Here is an ADDITION to my previous "Self-Analysis Post" that was posted earlier:
My development of knowledge has expanded over the past month while creating this blog. In the first couple of posts, I introduced nature vs. nurture. Although I already knew what this concept was, I still learned from writing about it. For example, in my nature post, I did not know that the presence of certain genes cause an individual to have diseases such as Alzheimer’s. Before, I thought that everyone will eventually get Alzheimer’s because of old age. However, this can be reversed by the environment’s effects. Reading and doing puzzles frequently can reverse the predisposition to memory loss.
In a debate with two opposing sides, it is important for bias not to be present. In my blog, I introduced both sides and developed an argument based on evidence, not general assumptions. Facts that are relevant to my topic are introduced to support my claims. For example, in my “Evidence Supporting Nurture” post, I examined the effects of supportive parenting on substance abuse. I described how even though a child is predisposed to substance abuse due to a gene, parents can help reverse that by simply being supportive parents.
I also explored various topics such as my own traits, love, fear, homosexuality and blank slate, some of which were suggested by classmates who were curious about the topic. While researching some of these topics, I found further evidence for nurture. For instance, in my “Love” post I state that the foods children eat at a young age and at adulthood are different. You may have hated salad as a child but love it now.
Although I have investigated several topics, I have not covered EVERYTHING because there are numerous possible issues. Humans have a handful of traits (humor, shyness, sensitivity, ambition, outgoing, etc.), and it would be never-ending, or so it may seem, to examine each and every one of these human characteristics. The category of “human personality traits” is too broad to explore in detail. The topics that I have covered are either controversial or just interesting to explore.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Cartoon - Homosexuality
Just a little cartoon to depict the controversial topic of homosexuality. In this cartoon, the person claims that he was born this way.
What made me laugh (although I am aware that this is a serious topic) somewhat was the second part of the cartoon. A rainbow of colors spreads out when the mother delivers her baby. This is just exaggerating the assertion that homosexuality is genetic.
(If you have difficulty seeing the image, then click here)
Monday, November 2, 2009
Implications Post
The answer to the question, “Is this behavior caused by genetics or environment?” is usually “both.” Strong genetic factors do not mean that environment cannot affect the behavior, and strong environmental factors do not mean genetics cannot intervene.
Now you’re probably thinking, “Why the debate?” Well, the nature vs. nurture debate became so contentious in the first place because people were curious and did not know an answer as to how people came to be, personality-wise. It is difficult to say that either nature or nurture shape who we are because both essentially do. However, there are strong proponents of each side who believe that nature or nurture has a stronger influence.
The simple acceptance of the statement that “nature gives us inborn abilities and traits” and nurture “takes these genetic abilities and shapes them as we learn and mature” appears to be the end of the debate. However, it does not stop there. Scientists are still researching to determine exactly how much of human behavior is attributed to genes and how much to environment. It is difficult to say whether or not this debate will ever end because as each day progresses, there will be more discoveries to be made, furthering the debate.
One technological advance furthering the debate is DNA testing. This opens the eyes of many in the nature-nurture debate because evidence reveals connections between a gene and behavior. When a violent gene is coupled with a bad environment, a child may be raised to become aggressive and violent. Supporters of nature attribute this behavior to genetics, since it first initiates the behavior.
The pendulum swings from side to side depending on the era of time. Earlier this century, it swung almost entirely to the nurture side as psychologists performed several studies favoring nurture. Now, since society is heavily technological, the pendulum swings toward the nature side. Like the nature of a pendulum, this debate will most likely keep swinging back and forth until the end of time.
Now you’re probably thinking, “Why the debate?” Well, the nature vs. nurture debate became so contentious in the first place because people were curious and did not know an answer as to how people came to be, personality-wise. It is difficult to say that either nature or nurture shape who we are because both essentially do. However, there are strong proponents of each side who believe that nature or nurture has a stronger influence.
The simple acceptance of the statement that “nature gives us inborn abilities and traits” and nurture “takes these genetic abilities and shapes them as we learn and mature” appears to be the end of the debate. However, it does not stop there. Scientists are still researching to determine exactly how much of human behavior is attributed to genes and how much to environment. It is difficult to say whether or not this debate will ever end because as each day progresses, there will be more discoveries to be made, furthering the debate.
One technological advance furthering the debate is DNA testing. This opens the eyes of many in the nature-nurture debate because evidence reveals connections between a gene and behavior. When a violent gene is coupled with a bad environment, a child may be raised to become aggressive and violent. Supporters of nature attribute this behavior to genetics, since it first initiates the behavior.
The pendulum swings from side to side depending on the era of time. Earlier this century, it swung almost entirely to the nurture side as psychologists performed several studies favoring nurture. Now, since society is heavily technological, the pendulum swings toward the nature side. Like the nature of a pendulum, this debate will most likely keep swinging back and forth until the end of time.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
Racism
This is a video on racism in relation to nature vs. nurture. Here are some quick points mentioned in the video:
- Younger children spend more time staring at different races from their own when presented with photographs
- Toddlers notice race more than gender
- Kids pick out friends based on skin color
- Kids’ brains categorize world and assume people that look like them are more similar to them
- Conversations about race are difficult for parents
- Why point race out if it doesn’t matter? (Everyone is equal) But science says in absence of communication, kids will make errors.
- Self-segregation at schools goes up as school diversity goes up
The information presented here is quite interesting. I did not realize how important race was at a young age. Come to think of it, did I think of race when I was younger? I probably did but was unaware of doing it. Younger children are still developing and do not know much about the world, and this is where curiosity kicks in. They are curious as to why people look different from them. The video also mentions that kids choose friends based on physical similarities. Now, people of all ages have friends that are completely different or strikingly similar.
The point about self-segregation at school reminded me of my past school years and the present (no doubt that it will happen in the future…it is inevitable). I remember in high school, people had their own cliques to hang out with: African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, Whites and others. If an Asian was seen with a group of African Americans, it would be looked at as “weird.” However, there is nothing strange about this situation. Diversity is stressed in schools communities, so why don’t some people accept it? Does hanging with only people your own race make you feel comfortable and fit in? If so, then that is not right. As the old saying goes, “it’s not the outside that matters, it’s what inside.” For example, some people stereotype African Americans as those who usually commit crimes and therefore associate African Americans with “bad” activities. However, that is not always the case. People are programmed with these stereotypes from a young age and then learn to associate certain acts with certain people once they see it occur several times.
We are not born with the ability to sense that “African Americans commit crimes”, “Asians are smart” and “Hispanics are illegal immigrants.” We learn to associate these traits as time progresses in our early stages of development. So why are we so fascinated with race in the first place? Is it because our differences help define who we really are? Until now, I thought racism was all learned, but apparently it has its natural roots as well.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Annotated Links Post
This image captures the debate on the general scale. However, it can be misleading. It appears that nature is stronger, but in reality, it is just two different people (although one may interpret it as nature "winning" the fight).
General Information
This is an about.com page that provides basic information regarding nature vs. nurture. The website describes each side in the debate and then goes further on to point out relevant facts to support or counteract claims. Nature-nurture is not the same as cause-effect; if you were born that way, then that does not necessarily mean that you will behave that way forever. Personality can change over time.
Personality Development
An understanding of personality development is essential before delving into the nature vs. nurture debate. Personality is basically comprised of three components: temperament, environment and character. Temperament is the genetically determined traits, environment is the adaptations and influences surrounding the individual and character is the emotional and cognitive aspect. Personality is examined in the early stages of development (infancy) to later stages (adolescence).
Chameleon Effect
The chameleon effect, a psychological phenomenon, is mentioned in this article. This effect is similar to the nurture theory, in saying that people imitate the behaviors of others around them. The environment in which we live and the people around us affect how we behave.
Homosexuality
Although not necessarily a link, this YouTube video sheds light on the controversial homosexuality issue. Two cases are presented: one of identical twins and one of fraternal twins. Both of these cases show that homosexuality is not ENTIRELY dependent on genes, as previously believed.
Evolutionary Psychology
This site has a section on evolutionary psychology in relation to nature vs. nurture. With Darwin and the theory of evolution, personality is formed for the survival of the fittest, meaning that our genes change over time to meet the needs of the world in which we live in today. Some of these evolutionary psychologists say that certain fears (death, injury, snakes) and traits (shyness, addiction, criminality) are inheritable, but this has drawn criticism.
Fact or Fiction?
Helpful to those who are gullible, this website lists ten politically incorrect truths about human nature. You all have heard various rumors throughout your lifetime thus far, and this Psychology Today article separates fact from fiction with relevant explanations. Topics covered include attractiveness, marriage, divorce and criminality.
Tabula Rasa
Tabula rasa, or blank slate, is the “modern denial of human nature.” Investigated by John Locke, this theory states that humans are born with nothing. However, this cannot be entirely valid because in order to acquire new behaviors, humans must have the inborn ability to learn. The blank slate theory does provide a strong argument for debate.
Compromise?
Some say nature, some say nurture...but a lot say both. Of course this is true, so you are wondering why there is an argument in the first place. There is an argument because exactly how much of a role nature or nurture plays in the development of personality are still at debate. Genes interact with the environment to form traits; it is a nature VIA nurture type of pathway.
So, there are the links that outline the general topic of nature vs. nurture. While researching, I found quite a bit more evidence supporting nurture. In the end, you cannot have one without the other.
Self-Analysis Post
Throughout the duration of this blog project, my knowledge of the nature vs. nurture topic has expanded. I began with the basic information about the two: nature says that genes influence behavior, and nurture states that environment affects behavior. I was aware about some controversial topics such as homosexuality and obesity, but I was not fully knowledgeable about the details until I further investigated the topic.
The question of inherited or acquired traits are at the center of this entire debate. People do not know what traits can be attributed to what cause. For example, if a child is obese, then who is to blame? Parents or the environment? An interesting concept that I came across while researching was the “genes being affected by genes” statement. By this, I mean that a husband and wife raise a child in their own home and teach them everything, confining the child to within home limits. What is this considered as? Parents share genes, yet parents also serve as the nurturing component. I thought about this and decided that this situation is mostly genetic. A child gets his or her genes from parents, and the entire situation is connected by genetics.
