Topic 12: Eating Disorders

What are eating disorders?
Eating disorders can be seen as many different things by many different people. The main thought is that eating disorders such as anorexia are simply attention seeking devices. However, according to the Eating disorders foundation of Victoria, they are a “dangerous mental illness…which often requires psychological and/or physical intervention to promote recovery.”
There are various different eating disorders, and, unlike normally thought, not all of them result in “skinniness”. The most well known eating disorder is anorexia, which is simply not eating. Some other eating disorders are binge eating, bulimia and compulsive overeating.
What are the causes of eating disorders?
These illnesses can be caused by many different things, but the main reason has to do with the mental state of the victim. Low self-esteem, depression, perfectionism and feeling inadequate can all contribute to the development of an eating disorder.
As well as these psychological factors, it has been reported that there may be biological influences on this topic. One theory is that there is a chemical in the brain which causes disorders such as these.
Nature or Nurture?
The nurture side of this argument is pretty straight forward. It states that people who develop eating disorders such as anorexia develop them because they are raised to think that this behavior is acceptable in society. Some of the causes of this issue, such as feeling inadequate and low self-esteem, can be a result of the pressure on them to look such a way. This message is usually sent through the media, and some people argue that it is therefore the way that this society allows the media to “nurture” our people that result in some of them establish eating disorders.
It has been stated that people who have family members such as parents or siblings who have or had an eating disorder are at more risk of developing one them self. This can be seen as proof both from nurture and a nature side. The nature side would argue that this is because the mother has the genes for this disorder to occur for the child. In the year 2000, researches stated that they had “found a gene for anorexia”. This is major evidence that could be used for the nature side of this great debate, but is yet to be confirmed.

Questions:
1) What would be the nurture side of the argument for the statement “It has been stated that people who have family members such as parents or siblings who have or had an eating disorder are at more risk of developing one them self.”?
2) What is your view on this topic?

P.S . This is a quote that I found while searching information “We’re dealt a hand, taught certain rules about how to play it, then take those rules on the road and implement them.” This suggests that it is both Nature and Nurture that have an influence on our lives.

Bibliography:
Eating disorders foundation of Victoria inc. (September 2009) What is an eating disorder? and Risk Factors. Victoria, Viewed 26th October 2009.
CRC health group (2007) Disorder or diet?, Anorexia nervosa, Bulimia nervosa, Compulsive overeating and Binge eating disorder. Something fishy.org, Viewed 26th October 2009. (home page)
Karen R. Koenig,( January, 2009) Nature or Nurture. Eating disorders blogs.com, Viewed 26th October 2009.

Katie Gunnell 10H =P

Topic 11: OCD

According to the Arnot Ogden Medical Glossary(2009), Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder is “an anxiety disorder in which a person has an unreasonable thought, fear, or worry that he or she tries to manage through a ritualized activity to reduce the anxiety.”

Obsessive-Compulsive (OCD) is a mental illness in which the sufferer experiences exaggeration of the normal human behaviour of anxiety. Anxiety is normal, and is part of ‘being human’. It’s just worrying about everything in an exaggerated way. For example, many sufferers of OCD will repeatedly go back and check they’ve turned something off (lights, oven, etc) ‘just to make sure’. One of the most common instances of OCD is the need for constant hygiene, which often causes the sufferer to be continuously washing their hands.

In terms of the Nature-Nurture debate , OCD is seen as a disorder that derives from both sides of the argument, however it is important to see what role both nature and nurture play.

The main role of nature in the concept of OCD is similar to the role nature plays in many other arguments. From a nature perspective, many sufferers are seen to be born with the predisposition to OCD, and may even have it all of their life. This can be especially common if one or both parents have the disorder, as in the case of many disorders.

But one must remember that even if a person genetically inherits traits such as
these, they only have the predisposition to the disorder. Something has to happen to set off these predispositions, and this is where the nurture argument comes in. People often develop OCD after an experience they had which has affected them. For instance, a rape victim may feel ‘dirty’, and so they wash and wash their hands all the time, to help them feel ‘clean’ again.

