The Major Influence: Nature vs. Nurture Comparative Analysis Essay Personalities are a widely studied subject for psychologists since it impacts on more ways than one. It influences not only how we think and move but also our behaviors and actions. Psychologists all around the world have been trying to defend and prove that their side is correct. A major field of study about personalities are the disorders pertained to people and how they affect their lives. Some psychoanalysts have decided that nature has the most influence on personality and disorder. Nature in this theory is that your genetics and chemical makeup have the most affect rather than nurture. Contrastingly, there are other psychologists that believe nurture is the higher power in determining personality and being the key to many disorders. Nurture in this context is the environment around us and how we react with it. Two articles that have diverse viewpoints are “Nature vs. Nurture: Two Brothers with Schizophrenia” by Kelter Norman et al. and Michael Rutter’s “Commentary: Nature-Nurture Interplay in Emotional Disorders”. In the final article, “Determining Nature vs. Nurture”, Douglas Steinburg provides a neutral standpoint for the theory’s debate by showing support for both sides. Although all the authors develop their viewpoints about the theory effectively, logos has been used by all of them to show their position in the debate. Rutter and his work, "Commentary: Nature-Nurture Interplay in Emotional Disorders" provides a strong argument with an in-depth focus of logos by using multiple evidences and experiments, such as depression and anxiety disorders to help his claim. However, Norman et al. claims that environmental effects on personality was the older way as to recent research that genetics seem to be the rising source of evidence in, "Nature vs. Nurture: Two Brothers with Schizophrenia". His use of little logos holds up to Rutter's research and gives a developed argument but falls short with his use of pathos and his heavy reliability on schizophrenia to prove the nature position. Furthermore, in Steinburg’s attempt to look more into the theory, he provides good use of logos but it is not as effective as the last two articles because he doesn’t go as in depth with them unlike Rutter and Kelter et al. To begin with, Rutter wrote “Commentary: Nature-Nurture Interplay in Emotional Disorders” with varied uses of logos and just the slightest use of pathos. Rutter brings two examples of how nurture affects personality and emotional disorders. In his commentary he evaluates two emotional disorders, anxiety and depression in children (Rutter 936-939). This could support logos as well as pathos. For example, in his study with anxiety disorders, Rutter studies preschool children and shared environmental effects on them. He notes that the greatest kind of anxiety that was shown in the children was separation anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorder due to the setting they grew up in (Rutter 936). The audience can feel pathos such as pity to the children with the anxiety because of the mental stress it induces on them. Secondly, the use of logos can be effective for the audience because it conducts multiple experiments with different disorders unlike Norman et al.’s case study on schizophrenia. For instance, Rutter studies anxiety in preschool children and depression in people between childhood and adolescence (Rutter 936-937). This can make the audience believe that nurture has more of an affect on our personalities because there are more than one disorder associated with environmental causes. Not only does he bring multiple examples but even in this piece he calls out other experts, as well as using another psychologist’s work to support his claim. Rutter references Eley’s work by doing his own analysis on Eley’s observations. Rutter acknowledges that within Eley et al.’s experiment on preschoolers there was overlap between heritability and environmental tics that played a role in anxiety, mainly separation anxiety(Rutter 936). Although Rutter agrees on the overlap of heritability and environmental influences, it is still a meager viewpoint of his whole idea. In this evidence, he shows the audience of how effective this piece is by bringing in another psychoanalysts viewpoint that sided with him. This would show the audience that there are multiple, credible sources that support this side of the theory. Although he does mention the slight overlap, it doesn’t seem to contradict other points in his article. Continuing this thought, Rutter uses logos again, not to quote another expert but to use his own evidence against him. Rutter disagrees with Young et al., other experts in this field, when he writes, “However, if the genetic effect is on a temperamental feature such as neuroticism or on general emotional disturbance (rather than a specific psychiatric disorder) then that may not matter. What is probably more important is that the gene was studied without reference to environmental risk” (Rutter 937). This is an effective piece because he is calling out another study. He specifically says that it was in favor for the genetics because they didn’t put the infant in any environmental