nature vs nurture Islay Pickup | h00107666 | Fashion communication | 2014
abstract
1
This paper explores the nature vs nurture debate. Through my research I examine what is more important to us as we grow up, what makes us who we are and why? This essay observes past, current and the future studies of the social sciences including genetics, sociology and anthropology. This concept generated a lot of research into my childhood, memories and my environment but also conducted was a public survey and a focus group in which I analyse the results. Other methods of research span across past scientific studies looking at Dr. Bandura and the Bobo experiment, the Sam Stone study by Professor Ceci and a study into adoptive children and their genetics by Professor Robert Plomin. Also regarding informational films by Harald Eia, a Norwegian documentarian who looks at the parental effect and nature vs nurture argument these are also discussed. While geneticist’s argue its purely nature and psychologist’s mainly nurture, the findings indicate that one cannot be without the other; it is a mixture of both nature and nurture that makes us human beings. ​
contents
3
Introduction 1.0 Nature vs nurture
pg.5
1.1 The argument 1.2 Eugenics 1.3 Brainwash, 2.7
2.0 Family values pg.7 3.0 Memories
pg.9
3.1 Repressed memories 3.2 fake memories
4.0 Children and violence pg.11 4.1 Bandura experiment 4.2 We need to talk about Kevin 4.3 Biological criminals
5.0 The senses
pg.13
6.0 Environment
pg.14
6.1 Did your parents affect the way to dress?
7.0 Epigenetic’s pg.15 7.1 Twins 7.2 Feral children
Conclusion
pg.17
Bibliography
pg.19
List of illustrations
pg.21
nature vs nurture As far back as 350BC the question on many social scientists lips has been what defines us as human beings: nature or nurture. “Nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world; nurture is every influence without that affects him after his birth.” (Sir Francis Galton, 1847) The age-old argument started with Greek philosophers Plato & Aristotle. In Plato’s opinion a child was born with certain knowledge and our genes were the be all and end all of our very being. Whereas Plato argued you were born a blank slate, Tabula Rasa that literally means blank slate in Latin. He believed your environment, your upbringing, your parents; everything affected you and made you who you are. To answer the question and discover what is it that makes us human, in this paper I will investigate how our upbringings effect us by looking into both environment and genetics and why they are important to us. This investigation will be carried out through research using a focus group in which I will question several peers from different disciplines with questions about how their childhood has affected them, a survey in which I will ask the general public to take anonymously as well as looking at past papers, films and documentaries to support my theories. Sir Francis Galton was a Victorian progressive, polymath, psychologist, anthropologist, eugenicist, tropical explorer, geographer, inventor, meteorologist, proto-geneticist, psychometrician, and statistician and cousin to Charles Darwin. He presented and phrased the argument nature vs nurture as well as the term eugenics and stood on the hypothesis that nature was ultimately the stronger element of the two. In 1908 a eugenics education society was established and people began to accept eugenics as a social science.
5
Figure 1: Roma Gypsies in Radom, Poland. Taken from a German’s soldiers photo album.
Galton believed that the science of eugenics could be used to generate a movement where ‘Aryan’ people could breed a superior race and therefore an improved world would follow, which is known as positive eugenics. The theory was that this would see the end of alcoholism, criminality, and disease and witness the rise of a more intellectual and stronger population. On the apposing side is negative eugenics that is discouraging or enforcing people who are not regarded as fit to reproduce or raise children, defectives in the gene pool. A prime example of this and the most drastic was the final solution in Nazi Germany In this dramatic circumstance homosexuals, the disabled, blacks, gypsies, the entire Jewish race were penalised for their genes and held accountable. The Nazi’s committed mass genocide from 1941-1945 these took place in concentration camps all over Europe where the ‘unfit’ were held and exterminated. The Nazis were the most infamous group to deploy eugenics but not the first. ‘Cleansing’ happened all throughout America, Sweden and heavily across Europe. After World War 2 the United Nations implemented the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stating that men and women no matter what nationality, race or religion have every right to marry and produce a family. This shows that eugenics, as a science can be dangerous if in the wrong hands and argues that our genes, even though we have no control over these have been perceived as what makes us human.
