they are supposed to be and that ethics and morals are passed down generation to

generation, creating and fostering our mental development.

As previously described in the introduction was the twofold question of Nature vs.

Nurture and how the brain is impacted at a young age and perhaps has a significant impact on

our development. Now discussing the side of Nurture resulting in how we are raised and what we

grow up around affects us. In Anne-Kathrins article, From Nature vs. Nurture, the debate is

genetic factors contributing to environmental factors. This article further explains the notion (if

you will), environmental “hazards” playing a role in our choice making, remorse, impulse

control, attention to task, and differentiating between positive and negative choices (Anne-

Kathrin, Page 3). Therefore, reiterating the notion of pre-existing conditions in conjunction with
 Gumtow 3

environmental hazards playing a key role in not only development but early onset of particular

diagnosis of psychotic tendencies or mental illness, impacting one’s decision making. People

who support this side of this issue believe that it is the environmental factors, childhood

experiences, how we are raised and what we learn is how we are determined to be who we are.

This side is supported by what in our childhood that we grow up around, for example if a child

grows up in an abusive household, that child will most likely grow up to be the same way or

have a growing hatred for the said abuser. People strongly support this side for it being more

“logical” and in this takes place in many cases for killer cases and is seen a lot in the study of

psychology.

In continuing our discussion on Nature Vs Nurture, this particular article titled

“Psychopathy Treatment and the Stigma of Yesterdays’ Research” by Rasmus Rosenburg

Larsen, argues the historical component of psychiatric conditions through empirical data and

research. It argues both sides of Nature Vs Nurture but further offers suggestions based on the

true diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder (Larsen, Page 2). What is a psychiatric disorder, what

constitutes a disorder, and how do “we” as society help these individuals through reform?

Additionally, how reform can further help these individuals reintegrate into society. Many people

believe that this side is one of the most compelling because the word “psychopath” is used so

much while discussing psychopathy and in many cases people also believe that nature vs. nurture

derive from psychopathic tendencies. Many people who believe in this side believe that people

with psychopathy can be treatable and can have an alternate solution for their impulsiveness and

their tendencies. They also believe that people suffering from mental illness or psychopathic

tendencies cannot control their impulsiveness and their behavior because it is just who they are.
 Gumtow 4

A lot of people support this side of the argument because the term “psychopathy” falls under a

wide range of categories and is very complex to fully understand.

By looking at all the sides as a whole, you can start comparing and contrasting them.

When you are considering all the sides and what they have in common starts with the

neurological aspect and focuses on the make-up of the brain. They all focus on the make-up and

creation of the brain, which is the most important part in all three sides. When discussing Nature

and Nurture there are a lot of difference and similarities between the two. Nature refers to

genetics and the genes in the brain, the “pre-writing;” is it something we are born with,

something that we have carried down through generations? Nurture then refers to the

environment around us, what we grow up around as a child, what we are exposed to, and the life

experiences. Both Nature and Nurture can be similar because both shape us for who we, society

or people, become in life and how we grow to build our character and personality traits. There

are different many ways as Nature is predisposed, you are born one way and can’t change that.

Nurture is different from Nature because it discusses that you shape yourself from the life

experiences and what you grow up around. Finally, then discussing the third component,

psychopathy. In many given situations psychopathy derives from the Nature vs. Nurture debate.

In many instances they correlate together because of the neurological side of the debate, and in

other situations psychopathy is in itself is its own topic, and can be described as a mental

disorder starting in the brain, making a person lack emotional responses, lack of empathy, and

“bad” behavior. All the sides have some similarities but in the end they are all different in their

own ways.

With all the sides presented, I agree with the Nurture side. I believe the Nurture side is

more logical, for example, the environment a child grows up in, what the brain picks up on, what
 Gumtow 5

a child experiences in their life. An example of this is the notorious serial killer Jeffrey Dahmer.

From a young age, Dahmer was always noted as a lonely kid who kept to himself, never had a lot

of friends at school, and never got attention at home, his; mother abandoned him at a young age

forcing him to go to outside sources for attention. Dahmer started to show signs of a killer at a

young age, as he had a fascination with bones and dissecting roadkill that he found. Additionally,

at an early age, Dahmer began experimenting with alcohol to “numb” the pain of his impulse and

loneliness. Dahmer would soon start his killing and experimenting with his kills, he would do it

more and more as time went on, figuring out new ways to kill and what to do with the bodies.

Dahmer not getting attention and being alone as a child resulted in him having a growing

fascination with death and violence. He wanted a sense of belonging and people to stay with

him-as his mother abandoned him at a very early age-as stated previously, led him to develop a

anti-social disorder affecting his way to interact with people. This soon led him to be one of the

most notorious serial killers to this day.

In summary, as one can clearly see, the debate of Nature vs. Nurture is still ongoing.

There is truly no one clear cut answer or definition as to what leads people to kill. Psychologists

and the like have gone back and forth on this issue, to better assist with the “world” of

Psychology and furthermore to help individuals themselves understand why people with mental

disorders or psychopathy to kill, the impulse to do so, and the environmental factors. I believe

the issue of Nurture is most supportive with empirical data and statistical information. The

Nurture debate looks at the holistic person and maps out the question as to “why people kill?”

The Nature side of the debate, while showing genetic and hereditary analysis, simply pacifies

why people kill, “because it’s in their genes.” I am hoping with continued discussion, studies,
 Gumtow 6

and analogies, the world of psychology will be able to accurately define this ever evolving

question as to “why people/what leads people to kill?”

 Gumtow 7

Works Cited

Perry, Bruce. “Childhood Experience and the Expression of Genetic Potential: What Childhood

Neglect Tells Us About Nature and Nurture.” Brain and Mind, 2002, Dordrecht Vol. 3, Iss.

1, (Apr 2002): 79.

Rasmus Rosenberg, Larsen. “Psychopathy Treatment and the Stigma of Yesterday's Research.”

Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 2019, Baltimore Vol. 29, Iss. 3, (Sep 2019): 243-272.

DOI:10.1353/ken.2019.0024.

Wermter, Anne-Kathrin. “From Nature versus Nurture, via Nature and Nurture, to Gene ×

Environment Interaction in Mental Disorders.” European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry;

2010, European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry; New York Vol. 19, Iss. 3, (Mar 2010):

199-210. DOI:10.1007/s00787-009-0082-z.