# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Half a century ago, Holocaust perpetrator Adolph Eichmann was on trial. The prosecutor called him "a new kind of killer, the kind that exercises his bloody craft behind a desk." Reporting on the trial, Hannah Arendt drew a different conclusion. She argued that Eichmann was a plain bureaucrat, seeing himself as "a law-abiding citizen" who "did his duty" and "obeyed orders." She called it "the banality of evil."

The core claim was that if you put good people in a bad situation, bad things will happen. Soon, evidence emerged to support this chilling idea. At Yale, psychologist Stanley Milgram showed that ordinary men would inflict severe pain on others simply because they were asked to do so by an authority figure in an experiment. When a man failed to learn a set of words, a scientist in a white coat told them to deliver increasingly harmful electric shocks. Many went all the way to 450 volts-even after the "victim" (an actor) complained of heart trouble. "It may be that we are puppets-puppets controlled by the strings of society," Milgram lamented.

At Stanford, psychologist Philip Zimbardo randomly assigned students to play the roles of prisoners or prison guards. Cruelty ensued: The guards forced the prisoners to sleep on concrete and took away their clothes. "In only a few days, our guards became sadistic," Zimbardo writes: the "power of a host of situational variables can dominate an individual's will to resist."

These were two of the most powerful demonstrations in social science, by two brilliant thinkers, and they've been taught to a generation of students. But what if we've drawn the wrong conclusions from them?

Although many people do underestimate the power of situations in driving behavior, more recent evidence shows that individual differences matter far more than we thought.
Who Signs Up For a Prison Study?
In the prison demonstration, Zimbardo claimed that ordinary people underwent a transformation. In his book, he calls it The Lucifer Effect, proposing to explain "how good people turn evil."Yet the students who participated were recruited for "a psychological study of prison life." What kind of person volunteers for such a study?

When psychologists Thomas Carnahan and Sam McFarland compared people who signed up for a psychological study of prison life versus a general psychological study, the differences were stark. The people who volunteered for a prison study scored:

27% higher on aggression (tendency to attack or harm others)

10% higher on authoritarianism (expecting obedience from subordinates)

10% higher on Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate others for personal gain)

12% higher on narcissism (seeing oneself as superior)

26% higher on social dominance (believing in the importance of hierarchy)

7% lower on empathy: (concern for others in need)

6% lower on altruism: (motivation to help others at a personal cost)

Psychologists have long described narcissism and Machiavellianism as two thirds of the dark triad of personality. The third is psychopathy (antisocial behavior and a lack of empathy and remorse), and now there's a fourth dark trait that parallels the behavior of the prison guards: sadism (the tendency to feel pleasure from inflicting pain).

When people with these types of dark traits signed up for a prison study and became prison guards, they were surrounded by others who shared their tendencies, and they expressed them. People "do not automatically assume roles given to them," conclude the psychologists Alexander Haslam and Stephen Reicher, after running their own prison experiment with cooperation from the BBC. Rather, "particular individuals with particular beliefs make tyranny possible."
Who's Willing to Deliver a Deadly Shock?
In Milgram's original research, only 65% of participants delivered the maximum voltage of electric shocks. The psychologist Thomas Blass, author of The Man Who Shocked the World, was curious about the differences between people who obeyed and those who objected. When Blass analyzed the 21 different variations of Milgram's experiment, he found that certain personality traits and beliefs predicted who continued delivering the shocks.

People were more likely to deliver painful shocks if they were authoritarian. The shockers were also significantly more trusting of others (they assumed the scientist would do the right thing) and used to following the lead of others (they believed life events were driven by external forces like luck, chance, or fate, rather than internal forces like effort and willpower).
Bad Barrels or Bad Apples?
Could it be that good people don't turn evil? Even at war, most people aren't willing to kill. As biologist Frans de Waal writes:

"It is a curious fact that the majority of soldiers, although well armed, never kill. During World War II, only one out of every five U.S. soldiers actually fired at the enemy. The other four were plenty courageous, braving grave danger, landing on the beaches, rescuing comrades under fire, fetching ammunition for others, and so on, yet they failed to fire their weapons... Similarly, it has been calculated that during the Vietnam War, U.S. soldiers fired more than fifty thousand bullets for every enemy soldier killed. Most bullets must have been fired into the air."

