A Little Bit of Both, I Suppose

I've taken an Intro to Psychology course, which is where much of my viewpoint on the subject comes from. Or perhaps it is the way I am with most things, that often time the answer is in between two extreme truths. While I believe that some twin studies have shown that genetics to influence in some way how we develop, I would never say that genetics is the end all be all. It is that feeling that you can't change your "fate" is who you are is because of your genetics.



So I suppose I lean more towards the nurture side, just because of the way I'd prefer to view how a person can develop in a world. It's not really based completely on scientific fact, although I know that genetics do influence our development somewhat. I mean, that is why twin studies are so important, although I have no looked into them as much as I should have. It's the question that if you grew up to act like your father, was it because you grew up around him or because you share your genetics. With the twin studies, that question of where the influence comes from theoretically is taken out of the question. I don't know if the question will ever be quite answered, even through extensive study. But I can say that I believe that the answer is as usual somewhere in between. Where you grow up and who you grow up around is probably just as important as what genetics you have. And I am determined to continue to view it that way.

The Life of a Serial Killer

So, this is a topic that I don't know much about.  However, I know which of the two I am leaning towards based on my experiences and I'm just going to go with it.  I think nurture, a person's environment, has the largest impact on what they end up doing with their life.  Also, as a note, I am not the serial killer mentioned in the tittle...  Just putting that out there.

My own experiences point toward nurture.  I don't know much about the genetics part of nature, but it seems to me that once you are born you make your own decisions based on what surrounds you environmentally.  Now, I grew up in the "definition of normal" house with two parents and two sisters, one older and one younger.  This is just a background for those of you who aren't familiar with my extremely nice and wonderful family.  And that wasn't sarcastic.  I didn't fight with my sisters, contrary to the idea that all siblings are always at each others throats.  There was no reason not to, no punishment if we fought.  We just didn't fight.  We still get along fantastically.  I'm pretty sure that is caused by environmental impact instead of genetics, although your guess is as good as mine at which factor caused it.  Anyway, enough about me.

On to television shows and murderers.  Now, I watch way too much television, and most of it is crime related.  In particular for this discussion, Criminal Minds.  They have a lot of serial killers they catch, and there are many reasons why these people kill.  Some times, they have genetic disorders that make them think killing is okay, or that they are actually doing something good.  This is definitely pointing to the nature side.  However, a lot of the time, the person killing was abused or tormented as a child or teenager, and these events turned them into brutal killers.  This makes sense to me.  Something bad (or, I suppose, good) happens to someone, they never forget it.  It becomes a part of them, even if they end up leading normal lives.  It could affect how they interact with other people, or something as small as what movies they won't watch, but it does affect them.  Experiences in life shape people and turn them into who they become later in life, even if they don't realize it.

So, that ended up being a bit more rant-y then I meant it to be, but I hope I made a point somewhere along the way.  Kathleen is finishing up tomorrow, I can't wait to read what she has to say!

Learning is the point of life

I've always thought of the nature versus nurture debate as the extent to which parents can feel bad for the way they raised their kids. For example, I watched a video in my psychology class where parents of schizophrenics were told that schizophrenia very rarely linked to genetics and I could see their faces fall as they wondered if they did this to their children (I believe currently we believe that parental style has little bearing on whether or not a person will be schizophrenic, which just makes this cruel). Even though we're almost through this week now, I thought I'd clarify what I mean by nature and by nurture.

In my opinion, nature-based traits are ones that you are born with, things that are determined by your genetics before you have any outside influences. When you're a newborn, you're acting solely out of nature's influence. Nurture, on the other hand, is all the ways your environment influences you. Any behavioral reinforcement you've gotten, any learned behaviors are all nurture-based.

Now, when you think about it, life is all about being influenced by your environment. Most days you're on this Earth, you learn more things, have your behavior and your thinking shaped. You learn how to talk to people around you based on what works (and is responded to in a positive way, therefore reinforced) and what doesn't (and is responded to negatively, therefore punished), and you become a better conversationalist. From the day you were born, things that seem innate now, like walking and talking, were huge things you had to learn. I don't subscribe to the tabula rasa theory, which purports that all babies are blank slates, just waiting to learn, but I believe that most things are nurture-based. You may be more inclined to be shy, but if you're constantly thrust into the spotlight and have a positive experience of it, I believe you're more likely to develop outgoing characteristics.