The definition of nature vs. nurture is “a traditional and long-standing disagreement over whether heredity or environment is more important in the development of living things, especially human beings.” This then lead me to think…what exactly is environment? When I think of the word “environment,” the idea of a person’s surroundings comes to mind. There could also be a family environment, one could argue for that. However, parents’ genes and the child’s genes are very similar, and being around a similar set of genes is not considered nurture. This is also supported by twin studies.
Observing parent-child behaviors is much like observing twins interact. Twins share genetic material as well as social and cultural environments. Keeping them together would do no benefit in observing their behaviors; they need to be reared apart. When twin behavior is observed when raised together, researchers are most likely to attribute behavior to nature, not nurture.
Another intriguing facet of my discoveries includes the concept of feral children. Investigating this topic made me realize the importance of education in order to become a human (Yes, that may sound awkward: having to be educated in order to act like a human being…but it is true). When you think about it, people must learn how to eat with etiquette, walk, talk, etc. These abilities do not come inborn; they must be learned. However, natural bodily functions are excluded because a child does not need to learn how to breathe and blink (these reflexes are more towards the biology aspect, which I will not delve into at the moment).
A few weeks ago, I caught myself in a thought-provoking conversation with my roommate. She asked me what makes us human. I came up with several ideas such as language and thought; however, animals communicate and analyze situations as well. The answer was a much broader one. Culture makes us human. Then I thought to myself, culture is learned and is not inborn…so this even strengthens the nurture argument. Who we are and how we behave directly correlates to our lifestyle and culture.
The statement of culture is learned reminded me of the statement “behavior is learned” from psychology. The entire field of learning psychology, or behaviorism, is to show that behavior is indeed a learned trait. The nurture movement was driven by the social sciences. Sigmund Freud stressed the importance of childhood experiences, and B.F. Skinner proved that behavior can be conditioned. Bringing psychology into the field creates a whole new world. A simple nature vs. nurture argument can be expanded to include several subjects such as biology, chemistry, psychology and anthropology, just to name a few.
This expansion of the nature vs. nurture theory led me to think about all behavioral traits and abilities that humans are born with or acquire. It has made me question my own traits, as presented in a previous blog. I have thought about how I have come to like or dislike certain things. Although I find lots of evidence for the nurture theory, it does not mean that I deny nature. Evidence is necessary in order to form an argument.
In the end, both nature AND nurture play a key role in human development. Nature is there before birth, and nurture presents itself after birth. Most psychological behaviors are connected to a biological behavior. As humans, we have the capacity to adapt to new situations and change our behaviors. Genetics does influence behavior and may predispose us to some ailment; however, genetics is not a prediction of life in the future. What you do and how you live your life is what matters most. While nature may be better at explaining mating, nurture better explains differences in cultures. Ultimately, it is the interaction between nature and nurture that determines human behavior.
The question of inherited or acquired traits are at the center of this entire debate. People do not know what traits can be attributed to what cause. For example, if a child is obese, then who is to blame? Parents or the environment? An interesting concept that I came across while researching was the “genes being affected by genes” statement. By this, I mean that a husband and wife raise a child in their own home and teach them everything, confining the child to within home limits. What is this considered as? Parents share genes, yet parents also serve as the nurturing component. I thought about this and decided that this situation is mostly genetic. A child gets his or her genes from parents, and the entire situation is connected by genetics.
The definition of nature vs. nurture is “a traditional and long-standing disagreement over whether heredity or environment is more important in the development of living things, especially human beings.” This then lead me to think…what exactly is environment? When I think of the word “environment,” the idea of a person’s surroundings comes to mind. There could also be a family environment, one could argue for that. However, parents’ genes and the child’s genes are very similar, and being around a similar set of genes is not considered nurture. This is also supported by twin studies.
Observing parent-child behaviors is much like observing twins interact. Twins share genetic material as well as social and cultural environments. Keeping them together would do no benefit in observing their behaviors; they need to be reared apart. When twin behavior is observed when raised together, researchers are most likely to attribute behavior to nature, not nurture.
Another intriguing facet of my discoveries includes the concept of feral children. Investigating this topic made me realize the importance of education in order to become a human (Yes, that may sound awkward: having to be educated in order to act like a human being…but it is true). When you think about it, people must learn how to eat with etiquette, walk, talk, etc. These abilities do not come inborn; they must be learned. However, natural bodily functions are excluded because a child does not need to learn how to breathe and blink (these reflexes are more towards the biology aspect, which I will not delve into at the moment).
A few weeks ago, I caught myself in a thought-provoking conversation with my roommate. She asked me what makes us human. I came up with several ideas such as language and thought; however, animals communicate and analyze situations as well. The answer was a much broader one. Culture makes us human. Then I thought to myself, culture is learned and is not inborn…so this even strengthens the nurture argument. Who we are and how we behave directly correlates to our lifestyle and culture.
The statement of culture is learned reminded me of the statement “behavior is learned” from psychology. The entire field of learning psychology, or behaviorism, is to show that behavior is indeed a learned trait. The nurture movement was driven by the social sciences. Sigmund Freud stressed the importance of childhood experiences, and B.F. Skinner proved that behavior can be conditioned. Bringing psychology into the field creates a whole new world. A simple nature vs. nurture argument can be expanded to include several subjects such as biology, chemistry, psychology and anthropology, just to name a few.
This expansion of the nature vs. nurture theory led me to think about all behavioral traits and abilities that humans are born with or acquire. It has made me question my own traits, as presented in a previous blog. I have thought about how I have come to like or dislike certain things. Although I find lots of evidence for the nurture theory, it does not mean that I deny nature. Evidence is necessary in order to form an argument.
In the end, both nature AND nurture play a key role in human development. Nature is there before birth, and nurture presents itself after birth. Most psychological behaviors are connected to a biological behavior. As humans, we have the capacity to adapt to new situations and change our behaviors. Genetics does influence behavior and may predispose us to some ailment; however, genetics is not a prediction of life in the future. What you do and how you live your life is what matters most. While nature may be better at explaining mating, nurture better explains differences in cultures. Ultimately, it is the interaction between nature and nurture that determines human behavior.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Cartoon
This cartoon reminded me of a section in my analysis post regarding children raised in the wild. Trevor, as seen, was raised in wild by sloths. He therefore behaves like a sloth by hanging upside down.
There have been cases where children were raised in the wild and develop no sense of language, empathy or morals. I wonder if this can be reversed since nurture does affect human behavior. Before the child lived with animals, and now the child will live with humans. Will the humans eventually influence the child to act like a person?
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Tabula Rasa ("Blank Slate")
An English philosopher named John Locke postulated the tabula rasa (blank slate) theory, which states that people learn and acquire ideas from external forces, or the environment. Humans are born with an empty mind, having no knowledge whatsoever. People acquire ideas from the surrounding world, turning simple ideas into complex ones. This blank slate of mind starts off devoid of any knowledge, but then it is “written on” as a person lives and experiences. Therefore, a person has no identity until after birth.
The tabula rasa theory has strikingly similar characteristics of the nurture theory because the environment has the ability to shape an individual’s mind and experiences. Each new experience serves as a stage of growth, expanding possibilities and gathering new knowledge. Both nurture and tabula rasa view the environment and an individual’s surroundings as essential in forming human traits.
If this theory holds true, then how are instincts and intuitions explained? The critics of the blank slate theory state that the theory cannot hold true because then the mind would need to have the “ability to learn or apply knowledge.” An adjustment to this theory can be made so that the ability to acquire knowledge is innate. Other than that, the human mind is a blank slate.
Evolutionary psychologists believe that the human mind has been changed very little since the existence of humankind. The main assumption of evolutionary psychology is that the human mind is essentially a working computer, evolving and adapting by natural selection. Minds are pre-programmed with certain mental functions, such as perception and emotion. With this in mind, evolutionary psychologists invalidate John Locke’s tabula rasa theory.
The theory that humans have a blank slate at birth can be valid, to a certain extent, because the environment does influence traits and actions. The only exception is when innate characteristics are considered. However, innate ability and blank slate are two totally opposing ideas, so how can they coexist? Can you say that the human mind is a blank slate, yet the capability to acquire knowledge is innate?
The tabula rasa theory has strikingly similar characteristics of the nurture theory because the environment has the ability to shape an individual’s mind and experiences. Each new experience serves as a stage of growth, expanding possibilities and gathering new knowledge. Both nurture and tabula rasa view the environment and an individual’s surroundings as essential in forming human traits.
If this theory holds true, then how are instincts and intuitions explained? The critics of the blank slate theory state that the theory cannot hold true because then the mind would need to have the “ability to learn or apply knowledge.” An adjustment to this theory can be made so that the ability to acquire knowledge is innate. Other than that, the human mind is a blank slate.
Evolutionary psychologists believe that the human mind has been changed very little since the existence of humankind. The main assumption of evolutionary psychology is that the human mind is essentially a working computer, evolving and adapting by natural selection. Minds are pre-programmed with certain mental functions, such as perception and emotion. With this in mind, evolutionary psychologists invalidate John Locke’s tabula rasa theory.
The theory that humans have a blank slate at birth can be valid, to a certain extent, because the environment does influence traits and actions. The only exception is when innate characteristics are considered. However, innate ability and blank slate are two totally opposing ideas, so how can they coexist? Can you say that the human mind is a blank slate, yet the capability to acquire knowledge is innate?
Monday, October 26, 2009
Fear
“AHHH!!!” Screams the little child as she exchanges paths with a spider. Now this leads me to wonder...WHY are we afraid of certain things? HOW do we develop these phobias?
William Hamilton and George Williams, through Darwin’s theory of evolution, say that “fear of death, fear of injury and fear of snakes are main examples of inheritable behaviors.” Additionally, according to Stephen Pinker, an MIT psychologist, fear of snakes and spiders are in our DNA as a result of natural selection. However, not everyone is afraid of these items listed above. For example, some people are not afraid of snakes (don’t you remember those on the Discovery Channel doing dangerous stunts with snakes?). Also, in New Guinea people exhibit little apprehension when in the presence of snakes. It is not valid to assume these fears.
