# data[].attributes.body
The nature vs nature debate us I be is a debate that has remained unanswered ever since it was started. To simplify it, it mainly comes down to whether a person's traits are inherited, or learned. Evidence of either being true exist, so it's easy to see why the debate hasn't come to conclusion.
Gene's determine one's physical Qualities, but there is no confirmation that Gene's affects their mental traits. There is still evidence to suggest that these  behavioral genes are something that are inherited, such as there being a noticeable pattern in how twins demonstrate similar behaviors to each other.
The "nuture" side of the debate suggests that traits are gained through experiences, not from inheritances from genes. This would mean traits could be controlled by putting someone in an artificial set of conditions.  Although this has never been done, some physiologists who support that side of the debate claim they can train children in infancy to inherit any trait.
With both sides of the argument holding seemingly equal legitimacy, only time will tell when the debate will end.

# data[].attributes.body
Nature vs Nurture

“Nature vs Nurture: Are We Really Born That Way?”

https://www.thoughtco.com/nature-vs-nurture-1420577

What makes people who they are is determined by DNA and Life experiences

Nature vs Nurture debates dates back to 13th century

People behave as they do because of genetic predispositions or animal instincts, Nature

People are taught to think and behave certain ways, Nurture

Nature endows us with inborn abilities, Nurture molds these abilities and traits

Nature

abstract traits such as intelligence, personality, aggression, and sexual orientation are encoded in an individual's DNA.

Most debated gene is if attractions to same gender can be found in genes

Twins with similar genes act more similar than basic siblings with more difference in their genes

Nurture

Our behavioral aspects originate only from the environmental factors of our upbringing

Studies on children and infants show most support for the Nurture argument

Little Albert Experiment proved that a person can take any infant and train them to act the way he wants them to

Studies on twins show that Humour in an acquired trait, and is developed through family and environment

What Makes Good People Bad?

“13 Powerful Psychological Forces That Make You Do Bad Things”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/travisbradberry/2016/12/14/13-powerful-psychological-forces-that-make-you-do-bad-things/2/#646772433916

Compensation Effect

Good deeds balance out bad deeds

If you do a lot of good, you can take a break and do a bad deed and keep the scale balanced

Cognitive Dissonance

When a person’s beliefs and behavior are contradictory, one’s beliefs will override their behavior and make them feel good, when doing bad

Tunnel Vision

One will focus on a goal so hard that they will do anything to achieve it, disregarding ethics and compassion

The Pygmalion Effect

People will treat other the way people treat them

If someone is treated horrible, he will, in result, treat others horribly

Pressure of Conformity

It’s hard not to do what everyone else is doing

If evil acts is the norm, then people are very likely to do those actions

Obedience to Authority

It’s hard to ignore the commands or higher authority

People feel less responsible for actions when they are under direction of others

Competition

People will do awful things to become first place and beat their competitors

Acceptance of Small-Theft

Smaller scale crimes are seen as acceptable because of the low significance of the item taken

# data[].attributes.body
Eliza Bankier
The differences and similarities of nature vs. nurture are regularly discussed in the field of psychology. They are both vital pieces of the puzzle when it comes to someone's moral compass, and more importantly, how much they follow it. Nature is describes as genetics; traits that were handed down to you from you parents. For example, if both parents have a strong sense of integrity, chances are their child will have that too. Even though this is the foundation of mental health, psychology is something that can be drastically shifted overtime; that is where nurture plays a role. A baby may be born with specific traits but education, family life, privileges and social life can be more dominant as someone grows up. "... children brought up in the ghetto tend to score lower on tests because they are denied the same life chances as more privileged members of society." Financial troubles or lack of opportunity for a child can create boundaries later on, whereas children who have a better education when tey are young have an easier time as an adult. This tpic is very complicated and demonstrates that psychology is not set and stone at any stage in life.
http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html

# data[].attributes.headline
3 Reasons Why Good People Do Surprisingly Bad Things

# data[].attributes.subject
3 Reasons Why Good People Do Surprisingly Bad Things

# data[].attributes.body
Andrea Balestra
Desperation, Boredom and Ignorance are listed to be reasons as to why one would do bad things. Wanting to have an exciting experience and being brave often cause one do do something crazy. Having boredom can cause the brain to want to have an adventure. In order to fill this void, one will tend to lead to harmful activities. Lacking consciousness about situations can force ignorance upon someone and cause them to make decisions with consequences.
http://danwaldschmidt.com/2012/12/attitude/why-good-people-do-bad-things

# data[].attributes.body
Andrea Balestra
Dr. Muel Kaptain has done research on bad behavior for many decades. while conducting this research, Kaptian has found that there are 14 psychological situations that can cause a good person to do bad things. The first is the compensation effect. This is when someone just wants to take a break from all the good they have done. these people start to Demonstrate these behaviors, as they keep on telling themselves, "Just one thing,.t. The second, the power of games, can alter of how one pictures whatever one names. Thirdly, is cognitive dissonance. When two opinions are presented, the discomfort one feels causes them to forget the guilt of their wrong doing. The broken window theory is when there is chaos and one attempts to get back their authority, by showing dreadful behavior.  Tunnel Vison is when one becomes too focused on completing a task the forget to consider other consequences. The Pygmalion effect is now people are treated, is how those people will act in response. One of the dominant situations being pressured to follow rules. If a group is demonstrating bad behavior, the members are most likely to exhibit this sort of behavior. There are many more situations as to why one would participate in a bad activity. One of the strongest situations is reactance theory. Many love to be free, if they feel as though they are not as free as they would like to be, they start to break the rules in order to feel being free.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-travis-bradberry/14-psychological-forces-t_b_9752132.html

# data[].attributes.body
Anabel Casieri
Some things that people occasionally do when they are trying to make things bad are-
-Provide people with an ideology to explain beliefs for actions
-Make people take a small first step toward a harmful act with a minor, unimportant action and then gradually increase those small actions
-Make those in charge seem like a "just authority."
-Transform a once compassionate leader into a oppressive figure
-Provide people with unclear and ever-changing rules
-Relabel the situations actors and their actions to validate the ideas
-Provide people with social models of agreement
-Allow dissent, but only if people continue to obey with orders
-Make exiting the situation difficult

While doing this, one will make a situation worse that it possibly is, and it would work the same way with a person.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
As the story goes, Dr. Jekyll uses a chemical to turn into his evil alter ego Dr. Hyde. In real life, however, no chemical may be needed: Instead, just the right dose of certain social situations can transform ordinarily good people into evildoers, as was the case with Iraqi prisoner abusers at Abu Ghraib, argued former APA president Philip G. Zimbardo, PhD, in a presidential-track program during APA's 2004 Annual Convention in Honolulu.