OCD can definitely be seen as being brought on by factors of both nature and nurture, however it is important to see what role each plays in one acquiring the disorder. This disorder may be a combination of both, however both nature and nurture play important parts.

Questions
Do you believe that OCD is either nature or nurture, or both?
Could OCD be a genetic trait amongst families?
If you were a professional, would nature vs nurture be an important factor to look at in the treatment of OCD?

Topic 10: Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia

Schizophrenia is a psychiatric diagnosis that impacts upon and distorts all five senses of a person. The patient is said to experience “auditory hallucinations, paranoid or bizarre delusions, or disorganized speech and thinking with significant social or occupational dysfunction.” (Wikipedia)

People with schizophrenia may have perceptions of reality that are strikingly different from the reality seen and shared by others around them. Living in a world distorted by hallucinations and delusions, individuals with schizophrenia may feel frightened, anxious, and confused. (schizophrenia.com)

Many scientists believe that schizophrenia is an inherited disorder, a biological predisposition. Studies have shown that people in a family with a history of mental illness are more likely to develop the disease.

However, recent research is trying to prove that the genes containing the disorder are not dangerous unless triggered by an environmental factor. In Finland, a study on adopted children obtaining schizophrenia was conducted. Children that had a high genetic rate and were adopted into an abusive, dysfunctional family had an 87% higher rate than a similar child brought up in a loving, non-abusive setting. (http://www.schizophrenia.com/hypo.php) Other factors can include stress during pregnancy, social or family distress and unusual environmental circumstance causing anxiety.

From this information and any further information, answer the questions below.
1. Do you believe that schizophrenia’s origin is from Nature or Nurture?
2. What experiment or study would you conduct on this topic?
3. What other environmental factors do you think would have the biggest impact on the rate of schizophrenia?

Anna, 10M

Topic 9: Aggression

Aggression in psychology can be seen as a behaviour that is intended to cause pain or harm physically or emotionally. From a nurture perspective aggression is decided not by your genes but by the community and role models. According to Bandura children copy their role models, as such it is important to have non-aggressive parents/guardians or other role model figures in their upbringing so as to have a non aggressive personality. Bundura also states that behaviour is learned through rewards, this means that if a child aggressively bullies another child and receives a reward from this behaviour (sweets, or enjoyment), then they will repeat this behaviour in future. The Stanford Prison experiment is another example of how aggression is caused by nurture not nature. In this experiment guards conformed to how they think they should act and became aggressive when normally they weren’t.

How do these experiments support nurture?

What other explanation could there be for the aggression shown in the Bobo doll experiment and the guards in the Stanford Prison experiment?

By Adrian Tai and Artienne Bakker-Szumer

Topic 9: Multiple Personality Disorder

Multiple Personality Disorder/ Dissociative Identity Disorder

Multiple Personality Disorder, also known as Dissociative Identity Disorder refers to a lack of connection in a person’s thoughts, memories, feelings, actions, and sense of identity. A severe form of dissociation is known to be daydreaming. There are usually two or more personalities that are developed in the course of this mental disorder, each unique with development of its own age, sex, race, postures, gestures, and way of talking. It can be imaginary people or even an animal. These personalities act as a coping mechanism in a violent, traumatic or painful situation that triggers prior traumatic experiences. Through the process of “switching” a personality takes over another. It can take from seconds to days for “switching” to occur. The environmental triggers or requests of therapists under hypnosis can stimulate this process. When a personality is revealed, the behaviour and thought are completely controlled by that particular personality.

Symptoms
The symptoms of multiple personality disorder are following:
• Amnesia
• Depersonalisation – feeling that one’s body is unreal, changing or dissolving.
• Derealization – perceiving the external environment as unreal
• Identity disturbances – two or more distinct, split identities that continuously have power over the person’s behaviour
• Inability to recall key personal information that is too severe to be just “forgetfulness”.
• Highly distinct memory variations
• Other mild symptoms include: depression, mood swings, suicidal tendencies, sleep disorders, alcohol or drug abuse, compulsions and rituals, psychotic-like symptoms, eating disorder, headache, time loss, and “out of body experiences”.