This isn't poor accuracy; there's clear evidence for intentionality on the part of soldiers. As Dave Grossman writes in , "The weak link between the killing potential and the killing capability of these units was the soldier. The simple fact is that when faced with a living, breathing opponent instead of a target, a significant majority of the soldiers revert to a posturing mode in which they fire over their enemy's heads."

Most people aren't willing to inflict irrevocable harm on others. Consistent with this idea, historian David Cesarani has challenged Arendt's original conclusions that Eichmann was just a bureaucrat. Arendt only witnessed part of the trial, where Eichmann managed to put on a "deliberately banal façade," Cesarani writes in Becoming Eichmann. "Eichmann's Nazi convictions and his unquestioning obedience to orders were part of the same ideological package... Either Eichmann wanted to kill Jews or he didn't care if they perished... To the fully indoctrinated Eichmann, the Jews had no intrinsic claim to life."

Bad people are more likely to opt into bad situations. When they band together, all too often, evil is the result.

***

Adam is the author of Give and Take, a New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestseller on how helping others drives our success. Follow him on LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/influencer/profadamgrant and on Twitter @AdamMGrant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Half a century ago, Holocaust perpetrator Adolph Eichmann was on trial. The prosecutor called him "a new kind of killer , the kind that exercises his bloody craft behind a desk." Reporting on the trial, Hannah Arendt drew a different conclusion.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The nature versus nurture debate is one of the oldest philosophical issues within psychology. So what exactly is it all about?

Nature refers to all of the genes and hereditary factors that influence who we are-from our physical appearance to our personality characteristics.

Nurture refers to all the environmental variables that impact who we are, including our early childhood experiences, how we were raised, our social relationships, and our surrounding culture.

Even today, different branches of psychology often take a one versus the other approach. For example, biological psychology tends to stress the importance of genetics and biological influences. Behaviorism, on the other hand, focuses on the impact that the environment has on behavior.

In the past, debates over the relative contributions of nature versus nurture often took a very one-sided approach, with one side arguing that nature played the most important role and the other side suggesting that it was nurture that was the most significant. Today, most experts recognize that both factors play a critical role. Not only that, they also realize that nature and nurture interact in important ways all throughout life.

A Closer Look at the Nature vs. Nurture Debate

Do genetic or environmental factors have a greater influence on your behavior? Do inherited traits or life experiences play a greater role in shaping your personality?

The nature versus nurture debate is one of the oldest issues in psychology. The debate centers on the relative contributions of genetic inheritance and environmental factors to human development.

Some philosophers such as Plato and Descartes suggested that certain things are inborn, or that they occur naturally regardless of environmental influences.

Nativists take the position that all or most behaviors and characteristics are the results of inheritance.

Advocates of this point of view believe that all of our characteristics and behaviors are the result of evolution. Genetic traits handed down from parents influence the individual differences that make each person unique.

Other well-known thinkers such as John Locke believed in what is known as tabula rasa, which suggests that the mind begins as a blank slate. According to this notion, everything that we are and all of our knowledge is determined by our experience.

Empiricists take the position that all or most behaviors and characteristics result from learning. Behaviorism is a good example of a theory rooted in empiricism. The behaviorists believe that all actions and behaviors are the results of conditioning. Theorists such as John B. Watson believed that people could be trained to do and become anything, regardless of their genetic background.

Examples of Nature vs. Nurture

For example, when a person achieves tremendous academic success, did they do so because they are genetically predisposed to be successful or is it a result of an enriched environment? If a man abuses his wife and kids, is it because he was born with violent tendencies or is it something he learned by observing his own parent's behavior?

A few examples of biologically determined characteristics (nature) include certain genetic diseases, eye color, hair color, and skin color. Other things like life expectancy and height have a strong biological component, but they are also influenced by environmental factors and lifestyle.

An example of a nativist theory within psychology is Chomsky's concept of a language acquisition device (or LAD). According to this theory, all children are born with an instinctive mental capacity that allows them to both learn and produce language.

Some characteristics are tied to environmental influences. How a person behaves can be linked to influences such as parenting styles and learned experiences.

