Nature, Nurture and Psychopathy : A Criticism on the Genetics of Psychopathy
Contents
Introduction
The relentless debate about the effects of nature and nurture in determining a psychopath presents two very convincing sides of the story that have resulted in a ‘deadlock’ in the debate. This is because many scientists; presented with a range of conflicting research have settled on the conclusion that both nature and nurture play a contributing role in shaping a so-called psychopath.
History of the Nature- Nurture Debate
Intellectual thinking in the 17th Century was distinctly different from modern thinking in the 21st Century. The 17th Century was still a time where the feudal class system was in power, especially in England. There still existed a rigid hereditary monarchy and aristocracy and the unquestioned power of the Church. However, the 17th Century also saw great changes in science as well as philosophy. Many ideas were brought up about the human mind and body – everyone sought a connection between the two aspects of human nature.
John Locke an English philosopher was the first to talk about the notion of the ‘blank slate’ or tabula rasa in Latin. Locke expresses the mind as a sheet of ‘white paper’ to be filled up with the influences of ‘experience’. Despite Locke’s work, throughout the 17th to the 19th Century there existed a relatively fixed notion that human nature was dominant. That is, experience or one’s surroundings simply had nothing to do with it. The questionable pseudo sciences of phrenology and eugenics were parroted around and racial prejudice took a centre stage in many countries. Significantly, the publication of Darwin’s theory of evolution led some to believe that non-white races were the ‘White Man’s Burden’ and thus placed a scientific badge to justify imperialism and racial superiority.
The pseudo-science of eugenics coined by Darwin’s own cousin, Francis Galton advocated ‘selective breeding’. This developed over a few decades into mass involuntary sterilizations of whole ethnic groups over a
Introduction
The relentless debate about the effects of nature and nurture in determining a psychopath presents two very convincing sides of the story that have resulted in a ‘deadlock’ in the debate. This is because many scientists; presented with a range of conflicting research have settled on the conclusion that both nature and nurture play a contributing role in shaping a so-called psychopath.
History of the Nature- Nurture Debate
Intellectual thinking in the 17th Century was distinctly different from modern thinking in the 21st Century. The 17th Century was still a time where the feudal class system was in power, especially in England. There still existed a rigid hereditary monarchy and aristocracy and the unquestioned power of the Church. However, the 17th Century also saw great changes in science as well as philosophy. Many ideas were brought up about the human mind and body – everyone sought a connection between the two aspects of human nature.
John Locke an English philosopher was the first to talk about the notion of the ‘blank slate’ or tabula rasa in Latin. Locke expresses the mind as a sheet of ‘white paper’ to be filled up with the influences of ‘experience’. Despite Locke’s work, throughout the 17th to the 19th Century there existed a relatively fixed notion that human nature was dominant. That is, experience or one’s surroundings simply had nothing to do with it. The questionable pseudo sciences of phrenology and eugenics were parroted around and racial prejudice took a centre stage in many countries. Significantly, the publication of Darwin’s theory of evolution led some to believe that non-white races were the ‘White Man’s Burden’ and thus placed a scientific badge to justify imperialism and racial superiority.
The pseudo-science of eugenics coined by Darwin’s own cousin, Francis Galton advocated ‘selective breeding’. This developed over a few decades into mass involuntary sterilizations of whole ethnic groups over a
Bibliography: