1 1 Nature versus Nurture Student Name University Course Professors Name Date Nature and Nurture The debate of nature and nurture is a longstanding discussion in psychology and other related fields that centers on the relative importance of genetic factors versus environmental factors in determining human behavior and development. Those who argue for the "nature" side of the debate suggest that genetic factors such as inherited genes and biology play a significant role in determining things like personality, intelligence, and behavior. (Honeycutt, 2019). On the other hand, those who argue for the "nurture" side of the debate suggest that environmental factors such as upbringing, culture, and personal experiences have a more significant influence on human behavior and development. (Honeycutt, 2019). It is now widely embraced that both nature and nurture have an essential impact on human development. Studies have shown that genetics influence certain traits, such as intelligence and personality, but environmental factors also play a significant role. For example, children born with a genetic predisposition to intelligence may not fully realize their potential if they do not have access to good educational opportunities. Similarly, children raised in adverse environments may struggle to overcome the negative effects of their upbringing, even if they have a genetic predisposition to resilience. I think I can embrace that both nature and nurture impact human development simply because they interact in developing certain behaviors and disorders. For example, while a genetic predisposition may make a person more susceptible to developing a mental illness, environmental factors such as stress and trauma can also significantly trigger symptoms' onset. Furthermore, genetics may play a role in determining an individual's potential for athletic ability, but the person will not develop that potential without proper training and conditioning. Similarly, genetics may provide a foundation for cognitive skills such as memory and problem-solving, but education and other environmental factors can significantly enhance these abilities. After reading the text, my thought did not change as it states that genetics and environment both play a role in human development, and how they interact is not always straightforward. Epigenetics, the study of how environmental factors can influence the expression of genes, has shown that the relationship between nature and nurture is more complex than previously thought. This, to some extent, embraces my initial thought of nature and nurture. Recent research has continued to explore the complex relationship between nature and nurture in developing specific behavioral traits. A study published in 2017 in the journal "Nature Human Behavior" found that genetic factors account for about 40-50% of the variation in aggressive behavior. (Robins (2021). However, the study also found that environmental factors such as childhood maltreatm.

1. 1
1
Nature versus Nurture
Student Name
University
Course
Professors Name
Date
Nature and Nurture
The debate of nature and nurture is a longstanding discussion in psychology and other related
fields that centers on the relative importance of genetic factors versus environmental factors in
determining human behavior and development. Those who argue for the "nature" side of the
debate suggest that genetic factors such as inherited genes and biology play a significant role in
determining things like personality, intelligence, and behavior. (Honeycutt, 2019). On the other
hand, those who argue for the "nurture" side of the debate suggest that environmental factors
such as upbringing, culture, and personal experiences have a more significant influence on
human behavior and development. (Honeycutt, 2019). It is now widely embraced that both
nature and nurture have an essential impact on human development. Studies have shown that
genetics influence certain traits, such as intelligence and personality, but environmental factors
also play a significant role. For example, children born with a genetic predisposition to
intelligence may not fully realize their potential if they do not have access to good educational
opportunities. Similarly, children raised in adverse environments may struggle to overcome the
negative effects of their upbringing, even if they have a genetic predisposition to resilience.
I think I can embrace that both nature and nurture impact human development simply because
they interact in developing certain behaviors and disorders. For example, while a genetic
predisposition may make a person more susceptible to developing a mental illness,
environmental factors such as stress and trauma can also significantly trigger symptoms' onset.
Furthermore, genetics may play a role in determining an individual's potential for athletic ability,
but the person will not develop that potential without proper training and conditioning. Similarly,
genetics may provide a foundation for cognitive skills such as memory and problem-solving, but
education and other environmental factors can significantly enhance these abilities.
After reading the text, my thought did not change as it states that genetics and environment both
play a role in human development, and how they interact is not always straightforward.
Epigenetics, the study of how environmental factors can influence the expression of genes, has