risk. To the readers it can show what might happen in an experiment and prove that not all the studies that are on the genetics side will be true, helping the audience believe that the nurture side has the most influence on personality. This can put Norman et al.’s works at risk because Rutter can show that he has evidence that psychologists who work to prove the nature side of the theory could be altering the way the experiment plays out. Aside from Rutter’s work, Norman et al. wrote, “Nature vs. Nurture: Two Brothers with Schizophrenia” with the use of pathos and some logos. While the evidence is there, it is not used as effectively as Rutter, but is still above Steinburg’s magazine article. Instead of focusing on the nurture aspect, Norman et al. had their own claim that genetics had the greatest impact on personality, and mainly the disorders associated with it. Norman et al. states, “An increase beyond these ‘normal’ morbidity rates could be expected when several members of one family are diagnosed with this condition” (Norman et al. 92). This is an effective piece in more ways than one. First, Norman et al. uses a data chart gathered from other studies over genetics and schizophrenia (Norman et al. 90). This ties with the previous piece of evidence to prove it’s credibility for the audience, making them feel like the evidence that they are reading is true and a reliable source to count on for information. Nonetheless, these are good pieces of evidence because they solely focus on one case study and disorder, unlike Rutter’s argument. However, the writings of Norman et al. use of pathos soon drowns out the small use of logos. Norman et al. states, “Second, this family has never experienced the ‘normal’ family life. One can only imagine the degree of angst and misery generated in a family with this level of dysfunction” (Norman et al. 92). Although, pathos isn’t as reliable as logos and proven evidence, it can still have some sort of effectiveness on the audience. In this case, pathos is effective as it makes the readers feel empathy towards the family. It shows that this whole family’s life has been chaotic and never normal because of the genes that get passed down with schizophrenia. This makes Norman et al.’s work more engaging to the audience unlike Rutter’s and Steinburg’s articles. Since Norman et al.’s work is more engaging to the audience they could feel more convinced that genetics has the most influence. In the middle of the claims is Douglass Steinburg and his uses of logos and pathos to help his viewpoint. Within his article, Determining Nature vs. Nurture” he wrote, “Now studies are starting to show how environmental cues can stimulate epigenetic changes that could contribute to several psychiatric diseases. Systematic measurement of those changes could eventually indicate how the environment influences the genetic chemistry underlying many human behaviors” (Steinburg 3). Steinburg explains, with the use of studies, that environmental and genetics can impact each other causing the personality to change either way. This can be effective to the audience by giving them a middle ground to walk on. For example, if you’re in a room full of psychologists and you don’t agree with anything of the nature vs. nurture, this writer can give a sense of relief that you’re not the only one. This can also be effective on a reader because that means they don’t have to chose a side and can make them feel less stressed. Furthermore, Steinburg reports of an experiment that was in the favor of the genetic supporters, writing that epigenetic changes to depression was shown in experimental evidence, and that the brain’s memory-storage shrinks due to the epigenetics (Steinburg 6). This supports the genetics side of the theory by providing physical changes of what they can do, but then he adds in another section about environmental impacts. Steinburg records that, “Licking is believed to exert its effect by raising the pups' thyroid-hormone production and activity of the neurotransmitter serotonin” (Steinburg 11). In these two pieces he provides one piece of evidence from each side of the debate. This can be effective, like said before, in providing relief of some people who feel like they can’t choose a side. This is the least effective of all the passages for the audience. Unlike Rutter, Steinburg gives an overview of one experiment for each side instead of trying to dive deeper for the audience. Overall, the authors Michael Rutter and Norman et al., with differing viewpoints were able to support their claim effectively. But, Rutter developed the strongest claim that nurture, or the environmental factors had the greatest impact on our personalities. This was demonstrated in his articles by the multiple uses of logos. Contrarily, while Norman et al. used a good source of data combined with a substantial amount of pathos, it lacked more depth in the case study, the use of logos and more evidence. Lastly, the lacking use of pathos, logos and ethos left Steinburg with a dimple into the theory. His claim of wanting to attempt to know what has the greatest impact of a person, genetics or environment, left him with the weakest of arguments compared to the other authors.
