However, the opposing and stronger side of the debate came into play mostly in the 1700s when Jean-Jacques Rousseau saw things a little differently; stating that civilization, not genetics or nature, shaped human propensity (Glowacki, para. 2, 2014). The nurture side of the debate states human’s “learning and other resources received from [upbringing], world, While warfare is very much a part of human legacy; they also evolved to be “highly cooperative and responsive to cultural norms including those that promote peaceful relationship;” while it was imperative to be savage for human survival, it also became necessary to engage in human cooperation (Glowacki, para. 12, 2014). After all of the genetic research was done, it was still decided that …show more content…
The American Psychological Association (apa) actually “urges the television and film industry to foster programming that models pro-social behaviors and seeks to resolve the problem of violence in society” and “Offers to the television and film industry assistance in developing programs that illustrate psychological methods to control aggressive and violent behavior, and alternative strategies for dealing with conflict and anger” (Violence in Mass Media). These aforementioned statements are significant because it shows that much more than genetics play a part in human nature and violence. It shows that culture, exposure, and upbringing play a significant role, perhaps even more so than genetics; and it shows that humans have the ability to limit and change situations that would make violent disposition more prevalent. The claim that is made by researchers is that “we have an inborn ability to behave in a certain way, learn to use this ability appropriately” and that there are other biological factors that contribute to violence I humans outside of genetics, such as hormones, especially testosterone (Pieri & Levitt, para. 4, 2008). Ultimately, it boils down to so much more than genetics in understanding the predisposition of violence in