After viewing this video please visit the site listed below and read through its content.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/genome/debate.html
After your reading and viewing of the material weigh in on the nature vs. nurture debate. To what extent does biology and environment play a role in personality development? Can we completely ignore the role of biology? If the environment is the sole contributor to our personalities are there steps that can be taken to ensure proper personality development? If the environment is the cause of our personalities why are you not like those people that you grew up with?
-After viewing the video and reading the genome debate it seems, to me, that scientists really don't know whether biology or the environment has more of an effect on human development. [thus it being a debate] I feel that we can not ignore either possibility. I believe that both the environment and biology shape the way we act, the way we think, and what disease etc... we are susceptible to.
ReplyDelete-Steven Pinker argues that parents can not take steps to influence good behavior, because children will act according to the genes passed down by their parents. The genome debate seems to lean towards the idea that human genes are not greatly responsible for traits. I think that once again I agree with both ideas, I feel that a person may have anxiety issues that were passed down from their mother's genes and then also be selfish because their parents spoiled them and did not discipline their child enough. The mother or father's genes not necessarily contributing to the fact that the child is selfish.
-Once again according to Pinker, even though people grow up together in the same environment, they will have different personalities due to their different biological makeup.I believe that Pinker's theory is correct, but I would add that someone may be different due to bio reasons but also have similarities due to the similar environment.
In conclusion I don't think that either possibility can be ignored, I do not believe that it is one or the other.
--Renee Smith
After watching this video clip...
ReplyDeleteA. I personally feel as if both biology and environment can play a role in the development of one's personality. The idea of humanistic innate qualities proves this to some extent because how else would all people have certain temperaments from the time of birth if biology did not have a role? This would make it seem too coincidental that over 6000 cultures worldwide have some equal behaviors evident in them. It is true that we cannot yet claim that specific qualities of humans are linked to biology but some tests make it seem probable, such as the tests of the twins. It’s hard to imagine that two twins separated at birth that live in polar opposite parallels and families could still stay similar if separated, this just proves that some sort of neuroscience must be at play. Also, Pinker sort of rejected the idea that the environment has a role in personality development, which I totally disagree with. Certain social settings clearly affect how we live. For example, a child living on the streets in a gang is bound to have more traits linking to violence or aggression as opposed to a kid living in a multi-million dollar mansion with his parents and a maid. Am I saying that this is the only factor that affects it and that all kids in these situations will turn out the same?...Of course not, I am simply saying that human interactions with others around start to mold the way you think and the decisions that you make, which are the foundations that we all live our live on, but generalizations simply can't exist because some case or person is bound to break it. B. Personally, it would be rather farfetched to exclude the role that biology has on personality development, which can be elaborated by Pinker's argument that children are affected by genes, culture, and chance. The biggest contributors in my mind are neither both genes and culture, but cognitive learning. I think that as we grow up are clueless to most of the qualities of life and that we can really only rely on two things to help us survive, our parents and the innate behaviors that we already know. Essentially, parental genes do play a role in our early development because that is how we acquire genes, however; as we grow up I feel as if people can have the ability to accept or reject the ideals that their parents have. Just like the mom who got overwhelmed with playing with her kids, that does not necessarily mean that when her kids grow up that they will think the same way. I think this is mainly due to the fact that learning is the most effective way to shape personality, even though biology has a role still.
C. Well, I personally don't feel as if the environment or biology are the sole contributors to personality development. Also, I want to know how we can determine what a "proper personality development entices". Going back to my example, just because the homeless kid is more violent, does that make him a bad person and mean that he is automatically a threat to society? Likewise, just because the other kid grows up in a big fancy mansion, does that necessarily mean that he will become successful? If environment was the answer, then the answer to the questions would be yes. Likewise, if biology was the true answer, then the answer to the question would be yes, claiming that just because their parents were successful, the kid would be successful, all because they have the personality genes to do so. Overall, I'd have to say that learning and being exposed to a wide variety of social engagements is what truly determines how your personality will grow in life, but I am also not rejecting the environment and biology because those could be factors as well, just not the most important ones. D. Following my argument, the reason why people are not like who they grew up with is because they chose it to be that way. In life, people must learn how to make decisions and form opinions by themselves, not blame the problems of their parents and their environment. Yes, people can learn for these two things, but that doesn't mean they necessarily need to accept them. Overall, it makes sense that everybody is a "blank slate" because everyone can choose to fill it up how they like, whether or not they follow the fate of biology/genetics and their environment is totally up to them in the end.