This leads on to an interview by Harald Eia, a Norwegian documentarian. Eia, features a number of short films on Vimeo reporting on the nature vs nurture debate. He speaks with several social scientists and specialists throughout the short films including Robert Plomin an American psychologist well known for his studies on genetics. Beginning in 1975 Plomin studied over 250 children who were adopted at birth, the adoptive parents as well as the biological parents and then he compared them against controlled groups, families in which the biological parents raise their biological children. Plomin visited the families regularly over 30 years only to discover that the biological parents and adoptive children had more in common in terms of IQ then the adoptive parents that raised them. Plomin also argues that this can be seen in personality traits notably extrovert and introvert. When Eia talks about how he has been misguided by sociology and anthropology Plomin replies with “It’s a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, (when talking about children imitating their parents) its wrong because they didn’t take genetics into account but if genetics aren’t taken into account, you can easily explain everything environmentally.” (Brainwash 2.7, 2011) Plomin believes about 50% to 60% of our psychological make up is due to genetics. This study challenges the nurture argument and reveals the theory that no matter what people do to shape and nourish their children it’s there genetics that really have the advantage. To challenge this theory I directed a focus group, gathering information from over 7 peers from a variety of disciplines, ages and backgrounds. When asked what are his family values and if they shaped him. Brian* replied “I think for my family the root of everything is keeping yourself humble by serving others.” Brian* was raised by a religious family, one that over the years he felt moulded him into who is he today through nurture. Certain members of the focus group asserted that their upbringing lead them to want to challenge their parents methods and notions. Shona* Talks about how her parents are in an unhappy marriage and how this has had an effect on her. “I’ve learnt what to-do, being the youngest and also learning from my siblings, we have that family unit but definitely not in a traditional way and I wouldn’t want my family to be like that.”
7
Figure 2: A still from Brainwash 2.7 showing the possible effects of smoking around children.
Outcomes from survey show love, togetherness and honesty proved a popular answer with 12 out of 17 answers all stated that they are their families’ values. The focus group held a range of answers to the question providing an insight into there families values, Claire* talks about how her’s has changed since her mum and dad divorced over 10 years ago and how accepting her step-mum has been a good thing. “Now I have a step family, I think my family values have definitely changed because I look at my step mum and know that she’s just as important to me as my mum and dad, I essentially have 2 families now but I love them both equally” This could suggest that even if your families traditions aren’t conventional, that they could have an impact on you whether you agree with them or not. Something such as divorce can alter and change your family dynamic showing how modern normalities that are now mundane like gay parenting, single parents and having 2 families via divorce can effect us. Judith Rich Harris is a psychologist who believes that children are more influenced by peers than parents. “Parents are very important to children but that doesn’t mean that have long term effects on how the child behaves and the child thinks.” (Brainwash 2.7, 2011) Harris believes that children are more affected by children their own age this could imply that all parental influence is cast out once we reach a certain age. Disputing that Willy Pedersen, a Norwegian sociologist believes that smoking can be passed down through imitation or copying parents, something Harris argues isn’t true, insisting that its through their peers that children are influenced and their genes are what commits them to get addicted. Both Harris and Pedersen make interesting cases from this I draw that children can be influenced by either depending on individual experiences, for instance a child with absent parents, raised in a foster home or a child home schooled and only surrounded by their parents, their only influencers.
Figure 3: A still from ABS’s 20/20 where a study is being carried out on a young boy in early 1993 by Professor Ceci.
Memories are a strong force, being able to store and retrieve memories is imperative to our survival but do childhood memories have the power to influence us during our adult lives, even memories we have forgotten? Leif Edward Ottesen Kannair is an associate psychologist and believes that harmful childhood memories aren’t always an explanation for a painful adulthood. When asked if a dreadful experience from childhood can influence your personality he replies “not the personality, It doesn’t necessarily lead to mental suffering, but it can lead to bad memories.” (Brainwash 2.7, 2011) Sigmund Freud disputes this point, Freud believed even the temporary paralysis of a hand could be due to memories of a traumatic nature. Freud protested if left to its own devices a repressed memory could spark the strangest and harmful psychological effects on a human being. Freud also considered that by undergoing hypnotherapy a patient could confront their memory and therefore be cured. Repressed memories are seen as a way of the mind protecting itself from harmful and disturbing experiences but in my next point I prove why memories can still be misleading. The 1980’s & 90’s saw the rise of childhood sexual abuse cases in which the only testimonial was that of the child, along with no physical or medical evidence just the child’s memories. John Stossel, an American investigative journalist featured on an particular episode of ABC’s 20/20 where Stossel looks into distorted memories, child abuse and the court of law. In this episode Professor Stephen Ceci of Cornell University believes that interviewers had led the children on by asking suggestive questions therefore making the children believe something did happen, when in fact it didn’t, creating memories.