If we're talking about which most influences personality, then we have to define personality. If you act differently toward your parents than toward your friends, does that make you two different people? Most people feel they have one unified personality and just show different sides of it to different groups, but if two traits conflict then what is our "real" personality? And what of flaws? If a person has anger-management issues that they learn to control, are they still short-tempered because that is their nature and something they have to actively control? Or have their conquered that flaw because now the personality they exhibit is calm and collected?

Personally, I think the idea that just because someone has to work at their flaws means they are always there is depressing. I believe that, in almost all ways, nurture overcomes nature. You may be more skilled or more happy or more comfortable when the two are in harmony, but if there is a conflict, I believe you will act in a way more attributable to the behaviors and thought processes you've learned throughout your life far more than what genetic disposition you may have been born with. Most people are out there today doing things we couldn't dream of doing as a baby and all of it feels so effortless. Things we learn have been so ingrained into our knowledge pool and our personality that it begins to feel innate. And personally, with all of the beautiful things in this world that can only exist because of learning, I think it's best that way.

Nature and Nurture: The Allied Powers

Even though our blog topic for the week is on “nature vs. nurture,” I don’t view the two as being in competition with one another.  Aspects from one’s nature and the nurture they receive combine to make up the complete person.  Nature dictates the essence of which one is and nurture influences the way one handles the situations he or she is faced with.  I think that nature kicks in by default when nurture isn’t a big contributing factor to a situation.  And on the inverse side of things, an abundance of nurture means that one will be less reliant on his or her personal nature.  I think it really depends on the person and their individual situation as to which aspect (either nature or nurture) reigns supreme. 

The bulk of my background is definitely in sociology, which is the subject that most people associate with the nurture side of the two.  I’ve only taken an introduction to psychology course, which is usually associated with the “nature side,” so it’s fair to say that I’ve had a lot more experience looking at situations from a viewpoint that examines social activity, while psychology looks at behavior.  But even though my academic focus is definitely more prominent in one area than the other, I don’t think that either nature or nurture is necessarily going to be the most prominent contributor in everyone.  Depending on the person, nature or nurture can dictate more or less of what makes up his or her complete person.  With some people, nature runs more prominent, and in others, nurture may run more prominent. 

I think that a lot of people, myself included, like to think that the things they do and the way that they think is mostly, if not completely in their nature.  Depending on how strong-willed someone is has a lot to do with which factor is more strongly represented in them.  However, stubbornness is something that can also be learned through nurture.  I think that nurture plays a larger role in our complete selves than we normally recognize.  But in the end, both factors have important roles to fill. 

I’m a fairly shy, quiet person by nature, but I’ve learned through nurture that sometimes I have to step out being quiet and shy if I want a chance to do many of the things I want to do, like sing and perform for an audience, for example.  Nurture hasn’t replaced nature, but it has altered nature to an extent. 

The nature vs. nurture debate is a continuing cycle.  Different situations bring out different aspects of our natures.  Aspects from both the “nature” and “nurture” sides affect who we are.  I think that in the end, neither nature nor nurture “wins,” because both work together and figure remarkably and importantly into what we think and how we act.     

Stalemate

This week's topic isn't one that I'd ever really put a lot of thought into.  As of beginning to write this, I don't think I'm leaning toward either side of the topic -too- much, though I'd initially have to give my preference to "nature", or the natural predisposition of people.  Let's explore my thinking together, shall we?

I don't believe that either of the two ideas is completely dominant - rather, it seems like you might be steered toward certain choices by either side.  If you take a peace-loving teenager in North Korea and conscript them into military service, will they change in the process?  ... Possibly, but it seems more likely to me that if the person truly loves peace, they'll hold onto that ideal even through conflicting circumstances.  I don't think that it's necessarily an absolute idea for either side of the argument, though - there are plenty of instances where a well-meaning person was influenced strongly by events outside of their control, and it changed the very core of who they were.

Foreshadowing, using a shadow.  I cannot overstate how much I like this picture.

