Nature vs Nurture

Authors Note: This is a topic that recently came up in a discussion between me and a couple of friends. The conversation was actually really interesting and because of that I decided to write this trust the gush piece. Fortunately for me this argument has tons of evidence and if you enjoy this topic then research it on your own because it is very interesting.

One of the most debated topics in our world at the present is whether nature or nurture plays a bigger role in human development. Both sides can easily be debated because of the insurmountable quantity of evidence that argues each side of the argument which makes deciding very hard. Personally I don’t have a strong opinion for any of the three sides but with research I’m sure that my stance will change.

Sadly, many people that I know don’t understand why this debate is important, or they don’t even understand what the debate is about. This is absolutely horrible and something that I plan on rectifying immediately. The nature vs nurture argument is about what part of us is determined by nature (our genes) and what part is determined by nurture (the environment we are raised in). This is huge because it contains implications that there could be biologically superior people or that there is a perfect way to raise children to optimize things like intelligence, behavior and athleticism.

This argument isn't just an intellectual debate between stuck up scientists though. Wars have literally been fought because of this. Remember the Holocaust and World War 2? Yeah, that little skirmish was fought because Hitler thought that Germans are biologically superior people. To prevent uninformed wars such as that one and to expedite the advancement of the human race we need to determine what the best way to raise children is and how much of a person is determined by their genes.

People that believe nurture plays the biggest role in human development look toward Bandura’s experiments to help prove their perspective on this debate. Bandura tested little 36 boys and 36 little girls in the Bobo Doll experiment in order to determine if other people’s behavior caused the children’s behavior to change. The experiment was successful at proving that children do imitate others around them. This means that -- for example -- if a child is raised around violent people then they too will become violent. The same holds true for benevolent people, athletic people and so on.

This experiment was a huge advancement for nurture because it provides raw data for defenders of this side of the debate to use. What this means that instead of basing their claims off of experience or theories, they can have actual numbers as the basis of the argument which, as everyone knows, is always better than anything even remotely subjective.

Like a coin, most arguments have two sides to them and this one is no different. A scientifically proven fact is that the genetic makeup of a person determines certain traits such as hair color, eye color, nose shape, etc. This is considered “nature” and is defended by just as many people as nurture. The main argument for nature is that a persons personality, IQ, likes and dislikes are determined when someone is born. People believe this because if someones physiology is determined by genes why wouldn't their brain functions be determined by genes as well.

Major evidence for nature includes topics such as divided twins and family characteristics that are passed even after adoption. In a now illegal study nicknamed Identical Strangers, identical twins were split up in the adoption agency and sent off to completely different families. One would expect that they would look similar but be completely different people with different tastes and personalities. This wasn't the case though, when they met each other thirty-five years later one of the twins said this “"It's not just our taste in music or books; it goes beyond that. In her, I see the same basic personality.” Also, while not scientifically proven it has been observed that most adopted children find that they are similar to their birth parents. Those two pieces of evidence prove that traits such as personality and inclination toward certain things like sports or fine arts are determined by genes because children raised in situations like that have completely different environments which takes nurture out of the picture.

Both sides of this gargantuan argument are equally well supported and because of this I’m going to maintain my stance on this subject, which is not picking either of them. Sure there’s the Bobo Doll experiment and probably a hundred others that nurture people will throw at me to try and sway me to there side. However nurture has twin studies and an equivalent amount of tests and studies that they could use to try and get me to vindicate their point of view on the subject. But my decision on this subject is irrelevant, what counts is how you view the subject from now on. So the question is, do you believe in nature or nurture?

To Build a Fire Symbolism

In the short story “To Build a Fire” a man travels along a freezing trail in well below negative 50 degree weather.  His only companion is a dog and his destination is unclear.  Despite the relatively boring plot in “To Build a Fire” the symbolism definitely makes up for the plot and makes this short story a very interesting read.