Indeed, Zimbardo--an emeritus psychology professor at Stanford University--highlighted how this Dr. Hyde transformation occurred among U.S. soldiers at Abu Ghraib by presenting classic psychology research on situational effects on human behavior.

Zimbardo, who will be an expert witness for several of the U.S. soldiers on trial, argued that situations pull people to act in ways they never thought imaginable.

"That line between good and evil is permeable," Zimbardo said. "Any of us can move across it....I argue that we all have the capacity for love and evil--to be Mother Theresa, to be Hitler or Saddam Hussein. It's the situation that brings that out."
Seduced into evil
In fact, the classic electric shock experiment by social psychologist Stanley Milgram, PhD, showed that when given an order by someone in authority, people would deliver what they believed to be extreme levels of electrical shock to other study participants who answered questions incorrectly.

Zimbardo said the experiment provides several lessons about how situations can foster evil:

Provide people with an ideology to justify beliefs for actions.

Make people take a small first step toward a harmful act with a minor, trivial action and then gradually increase those small actions.

Make those in charge seem like a "just authority."

Transform a once compassionate leader into a dictatorial figure.

Provide people with vague and ever-changing rules.

Relabel the situation's actors and their actions to legitimize the ideology.

Provide people with social models of compliance.

Allow dissent, but only if people continue to comply with orders.

Make exiting the situation difficult.

Particularly notable, Zimbardo said, is that people are seduced into evil by dehumanizing and labeling others.

"They semantically change their perception of victims, of the evil act, and change the relationship of the aggressor to their aggression--so 'killing' or 'hurting' becomes the same as 'helping,'" he said.

For example, in a 1975 experiment by psychologist Albert Bandura, PhD, college students were told they'd work with students from another school on a group task. In one condition, they overheard an assistant calling the other students "animals" and in another condition, "nice." Bandura found students were more apt to deliver what they believed were increased levels of electrical shock to the other students if they had heard them called "animals."

People's aggression can also increase when they feel anonymous--for example if they wear a uniform, hood or mask, Zimbardo said.

"You minimize social responsibility," he explained. "Nobody knows who you are, so therefore you are not individually liable. There's also a group effect when all of you are masked. It provides a fear in other people because they can't see you, and you lose your humanity."

For example, an experiment in 1974 by Harvard anthropologist John Watson evaluated 23 cultures to determine whether warriors who changed their appearance--such as with war paint or masks--treated their victims differently. As it turned out, 80 percent of warriors in these cultures were found to be more destructive--for example, killing, torturing or mutilating their victims--than unpainted or unmasked warriors.

What's more, a person's anonymity can be induced by acting in an anonymity-conferring environment that adds to the pleasure of destruction, vandalism and the power of being in control, Zimbardo noted.

"It's not just seeing people hurt, it's doing things that you have a sense that you are controlling behavior of other people in ways that you typically don't," Zimbardo said.

Zimbardo noticed that in his own simulated jail experiment in 1971--the Stanford Prison Experiment--in which college students played the roles of prisoners or guards, and the guards became brutal and abusive toward prisoners after just six days, leading Zimbardo to prematurely end the experiment. The experiment showed that institutional forces and peer pressure led normal student volunteer guards to disregard the potential harm of their actions on the other student prisoners.

"You don't need a motive," Zimbardo said. "All you really need is a situation that facilitates moving across that line of good and evil."
Prison abuses
The same social psychological processes--deindividualization, anonymity of place, dehumanization, role-playing and social modeling, moral disengagement and group conformity--that acted in the Stanford Prison Experiment were at play at Abu Ghraib, Zimbardo argued.

So is it a few bad apples that spoil a barrel? "That's what we want to believe--that we could never be a bad apple," Zimbardo said. "We're the good ones in the barrel." But people can be influenced, regardless of their intention to resist, he said.

As such, the Abu Ghraib soldiers' mental state--such as stress, fear, boredom and heat exhaustion, coupled with no supervision, no training and no accountability--may have further contributed to their "evil" actions, he noted.

"I argue situational forces dominate most of us at various times in our lives," Zimbardo said, "even though we'd all like to believe we're each that singular hero who can resist those powerful external pressures, like Joe Darby, the whistle-blowing hero of the Abu Ghraib prison."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
As the story goes, Dr. Jekyll uses a chemical to turn into his evil alter ego Dr. Hyde. In real life, however, no chemical may be needed: Instead, just the right dose of certain social situations can transform ordinarily good people into evildoers, as was the case with Iraqi prisoner abusers at Abu Ghraib, argued former APA president Philip G.

# data[].attributes.headline
Amy Lyons-Nature vs Nurture Debate Notes:

# data[].attributes.subject
Amy Lyons-Nature vs Nurture Debate Notes:

# data[].attributes.body
-Nature: genetic/hormone based behaviors
-Nurture: behaviors shaped by  environment and experience
-Nature (genetics) is a key factor leading to depression
-Also mental disorders, though not fully
-Addictions can also be a nature commonality throughout genetics
-Such as alcohol addictions running through families
-Growing up in a loving and nurturing environment may explain paths of success
-Friends, parents, peers may associate with your addictions
-A strong predictor of mental illnesses often start with one being nurtured the wrong way
-Such as one growing up bullied, abused, or experiencing trauma
-With many tests ran with identical twins separated, it was found out that personality is commonly shaped from genetics
-The debate still continues, with a closure that both nurture and nature are a key factor to shaping one's choices and behaviors

# data[].attributes.body
Anabel Casieri
The coding of genes in each cell in us humans determine the different traits that we have, more dominantly on the physical attributes like eye color, hair color, ear size, height, and other traits is the scientific definition of Nature. However, it is still not known whether the more abstract qualities like personality, intelligence, sexual orientation, likes and dislikes are gene-coded in our DNA, too. 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 order to generate a new behavior to a child, or alter an unlikely behavior being shown by the child. Nature and Nurture are both very important to one's behavior and a way that genes work behavioral based

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Nature and Nurture Debate - Genes or Environment?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The nature vs nurture debate has been going on since the early ages, but the heat is still on between the belief that our genes dictate all our traits and the idea that rearing plays the most part.