Diagnosis
The diagnosis of dissociative identity disorder may consume a large amount of time and involve complex diagnosis as the symptoms overlap with many other diseases and disorders such as depression, schizophrenia, personality disorder, somatization disorder and panic disorder. Firstly the physical conditions are eliminated through testing for brain disease, side effects of medication and other substances, recent extreme physical fatigue, epilepsy and other seizure disorders. Then through psychotic tests and interviews, specific mental disorder can be identified. Below is a diagnostic criteria list for multiple personality disorder from an article on

Encyclopaedia of Mental Disorders:
• Traumatic stressor: The patient has been exposed to a catastrophic event involving actual or threatened death or injury, or a serious physical threat to him- or herself or others. During exposure to the trauma, the person's emotional response was marked by intense fear, feelings of helplessness, or horror. In general, stressors caused intentionally by human beings (genocide, rape, torture, abuse, etc.) are experienced as more traumatic than accidents, natural disasters, or "acts of God."
• The demonstration of two or more distinct identities or personality states in an individual. Each separate identity must have its own way of thinking about, perceiving, relating to and interacting with the environment and self.
• Two of the identities assume control of the patient's behaviour, one at a time and repeatedly.
• Extended periods of forgetfulness lasting too long to be considered ordinary forgetfulness.
• Determination that the above symptoms are not due to drugs, alcohol or other substances and that they can't be attributed to any other general medical condition. It is also necessary to rule out fantasy play or imaginary friends when considering a diagnosis of DID in a child.
(Encyclopaedia of Mental Disorders, 2009)

Causes
The causes are controversy as to whether it is due to nature or nurture influence. It is commonly believed that during early childhood, a routine of repetitive extreme torture, sexual and/or emotional abuse, or neglect result in a development of separate identities on a young child to cope with the traumatic situations. 98-99% DID patients have experienced recurring, intense and life threatening disturbances at sensitive developmental stage which before the age of nine.

Bibliography
‘Dissociative identity disorder’ (2009) Encyclopaedia of Mental Disorders, viewed 26 October 2009,

Who are vulnerable?
There is general conformity that the cause of Multiple Personalities is keeping the feeling of childhood sexual abuse inside or any very bad memories. Children who live under a shelter of unwelcome, no warmth or no love are likely to have Multiple Personalities because of the depress memories that they have experienced. These children are often kept in a situation of such extreme terrifying and confusing circumstances. Mostly children that have the terrifying experience they will create a boundary so that the horror doesn’t occurred to them again.

Treatment
To cure a patient with Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) is that make sure do not use drugs to treat patients. We should:
1. First we should ensure that the patient feel safe and stabilised, before experimenting or exploring their problematic identities.
2. Second some patients are more comfortable of hospitalize, it support and monitoring are supply as throbbing memories are addressed.
3. Third hypnosis may help to find out the identities hiding inside a person. Try to talk through them, make their emotions more stabilised.

Consequently DID can be cured by encouragement by negotiating, arranging the unification of the identities, facilitated with imager and hypnotic suggestion. However psychotherapy is still working on how to actually cure the really hurt patient. Some really light problematic patient can be cured fully as long they stay in a circumstances that they feel safe. Although the patients that have more bad alter inside them, yes they can be cured as well, they are still treatable but need to spend time.

Questions
1. What do you think is the main cause for dissociative identity disorder or multiple personality disorder?
2. How can this be prevented?
3. Do you think multiple personality disorder is the result of nature or nurture? Give reasons.

Topic 8: Bipolar Disorder

What is Bipolar disorder?
Bipolar is a mental illness which effects the functioning of the brain. The patient generally experiences extreme moods – very over excited or extreme depression. In many cases the person may be affected so much that they experience the symptoms of psychosis (Confused thinking, delusions and hallucinations) and are unable to distinguish what is real and what is not.

What causes Bipolar Disorder?
What causes Bipolar disorder has never clearly been understood; however, similar to any illness its causes are said to be a combination of hereditary and other external causes. Yet, it has been stated that depending on the environment the patient is exposed to, can determine whether the illness is triggered. For example, it is recommended that a person with the disorder maintains a regular routine and has a normal sleeping pattern.

