Do you tend to think everything is genetic??

Post Reply New Topic

Do you tend to think everything is inherited/genetic?? Because I do, I always think even the slightest behavior of someone comes from their genes. Is anyone else like that too??

Yes.

I think that free-will is mostly an illusion.

I don't think so- I think it is a mix of environment and genes. I grew up with 3 siblings and we all have 50% of our parent's genes (I think that's right...). Two of us are similar and the other two are similar. Yes, we have similar genetics but we did not all grow up in the same environment. One of us was shipped to juvie, the other was adopted, the other moved out at an early age and I stayed until I was 18. So, the foundation (the genetics) shaped our personality to an extent and our choices but it was our environment that really help shaped us and helped us become who we are. So, I think they are both incredibly important.

Yes, I think in most cases nature beats nurture.

Me too but I also think will plays a little part but it gets defeated most of the time because genes are stronger

I have ancestors whom lived in different era and environment, etc, etc. But whenever I hear stories about them they have the same characteristics as me or other family members or see some of their old pictures they even have the same expression as me or my family members

Me too I think that

My mom and dad were chickens.

When it's a choice between "Nature" and "Nurture," I would go with "it depends."

I'm a believer in "free will" within many contexts.

I believe a person, invariably, could improve upon what he was provided with genetically.

No, I think it's a spectrum, most traits have an enviromental and a genetic component, though some traits are 100% (or very nearly) one or the other.

I'm pretty sure that genetic research has shown that genes can be dormant, only expressing when an environmental switch is thrown. I've seen that happen with bacteria in my science job.

A trait that depends on the environment isn't quite the same thing as a trait under the control of the individual's free will. It's more like it's under the control of the environment, I would think. But I get that a trait caused purely by genes would be impossible to change, so if your eyes are blue, you're kind of stuck with it, and that if there's any hope of a person deliberately changing a trait, it would have to be an environmental one.

As for free will, I don't know. I'm sure it's possible to use self-control to oppose a trait from expressing itself, but the person doing that would be opposing themselves, which I think would take a lot of energy and could be harmful to the person if taken to extremes.

Don't think I'm complaining, but is this a general autism topic? Or will it become one when somebody brings autism into it?

I have a question. Seriously help me understand this.

If behavior is strictly genetic and free will is an illusion where did anyone here pick up the genes for communicating online? There's no evolutionary benefit for it and certainly there hasn't been enough time to produce genes to determine who goes online and who doesn't.

Needless to say I don't believe genes control our behaviors, I do believe though that genes play a role in how we process and perceive our environment which plays a role in shaping our behaviors.

If it is genetic, I have the equation for me. Narcissist, or possible sociopath(mom) + dorkey hermit(dad)= me.

The genes don't control specific functions like that, if they did then we probably wouldn't be alive as we would have had to survive evolution long enough to develop genes that specifically adapted to every single predator, every single situation etc. Genes are very 'gene'ral in this regard.

We do 'choose' to communicate online, but the reason we choose to is because of the chemicals (as a result of genes) in our brain. One example is the neurotransmitter dopamine, the brain's pleasure chemical. The only real concerns of life are to seek pleasure and avoid pain/death (hence our evolution). Essentially everything can be drawn back to this fact. Even samurais that commit suicide after having disgraced themselves only do so because they so heavily value honour, and the reason being that they obtain pleasure from it.

The underlying decisions/mechanisms when choosing to communicate online are very much the same as choosing to have sex. It's enjoyable, because of chemicals.

I'm quite rusty on the subject but if you're interest I recommend that you read 'The Selfish Gene' by Richard Dawkins, if you haven't already.

It's apparent that we have the ability to transcend and expand upon what was "given to us" genetically.

Kicker brings up an excellent point!

Let's all stop being such Genetic Calvinists!

We are not pre-destined for anything! We create our own fate!

Of course I don't.

That's because I've heard of something called the environment.

I never blame anyone for everything. I never give anyone credit for anything. I'm always defaulting to the position that genetics, environmental factors, and things that we don't control have the greatest impact on who we are and what we do. Even when we choose to try or not to try, make an effort or not make an effort, that choice is predetermined.

I don't have an internal or external locus of control. I believe that my choices influence what happens to me while at the same time my choices are influenced by what happens to me. I'm simultaneously in control and not in control. So is everyone else.

I say I default to this position because I can't back it up at all.

well a combination of that and environmental factors, yes.
it's called determinism.
I think this belongs more in the philosophy section though.

Is it Nature or Nurture, Genes or Environment is an anachronistic dichotomy.

People used to pose this question this way because they did know, but now we do.

It's always genes and environment. You can't separate them.

Lookup GxE interactions.
Link

http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/20 ... brief.aspx

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3513682/