It is also a generalization to say that everybody is afraid of death. There are certain stages in life where the phobia is distinct. When you were a little child, did you think of dying? Most likely not. You were just born and just experiencing the world, yet to understand its complications. Death is a natural process, so being afraid of it makes this phobia seem unnatural. It will happen to everyone. Being afraid of it does not make it come sooner or later; it depends on how you live your life and the day-to-day events that spontaneously occur. However, “a healthy fear of death would be the fear of dying unprepared,” as humans dislike experiencing the unexpected: loud noises, sudden pokes and startling appearances. Being prepared can only go so far…you cannot be prepared for everything that happens in life. How does one prepare for death? A realistic answer would be to set up funeral arrangements and the details associated with the death process, such as clothes and burial or cremation. In this discussion, fear of death appears to be learned. Little children do not perceive death as threatening until later on in life. Also, with the snake example, fear of snakes is learned. What we see our environment influences how we view the world and how our mind is shaped. People develop phobias through learning and association.
William Hamilton and George Williams, through Darwin’s theory of evolution, say that “fear of death, fear of injury and fear of snakes are main examples of inheritable behaviors.” Additionally, according to Stephen Pinker, an MIT psychologist, fear of snakes and spiders are in our DNA as a result of natural selection. However, not everyone is afraid of these items listed above. For example, some people are not afraid of snakes (don’t you remember those on the Discovery Channel doing dangerous stunts with snakes?). Also, in New Guinea people exhibit little apprehension when in the presence of snakes. It is not valid to assume these fears.
It is also a generalization to say that everybody is afraid of death. There are certain stages in life where the phobia is distinct. When you were a little child, did you think of dying? Most likely not. You were just born and just experiencing the world, yet to understand its complications. Death is a natural process, so being afraid of it makes this phobia seem unnatural. It will happen to everyone. Being afraid of it does not make it come sooner or later; it depends on how you live your life and the day-to-day events that spontaneously occur. However, “a healthy fear of death would be the fear of dying unprepared,” as humans dislike experiencing the unexpected: loud noises, sudden pokes and startling appearances. Being prepared can only go so far…you cannot be prepared for everything that happens in life. How does one prepare for death? A realistic answer would be to set up funeral arrangements and the details associated with the death process, such as clothes and burial or cremation. In this discussion, fear of death appears to be learned. Little children do not perceive death as threatening until later on in life. Also, with the snake example, fear of snakes is learned. What we see our environment influences how we view the world and how our mind is shaped. People develop phobias through learning and association.
Class Links Post
In addition to my blog, there are other blogs that you should visit.
Environment
This is a blog on the environment, and the main focus here is on climate change. The blogger investigates various alternatives of energy such as solar and wind as well as their pros and cons, which shows that this is an unbiased blogger because information is supported by evidence. The Earth is our only home planet, and we must protect it by being eco-friendly. Harming the environment does no good because if you are damaging the environment, then you are equally damaging your life. Where you live and what you breathe matter.
In addition to alternative energy sources, other ways of improving the environment are mentioned such as composting. Those who do not know what composting is can visit this blog because the blogger provides adequate information.
Going green and being eco-friendly does not have to be expensive, as proved by the blogger. Each small step develops and grows towards larger ones. With this, the change is gradual and beneficial. So if you want to know more about climate change and the environment, then visit this blog!
Drinking Age
Interested in the drinking age? Well, consider this blog. There has been a debate going on about the drinking age in the United States. It is currently 21, while in other countries it is 18. The legal drinking age was once 18 in the United States, but it was increased. Now, people are trying to push to lower the age once again. This blog is worth visiting because it examines an issue relevant to all college students, no matter if you are a freshman or senior. A freshman can get in trouble if drinking illegally, and a senior can be caught if providing alcohol to minors. Either way, the decision is difficult.
There are two sides to this argument: lower the drinking age or keep it the same. The proponents of lowering the age argue that since 18 year olds can fight in wars, vote and do jury duty, they should be able to drink. On the other hand, the supporters of keeping the age the same argue that lowering the age would cause more alcohol-related accidents. This blogger fights for the lowering of the drinking age because then teenagers would not be so excited to try something new and break the law. Drinking would be considered as a social activity, not one that is “just for fun.”
Legalization of Marijuana
This blog investigates the legalization of drugs and more specifically, marijuana. Ever since the beginning of the debate, Nixon declared a “war on drugs,” making this sound like a negative aspect of life. However, drugs not only do harm, but also good. Marijuana provides medicinal qualities when used appropriately. The blogger makes a good point by saying that alcohol and tobacco are legal and also pose health risks, so why not legalize marijuana?
The blogger describes the history of marijuana and how it became so controversial. Analysis of historical aspects shows that the “drug-as-vice” perspective has roots from centuries ago. If the drug were to be legalized, then people would not be so inclined to smuggle. Similar to the drinking age issue, breaking the law is bad, yet people still do it anyway. After several instances of breaking laws, the “bad=cool” connection is made; cool people break laws. Overall, arguments are very well-structured and develop a central theme: marijuana legalization.
Environment
This is a blog on the environment, and the main focus here is on climate change. The blogger investigates various alternatives of energy such as solar and wind as well as their pros and cons, which shows that this is an unbiased blogger because information is supported by evidence. The Earth is our only home planet, and we must protect it by being eco-friendly. Harming the environment does no good because if you are damaging the environment, then you are equally damaging your life. Where you live and what you breathe matter.
In addition to alternative energy sources, other ways of improving the environment are mentioned such as composting. Those who do not know what composting is can visit this blog because the blogger provides adequate information.
Going green and being eco-friendly does not have to be expensive, as proved by the blogger. Each small step develops and grows towards larger ones. With this, the change is gradual and beneficial. So if you want to know more about climate change and the environment, then visit this blog!
Drinking Age
Interested in the drinking age? Well, consider this blog. There has been a debate going on about the drinking age in the United States. It is currently 21, while in other countries it is 18. The legal drinking age was once 18 in the United States, but it was increased. Now, people are trying to push to lower the age once again. This blog is worth visiting because it examines an issue relevant to all college students, no matter if you are a freshman or senior. A freshman can get in trouble if drinking illegally, and a senior can be caught if providing alcohol to minors. Either way, the decision is difficult.
There are two sides to this argument: lower the drinking age or keep it the same. The proponents of lowering the age argue that since 18 year olds can fight in wars, vote and do jury duty, they should be able to drink. On the other hand, the supporters of keeping the age the same argue that lowering the age would cause more alcohol-related accidents. This blogger fights for the lowering of the drinking age because then teenagers would not be so excited to try something new and break the law. Drinking would be considered as a social activity, not one that is “just for fun.”
Legalization of Marijuana
This blog investigates the legalization of drugs and more specifically, marijuana. Ever since the beginning of the debate, Nixon declared a “war on drugs,” making this sound like a negative aspect of life. However, drugs not only do harm, but also good. Marijuana provides medicinal qualities when used appropriately. The blogger makes a good point by saying that alcohol and tobacco are legal and also pose health risks, so why not legalize marijuana?
The blogger describes the history of marijuana and how it became so controversial. Analysis of historical aspects shows that the “drug-as-vice” perspective has roots from centuries ago. If the drug were to be legalized, then people would not be so inclined to smuggle. Similar to the drinking age issue, breaking the law is bad, yet people still do it anyway. After several instances of breaking laws, the “bad=cool” connection is made; cool people break laws. Overall, arguments are very well-structured and develop a central theme: marijuana legalization.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Theory Post
The concept of the “developmental systems theory” can bring an end to most of the debate. This theory states that "genes are not static; they are dynamic. Genes interact with the environment to form traits." Abilities form together along with "development, community and context." Genes matter and are important, but results require genetic expression in combination with the environment. In this theory, it is nature via nurture that determines and influences the behavior of human beings.
In addition, the nature vs. nurture debate has been largely claimed as obsolete by researchers because both genetics and environment play a huge role in development, and they often overlap. Essentially, what this is saying is that there is no “debate,” just research trying to figure out how much nature and nurture play a role in developing personality.
Although there is no “debate” about both playing a role, there are some hot topics to consider such as obesity and homosexuality (both of which were covered in previous posts).
Overall, there is still research going on. Due to the expanding knowledge, who knows when the research will be deemed “sufficient” or “finished?” Nothing in the field of science seems to be “complete” because there is always that extra step, that extra information waiting to be found.
In addition, the nature vs. nurture debate has been largely claimed as obsolete by researchers because both genetics and environment play a huge role in development, and they often overlap. Essentially, what this is saying is that there is no “debate,” just research trying to figure out how much nature and nurture play a role in developing personality.
Although there is no “debate” about both playing a role, there are some hot topics to consider such as obesity and homosexuality (both of which were covered in previous posts).
Overall, there is still research going on. Due to the expanding knowledge, who knows when the research will be deemed “sufficient” or “finished?” Nothing in the field of science seems to be “complete” because there is always that extra step, that extra information waiting to be found.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Analysis of Nature vs. Nurture (UPDATED)
We all have strong opinions on how we became and who we really are. It is obvious that physical traits are mostly inherited. I did not get my brown eyes from spending too much time with my best friend, nor will my eyes change to a blue color if I spend too much time with another friend. I will not suddenly grow taller if live next to and see a tall man every day. Anyway, I think you get the point. The environment and our surroundings will not change physical traits like eye color or height, only surgery can do that…
Indeed, there are two sides to this argument: behavior is determined by our genes and behavior is shaped by our environment. While in the past few posts I argue for the environment, or nurture, shaping our personalities, there is also evidence for the nature theory as well. I understand that both sides are valid arguments; however, I see that nurture plays more of an important role in shaping behavior. I will examine arguments for both sides by examining certain issues in this post. Each paragraph below will focus on one idea.
History
Where exactly did this all begin? Well, the nature versus nurture debate can be traced back to 13th century France. A man named Francis Galton used "nature" and "nurture” to discuss the influence of genes and upbringing on development. Galton states that “nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world; nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth.” What Galton stated at this time is very similar to the definitions of nature and nurture today. On the whole, the nature vs. nurture debate has its roots in France.
Personality Development
In order to understand the nature vs. nurture debate, an understanding of personality development is necessary. Psychology has many theories about personality development, but first let’s examine exactly what personality development is. Personality development is the pattern of behaviors and attitudes that is unique to a person. Personality development is a result of the interaction between temperament, character and environment. Temperament is the genes that determine an individual’s view of the world. There are no genes that specify personality traits, but some genes do control the development of the nervous system, which in turn controls behavior. Looking at this, genes seem to have an indirect role in personality development. Now, I will explore different topics as they relate to nature and nurture.