# data[].attributes.headline
Abbie Bayne What makes good  people evil?https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201411/the-science-why-good-people-do-bad-things-Often starts with one leader and a group that follows this leader without questioning -Many followers blame the leaders that had these ideas however they still committed-These behaviors also come into play when people say that this person deserved what happened to them -many good people compare their acts to people that made even worse decisions       -this makes you sound like your act was not as bad as the other person in the scenario-Many good people follow others or do their acts through the hate building inside them  

# data[].attributes.subject
Abbie Bayne What makes good  people evil?https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201411/the-science-why-good-people-do-bad-things-Often starts with one leader and a group that follows this leader without questioning -Many followers blame the leaders that had these ideas however they still committed-These behaviors also come into play when people say that this person deserved what happened to them -many good people compare their acts to people that made even worse decisions       -this makes you sound like your act was not as bad as the other person in the scenario-Many good people follow others or do their acts through the hate building inside them  

# data[].attributes.headline
Abbie BayneNature vs Nurture http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/nature-versus-nurture-Nurture is known as “environment and experience” and Nature is known as genetics and genes -recently debates have been about the different effects of genes that change your personality-Genetics have been a main factor with different mental diseases like bipolar, depression and schizophrenia-Nurture is also a factor of illnesses like alcoholism due to the environment one is put in it effects their decisions -Nature and nurture are both key factors to one's illness because genetics could be a part as well as the environment they live in/surroundings

# data[].attributes.subject
Abbie BayneNature vs Nurture http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/nature-versus-nurture-Nurture is known as “environment and experience” and Nature is known as genetics and genes -recently debates have been about the different effects of genes that change your personality-Genetics have been a main factor with different mental diseases like bipolar, depression and schizophrenia-Nurture is also a factor of illnesses like alcoholism due to the environment one is put in it effects their decisions -Nature and nurture are both key factors to one's illness because genetics could be a part as well as the environment they live in/surroundings

# data[].attributes.body
Nature vs. nurture is a commonly debated topic on how humans act and if it is affected by their own experiences or genetics. Popular understandings and beliefs of this topic have changed over time. In the 60s, many people followed theories based on behaviorism. At this time, majority of people thought people were mostly shaped by nurture. Though, there are many mental conditions that can be developed by nature such as schizophrenia and depression. But there are also common experiences that can cause mental illness such as bullying and abuse. In conclusion, nature and nurture are both influential and therefore inseparable when it comes to human behavior.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The nature vs. nurture debate is the scientific, cultural, and philosophical debate about whether human culture, behavior, and personality are caused primarily by nature or nurture. Nature is often defined in this debate as genetic or hormone-based behaviors, while nurture is most commonly defined as environment and experience.

History of the Nature vs. Nurture Debate

The nature vs. nurture debate is an ongoing one. The modern debate often centers around the effect genes have on human personalities as opposed to the influences that early environment and development might have. As cultural mores have changed, so have popular understandings of this debate. In the 1960s, for example, psychologists-and pop culture in general-were heavily influenced by the theories of behaviorism. This theory led to the widespread belief that human personality is primarily influenced by experience and training. It was during this time that researcher John Money attempted to demonstrate that gender was a product of early conditioning by raising a boy, whose circumcision was botched, as a girl. His experiment seemed successful in the beginning but ultimately was a failure.

In recent years, the nature side of the debate has gained more attention, with headlines trumpeting newly discovered genes for virtually every behavior. Evolutionary psychology and sociobiology are two branches of science that attempt to demonstrate the evolutionary roots of human behavior. Books authored by scientists in these fields are extremely popular. However, critics still emphasize the important role of early childhood environment, development, and cultural influences, and many have argued that sociobiology and evolutionary psychology are deterministic pseudosciences.

How Nature Affects Mental Health

While nature, or genetics, has been proven to be an important factor in the development of some mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia, bipolar, and major depression, the development of mental illness is not entirely genetic. Nature, or genetics, has been proven to be an important factor in the development of some mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia, bipolar, and major depression: Bipolar, for example, is four to six times more likely to develop when there is a family history of the condition. However, although the importance of genetic factors cannot be denied, the development of mental illness is not entirely genetic. Take identical twins, for example: They share genes, yet if one twin develops schizophrenia, the other twin only has a 50% chance of also developing the condition. This shows that nature, while it plays an important part, is not the only contributing factor.

Another area where researchers may place more emphasis on nature than on nurture is that of addictions. Studies show that alcohol addiction, for example, can recur in families and that certain genes may have an influence over the way alcohol tastes and the way it affects the body.

How Nurture Affects Mental Health

Certain genetic factors may create a predisposition for a particular illness, but the probability that a person develops that illness depends in part on environment (nurture). When a genetic variant indicates the possibility of development of a mental illness, this information can be used to direct positive (nurturing) behavior in such a way that the condition may not develop or may develop with less severity.

James Fallon, a neuroscientist who discovered that he had the brain of a psychopath, has stated that he believes growing up in a nurturing and loving environment helped him to become a successful adult and may have been effective at preventing him from fully developing traits of psychopathy. Similarly, the basis for addiction is not thought to be entirely genetic by most researchers. Environmental aspects, such as the habits of parents, friends, or a partner, might also be significant factors contributing to the development of an addiction. A genetic predisposition to alcohol addiction may be far more significant if one is routinely exposed to binge drinking or other forms of alcohol abuse and comes to view this as normal alcohol use.

Researchers at the University of Liverpool recently found that while a family history of mental health conditions was the second strongest predictor of mental illness, the strongest predictor was in fact life events and experiences, such as childhood bullying, abuse, or other trauma, supporting the idea of nurture's significant role in the development of mental health issues.

Twin Studies

Several studies done on twins separated shortly after birth reveal that genetics do play a significant role in the development of certain personality characteristics, sexual orientation, and religiosity. The bond between identical twins was also suggested to be genetic by these studies, as 80% of identical twins reported that they felt closer to their twin than they did to their closest friends, despite having just met their twin. One study also suggested that genetics play a significant role in the development of personality: Environment had little effect on personality when twins were raised together, though it did have an effect when they were raised apart.