2. shown that the relationship between nature and nurture is more complex than previously thought.
This, to some extent, embraces my initial thought of nature and nurture.
Recent research has continued to explore the complex relationship between nature and nurture in
developing specific behavioral traits. A study published in 2017 in the journal "Nature Human
Behavior" found that genetic factors account for about 40-50% of the variation in aggressive
behavior. (Robins (2021). However, the study also found that environmental factors such as
childhood maltreatment and low parental warmth play a significant role in the development of
aggression. This suggests that while genetics may make a person more susceptible to aggressive
behavior, environmental factors can also significantly trigger or exacerbate the trait.
The research I did was a study published in 2019 in the journal "Nature," which found that
genetic factors impact the occurrence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD), with common genetic
variants accounting for around 38% of the risk of developing the disorder. However, the study
also found that de novo genetic mutations, which occur spontaneously and are not inherited, also
impact the development of ASD. (Curatolo, (2019). These environmental factors influence
mutations, such as maternal infection during pregnancy. This suggests that while genetics is a
considerable risk factor for the development of autism, environmental factors also initiate the
occurrence of the disorder.
In conclusion, the research was consistent with my belief that nature and nurture impact human
development and that the relationship between the two is complex and multifaceted. Embracing
this understanding can help us better understand the individual differences that make each person
unique and develop more effective interventions and treatments for disorders and developmental
difficulties. After reading about the Lifespan of human development, I found how individuals
change and grow. Lifespan, human development theory, generally emphasizes the interaction
between nature and nurture, with genetic and environmental factors playing important roles in
shaping human development throughout life (Sigelman, C.K & Rider, E. A 2014). It suggests
that nature and nurture are important in understanding development and interact in complex
ways to shape how we grow and change throughout our lives.
References
Jackson, Llewellyn & Smith, (2020). The obesity epidemic–Nature via nurture: A narrative
review of high-income countries. SAGE available medicine , 8 , 2050312120918265.
Houma, Ronda & Rosholm (2020). The nurture of nature and the nature of nurture: How genes
and investments interact in developing skills.
Emberti Gialloreti, Mazzone, Benvenuto, Fasano, Garcia Alcon, Kraneveld, A., ... & Curatolo,
(2019). Risk and protective environmental factors associated with autism spectrum disorder:
evidence-based principles and recommendations. Journal of clinical medicine, 8(2), 217.
Atherton, Sutin, A., Terracciano & Robins (2021). Stability and Change in the Big Five Across
Adulthood: Findings from a Longitudinal Study of Mexican-Origin Individuals.

3. Honeycutt, (2019). Nature and nurture as an enduring tension in the history of psychology. In
Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Psychology .
Sigelman, C. K., & Rider, (2014). Lifespan human development. Cengage Learning.
Chapter Three: The Police Culture
Never flinch. Never weary. Never despair. ―Winston Churchill
Believe people when they show you who they are the first time. ―Maya Angelou
Vignette 1: Smith and Kane
Officer Smith and Thomas Kane are working together to research police culture and address
problems within it. Mr. Kane has a lot of ideas that he thinks would be both helpful and easy to
implement. However, every time he brings up a new idea Officer Smith quickly voices his
objections to the suggestions, saying that Thomas’ plans are not good and wouldn’t
work.
Vignette 2: Vasquez, Jenkins, and Berry
Sergeant Vasquez has had to pull Officer Jenkins aside and speak to him about a citizen
complaint. Mrs. Berry asked for his assistance because her car wouldn’t start, and she was
locked out of her house without her house key. She felt that Officer Jenkins was arrogant and
annoyed when she asked for help, and she subsequently called in to complain about him. Officer
Jenkins is frustrated and notes that Mrs. Berry flagged him down to ask for help when he was
trying to finish up another call. Sergeant Vasquez asks Officer Jenkins to call Mrs. Berry and
apologize, noting that there are already two other complaints in his record.
Introduction to the Chapter
The police community and the police service today are faced with the task of cultivating
relationships between themselves and the members of their diverse communities, of facing
situations that must be effectively managed and understood by the current community while
helping to confirm the social covenant that must exist for all of us to exist in these United States.
While no entity can be all things to all people, and while there will always be some not
predisposed to voluntary compliance, we must always be prepared and properly trained,
qualified, and educated to seek the best of possible solutions to these real-world needs. The
police must continue to do what they are sworn to do, and they must do it better and better, and
more intelligently and realistically. Professionals act professionally. We must always and
continually seek our professional standing. After all, at times, swords may be needed.
Plowshares always will be.
Police and policing are facing some of the most important changes. These are called for by the
changing