For example, a child might learn through observation and reinforcement to say 'please' and 'thank you.' Another child might learn to behave aggressively by observing older children engage in violent behavior on the playground.

One example of an empiricist theory within psychology is Albert Bandura's social learning theory. According to the theory, people learn by observing the behavior of others. In his famous Bobo doll experiment, Bandura demonstrated that children could learn aggressive behaviors simply by observing another person acting aggressively.

Even today, research in psychology often tends to emphasize one influence over the other. In biopsychology, for example, researchers conduct studies exploring how neurotransmitters influence behavior, which emphasizes the nature side of the debate. In social psychology, researchers might conduct studies looking at how things such as peer pressure and social media influence behaviors, stressing the importance of nurture.

How Nature and Nurture Interact

What researchers do know is that the interaction between heredity and environment is often the most important factor of all. Kevin Davies of PBS's Nova described one fascinating example of this phenomenon.

Perfect pitch is the ability to detect the pitch of a musical tone without any reference. Researchers have found that this ability tends to run in families and believe that it might be tied to a single gene. However, they've also discovered that possessing the gene alone is not enough to develop this ability. Instead, musical training during early childhood is necessary to allow this inherited ability to manifest itself.

Height is another example of a trait that is influenced by nature and nurture interaction. A child might come from a family where everyone is tall, and he may have inherited these genes for height. However, if he grows up in a deprived environment where he does not receive proper nourishment, he might never attain the height he might have had he grown up in a healthier environment.

Contemporary Views of Nature vs. Nurture

Throughout the history of psychology, however, this debate has continued to stir up controversy. Eugenics, for example, was a movement heavily influenced by the nativist approach. Psychologist Francis Galton, a cousin of the naturalist Charles Darwin, coined both the terms nature versus nurture and eugenics and believed that intelligence was the result of genetics. Galton believed that intelligent individuals should be encouraged to marry and have many children, while less intelligent individuals should be discouraged from reproducing.

Today, the majority of experts believe that both nature and nurture influence behavior and development. However, the issue still rages on in many areas such as in the debate on the origins of homosexuality and influences on intelligence. While few people take the extreme nativist or radical empiricist approach, researchers and experts still debate the degree to which biology and environment influence behavior.

Increasingly, people are beginning to realize that asking how much heredity or environment influence a particular trait is not the right approach. The reality is that there is not a simple way to disentangle the multitude of forces that exist. These influences include genetic factors that interact with one another, environmental factors that interact such as social experiences and overall culture, as well as how both hereditary and environmental influences intermingle. Instead, many researchers today are interested in seeing how genes modulate environmental influences and vice versa.
Bandura, A. Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. Transmission of aggression through the imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1961;63, 575-582. Chomsky, N. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press; 1965. Galton, F. Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development. London: Macmillan; 1883. Watson, J. B. Behaviorism. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers; 1930.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Age Old Debate of Nature vs. Nurture

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The nature versus nurture debate is one of the oldest philosophical issues within psychology. So what exactly is it all about? Nature refers to all of the genes and hereditary factors that influence who we are-from our physical appearance to our personality characteristics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Half a century ago, Holocaust perpetrator Adolph Eichmann was on trial. The prosecutor called him "a new kind of killer, the kind that exercises his bloody craft behind a desk." Reporting on the trial, Hannah Arendt drew a different conclusion. She argued that Eichmann was a plain bureaucrat, seeing himself as "a law-abiding citizen" who "did his duty" and "obeyed orders." She called it "the banality of evil."

The core claim was that if you put good people in a bad situation, bad things will happen. Soon, evidence emerged to support this chilling idea. At Yale, psychologist Stanley Milgram showed that ordinary men would inflict severe pain on others simply because they were asked to do so by an authority figure in an experiment. When a man failed to learn a set of words, a scientist in a white coat told them to deliver increasingly harmful electric shocks. Many went all the way to 450 volts-even after the "victim" (an actor) complained of heart trouble. "It may be that we are puppets-puppets controlled by the strings of society," Milgram lamented.