Nature x Nurture

Many scientists eschew the debate by emphasizing "nature x nurture." In this schema, nature and nurture are inseparable. Some genes, for example, cannot be activated without certain environmental inputs. The development of vision is a prime example of this. People cannot develop normal sight without exposure to visual stimuli. Similarly, some environmental inputs may be undermined by some genes. For example, some lifelong smokers may never experience smoking-related illnesses, and this may be due at least in part to their genes. Environmental toxins may alter the expression of some genes, and genes for many behaviors presumed to have a genetic basis have not been discovered. Developmental systems theory, among other theories, presents an alternative to this debate that does not require scientists to advocate either for nature or nurture.
References:

1. Agin, D. P. (2010). More than genes: What science can tell us about toxic chemicals, development, and the risk to our children. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

2. Alcoholism Nature vs. Nurture. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.dualdiagnosis.org/alcohol-addiction/nature-vs-nurture.

3. Facts about Bipolar Disorder. (n.d.). Retrieved May 12, 2015, from http://adamhscc.org/en-US/facts-bipolar.asp.

4. Iliades, C. (2013, February 7). Mental Illness May Be In Your Genes. Retrieved from http://www.everydayhealth.com/depression/mental-iillness-may-be-in-your-genes-1751.aspx.

5. Lewis, T. (2014, August 11). Twins Separated at Birth Reveal Staggering Influence of Genetics. Retrieved from http://www.livescience.com/47288-twin-study-importance-of-genetics.html.

6. Ohikuare, J. (2014, January 21). Life as a Nonviolent Psychopath. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/01/life-as-a-nonviolent-psychopath/282271.

7. Moore, D. S. (2003). The dependent gene: The fallacy of nature vs. nurture. New York, NY: Henry Holt.

8. Putt, G. (2013, October 20). Nurture Over Nature: Mental Illness and Traumatic Life Events. Retrieved from http://www.decodedscience.com/nurture-nature-mental-illness-traumatic-life-events/3836.

Last Updated: 08-12-2015

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The nature vs. nurture debate is the scientific, cultural, and philosophical debate about whether human culture, behavior, and personality are caused primarily by nature or nurture. Nature is often defined in this debate as genetic or hormone-based behaviors, while nurture is most commonly defined as environment and experience. The nature vs.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why do we go against our morals when we are in a group of people

# data[].attributes.subject
Why do we go against our morals when we are in a group of people

# data[].attributes.body
Eliza Bankier
Through multiple studies, including one from MIT, it has been prove that people lose sight of what is right vs. wrong when they are surrounded by their peers. Associate professor of cognitive neuroscience at MIT, Rebecca Saxe, claims that individuals within groups who would never commit a crime alone have a much easier time doing it with other people. It has also been shown that someone in a group will feel less responsible for their actions versus someone who is making a decision alone. In another study conducted by NeuroImage  the researchers observed brain activity in a region of the brain that thinks about oneself. "They found that in some people, this activity was reduced when the subjects participated in a competition as part of a group, compared with when they competed as individuals."  When someone is in a mob of people, their own thoughts can be washed out by others around them, and plays a major role in decision making.
http://news.mit.edu/2014/when-good-people-do-bad-things-0612

# data[].attributes.body
Skylar Sachs
There is still a strong debate going on deciding if  physical characteristics are made up from your DNA and how much, and how much of personal characteristics are dependant on a person's life style. Theories of environment and DNA are both traced back to the thirteenth century, so this shows that this debate has been unknown for many years and will continue. One side of this debate says that instincts are nature, and how parents raise their child and what they do to them and for them is nurture. Nature is heredity which will give a person their intelligence level, personality,anger level/emotion and sexual orientation. Behavior comes from genes which will affect life choices such as crime. The people on the nurture side believe that behavior and action choices come from background and how they grew up. Such as previous experiences and parental guidance.
https://www.thoughtco.com/nature-vs-nurture-1420577

# data[].attributes.body
Skylar Sachs
Nature v.s Nurture is a common debate that has been going on for years. The debate discusses if personality and behavior, etc is caused by either nature or nurture. Nature is believed to come from genetics and hormones in a person. Different types of behavior usually depends on genes. Theories and thoughts have changed multiple times considering how there has been a change culture around the world which makes it different. Personality in someone comes from their experiences and the way that a person grew up. Childhood is one of the most powerful influences on behavior and personality in nature and nurture. Environment is huge and the way that any person was raised will affect how they act when they are older.
http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/nature-versus-nurture

# data[].attributes.body
Harry Kong
Nature vs. Nurture is a very old argument.  The nature side explains how the coding of our genes in each cell can determine what traits we have. One of the many issues about the nature theory is that the behavior genes can influence divorce, criminal acts etc... The nurture theory states that genetic influence over abstract traits may exist; however, the environmental factors are the real origins of our behavior. This means that the nature of you behavior like your genes may influence your behavior and such to do bad things, but ultimately it is the environment that you are raised in that influences you to do things. For example, if you lived in a neighborhood that was used to no manners and was very common in abuse and violence, that is what that person would be accustomed to. https://explorable.com/nature-vs-nurture-debate

# data[].attributes.headline
Forces That Make Good People do Bad Things

# data[].attributes.subject
Forces That Make Good People do Bad Things

# data[].attributes.body
Blake Valfer
Nature vs. Nurture is a highly debated topic. This is about the way humans act or their personalities and behaviors. According to Travis Bradberry, some people may make poor choices to be as good as their friends or other people. The Pygmalion effect may also be a reason people make certain choices. The Pygmalion effect refers to when people have the tendency to treat other people the way they are being treated. People also act better when they are being treated with more loyalty, or respect compared to other people they are working with.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Given the right circumstances, good people can get caught up in some very bad things. More often than not, psychology is to blame.

When it comes to unethical behavior, good people don't tend to go right off the deep end like Bernie Madoff or Kenneth Lay. Rather, the mind plays tricks on them, pushing them down the slippery slope of questionable behavior.

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

Dr. Muel Kaptein, Professor of Business Ethics and Integrity Management at the Rotterdam School of Management, has studied bad behavior for decades. A study he recently published sheds considerable light on what motivates good people to do bad things.

What follows are 14 of Dr. Kaptein's most compelling findings into how the mind tricks good people into losing their moral compass and going astray.