Is the Bipolar Disorder Nature or Nurture?
It is difficult to say whether the Bipolar disorder is either entirely nature or nurture. However, it is true that the environment one is exposed to plays a large part in the activation of the illness but then again the illness was obtain through genetics in the first place.

Let’s say that there is a middle aged man who is experiencing a large amount of stress due to a business related issue. He spends most of his time working and not much time doing relaxing activities, such as spending time with the family. This man, who for this example we will call Ted, has a family history of Bipolar Disorder however he has never been tested for the disease because he has never displayed any symptoms. But Ted has not been getting a lot of sleep because of all the stress he has been experiencing. Furthermore he seems to be experiencing extreme moods and has not been himself, but of course he does not notice the change in his behavior because he is virtually living in his own world. Luckily, his family and close friends notice the extreme changes and are able to get Ted help. Ted is prescribed medication and attends support groups for people with Bipolar Disorder. After a long struggle he is nursed back to health and can live a normal life as long as he continues to take the medication and keeps a regular routine.

Ted was lucky that he received help when he did and that was all thanks to his loving family and friends. However, there have been unfortunate cases in which people with the disorder have not received help in time and have gone to extreme lengths. This is mainly because they do not have family who are aware of the problems they are experiencing. Whereas, because Ted was surrounded by people who were aware of his problem and supported him, his recovery was very successful.

On the other hand, it is argued that it was just a coincidence that the most stressful time came at the same time Ted experienced the symptoms of the Bipolar Disorder. It can be argued that the illness was inevitably going to be triggered at that age no matter what environment Ted was exposed to at the time. After all one of the reason for having Bipolar disorder is because it is inherited in the first place.

SANE (2009) Bipolar Disorder. Australia: SANE Australia, Viewed 26th of October 2009.

Questions
Where do you think the Bipolar Disorder stands in the Nature vs. Nurture debate? Why?

Are there any situations you know of when the Bipolar Disorder has been present?

Topic 7: Drug Addiction

Drug addiction, as we all know, is a condition that arises as a result of frequent use of drugs. Drug-seeking behaviour, slow reaction times, random relapses and a range of mental illnesses are all well-known consequences of drug abuse. Drugs can range from substances such as caffeine to nicotine or illegal drugs such as heroin or cocaine. Some argue drug addiction is the result of genetics, but others say it is due to environmental factors and the influence of parents, peers and role models.

The distinction of the role of genetics in predispositions to drugs such as alcohol has become increasingly blurred as more and more studies are being conducted. Studies have clearly shown that a child exposed to alcohol in their home environment is 3 to 4 times more likely to experience problems later on in life in relation to alcohol abuse. It has also been made evident that the younger a person takes their first drink, the likelihood of these problems occurring dramatically increases. In saying this, it must be said that although genetics play a role in the inclination to abuse alcohol or other drugs, other factors (as mentioned above) certainly influence development of the disease and the behaviours displayed by a person with these risks.

There are three major aspects that contribute to a person’s life in the way of successfully managing addiction or determining propensity to fall into the spiral of addiction. One of these three contributing factors is lifestyle and social choices. If a person never takes a drink, obviously they will not have to face the physical addiction of the illness. If someone has had no exposure to alcohol by choice or by no will of their own, the addiction is pre-emptively prevented. On the opposite end of the spectrum, in homes where drinking holds a significant place in the lifestyle held, it can be much harder to deter addiction.

Children who are raised in an environment of binge drinking, drunkenness or other irresponsible alcohol and drug use in either familial or social surroundings, are more likely to consume alcohol or drugs than those in environments with an absence of these substances. Of course, there are always exceptions but an atmosphere of insufficient alcohol education and a readily available stock of alcohol is apparent, the trends tend to sway in the direction of alcohol abuse more than other environment without these factors.

People are also at a higher risk of succumbing into addiction if there is a family history of alcoholism or drug abuse evident. In cases of alcoholic parents, the development of alcoholism is 3-400% higher than in families without this record, and 200% higher if alcoholism was present in the previous generation. Clearly hereditary influences cannot be controlled, but it is strongly believed among some that if parents can provide good lifestyle choices and a healthy atmosphere, atrocities such as drug addiction can be avoided.

