The way a person turns out, according to the past psych text book I had, is from a combination of the two. Whether you are extro or introverted, rude or polite, sarcastic or not, cuss or don't, bigoted or not, as well as your personal preferences, neatness, and yes even sexual orientation are a by-product of both nurture AND nature.

If I remember my crappy undergrad psych classes we dicussed how its a mixture of what we grow up with and our experiences with that growing up that wire our brain for who we are. Little Jimmy and Little Tommy are both taught that cussing is bad and are punished for doing it. Little Jimmy has friends that cuss and Little Tommy is beaten UP by Jimmy's friends. Year or so later Jimmy is cussing like a sailor and Tommy won't speak to people that use profanity. Nature wins out because it was the most influence variable.

Same situation but Jimmy's parents spank him every time he curses and Tommy's dad teaches him to fight. In this one the agressive/submissive roles are reversed and you have Jimmy being scared to cuss and Tommy beating up the people picking on him and probably using their same insults back. In this one Nurture "wins" because it ends up the deciding variable.

Example three is Jimmy and Tommy become friends are decide that their parents are full of crap and they should be able to say what they want. This one both Nurture and Nature play big parts and so both 'win'.

Most real life scenerio's are but more complex than these simple examples but the point is there. Other examples would involve the kids just being passive or aggressive naturely and either rejecting or excepting certain experiences different than expected and further blurring whether it was "nurture" or "nature".

Most generally it is safe to say its a combination of the two.

~Rico

It can be a combination of the two.
Although, sometimes, it's a persons own choice wether they grow up as a good or bad person.
Yes, a person can be brought up badly, but that same person will learn what good and bad is at a certain age. Therefore, if they wanted to be good, they could.

It can work the other way as well. A person can be brought up right, and turn out bad.
And I'm not just talking about children that are adoptions but primarily children of parents who had their kids naturally.
Funny thing though, I don't seem to have that much in common with my parents. I have certain traits that were inheirated but...
There ARE other influencing factors also. Take the environment and the people around you. How you're raised isn't the only factor in how you act (nor is the fact that you're born with certain tendicies)

And all this just means there is NO scapegoat for the way people turn out. Doom doesn't make kids kill people, Marilyn Manson does make people screwed up, spongebob does not make kids gays, and interest in talking animals doesn't mean you dress up in disney costumes and have buttsex.

People are responsible for their actions.

~Rico

Geez is hell frozen over fifty million thousand times in a week?
I agree with you for once Rico.

Quote:

---

Would the person became what they are today based on how they were raised or where they were brought up?

---

Um, I'm pretty sure that both of those fall under the "nurture" heading - they're both "outside" things that affect developement. The nature side is more of a focus on genetics and stuff - you are who you are because that's how you were built, regardless of outside influence.

I believe it's a combination of the two. People are obviously able to learn by example and be conditioned in certain ways. On the nature side, it certainly seems that dogs can be bred for certain traits (aggression is higher in some species, etc.), and there are studies that seem to indicate that identical twins raised apart often develope similar habits and tastes.

LOL...ok, genes are potential, environment allows potention to be fulfilled. Having the genes for being really tall doesn't do much if the environment cannot supply the materials needed for growth.

The average height of the Japanese has been increasing since the end of WWII as their national diet includes more calcium and protein rich foods. The logical conclusion is that either there was a massive genetic mutation across the country, or their environment changed to allow their full genetic potential to be expressed. Occam's razor says....

As far as behaviors go, biologists and behavior scientists don't really have an answer as to which is more important, genetics or environment. Finding a link between genetics and behavior has been the Holy Grail for many special interest groups, especially those interested in causes of homosexuality. This has caused some very rash press releases over the years.

In the end, I don't believe that "behavior genes" will ever be found by real scientists, but that people seeking to blame their actions on anything other than their own "free will" will continue to search for a scapegoat.

Jimro

I'm only concerned when people breaking laws try to find scapegoats. People with un-traditional lifestyles are more than welcome too find scapegoats of they want. I mean hey, if christians can say they have faith because an invisible omnipitent entity says they should. I think furrys can say they wear costumes because little nearly invisible genes in their body say they should. And the same with Gays of course.

One day they may find a link between behavior and genes. Hell they could find both a gay gene and a christian gene for all we know. Someones faith of choice could depend solely on what fluids one kind of cells is expelling. Same with their sexuality and personality. We don't know.

And of course untill that time people with "accepted" lifestyles and personalities will always basically say, "No such thing, you're weird I'm not." and the socially rejected ones will say, "But why AM I weird?" Gotta love life. 😀

~Rico

Here is the central dogma of genetics, DNA encodes RNA which encodes PROTEINS. Finding a gene that causes a behavior, whether belief or lifestyle, is not going to happen because genetics only address the regulation and transcription of proteins.

