Answer:
D) Their behaviors are the result of the interaction of nature and nurture.
Explanation:
The "nature versus nurture" debate is a centuries-old debate about what determines human behavior. This debate becomes more heated when discussing the actions of certain individuals that have been universally reviled, like dictator Adolf Hitler, serial killer Ted Bundy, and Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. Were they born "evil", or did they become "evil". According to researcher Matt Riley, on his <em>Nature via Nurture</em> book, the relation between nature and nurture isn't one dominating over the other, or a simple causal relationship of one creating the other. Rather, there exists a dialectical relationship between both. In other words, the <u>behaviors of the men listed above are the result of the interaction of nature and nurture</u>, where each one of these can't explain their actions alone and by itself. Rather, it is the interaction between their genetic makeup and their particular life experiences that created their personalities.
Answer:
A civil rights advocate who believed in civil disobedience might be attracted to the movement around <u>Dr. Martin Luther King</u>, while someone promoting black power would be more at home in the movement of <u>Malcolm X</u>.
Explanation:
Dr. Martin Luther King believed in civil disobedience but he didn't advocate for violence while Malcolm X unfortunately advocated for violence.
In this book, Jonathan Kozol wrote an ethnography of public schools in Chicago and its suburbs. Kozol argued that, because schools were funded by local property taxes, children in poor neighborhoods were necessarily trapped in poor schools. This system reinforces inequality. He also records the many differences between "poor" and "rich" schools," which included the difference in funding in arts and music and the number of foreign language teachers, nurses, librarians and psychologists.
