If you order your cheap custom essays from our custom writing service you will receive a perfectly written assignment on sex. What we need from you is to provide us with your detailed paper instructions for our experienced writers to follow all of your specific writing requirements. Specify your order details, state the exact number of pages required and our custom writing professionals will deliver the best quality sex paper right on time.
Our staff of freelance writers includes over 120 experts proficient in sex, therefore you can rest assured that your assignment will be handled by only top rated specialists. Order your sex paper at affordable prices
tide polymorphism vs. family dinners. Neurotransmitters vs. sibling rivalries. Deoxyribonucleic acid vs. broken homes.
Its the age-old debate of nature vs. nurture. And the battle rages on.
In the wake of the horrifying death of six-year-old Kayla Rolland, who was shot point-blank by a fellow first-grader at her Michigan elementary school in early March, family, friends and people all across the country were left to wonder how a six-year-old boy could become a murderer. People usually speculate about what societal influences led him astray--but could it have been in his genes?
The nature of nurturing
Cheap Custom Essays on sex
After witnessing the detrimental effects of a bad neighborhood on his peers, junior Mark Nyles believes the evidence is more compelling on the side of environment than science. The system affects everybody, says Nyles. My friends [who live in New York] got into a lot of trouble, but they were all people who were good at heart and got drawn into the wrong crowd.
And unfortunately, Rollands killer seemed to have been born into the wrong crowd. According to a March 1 Newsweek article by Keith Naughton and Evan Thomas, the shooters father could only be a part of his sons life between prison sentences for charges of cocaine possession and burglary. And his mother had recently been evicted from her home. She left the boy and his eight-year-old brother with an uncle, whose house, police say, served as one of the neighborhoods regular hot spots for dealing crack cocaine.
Clearly, there is something wrong with a picture like this. The family structure in which a child grows up greatly affects how he or she is able to react to the world, warns teen psychologist Dr. Meredith Branson.
Nyles recognizes and appreciates the role his family played in steering him in the right direction. All of the negativity my friends and I were around makes you curious, and [so] you want to get involved, he explains. Fortunately, my parents being there kept me out of trouble.
And so it seems that Rollands murder, which police say was prompted by a harsh exchange of words the day before, might have been prevented if the boys parents had provided a suitable environment for a developing child. Maybe then the shooter wouldnt have opted to settle the score with a gun.
DeCODEing the truth
But the environments influence on a childs development is not so widely accepted. Richard Herrnsteins and Charles Murrays 14 paper, The Bell Curve Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life, explored DNAs role in determining personality, and it reignited a large debate over the nature vs. nurture theory. But according to a January , 18, article in The Economist, most researchers agree that both DNA and environment play important roles in shaping a persons character. However, theorists are split about exactly how much influence each element has and thus, where the blame should rest for tragedies like the Michigan shooting.
For years, scientists have known that features like eye color and ear shape are controlled by specific genes carefully coded in each human cell. However, according to genetics teacher Angelique Bosse, researchers have had some difficulty in tracing the origins of more intricate traits like shyness, intelligence and aggression because they are multi-factorial characteristics, meaning they are connected to several genes and environmental factors.
Specifically, Bosse says, one study has suggested that an extra Y-chromosome in men could increase their tendency towards aggression.
While a persons genetic makeup may make him or her more susceptible to certain characteristics, Branson says parents, peers and community members have the ability to initiate and reinforce these tendencies. Genetics can give someone a predisposition to a certain feature, [but] the environment can both trigger the predisposition and affect the severity of the reaction, she explains. A girl may have [a genetic] inclination to have an eating disorder, but she might not develop the problem unless she grows up in an environment focused on looks, clothing and weight.
It takes a village
I have always had an interest in science, says history resource teacher Cherie McGinn, acknowledging the impact of genetics on human behavior and its relevance to todays society. However, being an educator first, I believe we can affect great change by creating a nurturing environment for students, which would be responsible for decreasing crime rates and increasing educational success.
In McGinns opinion, the solution lies within our schools. A child born in poor circumstances can turn out very poorly unless educators intervene, she says. Society has to undergo a major paradigm shift from the idea that children are born a certain way to realizing that, with appropriate education, children can achieve at high levels.
Senior Dayo Olaiya, who immigrated from Nigeria four years ago, is a genuine example of what McGinn would like to see more frequently in high schools. Olaiya explains that the academic environment in Nigeria was detrimental to his ability to succeed because the students were not as serious. He remembers, Most of the time [my friends and I] were just going out to have fun, not really studying.
The quality of schooling in the United States is much, much better than back home, Olaiya believes. I think [learning is] easier here because here we have after-school academic support, he explains. And most of my friends, were calling each other [for homework]. In Nigeria, you can hardly [find] that.
Since he has lived here, Olaiya has been able to accumulate a solid .7 cumulative GPA, which shows that he has been making the most of the opportunities his change in environment has offered him.
But most students wont experience the possible benefits of a drastic shift in scene like Olaiyas. In some cases, according to Branson, the impetus for change manifests itself in the guidance of one influential figure. Sometimes all you need is just one person to give you the confidence and support you need, she says.
And at times, one person is all that senior Peter Okolo had to help him maintain a diligent work ethic and a stellar . cumulative GPA in the Magnet program. Having grown up in a Rockville housing project where you could hear gun shots at night, Okolo based his priorities on the limited guidance of his mother who, he says, often couldnt come home from work untilora.m.
However, when his mother was around, Okolo says, she made it a point to emphasize the importance of respect. I always gave [adults] respect, and I felt that if I did well in school, I could get it, he says. I think [success is] all in your environment and how your parents raised you.
But of course, nurturists would argue otherwise. And so the battle of nature vs. nurture continues.
Without any decisive ground gained on either side, many people seem to be moving towards the center, claiming, as senior Jason Rubenstein does, I think its both. I think well learn in the future that there are a lot of little things that will be controlled by genes, and well find there are big things that arent.
And maybe well discover how to keep another Kayla Rolland from becoming another victim.
¡K¡K¡K¡K¡K¡K.
Nature versus nurture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Nature versus nurture is a popular term used to describe debates over the relative degrees to which ones genetic makeup (nature) and ones life experiences (nurture) influence ones traits or attributes. A wide variety of traits have been considered in such debates, including personality, sexual orientation, political orientation, intelligence, and propensity for violence or criminality.
Although nurture may have historically referred mainly to the care given to children by their parents, a number of other environmental factors probably also would count as nurture in a contemporary nature versus nurture debate, including ones childhood friends, ones early experiences with television, or even ones experience in the womb. Additionally, although childhood experience (especially early childhood experience) is often regarded as more influential in who one becomes than post-childhood experience, a liberal interpretation of nurture might count all life experience as nurture.
Clear-cut cases
In a few clear-cut cases, it makes sense to say that a trait is due almost entirely to nature, or almost entirely to nurture. In the case of Huntingtons disease, nature seems to be the right answer; basically, you will get the disease if and only if you have the corresponding disease. In the case of which particular language you speak, nurture seems to be the right answer; linguists have found that any normal child can learn any human language. With most interesting traits, however, there is probably significant mixing between nature and nurture, and people may disagree wildly about the relative importance of the two.
How we can try to compare the effects of nature and nurture, and why this is hard
Much of current thinking tends to discount the notion of genetics as valid in determining subjectively qualified traits, such as intelligence or personality but research has indicated that genetics often influences the development of these traits. Identical twins raised separately, for example, have often been found to live similar lives and have similar personalities and levels of intelligence. It is also thought that the environment may trigger the expression of certain genes, that is, determine whether and to what extent a genetic predisposition will actually manifest itself. Hence, untangling nature and nurture, even with experiments like the above, can be very problematic and open to wide interpretation.
After a long, contentious, maturing, what can be said scientifically, is that for valid categorical attributes, there can be probabilities assigned to genetic triggers. This is the limit of what genetics can scientifically predict about human psychological development.
A researcher seeking to quantify the influence of genes or environment on a trait needs to be able to separate the effects of one factor away from that of another. Often this reduces to calculating the heritability of a trait.
In many cases the difficulty of creating situations suitable for testing environmental and genetic influence on traits has been compensated for by finding existing populations that reflect the experimental setting the researcher wishes to create. For example, many twin studies have made use of identical twins (who have the same genetic makeup) who were raised in differing environments in order to control for genetic effects that is, any variation between twins is clearly attributable to the environment, allowing the researcher to quantify the effects of the environment by measuring variance of a trait between twins.
Contemporary researchers have pointed out the likelihood that the individual, to some extent, shapes their own environment in ways that are presumably influenced by their genes. In addition, environment may trigger the expression of genes, that is, determine whether and to what extent a genetic predisposition will actually manifest itself. Hence, untangling nature and nurture, even with experiments like the above, can be almost impossible.
Another is the question of intelligence - was Einstein genetically predestined to become a revolutionary thinker? The subject is highly contentious, as many questions raised seem unlikely to be answerable scientifically. With so many variables to contend with, it seems impossible to isolate the effects that either genes or the environment have on the subjects of experiments.
Moral difficulties eugenics, etc..
Modern science, however, tends to frown upon giving too much weight to the nature side of the argument, in part because of social consciousness. Historically, much of this debate has had undertones of racist, and eugenicist policies - the notion of race as a scientific validity has often been assumed as a prerequisite in various incarnations of the nature versus nurture debate. Genetics, long having been used as scientific justification for genocide, or race-based discrimination.
...Steven Pinker moral ideals directing science?
Philosophical difficulties are the traits real?
