Review The Attached In This Activity We Are Going To Review

Review The Attachedin This Activity We Are Going To Review The Assig

Review the attached. In this activity, we are going to review the assignment and response provided below and then analyze whether the Socratic Approach was applied adequately in the sample response provided below. Please provide separate numbered answers to the below questions in regards to assignment. Assignment: In considering how personality develops, the impact of the child's environment, as well as the child's innate characteristics, must be taken into consideration. Assess the nature versus nurture controversy.

Assess your views on how each affects a child's personality and moral development. Provide supporting evidence or reasoning. Which theoretical perspective on personality and moral development most closely represents your view? Sample Response: In the context of the nature versus nurture controversy, nature means one’s genetic inheritance of traits such as intelligence, physical characteristics, and personality tendencies (Vander Zanden, Crandell, & Crandell, 2009). Nurture means the influence of environment, including parenting, schooling, physical environment, culture, and other factors (Vander Zanden et al., 2009).

In the past, social scientists and others argued which factor—nature or nurture —was responsible in a given situation, but it is more common today to ask either how much is due to nature versus nurture, or how they interact (Vander Zanden et al., 2009). Vander Zanden et al. (2009) therefore characterize the current nature versus nurture controversy as asking either how or how much, rather than which. While there are many theories that address the nature-nurture controversy, behaviorism most closely represents my view. Most of the behaviors needed to succeed in life are within the capabilities of most people, but some people’s environments make success unlikely for them. If a person is raised in an environment that does not support educational activities, that person is unlikely to become a physicist, even if he or she was born with the intelligence traits of an Einstein.

Similarly, those raised in a violent environment are more likely to be violent, such as those who were abused as children may subsequently abuse their own children. Reference: Vander Zanden, J. W., Crandell, T. L., & Crandell, C. H. (2009).

Human development (9th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. Step 1: Identify the elements of the problem, issue, or question. Did the response adequately include this step? Yes or No?

If no, what was missing? Step 2: Analyze/ define/ frame the problem, issue, or question. Did the response adequately include this step? Yes or No? If no, what was missing?

Step 3: Consider solutions, responses, or answers. Did the response adequately include this step? Yes or No? If no, what was missing? Step 4: Choose a solution, response, or answer.

Did the response adequately include this step? Yes or No? If no, what was missing?

Paper For Above instruction

In evaluating the application of the Socratic approach to analyzing the sample response regarding the nature versus nurture controversy, it is essential to systematically assess whether the response effectively engaged with the critical elements of inquiry. The Socratic method emphasizes critical questioning, rigorous analysis, and reflective thinking. This approach involves dissecting assumptions, exploring implications, and encouraging deeper understanding through structured questioning. Accordingly, this essay will evaluate each step outlined in the prompt concerning the provided sample response.

Step 1: Identify the elements of the problem, issue, or question.

This initial step involves clearly defining the core issue, which in this case is the nature versus nurture controversy in personality development. The sample response does this effectively by articulating the definitions of "nature" and "nurture," citing Vander Zanden et al. (2009), and highlighting the historical and current debates within social sciences. The explanation sets a foundation by framing the problem as a question of genetic inheritance versus environmental influence, aligning well with the Socratic emphasis on clarification of fundamental concepts. Therefore, the response adequately includes this element as it explicitly identifies and contextualizes the core issue.

Step 2: Analyze/define/frame the problem, issue, or question.

This step involves delving deeper into the nuances of the issue, understanding the scope, and framing it appropriately for analysis. The sample response advances this by explaining the evolution from debating "which" factor is responsible to exploring "how much" or the interaction between them. It also introduces the perspective of behaviorism as most aligned with the author's view, thereby analyzing the implications of different theoretical approaches. By doing so, the response effectively frames the problem as a complex interaction rather than a binary choice. Thus, this step is well-represented in the sample.

Step 3: Consider solutions, responses, or answers.

Here, the responder presents the perspective that behaviorism best illustrates their stance. They suggest that behavioral outcomes depend on environmental factors, supported by examples related to education and violence. The response also implicitly considers solutions in terms of recognizing the interaction of biology and environment as key to understanding personality development. This thoughtful consideration of the theoretical approach as a "solution" or framework indicates engagement with potential responses to the broader debate, fulfilling this step sufficiently.

Step 4: Choose a solution, response, or answer.

The final step involves selecting a definitive position or solution based on the analysis. The sample response clearly indicates the author's alignment with behaviorism, emphasizing environmental influence over innate traits. The choice of behaviorism as the most representative perspective demonstrates a decisive stance derived from the preceding analysis. While the response could expand further on practical applications or implications, it effectively makes a reasoned choice, fulfilling this step.

Assessment of the Socratic approach application:

Overall, the sample response demonstrates a commendable application of the Socratic method principles through systematic identification, analysis, consideration, and decision-making regarding the nature versus nurture debate. It showcases critical engagement with key concepts, analytical depth, and a logical progression of thought. However, there is room for deeper questioning about underlying assumptions, such as exploring potential limitations of behaviorism or considering other perspectives more critically. Additional probing questions, such as "What are the limitations of behavioral explanations?" or "How might genetic predispositions interact with environment beyond simple causality?" could enrich the analysis.

In conclusion, the response adequately employs the Socratic approach by addressing each element of the problem systematically. It effectively transitions through identification, analysis, response consideration, and definitive stance, embodying core Socratic principles of inquiry. Future improvements could involve integrating more critical questioning to challenge underlying assumptions further and explore alternative viewpoints in greater depth.

References

• Vander Zanden, J. W., Crandell, T. L., & Crandell, C. H. (2009). Human development (9th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.