https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/s4la4pe0f1mi Things are rarely as simple as just supporting one side or the other, and supporters of the 'nature' argument would still be able to argue against this claim. Write two points that argue that nature might have still played a role in the results that Held and Hein found. en-us 2016-10-31 04:49:22 UTC 2016-10-31 04:50:09 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/s4la4pe0f1mi/wish/134218968 One point that argues that nature still played a role in the results of Held and Hein is the following. In group Y, the passive kitten, after being tested in the six tests the first time, was then placed in a continually lit room for 48 hours. After this 48 hour exposure to light, the kitten was re-tested in the paw placement and visual cliff test. The results showed that the kitten had developed visually guided behaviour. This proves the nature point as with being able to carry out an innate act of self locomotion (aswell as VS), visually guided behaviour was developed.
Another point that argues that natre played a role in the results of this study is to do with the kittens central nervous system. The loss of self locomotion doesn't reflect deficiencies in the process that depends upon exposure for it's development. However, the capacity to perform visually guided behaviour is present but is purely prevented due to peripheral blockage or other supressive effects of the nurture based rearing conditions.  ]]> 2016-10-31 13:50:47 UTC https://padlet.com/panze_h_04/s4la4pe0f1mi/wish/134218968