The compensation effect. The compensation effect refers to the tendency for people to assume they accumulate moral capital. We use good deeds to balance out bad deeds, or alternately, we give ourselves breaks from goodness, like a piece of chocolate after a week of salads. This makes people more inclined to do bad things under the guise of "I'm a good person" or "It's just this one thing."

The power of names. What you name something is important, as it can skew people's sense of reality. If companies assign unethical practices simple and humorous euphemisms (like "financial engineering" for accounting fraud), employees are less likely to take their unethical behavior seriously. Thomas Watson, the founder of IBM, was famous for saying, "Doing business is a game, the greatest game in the world if you know how to play it." Something as simple as calling business a game can make people less likely to see that their actions have serious, real-world consequences.

Cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort humans feel when they hold two contradictory opinions or their behavior is inconsistent with their beliefs. It's one of the strongest psychological forces driving human behavior, and it can be overcome with a high EQ. When people who feel they are good do bad things, cognitive dissonance makes them ignore this behavior because they can't tolerate the inconsistency between their behavior and their beliefs.

Broken window theory. The broken window theory argues that chaos and disorder in an organization make people believe they work for an ineffectual authority. In response, they are more likely to commit unethical behavior that's in line with this perceived chaos. An example of this was when Mayor Rudy Giuliani lowered major crime rates in New York City in the 1980's by cracking down on petty crime. Living in a city that was less riddled with crime, New Yorkers came to believe in the organization running their city, which slowed the rate of major crimes.

Tunnel vision. There's nothing wrong with setting goals and driving hard to achieve them. This only becomes a problem when people are possessed by a singular focus on a particular goal, to the point that they leave other important considerations such as compassion and ethics out of their thinking.

The Pygmalion effect.The Pygmalion effect refers to the tendency people have to act the way that other people treat them. For example, if employees are treated like they're upright members of a team, they're more likely to act accordingly. Alternately, if they're treated with suspicion, they're more likely to act in a way that justifies that perception.

The pressure to conform.The pressure to conform is powerful. When a group engages in unethical behavior, individuals are far more likely to participate in or condone that behavior rather than risk standing out.

Obedience to authority. It's quite difficult for most people to ignore the wishes of those in authority positions. People also feel like they're less responsible for wrongdoings if they act under the direction of someone else. Both of these reasons explain why employees are likely to act out the unethical wishes of their supervisors--and feel far less guilt than if they had decided to do it themselves.

Winner-take-all competition. We live in a society where there is often only one winner: one person wins the prize, one person gets the job, one person receives the credit. But does this competitive culture really produce the best outcomes? When it comes to ethical behavior, the answer is no. When there is only one winner in a given situation, people are more likely to cheat rather than face the consequences of losing.

Social bond theory. Employees are more likely to be loyal to their companies if they feel unique, valued, and important. The more they feel that they're replaceable and underappreciated, the more likely they are to commit ethical violations.

The blinding effect of power. People in power typically see themselves as inherently different from their employees. This can lead them to set ethical boundaries for their employees that are more stringent than the ones they set for themselves. What happens next is the stuff of newspaper headlines.

Conspicuous consumption. When companies splash money around, they contribute to unethical behavior. Flashy displays of wealth lead to increased selfishness. Employees either aim hard for these carrots or develop jealousy of their high-rolling colleagues who achieve them. This leads to people who are more likely to put their own needs ahead of doing the right thing.

Acceptance of small theft. One might think that taking small things from the workplace, like notebooks, pens, and computer paper, is harmless. But when small thefts are ignored by management, people become far more likely to up the ante.

Reactance theory. People like their freedom. If they feel that the rules imposed on them are too strict or too restrictive, they often break those rules--and even go further against protocol than they otherwise would have.
Bringing It All Together
Perhaps the most shocking thing about ethical violations is the simple, almost mundane conditions that contribute to them. Thankfully, a little bit of knowledge goes a long way in reducing environments that contribute to this behavior.
Have you seen any of these phenomena cloud people's moral compass? Please share your thoughts in the comments section below, as I learn just as much from you as you do from me.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
14 Psychological Forces That Make Good People Do Bad Things

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Given the right circumstances, good people can get caught up in some very bad things. More often than not, psychology is to blame. When it comes to unethical behavior, good people don't tend to go right off the deep end like Bernie Madoff or Kenneth Lay.

# data[].attributes.body
Do Genes Make People Evil? This is a topic that is very hard to find the answer to because scientists sometimes refer to dreams. But they cant ask a infant about there dream last night. There for they look for body movements like muscle twitches and eye movements. Many crimes can be found as two genes combined but placed in the wrong environment.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-genes-make-people-evil/

# data[].attributes.body
Nature vs. Nurture is a majorly discussed topic on human behavior and what effects it. The nature side explains how genes determine looks but not personality. It is still unknown if it personality, sexual orientation and intelligence are from genetics. Scientists think that a "Gay Gene" is right when you are born and parents and peers don't influence it. The nurture side believes that you can train a child to be something. The question still goes on, is it the environment your in or people around you

https://explorable.com/nature-vs-nurture-debate

# data[].attributes.body
Nate Crockford
Nature Vs Nurture is widely debated topic. Genes and hereditary factors are a big part of  Nature. Nurture is the part of someone's life that makes them who they are. Nurture starts from when you are young kids. How you were raised can affect your nature. Friends and family can also have a effect on someone's nature. Nature and nurture are very different nature is how you feel and what you believe. Nurture is how you are raised and how you are affected by friends and other. Nature and Nurture is still being researched and researchers are still finding answers on this topic.
https://explorable.com/nature-vs-nurture-debate

# data[].attributes.headline
Empathy’s Natural, but Nurturing It Helps

# data[].attributes.subject
Empathy’s Natural, but Nurturing It Helps

# data[].attributes.body
Sofia Martinez
The New York Times article, "Empathy’s Natural, but Nurturing It Helps" discusses how empathy can be affected through nurture. Children often show signs of empathy at a young age naturally, but they still need to learn certain how to be kind and show empathy towards others. When parents model acts of kindness in front of children, it teaches kids the fundamentals of it. Children need to understand why empathy is important by watching. “Empathy comes from being empathized with,” Dr. Stanley I. Greenspan says. Some other influences of empathy are books, books can put a child in another person's shoes and helps them understand what it is like to feel a certain way.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Children may enter the world with different capacities for empathy, a result of neural connections in the brain. The capacity for empathy may be partly or wholly lacking in disorders like autism and schizophrenia, in which the mind is focused inward.

