Sociology Assignment

[purple_reveries]

I need 10 responses.

Which of the following do you think is primarily responsible for whom we become?

1. Inherited Genes
2. Our Environment

And why?

Comments

[sixfoothobbit]

The obvious answer is both, and it's the one I believe in, for that matter, but screw it. Here's a side:

Our inherited genes are the ultimate decision of who we become. When you get down to it, all life is is the way you react to the things that happen to you, and the only way you can react is in terms of how you've been taught is appropriate.

This isn't to say that you can only respond in the way you were taught; you might do just the opposite, but nonetheless, you're doing the opposite consciously. You're fully aware that you've gone against the grain of what's been "expected" of you.

And yes, environments can influence it, but it's who you are to begin with that starts the cycle. It's like the chicken and the egg conundrum, only you know which one it is to start off with.

End ramble.

thanks for responding!

[purple_reveries]

Yes, I definitely think it's both too. And I agree with what you said.

I especially like the Chicken and the Egg example... (even though it'll make for a circular argument that Inherited Genes will always win.)

But overall, did you really take a side? Isn't everything about "being taught" considered Environment, not Inherited Genes?

Re: thanks for responding!

[sixfoothobbit]

Yeah, but recall, the Chicken and Egg debate isn't only about which came first, just primarily. It's a statement that one cannot exist without the other, so the example can still be appropriate.

And yeah, it's kinda a blurred-line answer, but this is sociology, which is all about the blurred line. What I was saying was essentially "What You've Already Got Inside, What You Know Instinctually".

But you are right, being taught would be moreso environment, though again, it's just as acceptable to me; I support both sides.

Re: thanks for responding!

[purple_reveries]

I understand what you meant about the Chicken and Egg. That's why I said that Inherited Genes will always win the argument based on that logic. It'll always just go back to (as you said) "one cannot exist without the other".

Interesting that you bring up instinct. Instinct makes sense to me.

Well, I'll mark you down as being one for Inherited Genes.

(Oh - And thanks for defending a side everyone else seems to be so quick to shut down.)

[ironiciris]

Our environment: Today's youth, brought up in an age when technology is what it was never before, is(are?) very much affected/influenced by media and technology - more so, in my opinion, than by inherited genes.

[redmage5100]

We have this thing with posting at the same time.

[ironiciris]

wow. yes we do.

[purple_reveries]

I concur.

I think the media definitely plays a role in the sculpting of individuals. That kinda goes hand in hand with one of my favorite quotes, "We are all merely products of the society in which we live in."

[redmage5100]

The environment. Genes are used mainly for our physical development. Every person is very close to being another's identical twin, even the person you dislike most, they share 99.9% of your DNA. How we become who we are doesn't necessarily mean what we look like, it's what our personality is-"the looks are just the outer shell for the real person."(Kennon. 2005) We learn what we know because of the environment we live in. Parental and Peer influence play the major parts in it. Parents are more important when it comes to education, dicipline, responsiblity, orderliness, charitableness, and ways of interacting with authority figures. Peers are more important for learning cooperation, for finding the road to popularity, for inventing styles of interaction among people of the same age. Most people tend to look to their peers for information rather than their parents. The opinions of peers, the teachings of parents, all the interactions with our surroundings all lead to the person we become so much more so than the genes we inherit

[purple_reveries]

I think that the environment plays a more important role than genetics as well. However, I haven't completely knocked inherited genes yet. There's evidence supporting both sides... which is what makes the question hard to answer. But I like what you have to say... (especially when you quote yourself!) Thanks for the input! :-)

[clevermonikerx]

Disclaimer: I know the answer, but I'm not telling. =p That being said, it's genetics that make you who you are. How you react to a given stimulus is a matter of your thought processes, and those are hard-wired into you. All the nurture (or lack thereof) in the world can make you start thinking like someone else.

[purple_reveries]

"All the nurture (or lack thereof) in the world can make you start thinking like someone else." Typo?

Genetics is the answer? How can there be a real answer? In social psych the answer was that they're both about important. I guess I'll find out tomorrow...

[reelbigporter]

It's a little of both mostly environment though. You said hard-wired but not at birth. At birth the vast majority of your brain is undeveloped and is constantly forming new synaptic connections determined by what you experience. Your personal thought process is based on previous outcomes you have experienced before or seen. Look up the corrispondence rates between twins. They are not exactly 100% opposites but they show that 2 indentical twins raised apart have only a little more of a correspondence than complete strangers in psych tests.

Wow begginging Psych class does have it's uses...

[purple_reveries]

Hi. It's always nice to see people who you don't know comment in your livejournal. You must be Porter. (I've heard of you...)

As for your statement, I agree with you for the most part (because I think the environment is more influential as well.) And I'm not sure what twin studies you're referring to but the ones I saw showed an uncanny similarity between identical twins separated at birth. They suggest that certain traits such as intelligence, temperament, sociability are, in fact, blueprinted in the womb. Interesting stuff, this is.

Thanks for the comment.
-Farrah

[purple_reveries]

Well, the assignment's actually due Friday.
So I think the input will be useful.

[purple_reveries]

Genes do play some role, however minor it may be. As Ian said, "the obvious answer is both". But for the purpose of this project, I needed people to choose sides.

We went over studies in class today that support both sides.
[Evidence for the Inherited Genes side: Identical twins seperated at birth (raised in completely different environments) - developed very similar interests, hobbies, personality, etc.]

So... I'm not completely knocking genes yet. Even though I personally think the Environment is much more influential.

And I will read Heinlen eventually. Stranger in a Strange Land is somewhere towards the top of my reading list... as soon as I can get a copy of it...