Works Cited Keltner, Norman L. et al. “Nature vs. Nurture: Two Brothers with Schizophrenia.” Perspectives in Psychiatric Care, vol. 37 no. 3, Jul-Sep 2001, p88-94. 7p. Psychology and Behavioral Science Connections, search-ebscohost-com.proxy.kyvl.org/login.aspx?direct =true&AuthType=ip,uid,cpid,url&custid=s1176192&db=pbh&AN=6006165. Rutter, Michael. “Commentary: Nature-Nurture Interplay in Emotional Disorders.”Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry & Allied Disciplines., vol. 44 no. 7, Oct. 2003, p934-944. 11p. Psychology and Behavioral Science Connections, search-ebscohost-com.proxy. kyvl.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,uid,cpid,url&custid=s1176192&db=pbh&AN=10717044. Steinburg, Douglas. “Determining Nature vs. Nurture” Scientific American Mind, vol. 17 no. 5, Oct/Nov. 2006, p12-14. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, search- ebscohost-com.proxy.kyvl.org/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,uid,cpid,url&custid=s1176192&db=pbh&AN=23687699.
They’re Watching: Rhetorical Strategies in Martin Smith’s: “United States of Secrets” “For us to have 100% security, we cannot have 100% privacy.” said by President Barack Obama during a press conference. No one thinks about how the government is constantly watching us or how they can see what you thought was “private”. Not only is the government able to see everything that we say, type, or look up but even companies such as Google have handed over information to help them. Within Frontline’s documentary, “United States of Secrets” aired on May 20, 2014 written by Martin Smith, he tells us about an NSA whistleblower who exposed how the U.S. authority abuses the internet. Smith uses pathos to present relentless and personal stories from many interviews and was able to conduct effective evidence to show what the U.S. government does on the internet is unethical because it violates our privacy. In the documentary, Smith sets the scene by starting with Edward Snowden’s confession. This started the tension between Snowden, journalists, American citizens and major internet companies, like Google, to rise. In Snowden’s case he exposed what the government does on the internet and that resulted in him having to run from the U.S. and he was sent to Russia. In Russia he was granted asylum, meaning that Snowden was unable or unwilling to return home for fear of persecution. In addition to Snowden, major internet companies were in betrayal of the government hacking systems of PRISM and Muscular. While the companies offered certain information to PRISM, the government went behind their backs with Muscular to retrieve information that they wanted. Smith uses a credible source, President Bill Clinton, to appeal with pathos. In the words of Clinton he says, “The American people need to know that we’re collecting a lot of information and we’re spending a great deal of time trying to gather as much intelligence as we possibly can, to chase down every lead, to run down every hint so that we can keep America safe.” (Smith 22:44-23:31 ) The writer uses this to show that even the president allowed citizens to know about what was going on behind the screens. Smith uses this to show when people are informed of what the government is doing then they can feel protected and secure. This is because they know that the government can stop future attacks from happening, ensuring the safety of our country. Although, when information starts to become hidden from the people, it can indict fear into them because they don’t know what might be done or if it will endanger them. Again, Smith uses pathos to illustrate the relationship between the NSA and their whistleblower, Edward Snowden. Journalist Glenn Greenwald explained to Smith of what happened to Snowden, “He ended up in Russia for one very simple reason, and that is that the United States government forced him to stay there by preventing him from leaving.” (Smith 14:33) Smith uses Snowden’s experience to make the audience feel fear. Such as, if someone tries to call out the government will they be shipped off like Snowden and have to seek refuge somewhere that isn’t their home? Fear helps Smith prove what the government is doing shouldn’t be happening and that no one should feel unwanted due to something that was said. Lastly, the author ties it in with the newscaster saying, “Russia has granted Edward Snowden asylum.” (Smith 15:03) Smith adds this into his argument to make the audience have sympathy towards Snowden for what he had experienced. No one should have to seek out refuge in another country when America’s creation is based on escaping persecution. Sympathy could also be used in the audience as if some watchers know what this feels like if they had to flee a country in seek of refuge. With fear and sympathy combined, Smith hopes to call out the government himself by using these stories and experiences to bring awareness of what the U.S. agencies are doing is unethical. Finally, Smith conducts pathos by interviewing Barton Gellman and Andrew McLaughlin and hearing what they had to say about the hacking programs. Gellman states that while PRISM was getting information through the front door with cooperation, the Muscular program was in the back door taking it, “[...] the government is actually breaking into their infrastructure and taking whatever they want.” (Smith 19:00) With this evidence, Smith makes a feeling of distrust with the government. Gellman’s speech reinforces Smith’s claim by using words such as, “breaking into,” and “taking whatever they want.” and “betrayal” in the next sentences. These words make the audience feel distrust because it seems as even if the government were to offer someone a compromise, they would still find a way to get the information that an audience member wouldn’t provide. Next, Smith uses McLaughlin, the Director of Google, McLaughlin added, “That is sort of a betrayal of the relationship that I think Google felt like it had with the government.” (Smith 20:43) This part of the video created a sense of uneasiness that the government will always have this superior sense about the people, thinking that no matter what you do, they will always find a way. Smith proves this by using Google’s experience of being broken into without a warrant, which shows that the government will go into anything without needing proof. These words and personal experiences provide effective impact on pathos in Smith’s claim by proving the U.S. government being unethical with their internet uses. Smith’s goal in this piece was clear. He used many pieces of pathos to show what the government agencies are capable behind closed doors. By presenting relentless and personal stories from many interviews, he was able to conduct enough evidence to show that the U.S. government secretly abuses their power over the internet . Thankfully, Smith shone light on the problem in the shadows to help us look more in-depth of our government’s secrets.