It is sometimes a question whether the trait being measured is even a real thing. Much energy has been devoted to calculating the heritability of intelligence (usually the I.Q., or intelligence quotient), but there is still far from any agreement on whether intelligence exists, or how one should define or measure it.
Myths and mysteries
Within the debates surrounding cloning, for example, is the far-fetched contention that a Jesus or a Hitler could be re-created through genetic cloning. Current thinking finds this largely preposterous, and discounts the possibility that the clone of anyone would grow up to be the same individual.
Misc
A number of social issues exist, especially in education and in law with regards to culpability.
The concurrent development phenomenon identical twins, separated at birth, grow to look and act so similarly?
Some nature versus nurture debates are criticized for leaving little role for free will; if nature and nurture together have so much influence on who I am, then is there such a thing as free will?
¡K¡K¡K¡K..
Nature vs. Nurture
Do you inherit intelligence, or is your brainpower affected by your environment? The nature vs. nurture debate is an old one. Is intelligence inherited or learned? Now researchers in Washington, D.C. have an answer. According to their study, its both. Genetics has a lot to do with how intelligent a person is, but environment has a lot to do with how that intelligence develops. Whats more surprising is that intelligence, as measured in an I-Q score, can change based on changes in environment. If you once took an I-Q test and got a high score, you may not be able to rest on your laurels. For example, a challenging environment may boost your I-Q, but your score could drop again when your environment changes. The researchers say this effect means that small genetic differences could ultimately have a big effect. People who are naturally a bit smarter may seek more challenging situations, which make them even smarter. One factor that could affect intelligence is nurturing from parents during childhood. Researchers in Canada found that baby rats whose mothers gave them more attention learned more easily. Doctors at UT Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas say spending time with your children, reading to them, playing games and otherwise showing you care not only makes your children feel good, but it could help them be smarter. Either way, its good for both of you.
Beyond nature versus nurture
Massimo Pigliucci
The debate on the relative importance of nature (genetics) and nurture (environment) in determining human traits has been prolonged and often acrimonious. Great minds have engaged in it over the last 00 years, including philosophers John Locke and Thomas Hobbes, and scientists Stephen Gould, Richard Lewontin, and Edward Wilson. The problem is that most of the debate has proceeded on the basis of either a simplistically dichotomous view of the question, or with a dearth of relevant empirical evidence. The controversy has in fact largely been solved when it comes to plants and non-human animals. Unfortunately, most philosophers are not aware of such progress, which has taken place within the arcane discipline of evolutionary ecology. On the other hand, most scientists keep focusing on the special case of humans which - while obviously the most interesting - has demonstrated to be the most recalcitrant to empirical analysis and the most open to philosophical inquiry.
While it is safe to say that humans have always investigated their own nature and have certainly done so since the onset of Greek philosophy, modern positions on the issue of nature/nurture may more or less clearly be traced to the works of two English philosophers, John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. Locke (16-1704) was the founder of the school known as empiricism, holding that knowledge can be gained only through the use of the senses, as opposed to rationalism, according to which the mind can derive knowledge solely on logical grounds. On the question of human nature, Locke thought of the human mind as a tabula rasa (literally, a blank slate). On it, experience writes and moulds the individual throughout her life. Innate thoughts do not enter the picture, according to this view. Interestingly, Lockes theory of human nature - like the ones espoused by biologists such as Gould and Lewontin in modern times - was tightly coupled with his social theories. Locke thought that people are born
essentially good and with equal rights, and that an ideal society should reflect these fundamental assumptions.
Thomas Hobbes (1588-167) espoused a different notion. In his books, and particularly in the famous Leviathan he proposed that mechanical processes control human actions, which are innately fearful and violent. Consequently, the only hope for humans is to submit entirely to an organised state (and religious authority), so to be forced to live in a reasonable way. This is not a far cry from the right-wing politics implicitly or explicitly adopted by some social scientists involved in the modern debate, such as Arthur Jensen, R J Herrnstein, and C Murray.
Of course, modern philosophers and scientists readily acknowledge that human traits are in fact the result of both nature and nurture, but they are usually also quick to add that one of these two components takes precedence. For example, Gould, Lewontin and others think that the environment is the major determinant of human nature. Their position could hardly be summarised more concisely than by the title of one of Lewontins books, Not in Our Genes. If the causes of intelligence, aggression, or whatever other aspect of our behaviour are not in our genes, they must surely be found in the environment. On the other side of the divide, Jensen, Herrnstein, Murray, Wilson (albeit in a category of his own) and many others are convinced that genetics and natural selection have shaped the physical as well as mental characteristics of all living beings, including humans. When Murray suggests (in the title of one of his articles) that IQ will put you in your place he is assuming that IQ is written in stone in the DNA of each one of us.