The biggest bit of symbolism in this book is the (relatively) obvious connection between fire and life.  The best piece of evidence I have is that at the end of the book, when the mans fire snuffed out so is his life.. Also, nearing the end of the story it says this about the dog  “As the twilight drew on, its eager yearning for the fire mastered it.”  This also proves that fire is life because huskies are basically the definition of self preservation and if it needs the fire then the fire must be necessary for life.

Hands, they are an important part of our bodies and in this story they represent the man’s  prowess.  When the man takes his hands out of his gloves to eat his lunch they quickly freeze and because of this he can’t eat his lunch.  A simple task made impossible by his frozen fingers.  Also, later on in the story when the mans fire is snuffed out his hands grow cold and because of this he can’t light a fire.  Something that is well within his capabilities.  At one point the man tries to kill the dog to, guess what; warm up his hands.

symbolism

As I hinted at before, the dog in this story represents self preservation.  In the story it says “This man did not know cold.  [...] But the dog knew; all its ancestry knew, and it had inherited the knowledge. And it knew that it was not good to walk abroad in such fearful cold.”  Also, if you look at Jack Londons other dog books all of them are about survival.  In Call of the Wild the main character, a dog, gets abused, tortured, and put in dog fights.  But, he survives it all and in the end gets a happy end.  In several other of Jack London's dog books similar things happen but the dog almost always survives it all.  This proves to me that the dog symbolises survival.

“To Build a Fire” contains many symbols.  Hands, the dog, the old guy in Sulphur Creek…  I mentioned some of them here, but it would be impossible to encapsulate all of the symbols in any one piece of writing which is why “To Build a Fire” is one of my favorite short stories.  Not because of the plot, the character, or the setting, because of the symbols.

Dave Elliot: Hunted, Hunter

When the novel Vertical Run is over, Dave Elliot is a changed person.  Through excruciating circumstances and several moral decisions David becomes a person that understands who he is, and what he has to do to save himself and those he loves.

Early on in the story Dave’s boss walks in his office with a gun and tries to shoot him.  After managing to knock out his boss Dave walks out of his office only to be shot at again -- this time by mercenaries that know what they are doing.  Also about this time you find out that Dave has a cynical voice in his head that he converses with.   After eliminating them and listening to radio chatter Dave realizes that he is trapped near the top of his office building with massive amounts of troops below him.

About this time Dave starts to become his former self again -- something he apparently doesn’t want to be.  Old habits like shooting a gun, and preservative thinking start to kick in, such as on page 27 “(You must think.  Thinking is the only way out.)”  Also, on page 29 Dave starts counting bullets, a tactic that would only be used by a trained army combatant.  This is a change that Dave resents though.  He has spent a lot of his life trying to be normal after his military career and being forced out of that normalness is not something he enjoys.  Dave portrays this well on page 18-19 by saying “For 25 years I have devoted myself to ordinariness…  It is how I define the word ‘good’.”

Quite a ways into the book Dave does manage to MacGyver his way out of the building and into the streets of New York.  When he does step into the streets of New York though, he is a changed man.  Gone is the normal corporate executive.  Dave Elliot is officially deadly… and out for revenge.  After figuring out a small clue (and taking out five sentries) Dave finds himself at chemical research lab where some virus he is supposedly infected with was developed.  He finds it completely barren.  Nothing is left in the heavily sanitized hallways, except for another guard.

Dave decides that his best option at this point is to return to his building and figure out why he is being hunted.  Being the person that he is, Dave knocks out the guards, leaving them alive.  When he picks up a radio Dave hears the enemy commander telling his people why Dave is so dangerous.  Dave learns that he is infected with a virus that could take out the world because of how contagious it is.  Dave accepts his fate and, after exacting his revenge on the captain of the enemy mercenaries, walks into a childhood oasis alone, and dies there, completely at peace with himself.

Steroids: The Body Destroyer

One of the biggest problems in sports today is steroid use.  Athletes looking to get a quick edge over their competition may turn to the dark side and use steroids that will destroy their lives.  While steroids may be enticing to many athletes for their short term benefits, they will destroy an athlete’s body and reputation which is why they should continue to be banned from all sports.