ReplyDeleteMIKE MAJCHER
Ones personality is a combination of one’s environment, and ones genes. Mr. Pinker is absolutely right in saying that humans are not blank slates. I give this analogy to think about. When a computer is made, do the people that create is it leave the hard drive blank and then send it off to a local best buy to be purchased? No, of course not they put basic programming on the computer. But that is it to the extent of biological personality traits. That the extent of personality from traits and genes, because from the day one is born there are people around them. Ones personality will be affected by their environment. Your environment does one of two things to
ReplyDeleteyou. You either conform to that environment or develop its traits, or the opposite occurs. I feel that those traits have different degrees and such, but that the jist of it. But the person to argue that either the blank slate is right, or that our slate is already filled at birth is right is both wrong. Both theories have enough proof to say they exist, but neither have the proof to cancel the other. Therefore combining the two we can create this basic programmed computer to be impacted by where it goes and what it is destined to do.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I got from the video it appears that Pinker thinks genetics determine everything. Although I agree that genes play a role in who we are, I also think parenting plays an even more important role. There was a story about a baby who was born blind, severely autistic, mentally retarded, and severely physically disabled. The hospital was ready to put him out of his misery, but they gave him a fighting chance by asking a woman who had successfully raised several of her own children if she would take on the task, and she did. She cared for the
ReplyDeletechild nonstop and never got a single reaction out of him. One day she noticed him plucking a rubber band and thought he might be sensitive to music, so she played every genre of music imaginable to him to see if he liked any of it. One day she was sleeping at night when she heard something moving around and then heard someone start playing the piano downstairs. It was the boy. He had gotten up from bed and made his way to the piano where he played anything and everything he'd ever heard his mother play for him with perfection on the spot. There's no way in my mind that this boy could have turned out the same if he had had a different mother. And as far as the article goes, I feel a bit concerned about where the human race is going. Even though the family used genetics to save their dying daughter, it was not right in the least. Gene manipulation will become abused to the point where parents will make perfect children in a petre dish and there won't be anything left of what makes us human. I often feel ashamed of being part of the human race.
ReplyDeleteI would say that the mind isn't blank to begin with. I would say it came out of a mold, the mold being the DNA and other stuff. And from the mold it is then shaped by the environment. Its like when a write first creates a character. The writer has the basic outline of the character, then he or she adds details to it. Hmmm parents or any other possible influences as children grow up. I say usually they would pick up attributes from their parents, but children can think they know right from wrong. IE, if the child has a strict parent when growing up, he or she either be a strict parent as well or a loose parent.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the genome debate and watching the video the only thing that i have come to conclude is that both a person's biology as well as experiences effect their personality development. There is no way to ignore either one aspect because they both have such crutial impacts. For example, two siblings growing up in the same household can have completely opposite views on a certain experience or situation. I personally have two younger sisters who are twins. Though not identical they think and act in similar ways, whether it be to biology or the environment is unclear. Being attached at the hip would definately make me believe that it is experiences that they share that contributes to why they act the same. Then again, comparing me to them is like comparing night and day. We look different, act differently, and definately think differently. Eventhough we have been exposed to the same parenting and lifestyle our entire lives, we don't see eye to eye. This example makes me lean towards biology to be a large factor. Overall i think it's smart to consider both experience and biology that shape a person's personality.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the debate and watching the video, i believe that neither of the sides have won. Each side has good arguments and reasons to back their own ideas up, to me it just seems preference based. I do believe genes play a big role in who we are as a person but also the environment, experiences, and the way we are brought up in the world with certain surroundings can change habits and certain characteristics of people. The way certain figures in a persons life treats them, and also the ways the other people react to things, showing that person what to do, right from wrong. Nurture and environment as well as genes can play major roles on a person and the way they will react to things in life. No i do not think we can ignore biology because i believe it has effects like genes. There are always steps to help things out like the nurture and experiences to better develop someone's personality. I am not like the people i grew up with because experiences and other factors like genes play a role in a persons life as well as what the person does outside of it.