4. nature of our society and the need for law enforcement officers to do their jobs better, more
effectively, and with greater sensitivity than ever before. While important skills currently are
taught to aspiring officers, other skills and abilities will be required by all. Skills now manifest
by specialized groups, both police and civilian, are available and necessary, and must be utilized
in the everyday world in which officers all function.
Can We Turn Swords into Plowshares?
Swords are used to cut or to divide. Plowshares are used to cultivate in an effort to bring forth
sustenance. A mindset change will be required at all levels to make this work. Even though
police carry guns and other weapons, emphasis in their training must be placed on alternatives to
deadly force. They need solid training, not just exposure to de-escalation tactics and officer
survival skills. They must be trained just as well in the alternative approaches that will allow and
provide de-escalation to police encounters at all levels. Training places deadly force as a last
resort alternative in applicable situations. In reality, occasions that offer no chance of de-
escalation are few and far between. We are living in a time in our history when being justified in
using deadly force is not enough. An evolution is taking place where in addition to being
justified for using deadly force, an officer must show that there were no other alternatives and
that their actions did not place themselves in a situation that caused no alternatives to be
possible.
The legal definition of when applied to the use of deadly force was acceptable in the early days
of law enforcement, but we have evolved to the point where officers should be skilled enough to
not create a situation where no chance of de-escalation is possible.
Do not misunderstand, there are times when the suspect will not give the officer any alternative
other
than deadly force. It is most important in these situations that officers are tactically sound in their
approach, not rushing into a situation, instead giving the incident careful consideration and
observation before acting. This less than lethal mindset and action will provide evidence that the
officer was planning to de-escalate the situation and that was made impossible because of the
aggressive actions of the suspect. Like any organization or company that has been in business
long term, police departments can no longer stay stagnant and be satisfied with the status quo.
They must progress with society and offer better service to the community. Any business that
does not evolve and serve the needs of the community will not survive.
De-escalation Training
New officers are given a lot of good training. There is a lot more that they need to know to
develop their de-escalation skills. Crisis intervention, negotiations techniques used by hostage
negotiators, skills provided by suicide hotlines, and others as well must be emphasized. Once
exposed to this training, they must be held accountable for the skills learned just as we hold them
accountable for weapons proficiency. If we spend 40 or more hours on the firing range and in the
classroom, similar time must be spent for these additional crisis management skills. And, just as
we recertify officers with their firearms, at least once per year and sometimes two, three, or four

5. times per year, recertification of these additional de-escalation skills must be recertified as well.
Failure to recertify or requalify indicates the need for more training or retraining. The same
should be true for those de-escalation skills.
It must be noted that the Police Executive Research Forum and the International Association of
Chiefs
of Police (IACP) are moving quickly and forthrightly to find the best ways to move forward.
Developments by the IACP and the on suggested by the Police Executive Research Forum
(2019) are an important start along the path that we must travel. It is hoped that what is herein
will help in this effort.
Changing Minds
This may be the most difficult part of changing the face of policing in the United States.
Certainly, the mindset regarding policing has changed over the years to become what it is today.
Further adjustments in that mindset may be needed to address the world as our officers find it
today. It will be resisted by some who say it is a way of turning police officers into social
workers. It will be resisted by others because they may see it as a plea to take guns and other
useful weapons out of the hands of our officers. Nothing could be farther from the truth. But, as
the world changes and as our communities change, the police must make adjustments also. These
adjustments are for the purpose of increasing their effectiveness, de-escalating high-stress
dangerous situations, reducing injuries, and building trust within and among the citizenry of our
communities. Officers must continue to do our jobs and even to rely on Robert Peele’s
admonition regarding voluntary compliance. Also, they must continue to find and utilize ways to
be more effective in the work than they have ever been before. And, we don’t even have to
invent the skill sets to be learned. We have just to embrace what is already there and find better
ways and opportunities to utilize them.
Some of the important issues that could prove problematic and that require direct attention:
• Choosing the wrong officer for the specific situation. • Not understanding the type of
situation that is encountered. • Timing the intervention incorrectly. • Not making
meaningful contact with the others involved. • Failing to use appropriate intelligence
intelligently. • Failing to keep all parties focused on problem solving. • Not recognizing the
strengths and weaknesses of those encountered. • Not understanding the mindset of the others
involved. • Avoiding safety issues. • Intervening without sufficient time. • Not knowing
when to walk away from the encounter. • Intervening without understanding the prime
objective. • Failing to understand the needs and interests of the other side. • Not
appreciating the validity of an argument. • Having no sense of alternatives to intervention. •
Failing to understand the nature of the relationships between the multiple parties who may be
involved. • Utilizing ineffective communication skills. • Proceeding without knowing the
willingness and ability of the parties to make and abide by their commitments.
• Entering an intervention without considering other options. • Approaching an intervention
without first analyzing the perspectives of all parties involved. • Taking the attitude of

