Source: All Assignment Help
Shidonna Raven Garden & Cook. All Rights Reserved. Copyright. Please contact us for republishing permission and citation formatting.
Photo Source: Unsplash, CDC
Nature vs. Nurture Debate
Nature vs. Nurture is a debate about whether behavior, personality and human culture caused by nature or nurture. In this debate nature id defined as the genetic and hormone based behavior, while nurture is defined as the experience and environment. (not our definition)
History of the Nature vs. Nurture Debate
This debate is mainly about the effect of the genes on human personalities. In the 1960s, the people influence theory of behaviorism. The founder of behaviorism was John Watson. It claimed that human behaviors are acquired through conditioning. His experiment was successful in the beginning but failure at the end. Because he ignored the important genetic factors, his ideas got criticized.
With human brain implant medical devices / bio technologies such as Nuerolink slated to go on the market any time this year (2022); the nefarious activities of the psychiatry discipline, such technologies raise a red flag with regard to Medicaid, Medicare and health Insurance fraud. Not to mention psychiatry’s strange history and need for isolation (asylums), secrecy, and questionable and experimental tactics of treatment and exploration from its advent, one can only see such bio technologies as new means of nefarious psychiatric activities, which typically lead to fraud and the overturn of conservatorships such as Britney Spears conservatorship, which at the end of the day was rooted in her father, and possibly other family members, greed and dependency on her wealth and fame.
Such bio technologies bring into question also the long held debate of Nature or Nurture. In this debate one assumes that there are no actors with ulterior motives acting upon an individual in the 'nature' or their environment. Rather the person is in an environment and either nature or nurture wins the debate as far as influence on the individual. Further, that persons behaviors in the environment impact the persons in the environment and that these behaviors occur in a vacuum and or not subject to conditions such as brain washing, which brings us back to bio technologies and their current and future uses, applications and regulations. Such bio technologies like Neuro link that facilitate brain to brain communications with no regulation, law or implementation deepens the question of nature vs nurture. How will communications such as Nuerolink impact the influence of nature on an individual. How can one justify a baseless diagnosis in the psychiatry branch of medicine, which it had to grapple with before the advent of bio technologies such as Nuerolink, which make such diagnosis even more questionable - as Saszs, the psychiatrist, would likely point out were he still alive. One can not simply say oh this person or group is in a bad environment (nature) or they were nurtured wonderfully so they flourish. Now we are adding yet another bio technology that will impact the nature of people’s environments (both outside and within) and thus the question: what impacts one’s ability to flourish and what is society’s role in protecting, regulating and setting laws for these environments. Just as we do with traffic lights and several of the other laws that govern a country.
What regulations should be in place to preemptively protect citizens from the mal-use of such technologies? How do we protect women, children and the elderly from the harm that such bio technologies can do? How do we protect ourselves from crime and fraud committed via the use of such technologies? How could this impact your health? Why?
If this article was helpful to you, donate to the Shidonna Raven Garden and Cook E-Magazine Today. Thank you in advance.
Share the wealth of health by sharing this article with 3 of your family or friends today.