The questions brought up by genetic regulation are more interesting, why some people feel "depressed" when their cells don't produce enough of a gene product. Once again these questions can be addressed at the cellular level. There are clear links between mood, chemicals, and genetics, but behavior is much more than how you feel from day to day. Moods do incline us to engage or disengage from certain behaviors but the choice is always up to the individual.

If you want some interesting reading, google for "Criminal Gene" and "Gay Gene" and you'll see what I mean about rash press releases and people wanting a scapegoat.

Jimro

Ehem, when I use layman terms its so I don't look stuckup and psuedo intelligent. I know what "insert term here" Genes are.

Yes, I agree, and thats what I was stating was the brain is very powerful organ that can all but cause a creature to do something. There is free will, but the factor of that persons "willpower" or how easily they are pushed into doing something. That in turn could also be the result of a "gene", I use that term in quotes now so its known that I'm using a generic term. Traits like religion, personality, sexuality, and just in general the way a person reacts is a nixture of "genetic regulation", past experiences, and of course how their parents raised them.

I've read some of the pages on criminal gene and the like, and like I said thats not in the slightest what I meant when used that term. Until there is a real answer both sides are going to claim the other is wrong with no proof as neither said really knows how it works. You'll never know what goes on in another persons mind, just like an atheist find is nearly impossible to understand faith or a heterosexual will be to really stomach thinking about a homosexual preference for bedtime partners. (barring some life altering crisis of course)

Again repeat like a broken record we don't know for sure yet. But unless the changed what the textbooks say, its still assumed to be a mixture of the way brain gets wired (gene's, genetic regulation, past experience, adult influence) and the ever changing experiences we have daily. In essence people can change, and though it usually doesn't happen and requires a very extreme event, it can happen and will be a result of the same forces that create his or her identity. Nature vs Nuture is essentially Nature AND Nuture. :p

~Rico

Didn't I start out with "genes are potential, environment allows potential to be expressed"? Having the genes to be Superman do you know good if your environment cannot support that development.

There is no evidence that I can find that learned behaviors such as language or religion have any genetic cause. If scientists had to take a stance today with the evidence available learned behaviors are just learned behaviors, totally the effect of the environment and personal choice.

Saying that, there "could" be a genetic component to learned behaviors is just saying "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". But I say to you that absence of evidence is not evidence of presence.

Jimro

If you're going by real evidence then both of us are talking out our cabooses. 😉

~Rico

Are you forgetting that I study biochemistry? Part of my study involves genetics because they are what control the production of proteins that cause all those interesting reactions that make life possible.

In fruitflies, drosophila melanogastor, genes have been linked with the ability to learn, specifically the Dunce mutation, have shown a direct link between genetics, structure, and learning ability to adapt to a chemical irritant.

As a side note one of my favorite mutations is "Cheap Date" where the flies have decreased resistance to the effects of alcohol and get "drunk" easily. This demonstrates a possible genetic component for aloholism, but not a definative proof by any means.

And such is the study of genetics with model organisms, find it in flies, transfer it to mice, if mice react similarly then possibly we can find a similar system in humans...

However no one has EVER found a gene directly linked to behavior, only what we consider a predisposition. If someone's body cannot metabolize ethanol properly, it would predispose them to alcoholism because they would feel the effect of the drug longer, but it does not force them to drink. And if they choose to drink responsibly it doesn't mean that they can't control themselves.

I realize that I am no Watson or Crick, or even Ames, but I am not just talking out of my caboose.

Jimro

Are you forgetting I don't care? o.o

I study psychology and network security, blah blah blah, I don't see a need to state it like I'm an expert on either subject.

Anyway, back to topic.

Quote:

---

As a side note one of my favorite mutations is "Cheap Date" where the flies have decreased resistance to the effects of alcohol and get "drunk" easily. This demonstrates a possible genetic component for aloholism, but not a definative proof by any means.

---

Thank you. Just remember that saying "we can't find a reason that people do certain things so they must just decide to do them", probably isn't anymore a definative proof than the Cheap Date mutation.

The first... half dozen posts here, including mine, said it was probably a mixture of nature and nurture. So basically we're saying that a combination of nuture (parental influence and life experiences via that influnence) and nature (Being predisposed to certain things like shyness, drug abuse, religious faith, homosexuality, etc) ultimately decide the reason people, as the OP put it, "became what they are today".

I THINK you're agreeing with that, but you seem to say one thing but your evidence states another. May wanna clear that up.

...

And if you use what I say to lighten the mood again in a derogatory way... I'll drosophila YOUR melanogastor.