Intelligence
Let’s look at a common topic like intelligence, for example. Asian-Americans, Jews and West Indian Blacks have been unusually successful. An intelligent father and mother will not necessarily give birth to an intelligent child, and an intelligent child can result from not-so-bright parents. Intelligence is quite malleable and owes little or nothing to genetics. Effort plays a major role in intellectual success. Because of culture and parenting, these groups work harder and do more with what they have.
There is also a correlation between the verbal ability scores of biological parents and their children compared to adopted children and adoptive parents.
Personally, I can relate to this issue. Both of my parents immigrated to the United States from Vietnam. Thus, they knew little English and had difficulties communicating. This communication barrier blocked their path towards receiving a high education. As of now, my parents are intelligent enough to get through life. In addition, they received mediocre grades; they were not the brightest. However, my parents say that both my brother and I are “more intelligent” than them. Were my brother and I influenced by our environment? Did our parents teach us how to become more studious? On a lighter note, some of my mom’s coworkers have joked saying that where did my brother and I get our intelligence.
Obesity
What about obesity?. The connection between genetics and intelligence is not as clear as between genetics and obesity. In most cases, genetics determines our size and weight. Now that does not mean that those who are overweight have little hope in changing their lives. With determination and will, one can slightly overcome the genetics and lose weight. Although you may not be the model type, you will be in a healthier weight range. Diet and level of physical activity are important. There are some people who are obese, and yet they have tried everything. 77% of obesity is genetic. Obese children can be doing the exact same activities as the less obese children. It is wrong to stigmatize them and blame parents without knowing about their actual eating habits and lifestyle. (Just a little side note: I have always wondered what the results would be if I ate as much as I wanted, whenever I wanted. It is easy to gain weight but difficult to lose, in most situations). The obesity example shows that genetics plays a major role, but the environment can re-shape those influences.
Usually people stereotype and say that Asians cannot be obese because it is in their genes. I agree with this to a certain extent. No one in my family is obese; however, two of my cousins have gotten a little chubbier. I believe this is due to the food they have eaten. Genetics can only “protect” you from so much. On the other hand, my dad consumes quite a large amount of food, yet he remains around the same weight range. On rare occasions, some people have trouble gaining weight and say that they cannot do it. Gaining weight is A LOT easier than losing weight for sure. They just have to try to eat more…it is as simple as that.
Criminal Behavior
As with the connection between genes and obesity, the connection between genetics and criminal behavior is also debatable. Scientists say that some people are more inclined to commit criminal acts than others. A study performed by Tehrani and Mednick in 2000 revealed that compared to the control group, “the adopted individuals, which were born to incarcerated female offenders, had a higher rate of criminal convictions as adults.” The diathesis stress model states that there are individuals born with a predisposition for violence but may or may not be violent depending on environmental factors. There is also evidence of brain abnormalities contributing to aggression, and serotonin levels are linked to aggression. These two aspects are linked with genes.
There is a misconception that both genes and environment play a role in the criminal status of the individual, and it is not always true. First, what exactly is the environment? Parents share your genes, so being raised in a violent family cannot be technically considered "environment." It is like genes reacting to genes. What would this be considered as?
Divorce
Contrary to the previous topic, divorce and genetics have a connection. A twin study suggests that genetics has a strong influence on length of marriage. Marriage and divorce rates were compared in identical and non-identical male twins. Results show that identical twins are more likely to follow the same divorce patterns than non-identical twins, which indeed suggests a genetic influence on divorce.
Wild Child
Consequently, environment can be definitely considered in the wild. The question at hand is whether behaviors are influenced when a child grows up in the wild. Indeed, living in the wild is completely different than living in a nice, comfy home. In the wild, animals hunt for food and live on their own. Here is a case of a child living in the wild:
A Cambodian girl went missing when she was 8 years old. When found 18 years later, she was hunting for food, walking on all fours and not speaking any intelligible language. This is one of the many cases involving children raised by animals, similar to Romulus and Remus who were raised by wolves. What can we learn from the discovery of the existence of wild children? They would not be able to communicate or show empathy with other human beings and would be unaware of the needs of others. Concepts such as morals, property and possessions would be mysterious to them. If brought up by animals, they would not identify themselves as human. This phenomenon may lead to conclude that upbringing is “entirely responsible for providing humans with language, the ability to think and the concept of our own humanity.” What happens in childhood has a deep impact on neurological development. However, the brain does control neurological functioning and genes influence intellectual ability (influence, not form…considering the intelligence paragraph above).
Freud
Childhood experiences in relation with behavioral traits are a topic that Sigmund Freud examined. Freud said that personality develops by age 5. Childhood is the most important part of personality development. We are born with our id, develop our ego through interaction with the environment and form our superego, or conscience, by age five. Looking at Freud’s theory of personality development, behavior is shaped mostly by the interactions that the child has with the world before age 5. Freud does not mention anything about genetics. While this holds some truth value, events past childhood have the potential in changing one’s personality as well, although childhood events may form the foundation for the future.
In A Larger View
Genetically inherited traits have an impact on how others see you and how you see yourself. If you have poor motor skills and cannot throw a ball straight, then your peers may label you as an incompetent baseball player. Because of your label, you perceive yourself to be a failure. Skin color, gender and sexual orientation are also likely to influence how you perceive yourself as well. Whether you are accepted or unaccepted by others can engender you to behave in a socially acceptable or deviant way.
Causal Relationships
Everything is related, right? Well, it depends on how you look at it. Nature and nurture exert influences on one another, but they are not necessarily a “cause-effect” relationship. The interactions among hormones, brains and behaviors are intricate.
An example of culture’s influence on biology is that adolescents are going through puberty much younger than before. Perhaps this is the result of exposure to “grown-up” influences in the teenage years, or because of higher stress.
However, as said before, the link between a gene and a behavior is not the same as cause and effect. While a gene may increase the likelihood that you'll behave in a particular way, it does not make people perform in certain ways. There is still room for choice and free will.
The Other Sides
There are those who argue for nature, and there are those who argue for nurture. In addition, there exists euthenists, who believe bad parenting and society’s evils cause all problems, and the supporters of eugenics, who blame faulty genes for all of society's problems and want to prevent all "bad" people from reproducing. These two other sides do not attribute a cause to behavior but attribute a cause to BAD behavior.
A Scale
Imagine a scale with nature on one side and nurture on another. Which side is heavier? Where do you belong? This concept of the scale or spectrum is also seen in politics, with conservative on the right and liberal on the left. Conservatives lean towards nature and liberals towards nurture. Like this spectrum, there are people in the middle, moderates. There are people who argue in favor of nature while others for nurture, but there are exists the ones in the middle, arguing for both. So, now you might wonder why there was even a debate in the first place.
Uncertainty
There is a debate between nature and nurture because of uncertainty. People are not sure, and this creates tension to find out the right answer. If you were given two choices and only two choices (nature or nurture, for example), then you would answer “both,” but “both” is not one of the choices.
In A Nutshell
Yes, nature and nurture both play a role in personality development, but what scientists are trying to figure out now is exactly how much each part contributes to behavior.
Indeed, there are two sides to this argument: behavior is determined by our genes and behavior is shaped by our environment. While in the past few posts I argue for the environment, or nurture, shaping our personalities, there is also evidence for the nature theory as well. I understand that both sides are valid arguments; however, I see that nurture plays more of an important role in shaping behavior. I will examine arguments for both sides by examining certain issues in this post. Each paragraph below will focus on one idea.
History
Where exactly did this all begin? Well, the nature versus nurture debate can be traced back to 13th century France. A man named Francis Galton used "nature" and "nurture” to discuss the influence of genes and upbringing on development. Galton states that “nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world; nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth.” What Galton stated at this time is very similar to the definitions of nature and nurture today. On the whole, the nature vs. nurture debate has its roots in France.
Personality Development
In order to understand the nature vs. nurture debate, an understanding of personality development is necessary. Psychology has many theories about personality development, but first let’s examine exactly what personality development is. Personality development is the pattern of behaviors and attitudes that is unique to a person. Personality development is a result of the interaction between temperament, character and environment. Temperament is the genes that determine an individual’s view of the world. There are no genes that specify personality traits, but some genes do control the development of the nervous system, which in turn controls behavior. Looking at this, genes seem to have an indirect role in personality development. Now, I will explore different topics as they relate to nature and nurture.
Intelligence
Let’s look at a common topic like intelligence, for example. Asian-Americans, Jews and West Indian Blacks have been unusually successful. An intelligent father and mother will not necessarily give birth to an intelligent child, and an intelligent child can result from not-so-bright parents. Intelligence is quite malleable and owes little or nothing to genetics. Effort plays a major role in intellectual success. Because of culture and parenting, these groups work harder and do more with what they have.
There is also a correlation between the verbal ability scores of biological parents and their children compared to adopted children and adoptive parents.
Personally, I can relate to this issue. Both of my parents immigrated to the United States from Vietnam. Thus, they knew little English and had difficulties communicating. This communication barrier blocked their path towards receiving a high education. As of now, my parents are intelligent enough to get through life. In addition, they received mediocre grades; they were not the brightest. However, my parents say that both my brother and I are “more intelligent” than them. Were my brother and I influenced by our environment? Did our parents teach us how to become more studious? On a lighter note, some of my mom’s coworkers have joked saying that where did my brother and I get our intelligence.Obesity
What about obesity?. The connection between genetics and intelligence is not as clear as between genetics and obesity. In most cases, genetics determines our size and weight. Now that does not mean that those who are overweight have little hope in changing their lives. With determination and will, one can slightly overcome the genetics and lose weight. Although you may not be the model type, you will be in a healthier weight range. Diet and level of physical activity are important. There are some people who are obese, and yet they have tried everything. 77% of obesity is genetic. Obese children can be doing the exact same activities as the less obese children. It is wrong to stigmatize them and blame parents without knowing about their actual eating habits and lifestyle. (Just a little side note: I have always wondered what the results would be if I ate as much as I wanted, whenever I wanted. It is easy to gain weight but difficult to lose, in most situations). The obesity example shows that genetics plays a major role, but the environment can re-shape those influences.