Works Cited: Martin Smith. “United States of Secrets (Part Two): Privacy Lost” Frontline, Producer Martin Smith, 20 May 2014
Shadow Over September Many people have tragedies somewhere in their life and it affects them in some way. Such as 9/11 that traumatized not only families but the entire United States or the World Wars that affected everyone in the world. There was a fateful day that would shake my family forever. My grandpa Jack lived in Stanton, Kentucky, basically in the middle of nowhere. Often, his daughters would work out in their schedules to all take turns to go clean his house and check up on him. On September 19, 2012 my grandpa’s house blew up from a gas leak, ignited by the flick of a light switch. Uncle Jerry lived across the street from the house and when he heard the explosion I suppose he ran over. All I know is that Jerry rushed inside the burning house and rubble to get my Aunt Karen and his dad. He only appeared with Karen, crying and coughing, telling him that their dad was still in there. He tried to go back in but the heat and smoke affected him too much. Even if he was able to go back in, the emergency responders arrived to stop him. Aunt Karen and Uncle Jerry were severely burned and rushed to the hospital. On the way home from elementary school, my mother told me about it and tried to explain to me what happened. I couldn’t process it but I knew she was hurting by the way her voice sounded and teary eyes. As time went by, the explosion would later take not one, but three members of my family within two months. Grandpa died the day of the explosion. He was found burned, underneath his kitchen table. My Uncle died two weeks later from the burns as well as my Aunt in November. During that time, my mom wasn’t home a lot and I never liked it. I only went to the hospital once because we were never allowed to see them except for mom. It was a tough time for us and when my Uncle died we had his and Grandpa’s funeral in the same week. Aunt Karen was the one that gave us the most hope. She had survived the longest and slowly but surely she was being scheduled for skin grafts for her face and other parts that were severely burned. Mom told me that if she did live through the surgery she would look completely different. It didn’t surprise me. It would have been hard to see the effects that scarred not only Karen but our family as well. On the 26th of November, she died a week or so before her surgery. This event has shaken our family. When September comes around, it brings a shadow among our house, especially for my mom. Never did I really realize what impact it had until last year. We always used Aunt Karen’s house to gather on Thanksgiving dinner and my grandpa’s house for Christmas. None of this happens anymore. Since I’ve been writing this, I noticed our family doesn’t get involved with each other a lot anymore. The closest to interaction we get from other aunts and uncles might be a comment on a Facebook post or a quick lunch visit for someone’s birthday. Mom will host Thanksgiving but that’s the only holiday we all have together, even then not everyone is able to show up. I don’t blame God for what has happened because everything happens for a reason. In fact, I have thanked God that it wasn’t my mom there and I pray to ask if Karen, Jerry, and Grandpa are looking down on us in Heaven. What I want to pull from this is to enjoy the family you were blessed with and appreciate the connections you get to make with other people. Loss has been a major factor in my life that has molded my way to believing this. On my dad’s side, his father and mother both died before he was sixteen. Two summers ago marks the day that my step-dad’s mom died, his father dying a year or two before that. In 8th grade, Emily Sams died and last year our grade lost another classmate. The effects of loss are major things that tear everyone down, but what comes out of it are stronger relationships with others. In the deaths of classmates I have found to hold onto my friends and get any chance I can to be with them, out of fear that the memories we have now won’t be enough. But loss never let most of my family become closer. I wish it did. Finding each other in the loss of loved ones. Hopefully one day, while the shadow is around us next September, or maybe the next one, and so on. Maybe then will we start to realize that family is all we’ve got in the world and start to appreciate the relationships that not only tie us by time but also by blood.