ReplyDeleteI believe personality is shaped through a combination of genes and environment. If your parents are rocket scientists there is no guarantee that you will be one too. Some parents pass on their genes biologically, like the identical twins separated at birth. But these twins are not exactly the same. Their environment shaped a part of them. Neither can be ignored, because you need both to make a person. Things like likes and dislikes are mostly on our slates to begin with. Habits, the way you speak, etc. are learned from our environment.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion both nature and nurture play a part in constructing one's personality. Genes play an important role in laying the basic groundwork for what one's personality may be like. However, I truly believe that what mostly influences a person's personality is the environment in which they live, which is contradictory to what Pinker thinks. Although we are not born with a blank slate we are definitely not a slate etched in stone. The best example that I can think of is of twins separated at birth. Although, they may share some similarities, they would be different as a result of their differing environments. -Rahul Mital
ReplyDeleteI believe both the environment and the genetics come into play for developing one's personality. If the surroundings were to blame for our personalities than parents would have an even harder time trying to make sure that their children "grew up right". This would also mean that most people who grew up together in the suburbs would act the same. Genes help your personality because it provides a base for the environment to influence and shape until both factors give us the final result.
ReplyDeletep.s. sorry I have use this name because the one from the library wont work. -Mary B
I believe that both genetics and environment play a huge role in the development of an individual's personality. I believe that our morals and ideals mostly come from our upbringing and the lifesyles we live. Our morals and personalities can also be influenced by society and culture. This aspect of personality is largely influenced by our environment. Genetics also can play a huge role in personality traits. Pinker uses the example of the twins to show that even though identical twins were seperated at birth, they shared many similar personality traits and characteristics. Pinker says that part of this is due to chance and part is due to genes. Either way, genes also play a role in the way we act.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that someone's personality is developed through the genetics and the environment. But i think that the environment is what shapes a person the most. I dont think that you are like the people you grow up with exactly because of genetics, but the environment you live in can affect many characteristics of a person.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the video clip, I can say that a person's personality does not stem from the environment or from biology sole; rather both environmental and biological factors contribute to one's personality. As in the example mentioned by Pinker with the twins, genes do play some role in one's personality. However, unlike Pinker's belief, the environment can alter and sway one's personality. For example, a student living in a loving environment versus a student living in a violent environment would have different factors put upon them, and they would therefore have different personalities. Humans most definitely do not have a blank slate at birth because there are just so many factors in the environment and in genetics that can affect one's personality to say that science is the only sole contributor.
ReplyDeleteSociocultural factors in personality development recognize that in order to understand the influence exerted by the environment on the person, one must also recognize the biological factors shape one's experience of the environment and that biology imposes constraints on the individual,society and culture. The separation of psychological traits into their genetic and environmental components fails to capture the facts of co action among genetic and environmental factors. So basically genes and environmental factors influence one another. Can we ignore biology, no, many fear of the knowledge and the future that this new world of genetic knowledge and control appears to promise. For example, cloning raises specters of fasiict eugencies programs and fear of loss of human dignity, genetic testing raises concerns about unfair discrimination, people even fear that if behavior is determined by unchangeable genetics,then notions of responsibility to others will be unsupportable, and resources will be further diverted to those in need. Given these hopes and fears, an evaluation of what biology can and cannot tell us about such issues in not just important but necessary.Twins do have their own personalities, their own characters, and their own life choices.Paying attention to biology can remind us that humans are very complex creatures influenced not only by our genes, but also by many other biological,environmental and social factors. We tend to think that everything that we experienced in our home is normal, and that these same experiences occurred everywhere else too. The environment we live in has a great deal of effect on the characteristics of each person. We are not like the people we grew up with because each may have different world views,habits,etc. on how we see and do things.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading both the article and watching the video, I find that both the enviorment and genetics play a role in someone's personality. Genes do affect a persons personality but that person can also pick things up in different enviorments. In Pinker's example about the different families, I feel that growing up in different enviorments affect that person the most. Growing up in an abusive home will later affect that person and they will, most likely have some abusive quality. It doesn't have to do solely with someone's genes. I also feel that people are not born with blank slates. The child does learn different things as they grow up, they aren't just born with no thoughts swimming around in their minds. In the end, the person's enviorment will most likely help develop that person's different personality traits the most because everyone adapts to their surroundings.
ReplyDeleteA person's personality is definitely influenced by both their environment and genes. Nature and nurture are two very important aspects that influence one's personality and neither can be ignored. The environment is not the sole contributor to our personalities; however, I believe it plays a greater role than genes. The biology of a person sets the general ways that they act and behave in their life. The environment, however, sets us with ways of living and morals to follow. In conclusion, personality traits are influenced by both the environment and the genes of a person but for the most part, the environment plays the greater role.
