The debate which I will be delving into in this paper is known by a variety of names, but be it referred to as ‘nature versus nurture’ or ‘blood versus environment’ the players on both sides remain the same. Those who believe that human nature is determined by genetics and therefore cannot be changed are usually among the reactionary elite. They tend to be overt racists or a t least predisposed to stereotypes of ethnic groups or classes. They vehemently dispute the opposing view that can be used to threaten their privileged position in society. Proponents of the view that most human characteristics are products of the environment in which they are raised are usually on the left side of the political spectrum and criticize present social conditions. Experimentation, the best manner with which to gather evidence, is frowned upon when humans are involved so both sides of the argument are difficult to prove decisively. However, I support the view that humans are the result of the environment in which they are nurtured, especially in the early formative years of their childhood, and I believe that my opinion is better supported with compelling evidence than the opposing view. Due to the wide range that my thesis covers,
He explains this away by proposing that the sex difference in brain size is related to those intellectual qualities at which men excel, that is, in spatial and mathematical reasoning. His conclusions, however, were the basic beliefs of most Europeans and it is striking how similar they are to many of today"tms stereotypes. Notions of racial superiority are not by any means a recent development nor solely American. First of all, the main problem with the social sciences is that they are not really sciences at all, at least in their ability to experiment. (132) I don"tmt really see what that means. They all come to conclusions that seem reasonable based upon the information and scenarios that they provide. They still claim that blacks are naturally less intelligent and more "passionate"tm (read: more criminal) than their Caucasian or Asian counterparts. But when one looks at some of the factors that these "scientists"tm failed to account for, another picture emerges. Therefore, other factors that have a strong bearing on the scores are not taken into account. The African "eats furiously, and to excess" and is "equally careless of his own life and those of others: he kills willingly, for the sake of killing. I dispute this belief strongly and will show the weaknesses and inconsistencies in his reasoning. " Gobineau reminds us, though, that they of course cannot be blamed for these traits, as it is only their nature to act in such a manner. They therefore concluded that such practices as imperialism or slavery were not only necessary but also beneficial. To this, he answers a definitive "no. (Interestingly, he barely discussed the implications of his data that showed females (Caucasoid 1264 cc) had smaller brains by far than even the Negroid.