At Stanford, psychologist Philip Zimbardo randomly assigned students to play the roles of prisoners or prison guards. Cruelty ensued: The guards forced the prisoners to sleep on concrete and took away their clothes. "In only a few days, our guards became sadistic," Zimbardo writes: the "power of a host of situational variables can dominate an individual's will to resist."

These were two of the most powerful demonstrations in social science, by two brilliant thinkers, and they've been taught to a generation of students. But what if we've drawn the wrong conclusions from them?

Although many people do underestimate the power of situations in driving behavior, more recent evidence shows that individual differences matter far more than we thought.
Who Signs Up For a Prison Study?
In the prison demonstration, Zimbardo claimed that ordinary people underwent a transformation. In his book, he calls it The Lucifer Effect, proposing to explain "how good people turn evil."Yet the students who participated were recruited for "a psychological study of prison life." What kind of person volunteers for such a study?

When psychologists Thomas Carnahan and Sam McFarland compared people who signed up for a psychological study of prison life versus a general psychological study, the differences were stark. The people who volunteered for a prison study scored:

27% higher on aggression (tendency to attack or harm others)

10% higher on authoritarianism (expecting obedience from subordinates)

10% higher on Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate others for personal gain)

12% higher on narcissism (seeing oneself as superior)

26% higher on social dominance (believing in the importance of hierarchy)

7% lower on empathy: (concern for others in need)

6% lower on altruism: (motivation to help others at a personal cost)

Psychologists have long described narcissism and Machiavellianism as two thirds of the dark triad of personality. The third is psychopathy (antisocial behavior and a lack of empathy and remorse), and now there's a fourth dark trait that parallels the behavior of the prison guards: sadism (the tendency to feel pleasure from inflicting pain).

When people with these types of dark traits signed up for a prison study and became prison guards, they were surrounded by others who shared their tendencies, and they expressed them. People "do not automatically assume roles given to them," conclude the psychologists Alexander Haslam and Stephen Reicher, after running their own prison experiment with cooperation from the BBC. Rather, "particular individuals with particular beliefs make tyranny possible."
Who's Willing to Deliver a Deadly Shock?
In Milgram's original research, only 65% of participants delivered the maximum voltage of electric shocks. The psychologist Thomas Blass, author of The Man Who Shocked the World, was curious about the differences between people who obeyed and those who objected. When Blass analyzed the 21 different variations of Milgram's experiment, he found that certain personality traits and beliefs predicted who continued delivering the shocks.

People were more likely to deliver painful shocks if they were authoritarian. The shockers were also significantly more trusting of others (they assumed the scientist would do the right thing) and used to following the lead of others (they believed life events were driven by external forces like luck, chance, or fate, rather than internal forces like effort and willpower).
Bad Barrels or Bad Apples?
Could it be that good people don't turn evil? Even at war, most people aren't willing to kill. As biologist Frans de Waal writes:

"It is a curious fact that the majority of soldiers, although well armed, never kill. During World War II, only one out of every five U.S. soldiers actually fired at the enemy. The other four were plenty courageous, braving grave danger, landing on the beaches, rescuing comrades under fire, fetching ammunition for others, and so on, yet they failed to fire their weapons... Similarly, it has been calculated that during the Vietnam War, U.S. soldiers fired more than fifty thousand bullets for every enemy soldier killed. Most bullets must have been fired into the air."

This isn't poor accuracy; there's clear evidence for intentionality on the part of soldiers. As Dave Grossman writes in , "The weak link between the killing potential and the killing capability of these units was the soldier. The simple fact is that when faced with a living, breathing opponent instead of a target, a significant majority of the soldiers revert to a posturing mode in which they fire over their enemy's heads."

Most people aren't willing to inflict irrevocable harm on others. Consistent with this idea, historian David Cesarani has challenged Arendt's original conclusions that Eichmann was just a bureaucrat. Arendt only witnessed part of the trial, where Eichmann managed to put on a "deliberately banal façade," Cesarani writes in Becoming Eichmann. "Eichmann's Nazi convictions and his unquestioning obedience to orders were part of the same ideological package... Either Eichmann wanted to kill Jews or he didn't care if they perished... To the fully indoctrinated Eichmann, the Jews had no intrinsic claim to life."