ReplyDeleteI believe a person's personality is influenced by both genes and environment. The genes make up the persons base traits but the environment forms them into who they are. When you are born you dont have a set personality, it may change with the lifestyle and environment you live in. The biology of that person sets up their basic ways that they live their life and the environment makes their morals and how they end up living it. we need both nature and nurture to create our personality; I believe the environment shows who we are more but biology does play an effect a little bit because we have some triats already when we are born.
ReplyDelete~Andy Heitmann
Parenting and environment both play a major role in determining the personality of a person. However, genes also factor into the equation. Genes help determine basic traits. On the contrary, the environment a person is raised in will form their view on the world and adapt traits to fit in with their environment to be socially accepted. Twins can have entirely different personalities based upon their social groups although biologically they should be "identical." Therefore, the environment plays a far greater role than genes in determining the personality of a person, though genes still do play a minor role.
ReplyDeleteI believe that this debate is more of an issue that will be settled in a shade of gray instead of black or white. I believe that a person's genetic framework lays out some of the extremes in our personality by controlling chemical levels and electric reations in the brain. Then, the experiences of our lives strengthen or destrengthen this framework. If personality solely relied on environment, then, when two siblings lose on of their parents they should, in theory, react the same way and cope the same. This rarely happens. One finds one way to deal with it while the other finds another way, both specific to their core framework. Also, it cannot be solely genetic because then all twins would be exactly the same. My father and his brother are twins and they are living proof that this theory is invalid. They are both very different in many ways. In conclusion, both factors combined make up who we are but to what extent of each we don't know yet.
ReplyDeleteJerod Miller
After viewing the video and reading the article, I have concluded that biology and environment work in tandem to shape the lives and personalities of individuals. Mr. Pinker made a great point when discussing twins who, though raised in almost polar opposite environments, had very similar personality traits. Yet in the genome article, Mr. Davies says that there are not enough genes to account for every facet of human life, so the effects of nurture must be just as significant as the effects of nature. Why else would children who were neglected or raised in poor environments be likely to live lives that are just as poor?
ReplyDeleteafter reading and watching the movie plus reading some class mates responses i have come to teh following conclusion. i have always and will forever think that not just one factor affects the human experience and the way that we turn out. it is all affected buy numerous outlying factors including biology and the enviornment as two main sources. genetics and enviornment will have a large key role but i dont think that it is that simple to just define a human in one or two ways. there will always be a deeper meaning and deeper connections to be made. in my opinion the both parties are right but the evidence and theories and facts and studies do not and will not ever stop there.
ReplyDelete- brittany jonas-
After watching this video I have concluded a persons personality is based on their genes or biological makeup and what experiences they face in everyday life. We cannot rule out either biological nor nature, but I think we take a little out of each one and that is what shapes our personality. You cannot rule out either one because if you were going to go the enviorment way, why arent u exactly like the way you acted when you were little? should you still be drinking out of a bottle? Or if you were to go the biological and gene way why dont u act like your parents? where do you get the traits and abilities that neither of them have? I enjoyed the video blog
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the video and reading the material, I have come to the conclusion that there is a mixture of things that create who someone is and develop his or her personality. Genetics have to play some role in who someone is since people have to be born with something inside them already which shows because babies have personalities that show at a young age. However, I believe that the experinces someone goes through develop that person's personality much more than genes do. For exampple, siblings with the same genetics can turn out to be such different people, which is because they have different friends and go through different experiences. At the same time, you see people with different genetics and close to the same personalities when they are best friends with one another and constantly hang out with each other to experience roughly the same things. Even though i believe genes have some say in personality and who someone is, eperiences contribute a much greater amount.
ReplyDeleteNo, we can never completely ignore the biological aspect of the mind in determining personality. If it was that easy, this debate would have been ended a long time ago. No, instead the personality of an individual is a compound of both aspects: the biological and the environmental. Pinker's example of the twins, separated at birth, who both flushed the toilet before and after using it and the numerous other examples he gave, is a prime of example of how genetics is the only explanation to completely irrational data. However, I would have to say that I believe that the environment is more of a deteminate of human personalities. A very popular example in society is the one about the child of divorced parents. At the early youth stages, let's say that the mother and father are constantly fighting and trying to get a divorce. While this whole ordeal is occurring and the parent are trying to get situated to their new lives, the child is not given the attention it needs. The child does not receive what it desires and becomes obsessed with it. The child grows up to crave attention. Obviously, this does not always happen, but studies about this stereotype have suggested a definite correlation between busy or agrumentative parents and attention-craving teenagers. The environment is such a greater factor on human life that it changes people even after their youth. A perfect example is Abraham Lincoln. Pictures of Lincoln in 1860 are very different from the ones taken before his death in 1865. Lincoln seriously turns into something resembling living corpse in just five years. The effect of the stress of his environment is simply horrific. Therefore, I conclude the biological aspect is the foundation, that makes us like certain things and happy about difference things. It is the environment and society that builds upon this foundation, and sometimes warps it, continuously from our birth to our death.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the video and reading the article on the website, I determined that a person's environment AND biological make-up determine their personality. I beleive that a person's genes influence their basic make-up; however, the environment may further mold that person's personality. People's personalities change, depending on their surroundings and the people around them. We are born with some biological traits, but for the most part our surroundings shape our moral values and more intricate traits. Both nature and nurture are needed to shape a person's personality. However, if i had to pick a source that i agreed with more, it would be the article, not the video.