6. “winner-take-all” and “loser-takes-nothing.” • Adding information to the
intervention, or doing something during intervention, “for what it’s worth.” •
Failing to practice communication and intervention skills. • Treating the intervention as an
individual endeavor rather than as a team process. • Failing to understand that the relationship
between officers and citizens and between citizens and officers depends on each recognizing
their responsibilities to each other and to themselves. Nothing in our culture will work without
this recognition.
Us Against Them
One mindset that manifests itself within a police department over time is the “us against
them― mentality. Take your choice on who the them is. This mindset is due to the adversarial
system inherent to the criminal justice system. Law enforcement officers new to the business of
policing are trained by officers who are already.
A part of the culture that exists within a police department. Unless from the very time of creation
of a department there was something done to prevent this mindset, the “us against them―
mentality will be part of the culture, and as time goes on it will be part of the normal course of
business and never be questioned. Officers who do not agree with this philosophy will not
question it publicly, as they do not want to deal with the drama associated with their difference
of opinion. Officers who are not mature enough to resist the “us against them― mentality or
do not have the courage to buck the system soon forget that they are employed to serve everyone
in the community. Whether they like those persons in that community or not, this is their
responsibility. Referring to suspects as “scumbags,” “dirtheads,” et cetera and using
such terms as common language might be funny, entertaining, or in line with the beliefs of how a
cop should talk and act as glamorized by fiction writers or Hollywood has become the norm.
Unless corrected, this language and belief system gives credence to the “us against them―
mentality. Police departments who have this mindset at their core must take steps to rid
themselves of this thinking. This type of rationale places all persons who come into contact with
the police at risk of being placed in this adversary category. If departments are not careful and do
not draw clear lines of understanding within the agency, then citizens who call the department
for help on minor legitimate calls for service will be categorized in the same group as
adversaries. The people the police serve are not all adversaries and that should be made clear to
officers from the onset of their training. Real police business is not fiction. It is dealing with real
people and real lives. These people and these lives can be adversely affected by just one officer.
One single officer has the ability to take away everything a person has worked for or will ever
earn by the decisions they make. This is why the most important person in the entire scope of the
criminal justice system is the patrol officer, not the detective, not the district attorney or the
judges. The one person in the entire process who has the power to decide whether an incident can
be settled on the scene or in the courts is the patrol officer. Yet the patrol officer is the least
trained, least cared about, and the least listened to. And more than not, they are given too many
tasks that do not fit within the parameters of their mission. When I say the least trained, I mean
just that. Most so-called training for officers is nothing more than mere exposure to a topic.
Training must include an extensive study of a subject coupled with exercises designed to be
replicated in the field so that the training becomes second nature to the officer. Experience
indicates that this seldom happens. (Walles, 2020).

7. Complainant Misunderstandings
Sometimes the officer will communicate effectively but the complaining party wants the officer
to do something he cannot legally do. Rather than listening to the officer, the person will
complain to the department and needlessly generate a complaint that will have to be investigated.
These unfounded complaints will go on the officer’s record to be used against them at a later
date, even when they did nothing wrong. This may be much the same way an insurance company
may raise your rates even when the accident was not your fault.
There are other occasions when a complainant generates a complaint about the officer and
embellishes
the event. Sometimes they downright lie about what the officer did or said. Even these
investigations, where it is proven that the complainant lied and the officer is exonerated, still
attach to their record as an investigation. When an incident such as this occurs and there is clear
and convincing evidence that the complainant lied to investigators in order to cause harm to the
officer or department, the officer’s department should take appropriate action. The
department should take civil and criminal action against the party who filed the false complaint.
Most departments do not want to stir this pot and thereby allow the reputations of their officers
to be sullied by false complaints. This is totally unacceptable, as the public should be held to the
minimum standard of the truth. There must be trust on both sides in order for the system to work
or it becomes an us-against-them environment for both sides.
Leadership Failures
We have all heard the old cliché, “There’s never a cop around when you need one.―
When there is one around, the officer usually encounters one of two types of complainants—the
one who is reasonable and grateful for the quick response and action and the other who believes
they are entitled to tell them how to do their job. In either case, the officer has to communicate
effectively and ignore the distraction while taking action. In instances where the response time is
longer than normal, the officer is faced with a complainant who is outraged by the delay. The
response time is not usually the officer’s fault. The long response time is due to heavy call
loads, insufficient staff, and poor planning on the part of city leaders. Officers are not responsible
for budgeting, hiring strength, or any element of staffing. Yet the city leaders allow them to take
the brunt of the criticism when it is not their fault. In other words, years taking the criticism on
the front line for the mistakes of others leads to a situation where officers feel they are attacked
by the public and unsupported by management. They feel the city will throw them under the bus
at any time in order to save face with the public. Otherwise, the city leaders would make it
publicly known in a regular course of action that patrol officers are not responsible for the
anomalies that occur. You never see city leaders throwing the fire department under the bus for a
building that burned down. Police departments are a convenient scapegoat for city leaders to
place the blame for their own incompetence. I believe that many times they will hire a chief from
outside the department because that person will have no emotional ties to the officers and that
will make it easier for them to conform to the city’s idea of how the department should be
managed, not necessarily what is best for the officers and the department. All of these things
influence police culture. Unfortunately, there are more negative things than positive ones.