Bad people are more likely to opt into bad situations. When they band together, all too often, evil is the result.

***

Adam is the author of Give and Take, a New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestseller on how helping others drives our success. Follow him on LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/influencer/profadamgrant and on Twitter @AdamMGrant

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Half a century ago, Holocaust perpetrator Adolph Eichmann was on trial. The prosecutor called him "a new kind of killer , the kind that exercises his bloody craft behind a desk." Reporting on the trial, Hannah Arendt drew a different conclusion.

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.verywell.com/what-is-nature-versus-nurture-2795392
Nature vs Nurture
-
Do genetics come in play
?Plato suggested sertain things are inborn meaning that they had somthing wrong with them.--Jhon Locke beleives that you
e brain s orn ar a blank slate knowing nothing.-If one graduates collage at a high level were they born with that gift?- According to the theory, people learn by observing the behavior of others. In his famous Bobo doll experiment, Bandura demonstrated that children could learn aggressive behaviors simply by observing another person acting aggressively.
-Height is another example of a trait that is influenced by nature and nurture interaction. A child might come from a family where everyone is tall, and he may have inherited these genes for height. However, if he grows up in a deprived environment where he does not receive proper nourishment, he might never attain the height he might have had he grown up in a healthier environment.

-

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130114-are-we-naturally-good-or-bad

Are People Born Evil?

-Philosophers for thousands of years aren't so sure that whether people have a basic good nature that has been corrupted by society, or had bad nature that has been in kept in check by society.

-It's tricky to work with babies in one problem: language. Babies may be cuter to work with, but they are not known for their obedience.

- An amazing experiment which carried out at Yale University, US used some measures to look at babies' minds. Their results suggest that even the youngest humans have a sense of good and bad. Onto to that, an instinct to prefer good over evil.

https://www.quora.com/Are-some-people-are-just-born-evil-mean-Is-there-always-a-reason-behind-someones-behavior
Debates:

Said by Yohan John, Neuroscience PhD | Pop culture mystic-

"But I think nature/nurture debate is a false dichotomy, because nature and nurture influence each other. Your physical features and personality are no doubt influenced by your genes. But your genes are not your fate! The development of the body (including the brain) is strongly influenced by the environment in which you are raised, and by the incidents and accidents that occur over the course of your life. Even diet can have profound effects on how you develop -- and also on how your children and grandchildren develop. Your life experiences affect how your genetic inheritance gets used. "

Meaning that the places people have seen daily throughout their life meaning accidents of the treasuring moments might have had on the child's well-being on living in their life.

# data[].attributes.body
Are Humans Born Good or Bad?

Is it the good thing to do? Are you going to be praised for it?  Don’t want to live with the idea?

Natural Compassion to save those in need

“The more you water a plant the more the blossom”

The more you show them what is right the more they do what is right

Maybe we are selfish and need social contract to save us (Thomas Hobbes)

Maybe some are born with a natural sin (Augustine)

To cooperate  or act selfishly?

Humans naturally help, but later they turn bad

The Real Meaning of 'Good' and 'Evil'

Bad to think some are innately good and some are innately evil/bad

Underpins justice system

‘Bad’ people commit crimes and should be locked away

This concept has caused many wars and conflicts

Human nature is more complex

Good means willing to help

Bad means those who are unable to empathise with others

Main lack between good and evil is empathy

Goodness in human spread empathy\Bad only happens when broken off into disconnected fragments

# data[].attributes.body
"What Makes Good People do Bad Things?"

How People Become Evil:
- Being under authority
- Doing minor evils
- Bigger, bigger
- When it's hard to exit bad situation
- When doing bad is coined as 'helping'
- Being Anonymous
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct04/goodbad.aspx

-lack oxytocin
-circuit isn't nurtured correctly
- due to emotional damage
-High stress
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-moral-molecule/201109/why-some-people-are-evil

Nature Vs. Nurture
Nurture
-Lack of empathy
- popular w/ kids growing up with negitive influences
- Bad environment
-neglect
-abuse
-Crime
Nature
- MAOA Gene increases antisocail behavior
-human behavior made up of no more then 50% genes
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11195840/Are-some-humans-born-evil.html

# data[].attributes.body
Apa.org

Evil isn't a trait that people get when they are born. Evil can be created by the different living conditions people live in and how they are treated throughout their life. While people are at their younger stages of life, they look up to their elders as inspiration. If a young child was born and lived in awful conditions and was in a household with a lot of negative energy, this can affect what type of person they grow up to be.

