Google search on "amygdala child abuse": http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=amygdala+child+abuse
So it seems that the debate has been resolved in a good materialist way: nurturing does affect children, but that's because it's a material phenomenon. The genetic compotent determines the set of *possible developments*, but the contingencies of child rearing determines the specific *actual development*. The irony here is that certain environmental factors may have irreversible effects, while genetic factors account for the plasticity of childhood development.
Curtiss, without background in biology, but having a personal interest in such research.
> > > The nature/nurture debate continues.
> > >
> > > - Deborah R.
> >
> > No, it's been discarded. The most common viewpoint in psych
> > nowadays is the heredity and environmental factors interact
> > to produce psychological traits and disorders.
>
> Exactly. OR what I call the "52 Pick-Up" theory of life, and it's
> my view. None of my daughter's female sociopathic relatives had
> therapy of any kind during their developmental years, so there's
> always hope that she may develop a healthier personality by being
> exposed to more positive biological and environmental factors. Heh,
> or at the very least, maybe sociopath-lite?