What do you think? Do you believe a healthy lifestyle can change the genetic path of drug addiction? Are there any circumstances you believe that nature rules over nurture in relation to this issue? For example: a baby born to a drug-addicted mother who subsequently is born with a taste for drugs.

References:
http://www.healthinlife.com/how-much-sleep-is-enough/
http://substanceabuse.suite101.com/article.cfm/why_am_i_addicted_
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_addiction

Topic 6: Bad Manners and Swearing

Are bad manners influenced by the way you grow up, and the people you interact with or are they in fact a biological inheritance from your parents? Firstly there are many degrees when associating with bad manners; swearing, rebelling, rudeness, disrespect or even smaller degrees like not saying you’re please and thankyou’s. Depending on a person’s background different families have certain identifications of bad manners. Growing up in a disadvantaged family with rough parents will stereotypically have a higher chance for children to grow up with bad manners, but is this a biological factor? Although some people argue that you can genetically inherit such traits would they have the knowledge without factors of nurture being displayed? An easily identified stereotype is students from private and state schools. The state school children appeal to be rougher and bad mannered when on public transport graffiti etc, where as private school children are used to strict regulations at school, they apply them in their outside life. So the way you have been nurtured defiantly places a role in how you apply your manners. But, if you grew up in a strict Christian family do you still think you would swear? Well some may argue, because at school in the playground other children may be bad mouthed so they rebel against their parents and use bad manners around there classmates, but when at home are very careful of their tongue. As babies and toddlers, children use the words they learn from the people around them, especially their parents. Parents also teach them the meaning and feelings of words, by how they portray them and their body language Parenting and Child Health - Health Topics - Swearing (Internet) (2008).

1. Is it agreed that a child who grows up in a strict family who enforces good manners, will still learn bad behaviors and manners, and may in fact use them more to rebel against their parents?
2. If nature had a responsibility in the learning of bad manners and swearing, how would it be learned if not heard from previous examples?

Topic 5: Altruism

"

By favoring acts of battlefield selflessness, Stone Age warfare might have accelerated the development of altruism.

A computer model of cultural evolution and between-group competition primed with data taken from studies of mankind’s hyperviolent early years suggests a bloody origin for a celebrated modern behavior.

“Altruism will be strongly favored if it leads groups to win wars,” said Sam Bowles, a Santa Fe Institute economist and institutional theorist, and author of the study, published Thursday in Science. “That would counteract the way that selfish individuals usually dominate the altruistic ones in their groups.”

That the ability to put others’ well-being ahead of one’s own could have such brutal origins seems counterintuitive. Then again, so is altruism. Genes are supposed to be selfish, not self-sacrificing.”- [url]http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/06/altruism/

Emcee:There are two schools of thought on the subject of altruism. The first, that altruism is an ‘on-the-spot’ act of kindness or self sacrifice. The second, that altruism is the accumulation of behavior via genetics, the group awareness that prompts humans to act in a kind or self sacrificing way towards their kin. The argument can be subdivided more simply into two familiar categories; Nurture and Nature. Nurture will start.