Usually people stereotype and say that Asians cannot be obese because it is in their genes. I agree with this to a certain extent. No one in my family is obese; however, two of my cousins have gotten a little chubbier. I believe this is due to the food they have eaten. Genetics can only “protect” you from so much. On the other hand, my dad consumes quite a large amount of food, yet he remains around the same weight range. On rare occasions, some people have trouble gaining weight and say that they cannot do it. Gaining weight is A LOT easier than losing weight for sure. They just have to try to eat more…it is as simple as that.
Criminal Behavior
As with the connection between genes and obesity, the connection between genetics and criminal behavior is also debatable. Scientists say that some people are more inclined to commit criminal acts than others. A study performed by Tehrani and Mednick in 2000 revealed that compared to the control group, “the adopted individuals, which were born to incarcerated female offenders, had a higher rate of criminal convictions as adults.” The diathesis stress model states that there are individuals born with a predisposition for violence but may or may not be violent depending on environmental factors. There is also evidence of brain abnormalities contributing to aggression, and serotonin levels are linked to aggression. These two aspects are linked with genes.
There is a misconception that both genes and environment play a role in the criminal status of the individual, and it is not always true. First, what exactly is the environment? Parents share your genes, so being raised in a violent family cannot be technically considered "environment." It is like genes reacting to genes. What would this be considered as?
Divorce
Contrary to the previous topic, divorce and genetics have a connection. A twin study suggests that genetics has a strong influence on length of marriage. Marriage and divorce rates were compared in identical and non-identical male twins. Results show that identical twins are more likely to follow the same divorce patterns than non-identical twins, which indeed suggests a genetic influence on divorce.
Wild Child
Consequently, environment can be definitely considered in the wild. The question at hand is whether behaviors are influenced when a child grows up in the wild. Indeed, living in the wild is completely different than living in a nice, comfy home. In the wild, animals hunt for food and live on their own. Here is a case of a child living in the wild:
A Cambodian girl went missing when she was 8 years old. When found 18 years later, she was hunting for food, walking on all fours and not speaking any intelligible language. This is one of the many cases involving children raised by animals, similar to Romulus and Remus who were raised by wolves. What can we learn from the discovery of the existence of wild children? They would not be able to communicate or show empathy with other human beings and would be unaware of the needs of others. Concepts such as morals, property and possessions would be mysterious to them. If brought up by animals, they would not identify themselves as human. This phenomenon may lead to conclude that upbringing is “entirely responsible for providing humans with language, the ability to think and the concept of our own humanity.” What happens in childhood has a deep impact on neurological development. However, the brain does control neurological functioning and genes influence intellectual ability (influence, not form…considering the intelligence paragraph above).
Freud
Childhood experiences in relation with behavioral traits are a topic that Sigmund Freud examined. Freud said that personality develops by age 5. Childhood is the most important part of personality development. We are born with our id, develop our ego through interaction with the environment and form our superego, or conscience, by age five. Looking at Freud’s theory of personality development, behavior is shaped mostly by the interactions that the child has with the world before age 5. Freud does not mention anything about genetics. While this holds some truth value, events past childhood have the potential in changing one’s personality as well, although childhood events may form the foundation for the future.
In A Larger View
Genetically inherited traits have an impact on how others see you and how you see yourself. If you have poor motor skills and cannot throw a ball straight, then your peers may label you as an incompetent baseball player. Because of your label, you perceive yourself to be a failure. Skin color, gender and sexual orientation are also likely to influence how you perceive yourself as well. Whether you are accepted or unaccepted by others can engender you to behave in a socially acceptable or deviant way.
Causal Relationships
Everything is related, right? Well, it depends on how you look at it. Nature and nurture exert influences on one another, but they are not necessarily a “cause-effect” relationship. The interactions among hormones, brains and behaviors are intricate.
An example of culture’s influence on biology is that adolescents are going through puberty much younger than before. Perhaps this is the result of exposure to “grown-up” influences in the teenage years, or because of higher stress.
However, as said before, the link between a gene and a behavior is not the same as cause and effect. While a gene may increase the likelihood that you'll behave in a particular way, it does not make people perform in certain ways. There is still room for choice and free will.
The Other Sides
There are those who argue for nature, and there are those who argue for nurture. In addition, there exists euthenists, who believe bad parenting and society’s evils cause all problems, and the supporters of eugenics, who blame faulty genes for all of society's problems and want to prevent all "bad" people from reproducing. These two other sides do not attribute a cause to behavior but attribute a cause to BAD behavior.
A Scale
Imagine a scale with nature on one side and nurture on another. Which side is heavier? Where do you belong? This concept of the scale or spectrum is also seen in politics, with conservative on the right and liberal on the left. Conservatives lean towards nature and liberals towards nurture. Like this spectrum, there are people in the middle, moderates. There are people who argue in favor of nature while others for nurture, but there are exists the ones in the middle, arguing for both. So, now you might wonder why there was even a debate in the first place.
Uncertainty
There is a debate between nature and nurture because of uncertainty. People are not sure, and this creates tension to find out the right answer. If you were given two choices and only two choices (nature or nurture, for example), then you would answer “both,” but “both” is not one of the choices.
In A Nutshell
Yes, nature and nurture both play a role in personality development, but what scientists are trying to figure out now is exactly how much each part contributes to behavior.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Love
Are we born to love certain things and hate others? Or do we learn what to love and what to hate?
Remember when you were a child, and you hated eating fruits and vegetables? Well, do you see yourself enjoying fruits and vegetables now? That may be the case for some. Personally, I have been through this situation. When I was little, I despised anything healthy. However, now I am somewhat health-conscious, watching what I eat and making sure I have a balanced diet.
Children may not initially like the taste of certain foods, when environmental factors are controlled children can learn to like them anyway. With this in mind, parents can promote wellness by providing a healthy eating environment. In order to provide a healthy eating environment, parents must be a good role model and offer good choices. Kids operate on “monkey see, monkey do,” meaning that they see what others do and imitate. If kids see their parents munching on some carrots, then they would most likely do the same.
Enough about foods. What about people? Why are men more innately attracted to blue-eyed, blonde haired women while women are attracted to tall, dark and handsome men? This may be due to the cultural imperialism of the mostly fair British, then the Americans who made blondee hair and blue eyes a beauty ideal. Light hair and fairness are seen as more attractive, but dark haired and dark skinned are viewed as more masculine.
Blonde hair is unique in that it changes dramatically with age. Typically, young girls with light blonde hair become women with brown hair. Thus, men who prefer to mate with blonde women are unconsciously attempting to mate with younger, healthier and more fecund women.
However, women with blue eyes should not be any different from those with green or brown eyes. Yet preference for blue eyes seems both universal in males and females. One explanation is that the human pupil dilates when an individual is exposed to something that she likes. Those with blue eyes serve as potential mates because it is easiest to see whether or not they are interested in us.
Blonde hair and blue eyes have history and evolution behind it as well as environment. We learn to associate these people with health and fecundity. So, our environment influences what we like to eat and what type of person we love. We are not programmed to hate vegetables, and we are not programmed to love blue eyed people. These examples are what we learn to love and hate.
Remember when you were a child, and you hated eating fruits and vegetables? Well, do you see yourself enjoying fruits and vegetables now? That may be the case for some. Personally, I have been through this situation. When I was little, I despised anything healthy. However, now I am somewhat health-conscious, watching what I eat and making sure I have a balanced diet.
Children may not initially like the taste of certain foods, when environmental factors are controlled children can learn to like them anyway. With this in mind, parents can promote wellness by providing a healthy eating environment. In order to provide a healthy eating environment, parents must be a good role model and offer good choices. Kids operate on “monkey see, monkey do,” meaning that they see what others do and imitate. If kids see their parents munching on some carrots, then they would most likely do the same.
Enough about foods. What about people? Why are men more innately attracted to blue-eyed, blonde haired women while women are attracted to tall, dark and handsome men? This may be due to the cultural imperialism of the mostly fair British, then the Americans who made blondee hair and blue eyes a beauty ideal. Light hair and fairness are seen as more attractive, but dark haired and dark skinned are viewed as more masculine.
Blonde hair is unique in that it changes dramatically with age. Typically, young girls with light blonde hair become women with brown hair. Thus, men who prefer to mate with blonde women are unconsciously attempting to mate with younger, healthier and more fecund women.
However, women with blue eyes should not be any different from those with green or brown eyes. Yet preference for blue eyes seems both universal in males and females. One explanation is that the human pupil dilates when an individual is exposed to something that she likes. Those with blue eyes serve as potential mates because it is easiest to see whether or not they are interested in us.
Blonde hair and blue eyes have history and evolution behind it as well as environment. We learn to associate these people with health and fecundity. So, our environment influences what we like to eat and what type of person we love. We are not programmed to hate vegetables, and we are not programmed to love blue eyed people. These examples are what we learn to love and hate.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Questioning My Traits
I would like to question some of my traits. I am aware that I got most of my physical traits from my parents. People say that I look like my mom, got my eyebrows my dad and height from both parents. Nonetheless, there are certain traits of which I cannot trace their existence to.
Why do I have bad vision? My parents never had myopia, or nearsightedness, but they do have reading glasses, as a product of old age I assume. I begin to notice my vision blurring between third and fourth grade. As a result, I was the owner of a new pair of glasses in the beginning of fourth grade. I would consider my vision horrible right now; I cannot see with either glasses or contacts. Did the environment and my surroundings contribute to my poor vision?
Why do I have crooked teeth? My parents have teeth that are not perfectly straight but straight enough in order to not need any orthodontic aid. My brother’s teeth are fine as well. I had to get braces. Why me?
Where did I get my work ethic? I seem to spend a lot more time on studying and doing homework than both my brother and my parents. I try hard on everything that I do, especially in school. My parents are not the best at speaking English, and this led them to receive a mediocre education. However, my brother, born in the United States with good English skills, spends less time on homework and receives superior grades. I have heard that some people are slower than others. Does this characteristic come from the influences of others?