~Rico

The fact that a mutation makes flies more susceptible to the effects of alcohol is undisputed. How that relates to other organisms has not been established, but since it has been demonstrated in flies, there is a strong possibility that such a mutation exists among humans.

flybase.bio.indiana.edu/....32229.data

What I am saying is that there is no evidence that genetics will make you a jazz musician or democrat. I have deliberately not brought up neural development, because neural development has more to do with environment than genetics, basically how the brain is "programmed" by the experiences of childhood. Since you study psychology you are probably familiar with how synapses are formed by stimulation, blah blah blah yada yada yada.

Things like eye color, skin color, hair color, whether you can roll your tonge or not, are genetic traits. Things like political viewpoint, artistic expression or lack thereof, even grasp of language tools and mathematics, are environmental products.

Genetics gave me green eyes, but not my religion.

I hope that I have established that genes provide potential, but they do not control people. Genes may predispose someone to obesity, but that does not make them overeat. Genes may predispose someone to alcoholism, but that does not make them drink. In an environment where food is scarce a metabolism that stores energy really well becomes an advantage. In an environment where alcohol is not part of the culture having a predisposition to alcoholism is not a detriment.

I'm pretty sure we've hashed this subject to death from every angle now. I'll see your melanogastor and raise you a nematode.

Jimro

Quote:

---

Since you study psychology you are probably familiar with how synapses are formed by stimulation, blah blah blah yada yada yada.

---

Yes, expect for the blah and yada parts. Without cheating and looking in my book I think its age 14 that most people's brains stop forming new pathways. Those pathways are by-products of interaction with your environment. Every choice you made stems from those neural pathways in your brain. From your taste in music to what color shirt you wanna wear. Course that doesn't factor in "predisposition", peer pressure, fear of punishment, etc.

So its not as simple as Genetics giving you your religion. they don't. Thats over simplifing it. From what I remember the accepted theory (and applying it to religion) is that throughout your life you have experiences that in some way or another imprinted on you the importance of faith, or a need to believe in a higher power, or maybe just a need to think another is in control of your fate. Because of one, or all, of these; your neural pathways formed "synapses" that gave you a predisposition to religion. Other experiences form the pathways that will make you predisposed to a certain religion. They don't FORCE you to, but you are FAR more likely to show affinity for that religion over others or atheism.

The same shows true for all decisions in life. It's not "genetics" so much as its your brain forming to adulthood through childhood, adolescense, and teenage experiences.

It would take a severe event or a very extreme influence to sway someone away from what their brain is telling them to do.

An example is a friend of mine that grew and, matured, and his neural pathways were set so that at puberty he discovered he was gay. Years later, ridicule wore on him but didn't hurt enough to force him to ignore his brain. However he became friends with a girl, got interesting in christianity, and slowly but surely can to terms with himself and the christian faith. Now he's happily married to her and is a christian, he knows the act of homosexuality is a sin in the eyes of Christians and would never commit it. But he is still gay, his love for his wife won over his brain and he made the hard choice it ignore what his brain said and is a happy person reagardless.

Another is my friend from highschool how was a fun loving guy that was very well liked. His pathways developed making him into a laidback person that was just fun to be around. However, and I'm still unsure what event sparked it, over one summer he sudden became a different person. Rarely talks, has never dated again, and is a devoted Mormon.

Both examples of how people can overcome how their brains developed, but it does take something severe. And short of being predisposed to being a pedophile or serial killer I wouldn't see anything wrong with just doing what comes naturally... And holy crap its 12:30. You army guys sure have a lotta time on your hands, lol. I'll throw in that melanogastor, see your nematode, and up it to a _dc._msdsc with the _tcp stub zone missing. Lets REALLY pick part this dead, cooked, eaten, expelled, and decaying horse. Test Tube VS Couch! Place yer bets! [Chico]Getahya tootsie footsie ice cream....[/Chico]

~Rico (Has 27 hours comp time and is going a nice vacation just to play mindless videogames and fight with Jimmy. XD)

Put me down for a five spot on the couch.

Jimro

Some people deserve to be smacked, some dont. Think of it this way, if you hit a dog and it cowers, then its learned its lesson and probably wont be that bad. But if you hit a dog, and it bites back, odds are that dog is just taking what you teach it and give it back to you. Sometimes they bite back, sometimes they dont. Its the owner who decides that. But also, having a free will, the dog can choose to bite back or not. Now, take that dog and make him "little billy". little billy will either hit back or hide. however, he has his own will, and if he knows he has a choice and is taught it properly, he can change his reaction.

How does this relate to nature vs. nurture? well, to an extent both ways determan how something can become. however, that doesnt mean thats how they will be. Raising a living being is one thing that is impossible to do the same twice. every single thing from the environment to the people in that environment make up who a person or living thing is. That is why nobody is ever the same.