Nurture:The idea of natural selection dictates that only the strongest will survive. The genes of stupidity or recklessness are bred out (take, for instance, the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin_awards]Darwin Awards[/url], which award anyone who can successfully remove their genes from the gene pool by doing something stupid, reckless, or just plain suicidal). Altruism is not a survival trait; saving someone’s life while sacrificing your own for no good reason besides deciding you wanted to is the zenith of altruism, but removes you from the gene pool. Even spontaneously giving money to the poor is not necessarily a survival trait (although it is not discouraged) as it disadvantages you. Logically speaking; if anything would be bred in it would be selfishness. Therefore it stands to reason that only the impact of nurture, the surrounding environment, could prompt selflessness. This article does not aim to discourage altruism, the occasional altruistic act is necessary to function in society, but it would be very difficult to prove that altruism is natural in any way. Your turn; Nature.
Nature: Harry Potter.
Nurture: What?
Nature: In harry potter, harry does one selfless act and girls throw themselves at him. Altruism may not necessarily be a survival trait, but it doesn’t remove you from the gene pool. Besides, are altruistic individuals not more favored in the community? Better liked? Do they not attract other altruistic people? Who form their little clubs and get things done? In studies on monkeys, gathering, guarding and scouting are all regulated jobs, but there is no apparent obligation to go to work in the morning. The selfish can stay at home if they like, do nothing all day, but when one of the more community minded monkeys bring a great heap of food home, or find a new fresh water stream, or something particularly shiny and entertaining; who is prized? The lazy or the heroic? Altruism is a survival trait, just a very risky one. Like the man who gambles half his pay to buy himself a suit to go to a job interview, altruistic behavior can either ruin your life or push you ahead beyond the station you resided at.

Emcee: Well, you’ve both put forward some very convincing arguments; Nurture claims that altruism is instilled by the situation you are in, as it cannot be bred in. Nature claims that while altruism is a risky venture; the rewards are high and it is a survival trait.

Questions:
1. Form your own opinion on nature vs nurture based only on the content of this blog.
2. Do you think Altruism could have been achieved through breeding?
3. Do you think Altruism [i]should[/i] have been achieved through breeding?
4. Why were monkeys used in the example?
5. Why is the quote from weirdscience included at the beginning?
6. [Optional]Write a response to Nature or Nurture’s last post from your own point of view.

[img] http://jackywinter.com/static/files/assets/0409ac20/AJoyner_altruism_SMH_.jpg[/img]

Topic 4: Artificial Selection

Darwin argues that those characteristics we might think to be specifically human—physical strength and health, morality, and intelligence—were actually achieved by natural selection. From this, he infers two related eugenic conclusions.

First, if the desirable results of strength, health, morality, and intelligence are caused by natural selection, then we can improve them by artificial selection. We can breed better human beings, even rise above the human to the superhuman. Since human beings have been raised above the other animals by the struggle to survive, they may be raised even higher, transcending human nature to something—who knows?—as much above men as men are now above the apes.

Second, if good breeding gives us better results, pushing us up the evolutionary slope, then bad or indiscriminate breeding drags us back down. "If…various checks…do not prevent the reckless, the vicious and otherwise inferior members of society from increasing at a quicker rate than the better class of men," Darwin groaned, "the nation will retrograde, as has occurred too often in the history of the world. We must remember that progress is no invariable rule."

What about the link to Hitler? The first, most important thing to understand is that the link between Darwin and Hitler was not immediate. Darwin's eugenic ideas were spread all over Europe and America, until they were common intellectual coin by Hitler's time. Secondly, we misunderstand Hitler's evil if we reduce it to anti-Semitism. Hitler's anti-Semitism had, of course, multiple causes, including his own warped character. That having been said, Nazism was at heart a racial, that is, a biological political program based up evolutionary theory. It was "applied biology," in the words of deputy party leader of the Nazis, Rudolph Hess, and done for the sake of a perceived greater good, racial purity, that is, for the sake of a race purified of physical and mental defects, imperfections, and racial inferiority.

The proposed ruthlessness of his solution was in direct imitation of nature conceived according to Darwinism. "Just as Nature concentrates its greatest attention, not to the maintenance of what already exists but on the selective breeding of offspring in order to carry on the species, so in human life also it is less a matter of artificially improving the existing generation—which, owing to human characteristics, is impossible in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred—and more a matter of securing from the very start a better road for future development."

How do we secure a better road for future development? By ensuring that only the best of the best race, the Aryan race, breed, and pruning away all the unfit and racially inferior. That isn't just a theory; it's eugenic Darwinism as a political program. As Hitler made clear, "the State is looked upon only as a means to an end and this end is the conservation of the racial characteristics of mankind." Jews have to be pruned away, but also Gypsies, Slavs, the retarded, handicapped, and anyone else that is biologically unfit.