But in otherwise normal children, the environment in which they are reared can make a big difference in whether empathy is fostered or suppressed. Healthy self-esteem is essential to empathy, so anything that helps children feel good about themselves will also help them recognize and respond effectively to the feelings of others.
Start Early
If children are to relate positively to others, they must feel secure themselves and "have a secure attachment to another person," said Carolyn Zahn-Waxler, a psychologist at the University of Wisconsin. Infants and young children whose own distress is ignored, scorned or, worse yet, punished can quickly become distrustful of their environment and feel unsafe.

Nancy Eisenberg, a psychologist at Arizona State University, agreed. "Children need a positive, caring relationship with their parents or caretakers," she said in an interview, "if they are to be able to go beyond themselves to care about others."

"Empathy comes from being empathized with," Dr. Stanley I. Greenspan, a clinical professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at George Washington University School of Medicine, wrote in his book "Great Kids" (Da Capo, 2007).

Children should also be helped to recognize their own feelings and express them, he wrote. By learning to identify and label their feelings, children are better able to recognize the feelings of others. For example, when a child becomes frustrated with a toy car and throws it across the room, his caretaker could say something like: "You're feeling upset because the car isn't working the way it should. You don't like it when toys don't work."

Dr. Zahn-Waxler says the kind of discipline a child receives should "help the child regulate emotion, to calm down rather than become more agitated." She advises parents to stay calm: "The more emotionally aroused you are, the more aroused the child is likely to become. Hitting or screaming at a child results in anger and fear and interferes with the child's ability to care for others."

Dr. Eisenberg emphasized that in addition to avoiding physical punishment, "children should never be threatened with a loss of love" for misbehavior.

Caretakers can help young children understand how other people feel, say, when a child cries because a toy breaks or is snatched by another child. When a child acts kindly toward someone, Marjorie Taylor, a psychologist at the University of Oregon, suggests that saying something like "You're very kind for doing this" or "You're the kind of person who does nice things like that" can help make empathy a part of a young child's identity.

Even very young children need to know how their behavior affects others, experts say. They need to have it explained why certain behaviors are hurtful or helpful, and how to make up for bad behavior.

"Be really explicit, because children can't draw conclusions as easily as an older person," Dr. Taylor said.

Also helpful, she said, is reading books and talking about how people (or animals) in a story feel and why they feel that way.

One such book, "P. J. the Spoiled Bunny," by Marilyn Sadler (Random House, 1986), can help children appreciate the effects of being selfish and stubborn and always demanding one's way. The story helps children see how someone's actions affect the attitudes and responses of others. P. J. learns in the story that by behaving differently he could have more fun with his friends.

For older children, Dr. Greenspan suggested books like "To Kill a Mockingbird" and "The Diary of Anne Frank." Even televised events of natural disasters can help, by encouraging a child to imagine what it must be like for people whose lives are devastated by an earthquake or tsunami.

Although an early start is ideal, experts say it is possible to instill empathy later - even, for example, in children whose emotional security was neglected in an orphanage. Undoing the damage may require extra effort on the part of adoptive parents, as well as unconditional love.
Modeling Empathy
Parents and teachers can set a good example of empathetic behavior by how they behave themselves. The old saying "Do as I do" has particular relevance for fostering empathy in children.

"Parents need to be models of altruism, compassion and caring," Dr. Zahn-Waxler said. "It's not enough to talk the talk. You need to be seen doing it and you need to show caring behavior toward your child."

Parents who are sympathetic to the feelings of others and rise to a need for help, especially when it is not in their own best interest, can teach children how to identify feelings, think beyond themselves and respond empathetically to others.

In school, teachers who inspire empathy are those who recognize and address the feelings behind a child's behavior. The most effective teachers are warm and affectionate - and when trying to correct bad behavior they remain calm, not punitive.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Empathy Is Natural, but Nurturing It Helps

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Children may enter the world with different capacities for empathy, a result of neural connections in the brain. The capacity for empathy may be partly or wholly lacking in disorders like autism and schizophrenia, in which the mind is focused inward.

# data[].attributes.body
Lille Ochs
Nature v.s. Nurture is a highly discussed debate on human personalities and behaviors. Nature is more genetic and is one component for mental health conditions like "bipolar and major depression." (Nature vs. Nurture, Good Therapy) Bipolar Depression has a very high chance of developing when a family member has or had it. Nature is also more commonly known for a factor of addition. Just like mental illnesses, you are more likely to be an addict if a family member was or is addicted, therefore it runs in the family. On the other hand, nurture can also cause a mental illness. If you are in a badly kept environment or your behavior is negative, you could develop a mental illness. James Fallon who is a neuroscientist, has discovered that he has the brain a that thinks like a psychopath. He said that it helped him to be in a good and happy environment, which is a huge factor or nurture. This made him happy and successful without leaning towards becoming a psychopath. Researchers at the University of Liverpool in England found out that while nature and genetics is the second role in mental illnesses, child abuse, school bullying, childhood trauma, or other negative nurturing habits is the leading factor in mental illnesses. http://www.goodtherapy.org/blog/psychpedia/nature-versus-nurture

# data[].attributes.body
Lille Ochs
According to "Why Good People Do Bad Things," a CNN report, being aware of why good people do bad things occasionally can help ourselves from doing bad things. One main reason is that doing something bad could potentially benefit them for a while. In addition, Oliver Sheldon believes that many people don't even realize they are tempted to doing something, or do it without thinking. People also may think they have a struggle that could possibly repeat itself therefore, this could cause one to act out of their normal boundaries or create a bad action. Furthermore, if a person was informed before committing a bad action, they have a lower chance of doing it because they would know the consequences and the positives and negatives to the act. It is also very helpful to reflect on bad decisions before making another one, which many of us do not do on a daily basis. Not many people think of this, but simply promoting good behavior around you or trying to convince others to be honest and make the right decision could possibly keep them from doing something bad. http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/25/health/good-people-do-bad/

# data[].attributes.body
Sofia Martinez
-"Altruism: Nature or Nurture?" covers the widely debated topic of selflessness and if one is born with it or if their experiences shape altruism. Abigail Marsh, PhD and scientists at Georgetown University conducted a study of the amygdala, a part of the brain that helps perceive emotions. They wanted to see if the size of a human's amygdala would affect how altruistic they are. They studied the size of amygdala's that psychopaths have and people who are organ donors and voluntarily gave an organ to save a person's life. Scientists saw a difference in size of the right side of the amygdala between the groups. While this study proved that the size of the amygdala comes into play with how altruistic a person is, there are other components many believe are influential. Including what a parent teaches their child on acts of selflessness and giving. Overall, one could say that both nature and nurture come into play when shaping a person's selflessness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Why are some children kind to others and other children just plain mean? The root cause of altruism, and conversely selfishness or even evil, has been a debate since the beginning of human self-consciousness. The second story in the Bible is about Cain murdering his younger brother Abel out of jealousy and anger. As brain science gets more objective and there's less guessing, we are getting a glimpse of what causes behavior.