9
Professor Ceci decided to trail his concept with the ‘Sam Stone’ experiment. This was set up in a local school where a classroom full of 5-6 year old’s was told a that a man named Sam Stone was coming to the class and that he’s very clumsy, this was the only information on Sam Stone that the children received. When he came to visit ‘Sam Stone’ stood in the room for a few minutes and then left, no actions, no words at all. Over the next month the children were asked suggestive questions 4 times, for example “remember when Sam Stone came to visit and he broke that toy?” The answers varied among children, one claimed he was reading a book, another child said that Sam threw dolls and books in the air before the teacher told him to leave the classroom. This experiment shows that children’s memories aren’t always correct; their perception can be altered merely through suggestive thoughts being planted. Later on in the episode Ceci performs another study, researchers asked 4-5 year old’s to pick a card out of 10 each one with a question on the back. Asking the children obscure questions once a week for ten weeks they asked questions such as “have you ever seen a baby alligator, eating apples on an airplane?” And “have you ever got your finger trapped in a mousetrap and had to visit the hospital?” The answers in the early weeks of the experiment are all negative but as the weeks progress the children start to believe that they have seen or done the questions asked before them. Stossel reports that by week 4,6 or 10 most of the kids are answering yes to the questions and providing such intricate details about the event. Professor Ceci mentions, “My colleagues and I were absolutely shocked, by the 10th week not only were they ascending to these things that didn’t occur but they were given very coherent narratives, that I think are quite pervasive.” (20/20, 2014) These studies show that our memories and perceptions of things we believe as a child can be altered and changed and not always be true. Professor Ceci has shown that children, when it comes to a court of law can’t be completely trustworthy as their minds are impressionable, although this of course leads to the danger of letting a real sexual abuser walking free, which is a price Professor Stephen Ceci isn’t willing to take as he has declined to testify in court, just in case. Elizabeth F. Loftus is a cognitive psychologist and an expert on memories. Her work on eyewitness cases and the misinformation act has had a substantial effect on psychology and the legal system. In an interview with Loftus, Lance Workman finds out why she studied the repressed human memory “I wanted to study this phenomenon – a process by which people could come to believe whole events happen to them that didn’t. I had to come up with an idea, but what could you plant in the minds of people?” (E. F. Loftus, 2012) Workman asks her about a study named “Lost in the shopping mall” the study consisted of college students and a fake memory was planted and then provoked. The study shows that a large percentage of the group believed that at age 5/6 they had been lost in a mall, they were crying, frightened and then finally rescued. Much like Professor Ceci’s studies Loftus shows that memories can be created and deposited not just in children but also adults.
Figure 4: Stills from the film showing Dr Bandura’s Bobo doll experiment, the first row shows the models demonstation, below shows a young boy and girl ‘playing’ with the doll.
Violence is an issue that has been considered as a influence of repressed memories or a hereditary gene, Dr. Albert Bandura produced an noteworthy study at Stanford University in the 1961. Taking 36 girls and 36 boys aged between 3-6 years old the children were all previous assessed on a level of 5 to see there natural aggression they were then separated into group were their levels of aggression were similar. 24 children watched a 10 minute video with a Bobo doll and a model (both male and female for more diverse findings) acting out violent acts, including hitting the dummy with a mallet, kicking it, throwing it in the air and holding it down and beating it as well as the model using words like “bam” and “pow”. Another group of 24 children were shown a film with a model & a Bobo doll where no violence was committed and the other 24 weren’t subjected to any video. The children were then exposed to aggression arousal, the children were taken into a room, allowed to play with the toys until they were told they weren’t aloud anymore, these were special reserved toys and the children were removed from this situation, this would build up a lot of annoyance in the child making them ready for the next stage. The child was then taken to another room with the both aggressive and non-aggressive toys available, they were then given 20 minutes to play whilst they were observed. The results were phenomenal the children that were shown the violent montage were more aggressive than the other 2 groups, these children also picked up the more aggressive toys like the plastic gun and began to ‘shoot’ the Bobo doll as well as using other toys to damage or harm the doll, showing signs of not just imitating the model but being more creative with their hostile ways. Boys were shown to be more aggressive than girls, where girls seemed to use more of the language used by the model. 11
The results are still debated today, the effects the violence had on the children has shown that children are susceptible from what they are shown and if taught that its o.k to beat up a doll they should imitate and recreate this scenario but if they were never presented to this environment they might never display such actions. Bandura’s results show that the home life a child is brought up in could have a large impact on what the child picks up and acts out. The nature vs nurture debate is further explored in the psychological thriller We need to talk about Kevin a film adapted from the novel by Lionel Shriver. The 2003 novel was produced into a film in 2010 and was first shown at the Cannes film festival 2011. The film deals with some dark concerns and argues the nature vs nurture argument. The story told through the mother’s perspective follows her throughout her pregnancy, birth of her children and her relationships she contracts with her husband and her children. Eva (Tilda Swinton) shows hatred and disgust towards her child even during early months of pregnancy and when Kevin (Ezra Miller) is born it doesn’t end. As he grows and becomes a young boy, the hatred between his mother and him is clear, the distance that she has kept between her son and her is worrying. Throughout the film Kevin tests Eva’s patience, pushing her physically and mentally. When she is blessed with another child, this time a girl, Eva’s ecstatic. Kevin doesn’t react well to this at all and continues acting out, including killing Celia (Ashley Gerasimovich) Guinea pig and also pouring bleach into her eye and framing his mother. The disturbing events all lead to the high school massacre orchestrated by Kevin. The film shows flashbacks to her former life, while you see Eva in her current position, unhappy and bullied by the local community, a shadow of herself. Connotations of the colour red are used through the film to represent the blood she wears on her hands everyday for the rest of her life.