Nature vs. Nurture is a debate about whether people get most of their traits or personalities at birth, or they obtain them as time goes on.

# data[].attributes.body
"Are some humans born evil?"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/the-filter/11195840/Are-some-humans-born-evil.html
-Most "evil" people show signs in early ages
-Many believe that nobody's born a killer
-Lack of empathy is a sign that someone may be evil

"Nature vs. Nurture debate"
http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/nature-versus-nurture
-Many mental disorders can be passed through genetics such as alcoholizm, bipolar disorder,  depression and many others
-Being bullied or abused can turn someone evil
-Stable environments can raise people to be different people than in unstable neighborhoods.

# data[].attributes.body
What's the difference?
https://www.reference.com/world-view/difference-between-nature-nurture-6ee8880c5f7b90f0

Nature refers to traits and characteristics that are inherited or genetic in origin.

nurture refers to traits and qualities that are learned by people as they grow.

Nurture also says that all behaviors learned by humans and animals are a result of their surrounding environments.

Nature is normally one's instinct

Nurture normally is the influence of one's childhood or how they were raised.

# data[].attributes.body
"Nature vs Nurture in Psychology"

http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html

NATURE:
-Influenced by genetic inheritance
-Traits that people were given
-Mental health
EX: mother and child bonds and interaction to survive

NURTURE:
-Influence of external factors and characteristics
-Behavior and psychological characteristics
-Habits of friends of family
-Qualities learned and adapted to
EX: Learning how to do a new activity since you're exposed to it by someone

Both nature and nurture are determined by behavior, and a particular behavior is genetic and another is environmental.

"14 Psychological Forces That Make Good People Do Bad Things"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-travis-bradberry/14-psychological-forces-t_b_9752132.html

“Integrity is doing the right thing, even when no one is watching.”
-C. S. Lewis

INFLUENCE ON EVIL:
-Compensation effect, the equal amount of good and and bad activity
EX: Eating dessert after a salad
-Cognitive dissonance, meaning, ignoring, but recognizing bad decisions
-Conforming, trying NOT to stand out
-Feeling powerful, the sense of being better than others
-Wanting freedom, may often break rules

It's difficult for humans to be selfless, instead, they're selfish. This could cause and influence bad actions.

# data[].attributes.body
"The Lucifer Effect: Why Good People Turn Evil"

http://www.viennareview.net/news/ideas-and-trends/lecture-monitor/the-lucifer-effect-why-good-people-turn-evil

# data[].attributes.body
Are People Born Evil?

https://www.quora.com/Are-some-people-are-just-born-evil-mean-Is-there-always-a-reason-behind-someones-behavior

- Genetics don't decide if you are evil
-One is not born evil, they just become that way because of beliefs
-Beliefs can be developed by who they are around
-It could be friends or family
-Evilness  can also be from what they see or are around
-For example a song, video movie or a TV show

# data[].attributes.body
"Do Good People Turn Evil?"

-if people get put in bad situations they are more likely to do bad things
-people can do bad things to others even if someone just tells them to do it
-someone telling them what to do can make it hard for them to not do it even if it is a bad thing
-psychologist found people with certain traits are more likely to listen to the person and keep doing something even if they know it is wrong

"Nature vs. Nurture"

-nature is hormone behaviors and nurture is environment
-is debate about effect of genes or environment on our personalities
-debate has been going on for many years
-nature is factor is many mental health conditions
-people can also get these conditions from the environment which is nurture
-genetics play role in someone's personality

# data[].attributes.body
Nature & Nurture debate:
https://explorable.com/nature-vs-nurture-debate
nature:
- coding in genes of each cell determines traits owned
- more on the physical aspect side
-  behavioral genes determine how one acts
- behavioral enes proven to exist when looking at fraternal twins DNA
nurture:
- genetic influence on conditioning and the action of teaching behaviors
-  about teaching behaviors to children