Interestingly from the point of view of the sociology of science, the modern debate on nature/nurture has often been accompanied by unpleasantness, as in the case of E O Wilson being treated to a shower of ice cold water during a conference by somebody who disagreed with his opinions on sociobiology, and Gould being characterised as someone whose ideas are so confused as to be hardly worth bothering with, but as one who should not be publicly criticised because he is at least on our side against the creationists by an esteemed British colleague. Clearly, the emotional stakes are much higher than in your typical academic debate.
A solution to the nature/nurture problem has been at hand since the beginning of the 0th century, with the introduction in evolutionary biology of the concept of reaction norm. Simply put, a reaction norm is the set of all possible morphologies and behaviours that a living organism with certain genes can exhibit whenever exposed to a variety of environmental conditions. Biologists have quickly come to realise that if one changes either the genes or the environment, the resulting behaviour can be dramatically different. The trick then, is not in partitioning causes between nature and nurture, but in what is technically known as genotype-environment interactions, the way genes and environments interact dialectically to generate an organisms appearance and behaviour. This dialectical relationship produces different outcomes when genes or environments change, and the precise shape of a reaction norm can only be found empirically.
The concept of reaction norms has dealt a fatal blow to a staple of nature/nurture discussions throughout the last century the much vaunted (or criticised, depending on the author) measure of heritability of a trait. When we hear (or read in newspapers, textbooks, and even technical papers) that the heritability of, say, intelligence (or homosexuality, or what have you) is 70% we tend to conclude that that is a major reason to believe that genes have a lot to do with determining the trait in question. Yet, biologists working on plants and animals have shown over and again that heritability changes dramatically (sometimes between 0 and 100%!) if one studies a different population of the same species, or even the same population raised in a different environment. Furthermore, we now understand that genetic influences do not imply rigid determinism studies of reaction norms in a variety of organisms have shown that the genes only set the limits of what an organism can do, but that within such limits the degree of plasticity of the organism - its ability to respond to different environmental challenges - can be very high.
Perhaps one of the best examples of the true relationship between nature and nurture is found in classic experiments performed by Cooper and Zubek in the late 150s. They compared intelligence, as measured by the ability to avoid mistakes in running through a maze, in two genetically distinct lines of rats. One line had been selected for high performance in the maze (bright rats), the other for particularly low performance (dull rats). When reared under a standard environment, comparable to the one in which the selection process occurred, the two lines showed a highly significant difference in their abilities (i.e., a high heritability of the trait). Cooper and Zubek, however, also reared individuals of the two lines in two other environments a situation in which the cage was entirely devoid of visual and tactile stimuli (poor environment), and one in which the developing animals were exposed to brightly coloured walls and toys (enriched environment). The results were simply stunning under the poor conditions, the bright rats performed as badly as the dull ones, while under the enriched environment the dull rats did as well as the bright ones (and the heritability of intelligence plummeted to zero in both cases)! The inescapable conclusion is that maze-running ability in rats is very plastic, and that different genes may lead to similar behaviours depending on environmental conditions.
So, why is there still such an acrimonious debate among philosophers and scientists about nature and nurture in humans? Because for both technical and ethical reasons we simply cannot perform on ourselves the sort of clear-cut experiments that Cooper and Zubek carried out on rats. Not only do humans have a very long life span and encounter very complex environments during their typical lifetime, but it is obviously unacceptable to experimentally breed human beings and control their environment for the sole purpose of scientific or philosophical investigation (or for any purpose, most would argue).
Unfortunately, this means that we are left with no sensible answer to a crucial question. Our educational policies, for example, may be more or less fruitful depending on the precise shape of human reaction norms. The same can be said for policies concerned with curbing crime, or for a host of other fundamental and difficult decisions we have to make in our societies. Regrettably, it should be clear by now that this is where the line must be drawn and that the only honest answer a philosopher or a scientist can give is I do not know. There is of course a strong temptation to keep guessing anyway. Sociologists, psychologists, and philosophers of science have long pointed out that personal egos, social prestige, financial rewards (personal or for research) all play into this tendency in a remarkably complex fashion. The fact remains, however, that there are - and always will be - some questions that science cannot answer (either at the moment, or in general). As Richard Lewontin himself put it in a similar context I must say that the best lesson our readers can learn is to give up the childish notion that everything that is interesting about nature can be understood. ... It might be interesting to know how cognition (whatever that is) arose and spread and changed, but we cannot know. Tough luck.
Please note that this sample paper on sex is for your review only. In order to eliminate any of the plagiarism issues, it is highly recommended that you do not use it for you own writing purposes. In case you experience difficulties with writing a well structured and accurately composed paper on sex, we are here to assist you.Your cheap research papers on sex will be written from scratch, so you do not have to worry about its originality.
Order your authentic assignment and you will be amazed at how easy it is to complete a quality custom paper within the shortest time possible!