Information gathered from:
Wiker, B. Dr (2008) Darwin’s Dystopia, Retrieved 7th October 2008 from http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2020937/posts

Question:

• If you could have tried to prevent Hitler from going through with his enforced selective breeding what arguments would you have put forward?

Answer the above question by responding to this post.

When you post a comment, tick the anonymous box and then finish your response with your first name and class only.

Please remember all comments are moderated.

Topic 3: Nurturing

While studies of children who have suffered severe deprivation are generally unpleasant, they provide valuable insight into the impact that environmental experiences have on the development of the individual. There is much evidence to suggest that early learning environments literally shape the developing brain (Nelson, 1999).

Some studies have involved mistreated children who, tragically, have spent their first years in cupboards, attics and other restricted environments. When first discovered, these children are usually mute, retarded and emotionally damaged.

Some suffer from deprivation dwarfism, a condition characterised by stunted physical growth associated with stress, isolation or general deprivation. Efforts to teach such severely deprived children to speak and behave normally rarely succeed.

Case Study: ‘Closet child’ now with loving parents:
Becky’s story began to unfold when the Sheriff’s Department responded to a tip like hundreds of others. They found Becky in urine-soaked clothes, asleep on a hard cot in her parents’ bedroom.

‘She was almost like an animal,’ one of the deputies reported. Her world then was the bedroom and its closet, in which she was kept for untold hours. Now Becky lives in a spacious foster home.

Since Becky’s rescue, she has gained 12 pounds and grown 6 inches. But she is still a mite, for she weighed only 24 pounds and stood only 32 inches tall last April.
When she was found, Becky couldn’t even crawl; now she walks. Then, she knew only a few words – now she speaks in sentences. She is, except for the hurt in her eyes, almost like any toddler.

But Rebecca is no toddler. She is nine years old and her paediatrician says she may never catch up.

Information gathered from:
Van Lersel et al. (2005) Nelson Psychology, Thomson Nelson, pg. 114

Questions:
• If most of our development is due to nature, why didn’t Becky go through the normal stages of development?
• What possible explanations could there be for why Becky’s development hasn’t caught up?

Answer the above question by responding to this post – you may wish to do some additional research regarding the critical and sensitive period.

When you post a comment, tick the anonymous box and then finish your response with your first name and class only.

Please remember all comments are moderated.

Topic 2: Twin Studies

The Two Jims

Jim Springer and Jim Lewis are identical twins who were separated at four weeks of age, adopted by different families and reunited at the age of 39.

Unknown to each other, both families named the boys James. Both James’ grew up not knowing of the other, yet there were some uncanny similarities. Both worked as part-time deputy sheriffs, both had abilities in mechanical drawing and carpentry, both liked maths but disliked spelling, both drove the same type of car and each had married women named Linda. Both had sons, one of who was named James Alan and the other named James Allan. The twin brothers also divorced their wives and married other women - both named Betty. And they both owned dogs which they named Toy.
The twins were not similar in all facets of their lives; one expressed himself better orally; the other was better at writing. Initially, they wore their hair completely differently. One Jim preferred to wear his hair slicked back with sideburns; the other wore his over his forehead.

Information gathered from:
Funny Emails (2008) Retrieved 7th October 2008 from, treebeard31.wordpress.com/.../
Van Lersel et al. (2005) Nelson Psychology, Thomson Nelson, pg. 113


Questions:

• How do twin studies such as these add to the nature vs. nurture debate?
• Are the 2 Jims clearly a case of nature?
• What other information would it be interesting to compare?

Answer the above questions by responding to this post.

When you post a comment, tick the anonymous box and then finish your response with your first name and class only.

Please remember all comments are moderated.

Topic 1: Personal Reflection

"You are either a product of your genes and biology (nature), or what you are is due to experience and environment (nurture)." Cardwell & Flanagan (2003) Psychology AS, Nelson Thornes, pg. 159

Before exploring this in psychological terms, what is your reaction to this debate?

• Using your own experiences to date do you believe your current behaviour is due to biological or environmental factors?

Answer the above question by responding to this post.

When you post a comment, tick the anonymous box and then finish your response with your first name and class only.

Please remember all comments are moderated.