Abigail Marsh, PhD, and colleagues at Georgetown University knew that the right sided amygdala in the brain of psychopaths was in general smaller than average so they looked at the right sided amygdalas of extraordinarily giving people in a recently published study.

The amygdala is a small, paired (one on each side of the body) organ in the brain that helps us perceive emotions in others. Psychopaths are not just ignoring the feelings of others, they actually do not understand that people have those feelings. Knowing this, Marsh choose to study the people who were the most giving to others, organ donors, and see what their amygdalas were like.

Her group found a large group of people who had voluntarily given up a kidney to save another person life. The scientists imaged their brains and compared the right and left amygdala to the average. No pattern to the left amygdala, but they found the right amygdala averaged 8 percent larger than average, while psychopaths averaged about 8 percent less than average.

So we now have another theory about why people will sacrifice themselves for others. Followers of Darwin say that the more closely someone is related to you, the more likely you are to sacrifice yourself for his or her benefit. This is because you are not having children, but you are saving allied genetic material. Probably true from many experiments, but not a complete answer. Other sociologists say altruism is needed to preserve the future of the group, also true, but only a part of the answer. We now add right amygdala size and it seems that those who understand other people's feelings best are more likely to sacrifice themselves. Again true, but insufficient.

The answer to the eternal question "is it Nature or Nurture" is almost always "both." From diverse fields of research, it is clear that there are many social factors involved in altruism. People are more likely to be altruistic if they grow up in households with deep religious feelings, in households that are closely involved with their neighbors, or in households where people routinely volunteer in civic endeavors.

Now that we know that there are physical factors involved with self-sacrifice: maybe having a large right amygdala can overcome an environment that is not giving and maybe having a small one can kill altruism in a child even if their parents are practically saints.

My wife and I are both natural volunteers, but making meals for the homeless or volunteering for community groups and giving up your limited free time is not the level of altruism of giving up a kidney or jumping on a bomb to save your fellow soldiers. We are very happy that our four children also are volunteers and we hope that such behavior was at least partially learned in our home. But true altruism clearly has another inborn component.

Parents are always wondering why their child is not behaving well. In this situation, I am often wondering how their children can be behaving so beautifully when their parents are not following any of our suggested rules for them. Both these paradoxical situations have to do with the fact that behavior is a combination of nature and nurture. We may think we have total control over our children, but we are wrong. We can only do our best.
Have a question for the Healthy Kids panel? Ask it here. Read more from the Healthy Kids blog "

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A recent study found those who were wiling to give someone a kidney had a larger right amygdala, a small organ in the brain that helps us perceive emotions in others. How does this play into other theories of what's behind an altruistic person?

# data[].attributes.body
In the article "Nature vs. Nurture Issues", it talks about whether certain actions are caused by nature or nurture. One debate is over intelligence. If someone was highly intelligent whether it came from nature or nurture is debated. The argument for nature would be that the person had inherited his or her parents intelligence levels. They could have also been "born smart" if they developed early or quick learning skills. It could be nuture because the person could have been affected by their education. What school they attended, what teachers they had, play a role in how they learned. As well as, how the child was raised. Another topic that was debated was personality and how it is developed. There are studies conducted to see how children develop personalities. The argument for nurture would be the influence of their parents and how they act. When a child is little they look up to their parents as soon they to be as when they grow up. The effects of nature would be when a child feels more comfortable with certain behaviors like shyness because it may be a comfort to them. Normally, the person's parent would not demonstrate the trait, they would have learned it for themselves. It could be argued that the child's personality is developing.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For centuries, the debate has existed within the psychological community and beyond concerning the topic of nature versus nurture in terms of human development and achievement. Specifically, what is the main influence on a person - their genetics or their environment?

Nature vs. Nurture Issues

The crux of the nature side of the debate is that genetics or other natural influences are mostly, if not all, responsible for the characteristics pertaining to the personality, behavior and intelligence of an individual.

Conversely, the nurture debate largely argues that the main contribution to how a person develops is made by the influence of the people and events that interact with that person throughout their life.

While many contemporary psychologists and other individuals agree that development is influenced by both nature and nurture, the participation of genetics vs. environment is still a hot topic, particularly when certain subjects are discussed such as intelligence, personality and homosexuality.

Intelligence

When someone achieves greatness thanks to an innovation or other breakthrough, it is usually agreed that the individual has a high level of intelligence. Often, when exploring the background of the individual, the influences of nature versus nurture are questioned.

Nature - Those who would argue that nature is largely to thank for the individual's ability to achieve greatness might point to his or her parents and use their level of intelligence as a reason for why he or she is so successful. Perhaps the child developed early skills quickly and this would be used to show that the child was clearly, "born smart."

Nurture - Those who would argue that a child's intelligence was affected by nurture would look at the child's educational background as well as how his or her parents raised her. These individuals would state that the intelligence level which permitted the child to be so successful, is largely the result of the child's upbringing and the school system.

Personality

Influence of the parents - Often it is easy to see similarities between a child's personality and one or both of her parents' personalities. In this situation, it would seem that the child's personality has developed largely from the influence of the parents.

Effects of nature - In some situations, children develop personalities, or tendencies toward certain behaviors, such as shyness or aggression, that can't seem to be explained because neither parent demonstrates the same trait. In this situation, it can be argued that nature is at play in the development of the child's personality.

The development of personality traits is often part of the nature versus nurture debate. People want to know how children develop their personalities.