What makes good people do bad things?
http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct04/goodbad.aspx
- it's the situation that brings evil out
- ppl can choose how evil/good they are/want to be
-  blackmail
- by gradually increasing bad acts
- having authorities
- changing a person once remembered as inspiration to a dictator
- vague and changing rules
- giving people evil role models to look up to
- making the situation hard to get out of
- manipulating the way people look at killing someone, changing their beliefs

# data[].attributes.body
https://explorable.com/nature-vs-nurture-debate
-Many people a difference between nature and nurture
-Genes play a greater role in determining key personality traits like social skills
NATURE
-traits that we have, more dominantly on the physical attributes like for example, hair color and eye color
-researchers say that their could possibly be a "gay gene"
NURTURE
-The nurture theory holds that genetic influence over abstract traits may exist; however,
-the environmental factors are the real origins of our behavior.
-This includes the use of conditioning in order to induce a new behavior to a child, or alter an unlikely behavior being shown by the child.
www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201311/do-good-people-turn-evil
-The core claim was that if you put good people in a bad situation, bad things will happen.
-would inflict severe pain on others
- According to a research at Stanford “In only a few days, our guards became sadistic,”
In the study the people got percent higher in aggression, authoritarianism,Machiavellianism,narcissism,social dominance, empathy ,altruism
-In Milgram’s original research, only 65% of participants delivered the maximum voltage of electric shocks

# data[].attributes.body
https://explorable.com/nature-vs-nurture-debate

Nature vs. Nurture is the argument if you are born a certain way, being nature, or you were raised in a certain way, which is Nurture. Many argue that the environment that one grows up in is a major factor. For most, it is hard to tell if your behavior is from your DNA or from where and how you grow up. Some believe that all of your physical characteristics have something to do with it. Being that if you are bigger or more "scary" person, than you may use that to an advantage. Whereas with nurture, you may not have the physical characteristics of a "scary" person, but you can still be considered "evil."

# data[].attributes.body
Nature-

~Determines traits like eyes and haircolor
~Health conditions like bipolar or mental conditions
~Health conditions that are passed down from generations of family
~ Alcohol conditions that have occurred in families

Nurture-

~Genetic influences
~Born with most traits that are given to us
~One factor are from enviromental things
~Impact in life from what we are taught
~What you are taught is influenced on your behavior
~Impact on things in life and many physical features

# data[].attributes.body
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201311/do-good-people-turn-evil

Evil isn't something one is born with. Evil is taught to children through poor role-models. Things like eye color and hair color are usually traits one is born with, but one who is evil was taught that through their surroundings.

Some people are taught evil through their role models. If their role models are providing misleading examples, and teaching these people when their young to be evil, they will grow up to be evil.

People in prison are more likely to perform an attack on someone, view themselves as superior to others, less empathetic, and more likely to expect obedience from subordinates.
https://explorable.com/nature-vs-nurture-debate
Nature vs. Nurture

Nature:
"Nature" is way one is raised. If a child s raised by choice of the child. They experience the world by their own choices.

Nurture:
"Nurture" is another way of being raised. It means that a parent or guardian is raising them with their own beliefs. Some believe this is what makes people evil, because if the parent is evil, the child will learn to be evil.

# data[].attributes.body
https://goo.gl/nOqLuA

NURTURE refers to traits that are learned by organisms as they grow. It also means to raise your child the way you believe and to decide the environmental influences and conditions that your child grow in

NATURE refers to traits and characteristics that are inherited or are genetic. It is your own experiences.

http://listcrux.co/top-10-hidden-evil-characteristics-humans/

"Top 10 Hidden Evil Characteristics in Humans"

- Vengeance
- Superiority complex
- Over Criticism
- Foolishness
- Materialism
- Clingyness
- Manipulative
The worst thing about this characteristic is that it slowly feeds on you like a parasite and you wouldn’t even realize till it causes you some major harm. People secretly manipulate each other in relationships, work places and of course, family affairs.
- Mercilessness
Showing sympathy to people’s grievances is something we expect out of every person so people could use this to drag you in.
- Competitiveness
It works as a force of motivation and constantly pushes you towards your dream goals (your goals could be hurting someone else)
- Jealousy
Anyone can get jealous therefore the risk of hurting someone to get what you want inceases

# data[].attributes.body
The Milgram Experiment: Obedience to Authority

There is an "experimenter" and a "learner". The learner is a paid actor. The experimenter is someone random. The experimenter asks a question, and every time the learner gets it wrong, the experimenter delivers a shock to the learner. The shock increases until it is a voltage that could kill you. Milgram conducted this experiment with and without an authority figure in the room. The results were shocking. 65% of people continued to 450 volts (The amount that kills you) and everyone exceeded 300 volts (painful).