Was Kevin born that way? It’s arguable that he felt the hatred from his mother as an unborn baby and this affected him or was it the environment he was brought up in that made him a serial killer. In a recent study of adopted children in America showed that if the adopted child had one or more parent with a criminal record they are 4 and a half times more likely to get in trouble with the police compared against children who don’t. (Mail online, 2010). Over 250 women and men were questioned in High school and then interviewed over the next 13 years, Dr. Kevin Beaver says “Adoptees who have a biological father or a biological mother who have been arrested previously are significantly more likely to be arrested, sentenced to probation, incarcerated and arrested multiple times.” This research shows a strong argument that genetics are more apparent in humans than their environment, much like the study by Robert Plomin. Aristotle said “Nothing in the mind that does not pass through the senses.” (The senses, how the body works, 2005) This shows that memories and senses are imperative to one another and as a collaborative tool can work together to conceive such things as survival, love, pleasure, pain and happiness. The five senses are memory inducer’s, the senses of smell and taste are the most powerful of all the senses and can create physical or emotional reactions by the limbic system, even when were are not consciously aware of a smell. When asking the public in my survey what a smell was that reminded them of home answers included home cooking, clean linen, woods and the smell of car fumes. Each answer more unique than the next, senses have the power to provoke memories, thoughts, feelings and even make us invision a place, a home. I asked the focus group if they felt the town/city/village had any influence on them today. Olivia* talks about how growing up in a remote town off the coast off Scotland to moving to the Capital effected her “There was such a stark contrast, the reason my parents moved to Edinburgh was for my education, I would have not be here now if it wasn’t for that.” Brian* from Paisley mentions coming from a small and unambitious town has effected him. “When I do get successful and anyone asks me what it was, I will answer where I came from.” When asking the public in my anonymous survey 15 out of 17 said that the place they grew up in had an effect on them today meaning, that’s over 88% of the public agreed that the place they grew up in effected them.
13
figure 5: to the right my Aunt Sheena wearing a nearly identical ensemble to me on the left but over 20 years later.
As well as our home location and environment having the ability to shape a human being’s life parents have a lot of control over us, inducing fears, habits and possibly effecting our style and taste. When asking the focus group if the way their parents dressed them as young children had an impact on Brian* a graduated fashion technology student claims “I was always dressed in a black trousers, a shirt, braces, a bow tie and knitted cardigans, sometimes dungarees, that was church style.” Showing us that his parent’s religious background had played a part in what they chose for their child. Claire* Dresses with a flare of 1970’s style with long wavy hair, long skirts and loose blouses she says this is all down to her style icon, her mother. “I dress very 70’s now & I remember I demanding my mum to dress me like her. I only lived with my mum and we didn’t have TV so all my inspiration came from her.” Still dressing like her mother today, Claire* appreciates the effect her mother has on her style, owes it to her even. Olivia* Also feels that her childhood fashion is reflected in what she wears today. “ I was dressed in boiler suits and dungarees coming from a farming background it was all about practicality, but you couldn’t tell if I was a boy or a girl!” Olivia* expresses that she still wears practical clothing now. Alan* imparts “ I never really understood fashion until I was 16/17, It wasn’t until then I stopped wearing just jeans and tees, now I think that reflects on what I wear today, always smart, shirts, ties.” From my focus group I learnt that over half felt their parents had effected the way they dress today and consequently have had an impact on the way they present themselves to the world. Results from my survey show that over 23% claim their parents don’t have any influence over what they wear today, this concludes me to believe that parents do have an effect on their children, whether it be through fashion or values.