Let's delve into some more personal examples.  Readers of the blog should have a basic idea of the circumstances surrounding my childhood (and casual or first-time readers should go back and read all of the old entries from all of our posters), so I won't spend a lot of time talking about those.  But I think it would be fair to say that I grew up in an environment ruled by the concept of "no rules".  (Yes, I'm aware that statement is paradoxical.  No, I'm not going to change it.)  One of the most common things to observe in my environment, from as early as I can remember to... well, to present-day, was media based around violence.  Did this constant exposure to violence shape me as a person?  ... Well, it's hard to say.  I definitely have a high tolerance for the presence of violence in media, but I'm definitely not predisposed toward violence as a person.  I try to avoid it, if at all possible (though there are times where I think fondly about it... usually concerning specific people/circumstances).  I think that I'm a clear example of nature winning out over nurture.

On the other hand, however, you have my oldest sister.  She was quite intelligent from an early age onward, and she never got into the same activities that I (and, to a lesser extent, my other sister) did - she greatly preferred 4-H and NJHS/NHS as her activities of choice.  Once she got into high school, though, she changed.  She got into a lot of questionable situations, had her first daughter, started attending (and then immediately dropped out of) college, and it's been kind of a downhill slide ever since.  These days, despite still being reasonably intelligent (with no common sense whatsoever), she's living in a bad situation with no positive prospect that doesn't involve some sort of extreme, stressful change.  Was her genetic disposition flawed from the beginning, to have her life turn a 180 like that?  Or did the environment she was in during her teenage years influence her so strongly that she led herself down a different path than the one she would have chosen otherwise?  Obviously, it's impossible for me to say for sure, but I'm leaning toward the latter.

I could probably come up with more examples, but I don't think that doing so would truly be worthwhile.  At this point, as ideas, I don't really think that either nature or nurture can be considered stronger than the other.  I think it just depends on a multitude of factors... or, sometimes, maybe even on one seemingly insignificant detail.  Who can really say for sure?

Though, I Really Want To Take Psychology

This post will not really be based on any scientific fact or knowledge, largely because I'm neither a biologist nor a psychologist nor a sociologist nor... I'm a mathematician, and how people work isn't exactly my area of expertise. That being said, I'm going to try to bring whatever I can to this topic, and that's a discussion of how much I think (based solely on my own conjecture) one can affect the other and whether or not they're both really important.

Having a genetic predisposition toward some kind of trait seems about as solid as the wording implies. You're going to have a lot of feelings steering you toward one track, but there could be other factors in your environment that may push you toward something else entirely. I think that these factors are the ones that end up mattering. Every time I've met a set of twins, they've been very distinct people, and that's because of the variation in their experiences. I haven't done extensive research into twin studies, so I won't get into that here, but my guess would be that anything indicating a trend would do so with a fairly weak correlation. I mean, by weak, I really just mean no more than 85%, but still.

When it comes down to it, while the distinction between whether nature or nurture determines a particular factor is relevant in understanding how a person got to be who they are, I'm not sure that it's a meaningful distinction in trying to understand who they are. I've heard people that try to imply that traits determined by nurture can't be innate and unchanging features of a person, and this just seems a little... blatantly incorrect. Most of these arguments have been in the context of sexual orientation, so I'm not really sure about how well it applies in other specific aspects, but I do believe that it's possible for characteristics of a person to be unchanging and determined by nurture rather than nature. This isn't to say that all major aspects of a person work that way, just that it's possible for some.

I'm not entirely sure that I actually said anything, but hopefully it'll kick off the discussion for this week in a way that'll lead to other interesting ideas from people that might be more informed on the issue.

Week of 6/24 - Nature vs. Nurture

For this week, we are going to dive into the more science/psychological side of things, talking the debate of nature vs. nurture. Within the psychological community especially (although the topic was briefly addressed in my 100 level Biology course), the debate surrounds which is more important in influencing who you are, nature - your genetics - or nurture - the environment you were raised in.

There have been studies looking into this, specifically with identical twins who grew up with different parents and in different environments, but I am certain our own specific experiences growing up shape our personal viewpoints on which is more important.

So according to my nifty calendar (and the fact the posting order is always the same) Brandon will be starting us off with opinions tomorrow. Let's hope for some very interesting opinions and a fun week!