Why do I not enjoy the smell and taste of durian? If you do not know what durian is, it is an odiferous yellow fruit with a hard, prickly shell. This fruit is enjoyed in several parts of Southeast Asia, and both of my parents are fond of the fruit. On the other hand, both my brother and I do not find this fruit appealing. Taste is a product of our genes and environment. Our food preferences are determined by multiple factors, including genes, experience and age. Genes play a part by giving a person a predetermined taste preference, and our environment is a factor in learning new tastes. In looking at my example of durian, genes seem to play a small role. Speaking of taste, there is a fifth taste called umami, which is the taste of MSG (monosodium glutamate). Both of my parents claim to taste MSG, but I cannot distinguish it from other “good” tastes. In looking at my experiences, genes play a minimal role in taste detection.
These are only a few of the qualities that I notice to be not parallel with my genetics. Hmmm…that gives me something to think about…
Why do I have bad vision? My parents never had myopia, or nearsightedness, but they do have reading glasses, as a product of old age I assume. I begin to notice my vision blurring between third and fourth grade. As a result, I was the owner of a new pair of glasses in the beginning of fourth grade. I would consider my vision horrible right now; I cannot see with either glasses or contacts. Did the environment and my surroundings contribute to my poor vision?
Why do I have crooked teeth? My parents have teeth that are not perfectly straight but straight enough in order to not need any orthodontic aid. My brother’s teeth are fine as well. I had to get braces. Why me?
Where did I get my work ethic? I seem to spend a lot more time on studying and doing homework than both my brother and my parents. I try hard on everything that I do, especially in school. My parents are not the best at speaking English, and this led them to receive a mediocre education. However, my brother, born in the United States with good English skills, spends less time on homework and receives superior grades. I have heard that some people are slower than others. Does this characteristic come from the influences of others?
Why do I not enjoy the smell and taste of durian? If you do not know what durian is, it is an odiferous yellow fruit with a hard, prickly shell. This fruit is enjoyed in several parts of Southeast Asia, and both of my parents are fond of the fruit. On the other hand, both my brother and I do not find this fruit appealing. Taste is a product of our genes and environment. Our food preferences are determined by multiple factors, including genes, experience and age. Genes play a part by giving a person a predetermined taste preference, and our environment is a factor in learning new tastes. In looking at my example of durian, genes seem to play a small role. Speaking of taste, there is a fifth taste called umami, which is the taste of MSG (monosodium glutamate). Both of my parents claim to taste MSG, but I cannot distinguish it from other “good” tastes. In looking at my experiences, genes play a minimal role in taste detection.
These are only a few of the qualities that I notice to be not parallel with my genetics. Hmmm…that gives me something to think about…
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Analysis of Different Perspectives
We all have strong opinions on how we became and who we really are. It is obvious that physical traits are mostly inherited. I did not get my brown eyes from spending too much time with my best friend, nor will my eyes change to a blue color if I spend too much time with another friend. I will not suddenly grow taller if live next to and see a tall man every day. Anyway, I think you get the point. The environment and our surroundings will not change physical traits like eye color or height, only surgery can do that…
There are two sides to this argument: behavior is determined by our genes and behavior is shaped by our environment. While in the past few posts I argue for the environment, or nurture, shaping our personalities, there is also evidence for the nature theory as well. I understand that both sides are valid arguments; however, I see that nurture plays more of an important role in shaping behavior. I will examine arguments for both sides in this post.
(I know this is a lengthy post, but there are subheadings for each topic covered)
History
The nature versus nurture debate can be traced all the way back to 13th century France. Francis Galton used the terms "nature" and "nurture” in 1874 to discuss the influence of genetics and environment on a person's development. Galton states that nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world; nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth.
Personality Development
Psychology has many theories about personality development, but first let’s talk about exactly what personality development is. Personality development is the development of the organized pattern of behaviors and attitudes that makes a person distinctive. Personality development occurs by the ongoing interaction of temperament, character and environment. Temperament is the set of genetic traits that determine a child's approach to the world. There are no genes that specify personality traits, but some genes do control the development of the nervous system, which in turn controls behavior. Looking at this, genes seem to have an indirect role in personality development.
Intelligence
Let’s look at a common topic like intelligence, for example. Asian-Americans, Jews and West Indian Blacks have been unusually successful. An intelligent father and mother will not necessarily give birth to an intelligent child, and an intelligent child can result from not-so-bright parents. Intelligence is quite malleable and owes little or nothing to genetics. Effort plays a major role in intellectual success. Because of culture and parenting, members of these groups work harder and do more with what they have.
There is also a correlation between the verbal ability scores of biological parents and their children compared to adopted children and adoptive parents.
Obesity
What about obesity?. In most cases, genetics determines our size and weight. Now that does not mean that those who are overweight have little hope in changing their lives. With determination and will, one can slightly overcome the genetics and lose weight. Although you may not be the model type, you will be in a healthier weight range. Diet and level of physical activity are important. There are some people who are obese, and yet they have tried everything. 77% of obesity is genetic. Obese children can be doing the exact same activities as the less obese children. It is wrong to stigmatize them and blame their parents without actually knowing anything about their particular diet or exercise. (Just a little side note: I have always wondered what the results would be if I ate as much as I wanted, whenever I wanted. It is easy to gain weight but difficult to lose, in most situations). The obesity example shows that genetics play a role, but the environment can re-shape those influences.
Wild Child
Living in the wild is completely different than living in a nice, comfy home. In the wild, animals hunt for food and live on their own.
A Cambodian girl went missing when she was 8 years old. When found 18 years later, she was hunting for food, walking on all fours and not speaking any intelligible language. This is one of the many cases involving children raised by animals, similar to Romulus and Remus who were raised by wolves. What can we learn from the discovery of the existence of wild children? They would not be able to communicate or show empathy with other human beings. Wild children would typically be entirely unaware of the needs and desires of others. The concepts of morals, property and possessions would be strange to them, and they would be unable to show empathy with others. If brought up by animals, they would not identify themselves as human. The phenomenon of wild children may lead us to conclude that upbringing is entirely responsible for providing humans with language, the ability to think and the concept of our own humanity. What happens in early childhood would have a profound, overriding impact on neurological development. However, the brain does control neurological functioning and genes influence intellectual ability (influence, not form…considering the intelligence paragraph above).
Criminal Behavior
Scientists say that some people are more inclined to commit criminal acts. A study performed by Tehrani and Mednick in 2000 revealed that compared to the control group, the adopted individuals, which were born to incarcerated female offenders, had a higher rate of criminal convictions as adults. The diathesis stress model theorizes that there are individuals born with a propensity for violence for various reasons but may or may not become violent depending upon environmental factors. There is evidence of brain abnormalities contributing to aggression, and serotonin levels are linked to aggression.
The misconception that both genes and environment play a role in the criminality of the individual is not always true. First, what is the environment? Your parents share your genes, so being raised in a violent family cannot be technically considered "environment." It is like genes reacting to genes. What would this be considered as?
Divorce
A study of twins suggests that genetic make-up has a strong influence on whether or not your marriage will last. Marriage and divorce rates were compared in identical and non-identical male twins. Results show that identical twins were more likely to follow the same patterns of divorce than non-identical twins, which suggests a significant genetic influence on divorce.
Freud
Freud said that personality develops by age 5. Childhood is the most important part of personality development. We are born with our id, develop our ego through interaction with the environment and form our superego, or conscience, by age five. Looking at Freud’s theory of personality development, behavior is shaped mostly by the interactions that the child has with the world before age 5. Freud does not mention anything about genetics.
In A Larger View
Your genetically inherited physical and mental capabilities have an impact on how others see you and how you see yourself. If you have poor motor skills and cannot throw a ball straight, then your peers may label you as an incompetent baseball player. Because of your label, you perceive yourself to be a failure. Skin color, gender and sexual orientation are likely to have a major impact on how you perceive yourself as well. Whether you are accepted by others as being normal or abnormal can lead you to think and act in a socially acceptable or deviant way.
Causal Relationships
Everything is related, right? Well, it depends on how you look at it. Nature and nurture exert influences on one another, but they are not necessarily a “cause-effect” relationship. The interactions among hormones, brains and behaviors are incredibly complex.
An example of the influence of human culture on biology is that adolescents are now going through puberty younger than a few generations ago, perhaps as the result of exposure to “grown-up” influences in teenage culture, or possibly because of higher stress.
However, the link between a gene and a behavior is not the same as cause and effect. While a gene may increase the likelihood that you'll behave in a particular way, it does not make people do things. There is still room for choice and free will.
The Other Sides
There are those who argue for nature, and there are those who argue for nurture. In addition, there exists euthenists, who cite bad parenting and the evils of society as the cause of all mental problems, and the proponents of eugenics, who blame faulty genes for all of society's ills and want to prevent all "bad" people from reproducing. These two other sides do not attribute a cause to behavior but attribute a cause to BAD behavior.
A Scale
Imagine a scale with nature on one side and nurture on another. Which side is heavier? Where do you belong? This concept of the scale or spectrum is also seen in politics, with conservative on the right and liberal on the left. Conservatives lean towards nature and liberals towards nurture. Like this spectrum, there are people in the middle, moderates. There are people who argue in favor of nature while others for nurture, but there are exists the ones in the middle, arguing for both. So, now you might wonder why there was even a debate in the first place.
Uncertainty
There is a debate between nature and nurture because of uncertainty. People are not sure, and this creates tension to find out the right answer. If you were given two choices and only two choices (nature or nurture, for example), then you would answer “both” because “both” is not one of the choices.
In A Nutshell
Yes, nature and nurture both play a role in personality development, but what scientists are trying to figure out now is exactly how much each part contributes to behavior.
There are two sides to this argument: behavior is determined by our genes and behavior is shaped by our environment. While in the past few posts I argue for the environment, or nurture, shaping our personalities, there is also evidence for the nature theory as well. I understand that both sides are valid arguments; however, I see that nurture plays more of an important role in shaping behavior. I will examine arguments for both sides in this post.
(I know this is a lengthy post, but there are subheadings for each topic covered)
History
The nature versus nurture debate can be traced all the way back to 13th century France. Francis Galton used the terms "nature" and "nurture” in 1874 to discuss the influence of genetics and environment on a person's development. Galton states that nature is all that a man brings with himself into the world; nurture is every influence that affects him after his birth.