Effects of environment - Some individuals believe that homosexuality is a choice. Others believe that it is the result of something having negatively affected an individual, such as sexual assault, causing the individual to become homosexual. These debates focus on the influence of nurture and the individuals feel that environmental factors are the cause of one's homosexuality.

Biological factor - Other individuals believe that homosexuality is a biological factor, no more a choice than eye color or foot size. These individuals are debating from the perspective of nature being responsible for the development of the individual.

Homosexuality

The debate about homosexuality and whether the genesis of which is the result of nature or nurture has spanned throughout history, but has taken on even greater importance in more recent years as the rights of these individuals are being hotly debated throughout the world.

These examples show several ways that the nature vs. nurture debate plays out in real life.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For centuries, the debate has existed within the psychological community and beyond concerning the topic of nature versus nurture in terms of human development and achievement. Specifically, what is the main influence on a person - their genetics or their environment?

# data[].attributes.body
Nature versus nurture is one of the oldest debates about psychology. Genes and the hereditary factors are a big part of nature. Nature can even be someone's appearance or their personality. Nurture is the parts of someone's life that impacts who they are. Their early life, how they were brought up, friends and family, and even where they live play a role in nurture. Nature versus nurture really is how a person looks verusus how they were brought out. An example would be if a boy were to get into a fight, would he do it because he has anger issues or because he is abused at home? Researches are trying to find the answer to would it be nature or would it be nurture and why.

# 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.headline
3 Reasons Why Good People Do Surprisingly Bad 

# data[].attributes.subject
3 Reasons Why Good People Do Surprisingly Bad 

# data[].attributes.body
The three reasons discussed in the article are desperation, boredom, and ignorance and there are other reasons not mentioned. Many people want to get noticed and do something out of the ordinary. They do so out of desperate measures. When someone is bored their brain will tell the that they need excitement, but it might not be a good choice to always be occupied. People will get frustrated when they do not know something or all the details and want to get rid of that frustration from ignorance.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Life can go sideways pretty quickly when you're dealing with other people. At times you can find yourself scratching your head, confused, and outraged over the behavior of the people who you are dealing with. It doesn't seem reasonable. Or even logical.

And you're left wondering "what the heck happened?"

It's important to remember that the same irrational behavior you find unacceptable and confusing in others is the same way you are wired to behave.

At times others watching you are left scratching their heads horribly confused and frustrated by your brand of craziness.

There are three common responses that cause people to do things that are wildly out of character. If you find another person in one of these situations (or force that situation to happen due to your own behavior) you should expect people to act "bad".

Here is why good people do bad things:

1. Desperation.

Being desperate is the worst of the irrational defense mechanisms .

When a person feels like they have to go to extreme measures, they often will. At the expense of everything and everyone around them.

The side of their brain that's fuels addiction and wild feats of heroism kicks into gear and tells them that it's time to do something crazy. That's not usually a good way to respond. Then again they are thinking clearly.

Desperate people can destroy their lives horrifically quickly.

2. Boredom.

Boredom is a powerful motivator. When your brain feels like it's slowing down against its will, it will tell you that you need excitement that you don't really need.

People, when overly bored, will find all kinds of unnecessary and harmful behaviors that supplement their otherwise bland existence -- especially if they are used do a fast paced lifestyle.

Slowing down is strange for them. Instead of enjoying the silence, they tend to create chaos.

3. Ignorance.

Ignorance will drive people to do harmful things that destroy the rest of their life. Lack of awareness about options and opportunities and people who can help force people to do things that are damaging and have long-lasting consequences.

People who don't know, don't know a way to escape from the problems in their life. They tend to implode, self-destructing as a way to unleash the pain and frustration they feel inside.

If you're observing this, remember that facts and figures don't necessarily mean better information. Knowledge has to be interpreted through understanding. Through them feeling like you care.

Most good people given normal stress do good things.

They might not choose the painfully tough heroic option, but most people do enough to be valuable to those around them.

But it doesn't take much unexpected pain to push normal people into survival mode -- where they often harm themselves and anybody around them.

Remember that the next time you're in a situation where the people you're dealing with don't seem reasonable.

They might not be.

Instead of calling them idiots, take the time to see what's tearing their heart out. Try to help heal the pain. They are probably just in crazy need of someone to care about them.

That person could be you.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
3 Reasons Why Good People Do Surprisingly Bad Things.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Life can go sideways pretty quickly when you're dealing with other people. At times you can find yourself scratching your head, confused, and outraged over the behavior of the people who you are dealing with. It doesn't seem reasonable.Or even logical.

# data[].attributes.body
Sophie L
14 Psychological Forces That Make Good People Do Bad Things
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-travis-bradberry/14-psychological-forces-t_b_9752132.html
There are fourteen different ideas on how the mind tricks good people into losing their good morals as stated by Dr. Kaptein.
One is the compensation effect which is referring to the tendency of people to believe that they have moral capital. It's where people do bad things under the idea that they're a good person and it's only one thing. (i.e. eating a bag of candy after exercising)
Another idea is tunnel vision. This is when people become so possessed by an idea or goal that they will ignore and rationalize anything in order to get their ideal outcome. (i.e. wanting to get to the front of the line so bad that one pushes others out of the way)
The next theory is the Pygmalion effect. The theory is referring to the tendency that people have to act the way that people treat them. (i.e. the golden rule)
Obedience to authority is a force that we've seen many times in history. Many people justify their actions by saying that someone told them to do so. Many people feel less guilty for doing something if they didn't decide to do it all on their own. (i.e. nazi trials)

# data[].attributes.body
Sophie L
The Science of Why Good People Do Bad Things
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cutting-edge-leadership/201411/the-science-why-good-people-do-bad-things
In many cases, people do bad things but are not initially bad people; processes occur that allow leaders to disengage moral reasoning and principals.
The road to this is usually started through justifying bad behavior, sometimes we focus on desired outcomes so much that we rationalize any means in order to achieve the outcome that we want.

# data[].attributes.body
Jillian Sondag
Nature is influenced by genetic inheritance and other biological factors
Nurture is influenced by external factors after conception
http://www.simplypsychology.org/naturevsnurture.html

What makes good people evil?
Some people influenced by others and change the way the think to be bad. The electric shock experiment really influences.

http://www.apa.org/monitor/oct04/goodbad.aspx