Steroids affect the human body in many different ways both good and bad.  The biggest advantage to steroids is the accelerated growth of lean muscle.  This is a great boon to athletes of every sport who feel that the pressure to perform well is to great.  However, all of that comes at a very steep price.  Athletes who use steroids, among other things, may experience delusions, heart attacks and even get cancer.  Those aren’t the only health drawbacks though.  Abusers can also get severe acne, baldness and have their tendons rupture; ouch! (Performance Enhancing Drugs, 2012)

Steroids don’t just destroy your body though.  They also destroy your reputation.  Several major sports players have had their reputation destroyed because of steroids including Ryan Brawn and Alex Rodriquez.  Both of these superb players lost a lot of their fans and credibility this horrible drug.

One of the reasons athletes choose to use steroids is the competitive environment we live in, constantly pressuring them to do perform well.  Sadly enough, in a recently taken survey 18.9% of males between the ages of 14 and 25 say that they think steroids are the only way to get into professional sports.  This is why I think that steroids need to be better regulated in pro sports to prevent young people from getting this idea. (Survey: Youth Athletes Feel Pressured by Steroid Use in Pro Sports)  Also, if all of these people use steroids then the non-abusers will be forced to use steroids to keep up.  This snowball effect will continue to occur if steroids aren’t eliminated from sports soon. (Performance Enhancing Drugs-Steroids, 2013)

Fortunately for sports, drug testing is getting significantly better every year.  Because of advances in the field scientists are capable of identifying components of the drugs down to the molecular level.  The bad part is that while some scientists are fighting steroids others are developing them.  Those scientists are busy developing steroids that are undetectable.  Both sides of this steroid war are locked in an eternal struggle… (Performance Enhancing Drugs, 2012)

                Steroids aren’t going away any time soon.  There are too many people who don’t understand the long term effects of steroids and think that a little bit of muscle is worth the ruined life.  Also, since             our society isn’t going to back off the pressure on athletes, steroid developers won’t stop developing new drugs and athletes won’t stop taking them.  Regardless though, sometime in the future I sincerely hope that steroids will disappear from sports for good.

The Assassing (Figurative language piece)

Authors Note:I wrote this piece for our figurative language "unit" in class but I think that it came out really well.  Enjoy!

The assassin was like a cat, sneaking across the courtyard completely unseen to all.  When she got to the building she crept through the doorway like a mouse.  Unseen by the sentry who was blinder than a bat.  The old floorboards threatened to sound an alarm as the assassin slowly crept through the foyer of the house.  Her target, who was on the second floor, was sleeping like a log.  Still and unmoving.  After reaching her targets room the assassin looked out the window.  There the moon was peeking through the clouds and occasionally illuminating the trees that danced in the slight breeze.  It was raining cats and dogs.  She hated rain.  Back on task the assassin slowly drew her blade, SSSSSS.  Its polished steel reflecting the moonlight like a mirror.  Then she slew the sleeping someone who said something superfluous.  It was done.  The assassin leapt out of the window, as graceful as a swan, and disappeared like the shadows when the sun would rise the next morning.  When the assassin reached his house there was a stranger outside his house.  “Did you finish the job?” asked the Stranger.  “No, I just crept through his house and leapt out the window for fun,” replied the assassin who then rudely brushed passed the stranger and into his house.

1/22/14 blog post

Nita closed her eyes.  Perfectly clear in her inner vision hung and burned the words that gave the Powers That Be the authorization to take the last thing you had, your life, and make the best possible use of it.  You were, of course, allowed to make suggestions.

This piece of text reveals a lot about who Nita is.  It shows the reader that Nita is willing to give up her life for the greater good.  In this case sacrificing herself could save a solar system from some evil people.  Fortunately she is saved is saved before being forced to kill herself but the fact that she thought about it says a lot about who she is-and... yeah.