Personality Development
Psychology has many theories about personality development, but first let’s talk about exactly what personality development is. Personality development is the development of the organized pattern of behaviors and attitudes that makes a person distinctive. Personality development occurs by the ongoing interaction of temperament, character and environment. Temperament is the set of genetic traits that determine a child's approach to the world. There are no genes that specify personality traits, but some genes do control the development of the nervous system, which in turn controls behavior. Looking at this, genes seem to have an indirect role in personality development.
Intelligence
Let’s look at a common topic like intelligence, for example. Asian-Americans, Jews and West Indian Blacks have been unusually successful. An intelligent father and mother will not necessarily give birth to an intelligent child, and an intelligent child can result from not-so-bright parents. Intelligence is quite malleable and owes little or nothing to genetics. Effort plays a major role in intellectual success. Because of culture and parenting, members of these groups work harder and do more with what they have.
There is also a correlation between the verbal ability scores of biological parents and their children compared to adopted children and adoptive parents.
Obesity
What about obesity?. In most cases, genetics determines our size and weight. Now that does not mean that those who are overweight have little hope in changing their lives. With determination and will, one can slightly overcome the genetics and lose weight. Although you may not be the model type, you will be in a healthier weight range. Diet and level of physical activity are important. There are some people who are obese, and yet they have tried everything. 77% of obesity is genetic. Obese children can be doing the exact same activities as the less obese children. It is wrong to stigmatize them and blame their parents without actually knowing anything about their particular diet or exercise. (Just a little side note: I have always wondered what the results would be if I ate as much as I wanted, whenever I wanted. It is easy to gain weight but difficult to lose, in most situations). The obesity example shows that genetics play a role, but the environment can re-shape those influences.
Wild Child
Living in the wild is completely different than living in a nice, comfy home. In the wild, animals hunt for food and live on their own.
A Cambodian girl went missing when she was 8 years old. When found 18 years later, she was hunting for food, walking on all fours and not speaking any intelligible language. This is one of the many cases involving children raised by animals, similar to Romulus and Remus who were raised by wolves. What can we learn from the discovery of the existence of wild children? They would not be able to communicate or show empathy with other human beings. Wild children would typically be entirely unaware of the needs and desires of others. The concepts of morals, property and possessions would be strange to them, and they would be unable to show empathy with others. If brought up by animals, they would not identify themselves as human. The phenomenon of wild children may lead us to conclude that upbringing is entirely responsible for providing humans with language, the ability to think and the concept of our own humanity. What happens in early childhood would have a profound, overriding impact on neurological development. However, the brain does control neurological functioning and genes influence intellectual ability (influence, not form…considering the intelligence paragraph above).
Criminal Behavior
Scientists say that some people are more inclined to commit criminal acts. A study performed by Tehrani and Mednick in 2000 revealed that compared to the control group, the adopted individuals, which were born to incarcerated female offenders, had a higher rate of criminal convictions as adults. The diathesis stress model theorizes that there are individuals born with a propensity for violence for various reasons but may or may not become violent depending upon environmental factors. There is evidence of brain abnormalities contributing to aggression, and serotonin levels are linked to aggression.
The misconception that both genes and environment play a role in the criminality of the individual is not always true. First, what is the environment? Your parents share your genes, so being raised in a violent family cannot be technically considered "environment." It is like genes reacting to genes. What would this be considered as?
Divorce
A study of twins suggests that genetic make-up has a strong influence on whether or not your marriage will last. Marriage and divorce rates were compared in identical and non-identical male twins. Results show that identical twins were more likely to follow the same patterns of divorce than non-identical twins, which suggests a significant genetic influence on divorce.
Freud
Freud said that personality develops by age 5. Childhood is the most important part of personality development. We are born with our id, develop our ego through interaction with the environment and form our superego, or conscience, by age five. Looking at Freud’s theory of personality development, behavior is shaped mostly by the interactions that the child has with the world before age 5. Freud does not mention anything about genetics.
In A Larger View
Your genetically inherited physical and mental capabilities have an impact on how others see you and how you see yourself. If you have poor motor skills and cannot throw a ball straight, then your peers may label you as an incompetent baseball player. Because of your label, you perceive yourself to be a failure. Skin color, gender and sexual orientation are likely to have a major impact on how you perceive yourself as well. Whether you are accepted by others as being normal or abnormal can lead you to think and act in a socially acceptable or deviant way.
Causal Relationships
Everything is related, right? Well, it depends on how you look at it. Nature and nurture exert influences on one another, but they are not necessarily a “cause-effect” relationship. The interactions among hormones, brains and behaviors are incredibly complex.
An example of the influence of human culture on biology is that adolescents are now going through puberty younger than a few generations ago, perhaps as the result of exposure to “grown-up” influences in teenage culture, or possibly because of higher stress.
However, the link between a gene and a behavior is not the same as cause and effect. While a gene may increase the likelihood that you'll behave in a particular way, it does not make people do things. There is still room for choice and free will.
The Other Sides
There are those who argue for nature, and there are those who argue for nurture. In addition, there exists euthenists, who cite bad parenting and the evils of society as the cause of all mental problems, and the proponents of eugenics, who blame faulty genes for all of society's ills and want to prevent all "bad" people from reproducing. These two other sides do not attribute a cause to behavior but attribute a cause to BAD behavior.
A Scale
Imagine a scale with nature on one side and nurture on another. Which side is heavier? Where do you belong? This concept of the scale or spectrum is also seen in politics, with conservative on the right and liberal on the left. Conservatives lean towards nature and liberals towards nurture. Like this spectrum, there are people in the middle, moderates. There are people who argue in favor of nature while others for nurture, but there are exists the ones in the middle, arguing for both. So, now you might wonder why there was even a debate in the first place.
Uncertainty
There is a debate between nature and nurture because of uncertainty. People are not sure, and this creates tension to find out the right answer. If you were given two choices and only two choices (nature or nurture, for example), then you would answer “both” because “both” is not one of the choices.
In A Nutshell
Yes, nature and nurture both play a role in personality development, but what scientists are trying to figure out now is exactly how much each part contributes to behavior.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Homosexuality
This YouTube video explores the realm of homosexuality in twins. There are two cases presented: fraternal twins and identical twins. Adam and Jared are the fraternal twins, and Greg and Steve are identical twins. Just some bullet points that I gathered from watching the video:
• Adam’s behavior is called childhood gender nonconformity, where a child’s behaviors are more typical of the opposite sex. Extreme childhood gender nonconformity eventually leads to being gay.
• The environment in the womb is important (Hmmm… “environment in the womb” …is that nature or nurture?)
• Rat experiment – the hormones that you are exposed to after birth affects behavior (gave female rat an injection of testosterone, and rat became more manly)
• More older brothers a man has, the greater likelihood that is he gay (older brother affects boy only if boy is right-handed – Hmmm…what do you think about this?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Osw05HGe5I
Monday, October 12, 2009
Evidence Supporting Nurture
Now that you have been exposed to both sides of the debate, I would like to shed light on the evidence supporting the nurture theory.
Darwin’s theory of evolution led William Hamilton, George Williams and many others to the idea of personality evolution. They proposed that like physical organs, your personality is the result of natural selection for survival of the fittest. You do as your genes dictate. They suggest that fear of death, fear of injury, fear of snakes, shyness, addiction, criminality and sexual orientation are main examples of inheritable behaviors. However, there is strong criticism on this approach:
1- There is no single universal behavior which can be proved evolutionary. Even fear of death, that seems natural, is overridden in crusades, suicides and suicide bombings.
2- Humans are made of 25,000 to 30,000 genes. Chimpanzees share 95% of your genetic characteristics. However, they do not even share 10% of your behaviors.
3- People do not differ in behaviors as they do differ in skin pigments. Extroverts, introverts, optimists, pessimists, criminals, liberals, etc. are found in all societies and cultures. Even identical twins, with the exact same genes, and fraternal twins, with half of the same genes, behave differently in most cases.
4- No genome scientist has related genes or a set of genes with any kind of behaviors.
5- There are a good number of living organisms and fossils which suggest intermediary stages to the physical evolution. However, no such intermediary stages are available for personality evolution.
Study: Supportive Parenting Can Prevent Substance Abuse
A study published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology says that supportive parenting can counteract the effects of a genetic risk factor that increases the likelihood of substance use among youth. The research focused on the 5HTT gene that transports serotonin in the brain. According to many studies, most people possess two copies of a long version of this gene, but a few that possess one or two copies of a short version are more likely to consume alcohol or other substances and partake in impulsive and risky behavior. Youth with the short version of the gene that received minimal supportive parenting used three times more than youth who had high levels of parental support. The effect of the genetic risk was essentially zero with strong relationships between children and parents.
This study provides evidence for the nurture theory. Even though a child is predisposed for substance abuse with the presence of a particular gene, parental support can override that predisposition, and the child can live a normal life. This goes to show that our body predisposes us to certain risks and diseases, but our mind and experiences have the final outcome.
http://www.personality-and-aptitude-career-tests.com/nature-vs-nurture-theories.html
http://www.mentalhealthblog.com/2009/02/nature-vs-nurture-supportive-parenting.html
Darwin’s theory of evolution led William Hamilton, George Williams and many others to the idea of personality evolution. They proposed that like physical organs, your personality is the result of natural selection for survival of the fittest. You do as your genes dictate. They suggest that fear of death, fear of injury, fear of snakes, shyness, addiction, criminality and sexual orientation are main examples of inheritable behaviors. However, there is strong criticism on this approach:
1- There is no single universal behavior which can be proved evolutionary. Even fear of death, that seems natural, is overridden in crusades, suicides and suicide bombings.
2- Humans are made of 25,000 to 30,000 genes. Chimpanzees share 95% of your genetic characteristics. However, they do not even share 10% of your behaviors.
3- People do not differ in behaviors as they do differ in skin pigments. Extroverts, introverts, optimists, pessimists, criminals, liberals, etc. are found in all societies and cultures. Even identical twins, with the exact same genes, and fraternal twins, with half of the same genes, behave differently in most cases.
4- No genome scientist has related genes or a set of genes with any kind of behaviors.
5- There are a good number of living organisms and fossils which suggest intermediary stages to the physical evolution. However, no such intermediary stages are available for personality evolution.