ReplyDeleteI think both biology and environment play a key role in our developments and personalities. Both are interrelated. A person's genetic make-up gives people their basic traits but the environment and the people whom we associate with help form our different views on the world. The environment helps determine our values and morals. One goes through both good and bad experiences which make each one of our personalities unique and special among one another. Another big factor which plays a role in forming our personality is our parents and the way they raise us. I think experience is most important in determining our personality but that does not mean that our biological make-up does not affect it in any way.
ReplyDeleteBiology and environment are both determining factors of our personality. Biology has an impact on our basic personality traits. Environment is what determines more of our reasoning and thought process. We cant ignore the role of our biology. Some of our genes determine how aggressive we are or how we deal with stress. If it is decided that the environmet is the sole contributer to our personality, we should do scientific research to find the best environmental conditions for the development of ideal peronality types. The way your parents raise you can determine parts of your personality while your genes can influence other parts.
ReplyDeleteIn throwing in my two cents about this debate, there is somewhat of a fair blend of biological and environmental development. Certain traits/talents cannot be taught. While some people are naturally creative and innovative, others excel in succeeding in following a solid formula repeatedly. Preferences are also instinctual, such as a taste in food, an ear for a music genre, and a vision for an artistic era. To sum it up, personal traits and likenesses are natural. The environment shapes a child's view of the world. When born, most children don't know how to have rage against a different race. That child sees the world as the culture teaches the child how to see. In other words, actions and speech are socially taught then repeated.
ReplyDeleteEverything inside the head of a person (thoughts, emotions, preferences) is biological. Everything outside the body (appearance, actions, communication) is cultural. By totally ignoring or isolating one development method over the other, the result is an incomplete child.
I personally believe that biology and environment play a role in the development of personalities. The example that Pinker gave of the twins who grew up in different environments but still had unique similarities shows that biology plays a role in the development of personalities. Also, there are seems to be a number of people in the world who commit violent crimes although they were brought up by loving families and relatively good environments. This example shows that biology has to have some part in the development of personalities because the nurture theory would claim that this would never happen. Environment has to play a role in the development as well because society teaches people what is "right and wrong," and without an environment to teach us, we all could have drastic differences in what we believe to be right and wrong. The development of personalities has to be a mixture of the two, possibly biology lays the foundation and the environment builds our personality from there.
ReplyDeleteI believe biological and environmental developments play an important part in shaping a person’s personality. Genes are the ABC’s of that person’s personality; they provide the basis of one’s character. An example of a biological influence is the identical twins Pinker gave in the presentation. The twins did similar acts even though they have been separated at birth. At the same time, a person’s personality is formed and altered by their environment. Society teaches children lessons and the basic rules of where one lives. Another example of an environmental influence could be an event that impacted someone’s life tremendously; those experiences lead to unique and individual personalities. Biological and environmental developments intertwine and together display an important role in constructing an individual’s personality.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that biology plays a very big role in our personalities. Everyone has different DNA, and this effects a person's character very much, no matter what environment they are brought up in. However, this is not to say that environment, surroundings, and upbringing have no role in the shaping of one's character. A person may be born, for example, stubborn and strong-willed; while their parents probably cannot change this, they could teach the child to communicate their opinions in an appropriate manner. I believe that everyone naturally has morals to some extent, but the majority of morals and social manners come from their upbringing. We see this every day when we come into contact with those from a different area or upringing than us. In some cultures it may be acceptable to act a certain way, and that becomes engrained into one's personality. Some believe that only the most basic instincts come naturally and the rest must be learned, but I feel that genes play a huge role in humans' deeper characteristics.
ReplyDelete