Nature vs nurture is an ages-long debate. The well-known genetic studies of twins and families are now said to be both impossible and unproductive. Yet, this model still persists as a way of framing discussion on the causes of behaviour in genetic research papers, the media and lay discussions.
While social and environmental crime theories were dominant in criminology and public policy, biological theories have been seen as outdated and discredited. Nevertheless, research into genetic variations associated with aggressive and antisocial behaviour has received more attention in the media.
“Perceptions of nature, nurture and behaviour” - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262536183_Perceptions_of_nature_nurture_and_behaviour explores ideas on the role of nature and nurture in violent and antisocial behaviour through interviews and open-ended questionnaires among the lay public. It resulted in “general agreement that everybody’s behaviour is influenced to varying degrees by both genetic and environmental factors but deterministic accounts of causation, except in exceptional circumstances, were rejected. Only an emphasis on nature was seen as dangerous in its consequences, for society and for individuals themselves.”
I found this paper provided a fresh perspective distinct from the usual academic researchers who approach the nature-nurture debate from their subject area expertise and stances.
Where do you stand on the nature vs nurture debate?