Study: Supportive Parenting Can Prevent Substance Abuse
A study published in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology says that supportive parenting can counteract the effects of a genetic risk factor that increases the likelihood of substance use among youth. The research focused on the 5HTT gene that transports serotonin in the brain. According to many studies, most people possess two copies of a long version of this gene, but a few that possess one or two copies of a short version are more likely to consume alcohol or other substances and partake in impulsive and risky behavior. Youth with the short version of the gene that received minimal supportive parenting used three times more than youth who had high levels of parental support. The effect of the genetic risk was essentially zero with strong relationships between children and parents.
This study provides evidence for the nurture theory. Even though a child is predisposed for substance abuse with the presence of a particular gene, parental support can override that predisposition, and the child can live a normal life. This goes to show that our body predisposes us to certain risks and diseases, but our mind and experiences have the final outcome.
http://www.personality-and-aptitude-career-tests.com/nature-vs-nurture-theories.html
http://www.mentalhealthblog.com/2009/02/nature-vs-nurture-supportive-parenting.html
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Nurture
The nature theory holds true, but followers of the nurture theory believe that our behavioral aspects originate from the environmental factors of our upbringing.
The environment influencing human behavior reminds me of my psychology class. We studied well-known psychologists such as John Watson and B.F. Skinner, who were both part of behavioral psychology. John Watson performed an experiment involving lab rats and a little boy named Albert. He proved that acquisition of a phobia can be classically conditioned. Watson paired a loud noise every time little Albert touched the rat. This made Albert learn to be afraid of the rat because he associated the loud noise with fear. B.F. Skinner was famous for his pigeons. Skinner taught his pigeons how to dance and do figure-eights by conditioning them with food. Through these, and more behavioral psychology studies, the implication can be made that behavior is learned.
Also, there is a psychological phenomenon called the chameleon effect. This refers to nonconscious mimicry of the postures, mannerisms, facial expressions and other behaviors of one's interaction with others. We mimic people all the time. In one study by Chartrand and Bargh, 72 college students were asked to sit down individually with an experimenter and discuss a set of photographs. With half the subjects, experimenters maintained a neutral, relaxed seated position. But they mimicked the posture, movements and mannerisms of the other subjects, crossing their legs or twirling their hair when subjects did. At the study's end, students whose moves had been imitated rated their experimenters as more likable, and reported having had smoother interactions with them. The chameleon effect is one way of showing how surrounding people influence an individual’s actions.
Were we born that way? Or has behavior developed over time in response to our experiences? There is indeed a link between genes and behavior, but this link is not the same as cause and effect. Genes make people more susceptible to act a certain way, but they do not engender the actual action.
http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture_2.htm
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199911/were-all-copycats
The environment influencing human behavior reminds me of my psychology class. We studied well-known psychologists such as John Watson and B.F. Skinner, who were both part of behavioral psychology. John Watson performed an experiment involving lab rats and a little boy named Albert. He proved that acquisition of a phobia can be classically conditioned. Watson paired a loud noise every time little Albert touched the rat. This made Albert learn to be afraid of the rat because he associated the loud noise with fear. B.F. Skinner was famous for his pigeons. Skinner taught his pigeons how to dance and do figure-eights by conditioning them with food. Through these, and more behavioral psychology studies, the implication can be made that behavior is learned.
Also, there is a psychological phenomenon called the chameleon effect. This refers to nonconscious mimicry of the postures, mannerisms, facial expressions and other behaviors of one's interaction with others. We mimic people all the time. In one study by Chartrand and Bargh, 72 college students were asked to sit down individually with an experimenter and discuss a set of photographs. With half the subjects, experimenters maintained a neutral, relaxed seated position. But they mimicked the posture, movements and mannerisms of the other subjects, crossing their legs or twirling their hair when subjects did. At the study's end, students whose moves had been imitated rated their experimenters as more likable, and reported having had smoother interactions with them. The chameleon effect is one way of showing how surrounding people influence an individual’s actions.
Were we born that way? Or has behavior developed over time in response to our experiences? There is indeed a link between genes and behavior, but this link is not the same as cause and effect. Genes make people more susceptible to act a certain way, but they do not engender the actual action.
http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture_2.htm
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199911/were-all-copycats
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Nature
Now, since you have basic knowledge about the nature vs. nurture debate, let’s look more at the nature theory.
Scientists have known for years that characteristics such as eye color and hair color are determined by genes (remember those punnett squares that you did in Biology?). The nature theory takes it up a notch by saying that behavioral traits—intelligence, personality, aggression and sexual orientation—are encoded in an individual’s genes as well.
Humans have approximately 25,000 protein-coding genes, and these genes are the cornerstone of bodily processes and functions. These proteins act to help us metabolize our food and heal a wound, but they also provide essential information to personality and other traits.
Cancer is a disease that we have all heard of, and researchers in Scandinavia concluded that cancer is the result of environmental rather than inherited factors. Now, we hear of cancer-causing genes such as the “colon cancer gene” and the “breast cancer gene.” Even if the research states conclusions one way, more research will eventually change the previous conclusion and state it a different way. This is the problem with scientific research; it never ends. There is so much information out in the world regarding nature vs. nurture, and investigating all of it is a task to rarely succeed. Scientists have also linked DNA variations with increased risk of common diseases and conditions, including cancer, asthma, diabetes, hypertension, and Alzheimer's, favoring nature’s side in the debate.
Predisposition to disease not only affects the person’s health, but also his or her lifestyle. There has been talk of genetic discrimination (but we cannot forget about racial discrimination). If genetic information is not private, then companies can use this information to deny people jobs due to “bad” genes. However, this is not fair and immoral because we do not get to pick our genes, so they should not be used against us. Additionally, what if parents find out that their newborn child will be predisposed with a life-threatening disease? Will the parents want to keep the child and care for him or her with this knowledge that he or she will die soon? This is one case where knowing little is better than knowing too much.
http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/debate.html
Scientists have known for years that characteristics such as eye color and hair color are determined by genes (remember those punnett squares that you did in Biology?). The nature theory takes it up a notch by saying that behavioral traits—intelligence, personality, aggression and sexual orientation—are encoded in an individual’s genes as well.
Humans have approximately 25,000 protein-coding genes, and these genes are the cornerstone of bodily processes and functions. These proteins act to help us metabolize our food and heal a wound, but they also provide essential information to personality and other traits.
Cancer is a disease that we have all heard of, and researchers in Scandinavia concluded that cancer is the result of environmental rather than inherited factors. Now, we hear of cancer-causing genes such as the “colon cancer gene” and the “breast cancer gene.” Even if the research states conclusions one way, more research will eventually change the previous conclusion and state it a different way. This is the problem with scientific research; it never ends. There is so much information out in the world regarding nature vs. nurture, and investigating all of it is a task to rarely succeed. Scientists have also linked DNA variations with increased risk of common diseases and conditions, including cancer, asthma, diabetes, hypertension, and Alzheimer's, favoring nature’s side in the debate.
Predisposition to disease not only affects the person’s health, but also his or her lifestyle. There has been talk of genetic discrimination (but we cannot forget about racial discrimination). If genetic information is not private, then companies can use this information to deny people jobs due to “bad” genes. However, this is not fair and immoral because we do not get to pick our genes, so they should not be used against us. Additionally, what if parents find out that their newborn child will be predisposed with a life-threatening disease? Will the parents want to keep the child and care for him or her with this knowledge that he or she will die soon? This is one case where knowing little is better than knowing too much.
http://genealogy.about.com/cs/geneticgenealogy/a/nature_nurture.htm
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/debate.html
Introduction to Nature vs. Nurture
You got your dark brown eyes from your dad, and you got your height from your mom…but where did you get your love for roller coasters and devotion to sick animals?
Physical characteristics lean more towards genes and heredity, but genes seem to get less attention when speaking of behavior. This is where the nature vs. nurture debate comes in. Scientists call the nature theory when people behave as they do due to heredity, genes and instincts. On the other hand, the nurture theory encompasses how behavior is taught and influenced by the environment, or the surrounding people.
There has been an ongoing debate between how human behavior is shaped, learned and acquired. Some say that behavior results from nature, or one’s own genes, while others say that behavior results from nurture, or the environment. People are aware that both nature and nurture influence how humans live and think but exactly how much of human traits are determined by either nature and nurture remains unknown. I have not heard of anyone saying that all behavior is shaped by either nature or nurture, but I have heard strong debates favoring one side. Scientists may seem more engaged in the nature theory because of the biology and chemistry involved. This in turn leads to further research in the nature field. On the other hand, psychologists research about the effects of nurture, furthering research in that category. Research can last forever because humans cannot find out everything there is to know, but the information that is found contributes to this debate.
This is the topic of which I will explore in this blog. I chose to investigate this area due to my interest in science and psychology, two of my favorite subjects. The science lies in the genes and body chemistry whereas the psychology involves human behavior and interaction. Day by day and week by week, there will be more posts regarding different aspects of nature vs. nurture. These aspects will include psychological phenomena, genes and research studies.
Physical characteristics lean more towards genes and heredity, but genes seem to get less attention when speaking of behavior. This is where the nature vs. nurture debate comes in. Scientists call the nature theory when people behave as they do due to heredity, genes and instincts. On the other hand, the nurture theory encompasses how behavior is taught and influenced by the environment, or the surrounding people.
There has been an ongoing debate between how human behavior is shaped, learned and acquired. Some say that behavior results from nature, or one’s own genes, while others say that behavior results from nurture, or the environment. People are aware that both nature and nurture influence how humans live and think but exactly how much of human traits are determined by either nature and nurture remains unknown. I have not heard of anyone saying that all behavior is shaped by either nature or nurture, but I have heard strong debates favoring one side. Scientists may seem more engaged in the nature theory because of the biology and chemistry involved. This in turn leads to further research in the nature field. On the other hand, psychologists research about the effects of nurture, furthering research in that category. Research can last forever because humans cannot find out everything there is to know, but the information that is found contributes to this debate.
This is the topic of which I will explore in this blog. I chose to investigate this area due to my interest in science and psychology, two of my favorite subjects. The science lies in the genes and body chemistry whereas the psychology involves human behavior and interaction. Day by day and week by week, there will be more posts regarding different aspects of nature vs. nurture. These aspects will include psychological phenomena, genes and research studies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