Do Good People Turn Evil?

At Yale, Milgram showed people that ordinary people will deliver fatal volts only because there was a figure of authority in the room. At Stanford, Zimbardo assigned students to be guards or prisoners and watched the guards start to torture the prisoners after a few days.

# data[].attributes.body
"Nature Vs. Nurture Debate"
http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/nature-versus-nurture
- Scientific/cultural Philosophy
-  debate on how personalities are caused
- people argue whether people are born with there personality or they get it from their surrounding influences
- natured defined as genetic or hormone based behaviors
- nurture defined as enviroment of experience
-  ongoing debate
- popular understandings of the debate have changed with the culture

- in recent years the nature side of
the event has gained more debate
- people still emphasize
good early childhood development
-nature/genetics have proven to be a factor in mental health
- people who have had family members with schizophrenia, bipolar, major depression, and addictions are proven to have a higher likley hood of getting it themselfs- although, it is proven if raised in
appy hnvirment with lots of support a perosn is less likleyy o follow the path of something such as addictione

Do Good People Turn Evil?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/give-and-take/201311/do-good-people-turn-evil
-  core claims that if you put a good person in a bad situation bad will happen
- a Yale study shows a person will put a another person in pain just because a person in authority tells them to
- a stanford study shows a guard and persons and just days later the guard was sadistic
- however more recent evidence might show this information is false
- in the prison experiment most of the poeple found to take it were aggressive towards others, less likely to helps others due to own benefit, and thought of has superior or authority
-they found similar
characteristics and personality trait in people who continued shocking in the shock test
-most people aren't willing to commit harm on others- even people/soldiers who go to war most do not kills

# data[].attributes.body
- If people were born good, why do parents and people have to teach goodness?
- Others that don't believe people were born good, understand that parents and society must teach the children to be raised into good adults
- Born with potential to be good, but not basically good
- Example: Babies are lovable and innocent but not good; entirely self-centered and narcissistic
- People are born caring about themselves first and not others
- Evils have affected much of human race being the norm
- Why are there laws to control human behavior if people were born naturally good?
- People commit evil often because it's easy, tempting and accords with human nature

http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/nature-versus-nurture

- Nature affects mental health
- Development of mental illness not entirely genetic
- Addictions put more emphasis on nature more than nurture
- Nurture affects mental health as well
- Probability that a person develops  that illness depends in part on the environment (nurture)
-  Studies on twins separated shortly after birth reveal that genetics play significant role in development of certain personality characteristics, sexual orientation, and religiosity

# data[].attributes.body
Nature vs. Nurture
https://explorable.com/nature-vs-nurture-debate
- Childhood environment plays a big part in how kids act
- Culture plays a role in how people act
- studies on twins separated at birth said they felt closer to their twin they just met than their best friend
- Both of the nature of a human and how they act along with how they were raised
https://www.verywell.com/what-is-nature-versus-nurture-2795392
- nature refers to all of the genes and hereditary factors that influence who we are  from our physical appearance to our personality characteristics.
- nurture refers to all the environmental variables that impact who we are, including our early childhood experiences, how we were raised, our social relationships, and our surrounding culture.

# data[].attributes.body
Nature v Nurture is a debate centered around the question that is if human personality and behavior is mostly caused by genes or the environment they are born into. Good people can turn bad  due to nature because their are many mental health conditions that can affect your personality and how you behave. Bad behavior can also be caused by the environment that you are in such as an unsafe home or an abusive parent. For example, if your parents are alcoholics and you do not realize that binge drinking is bad for you that person may also become an alcoholic which definitely changes their behavior.