Disproving the nature argument further is epigentic’s. It was alleged till the late 1980’s that DNA exemplified us as humans and that it couldn’t be adapted or changed, still true DNA cannot be modified but epi-genomes can. The epi-genome can create habits, disease and pass these down through generations. Researchers found evidence in a remote area of Norrbotten in Northern Sweden that a generation of boys that experienced the famine had grandchildren that went on to live longer and healthier lives juxtaposed with children that had food aplenty who faced diabetes, heart disease and a higher mortality rate. (Scishow, 2012) Twins make a good example of epigenetic’s, say identical twins are separated at birth, although their DNA would be identical their collective genome’s would be completely different due to their individual experiences, so although they might look the same and share some of the same epi-genomes its pot luck on which ones are hereditary or not. This means that the environment can change you and have an effect even more so than our DNA. “Our genome can’t prepare us for everything, that’s why it has to be re-written. So in a way it’s like a continuous narrative, a genetic memory that prepares us for the next stage in life, for better or worse.” (May Wang, 2014) Genetic scientists consider that epigenetic’s can be affected by time, age, environment and lifestyle but it’s also a natural occurrence. The epi-genome doesn’t change your DNA but it does decide whether certain genes are expressed and when. “What I like to say is that Mother Nature writes some things in pencil and some things in pen. Things written in pen you can’t change. That’s DNA. But things written in pencil you can. That’s epigenetic’s.” (Peter Miller, National Geographic, 2012)
15
Often tales of myths and legend feral children are very much real. Feral human beings have little or no human contact and as a result of are most of the time mentally impaired. Some are even believed to been raised by animals and there are several cases throughout time. Take Oxana Malaya also known as “the girl raised by dogs” was a normal baby born 1983, weighing in a 5 pounds, 11 oz. Oxana didn’t shown signs of any medical abnormalities and was considered a healthy and happy baby. Her parents, both drunks left her outside one night at the age of 3, Oxana climbed into the farm kennel and cuddled up to the mongrel dogs that lye within. “Mum had to many beds, so I called to the dog and started living with her.” (Body shock, Wild child, 2010) For the next 6 years she lived with the pack of dogs until it was reported to the authorities. Oxana’s development was severely effected. Not being able to speak, running on all fours and barking she showed signs that being reared by these animals has had an unthinkable and irreversible effect on her. “I would talk to them and they would bark and I would repeat it, that is how we communicated.”(Body shock, Wild child, 2010) When mentioning her parents Oxana says “I do love my parents, but I’m not sure whether they are my parents or not, I cant forgive them for what they did to me, so I think they are not my parents.” (Body shock, Wild child, 2010) Dr. James Law from City University, London say’s “Part of being a human is being brought up by humans, if your not brought up by humans are you completely human?” (Body shock, Wild child, 2010) This study of Oxana Malaya displayed that environment had been a crucial factor in her development and that could change and shape you effecting your genome’s and making you a different person than you could have been. Oxana now lives in a community centre in the Ukraine for the mentally ill and although her rehabilitation has been difficult she now seems more humanised and happy, talking Ukrainian, walking up right and behaving like the human she is. Sadly she will never be the human she could have been, due to her dramatic and unusual change in environment.
Figure 6: Still from Body shock, wild child. Oxana Malaya doing what comes natural to her.
Figure 7: My sisters and I photographed by my Grandfather in Feb,1993.
My research has led me to believe that nature and nurture are two separate composites that need each other. After reviewing both sides of the argument through my own research and different mediums, the results have led me to the conclusion that I do not believe that one is more significant than the other. The argument I’m sure will continue but I do not credit those who do not believe that it’s a mixture of the two. I myself are 1 of 6, 4 of which are girls but we are all different and unique in our own way, some of us have attended university some of us haven’t, some have had troublesome pasts others have not and we have all been brought up by our 2 biological parents in the same house, same environment yet were all different nonetheless similar. I believe this is because not only did my genes design me but my environment and my individual experiences too, shaping me into who I ‘am today. With sciences available to us now such as epigentic’s it’s to easy to dismiss nurture but after reviewing my collection of research I can only resolve that one is as important as the other. Throughout history anthropologists, sociologists and psychologists have questioned what makes us human, segregating nature from nurture but I ask you to consider that both work symbiotically together to make human’s unique, beautiful and intellectual beings.
17
By Islay Pickup
“From so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been and are being, evolved.� (Charles Darwin, The origin of species,1859)
bibliography
19
ABC, (2014). ABC’s 20/20. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPZu9E7C-_0 [Accessed 14 Nov. 2014]. Auday, B. (2014). [online] Ezproxy1.hw.ac.uk. Available at: http://ezproxy1.hw.ac.uk:3879/eds/detail/ detail?sid=e51250d6-33a1-4c4d-a961-4e667eb037a1%40sessionmgr198&vid=0&hid=120&bdata=JnNpdG U9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=ers&AN=93872203 [Accessed 9 Nov. 2014]. Benzine, C. (2013). The good stuff, Senses. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=To_ y8IYNyZs [Accessed 5 Nov. 2014]. Blogs.unimelb.edu.au, (2013). Scientific Scribbles » HUMAN BEHAVIOUR: NATURE OR NURTURE?. [online] Available at: http://blogs.unimelb.edu.au/sciencecommunication/2013/10/21/human-behaviournature-or-nurture/ [Accessed 8 Nov. 2014]. Bozeman science, (2013). Epigenetics. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9a-ru2ES6Y [Accessed 7 Nov. 2014]. Dept. phycology at Priestley College, (2010). Feral (wild child) children. [video] Available at: https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=93HymGXC_wM [Accessed 10 Nov. 2014]. Eia, H. (2011). Brainwash 7:7, nature vs nurture. [video] Available at: http://vimeo.com/19889788 [Accessed 20 Oct. 2014]. Eia, H. (2014). Brainwash 2.7, the parental effect. [video] Available at: http://vimeo.com/19893826 [Accessed 22 Oct. 2014]. Garcia, J. (2014). The nature Vs nurture debate. Salem Press Encyclopedia, http://ezproxy1.hw.ac.uk:3879/ eds/detail/detail?sid=335e5984-b926-4092-8652-f128668c257f%40sessionmgr115&vid=0&hid=120&bdata= JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=ers&AN=90558400. [Accessed 2 Nov. 2014]. Light, D. (2009). The Senses, how the body works.. 1st ed. [ebook] Chelsea house, Philadelphia. Available at: https://ezproxy1.hw.ac.uk:2162/readonline/9781438107721 [Accessed 3 Nov. 2014]. McLeod, S. (2014). Bobo Doll Experiment | Simply Psychology. [online] Simplypsychology.org. Available at: http://www.simplypsychology.org/bobo-doll.html [Accessed 11 Nov. 2014]. ORIGINS, (2014). Nature vs Nurture. [online] Available at: http://experimental-origins.weebly.com/nature-vsnurture.html [Accessed 7 Nov. 2014]. Sci Show, (2012). Epigentics. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp1bZEUgqVI [Accessed 12 Nov. 2014]. The people voice, (2014). Hidden science- episode 7 epigenetics. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=H56ztWAcu04 [Accessed 10 Nov. 2014]. UCL TV, (2011). The legacy of eugenics. [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5zSRYch5 0A&list=PLGt96HcqIGuHYasKMR1Wm3oq3oPqPK5S- [Accessed 20 Nov. 2014]. Feral Children, (2010). [video] Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PyUfG9u-P4 [Accessed 16 Nov. 2014].
list of illustrations
21
Figure 1- Imperial War museum London, (2014). Image of Roma Gypsies from the Holocaust. [image] Available at: http://www.iwm.org.uk/history/collecting-for-the-holocaustexhibition [Accessed 27 Nov. 2014]. Figure 2- Eia, H. (2014). Still from Brainwash 2.7, the parental effect. [image] Available at: http://vimeo.com/19893826 [Accessed 27 Nov. 2014]. Figure 3- ABC’s 20/20, (2014). Still from ABC’s 20/20. [image] Available at: https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=BPZu9E7C-_0 [Accessed 27 Nov. 2014]. Figure 4- Stanford University, (2014). Dr. Bandura Bobo doll. [image] Available at: http:// stanford.edu/dept/psychology/bandura/papers/papers-agression.html [Accessed 27 Nov. 2014]. Figure 5- My Grandfathers photography. Figure 6- Film still from Feral Children, (2010). [video] Available at: https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=2PyUfG9u-P4 [Accessed 16 Nov. 2014]. Figure 7- My Granfathers photography. All other images from my personal family collection photographed by Alan McIntyre, my Grandfather.