New to FriendlyChristian.com? Check out the FAQ page to learn about the site. Wondering who the heck I am? The My Story page is a great place to start. Thanks for stopping by!
Click here to subscribe via RSS.
Click here to have posts delivered by email.
This message will automatically disappear after your 3rd visit.
My Psychology professor asked us to answer two questions today:
- Are you the person you are today because of your genetics or because of the environment that you grew up in/are currently in?
- What is it about those who bounce back from tragedy that separates them from those who don’t?
My answers:
- Although I believe that both genetics and environment play a part in the development of a person, I strongly believe that a person’s environment is a greater factor. I believe that you inherit many tendencies from your parents (temperament, patterns, etc), however, I a person will typically become like the people she surrounds herself with, adapting to the environment in which she spends most of her time. Poll “troubled” adults and you’ll find very similar childhoods. Poll promiscuous women. You’ll find similar childhood/parental patterns. Poll people who prefer living in the city. Poll people who like cats. People who don’t eat certain foods. Of course their are exceptions.
- I believe that any person can recover from any tragedy by surrounding themselves with a solid social group, being honest, open, real and transparent, and by acknowledging their tragedy and having a strong enough desire to move on.
One guy used this example to justify his answer of environment for question 1: if you were to take the infant son of Saddam Hussein and raise him in a decent American household, the boy would grow up as any other American child would, never knowing anything about Iraqi “activities” or “ways.”
Another guy answered “faith” to question 2, which I thought was neat.
Popularity: 12% [?]
Loading ...
Yes. Wait, one word answers aren’t allowed for essays are they?
The answer is clearly both. I am quite tall. People treat me differently than they would if I were a tiny little person. Nobody ruffles my hair or calls me shorty, nobody bullies me or calls me names (to my face), nobody can pick me up and move me out of their way. I engender a certain degree of respect based solely on my physical presence.
I’m used to people treating me like that and act accordingly. I’ve learnt that my size and physical strength means that things break when I am near so I’ve learnt to move carefully around the fragile munchkins who share my world lest I damage them. I walk softly so as not to announce my presence and cause furniture to shake as I approach. I keep my temper under tight control because I know that I could seriously hurt someone if I lost it.
I’m the one who always gets asked to reach for things on the top shelf, or to open jars, or chop wood. My physical presence often makes people discount my intellect. I use this to my advantage quite purposefully to get things done that I want done.
That is simply one genetic trait that I have inherited. I literally have millions more. My genetics allow me to perceive things differently from the Lilliputians who barely reach my knees. My genetics mean that my environment is different from everyone else’s. Seats on buses and trains are too close together, ceilings are too low, umbrellas are a hazard to my sight.
I live in a wealthy nation where food is in plentiful supply. I can eat and drink to fill my belly and support my body’s needs. I have the freedom to do almost anything I want. I can go to a library or even my computer and discover almost anything within the realms of human experience. I was raised to respect others and discover things for myself. May people don’t have that luxury.
That all depends on what you mean by “bounce back”. I’ve known people who take the path of least resistance and just continue with life after tragedy has struck them. I’ve known fighters who resist the tragedy with all their might and refuse to bow down to it. I know people who crumble at the slightest tribulation, unable to adapt to any change.
I’d say flexibility and a positive outlook on life are key to recovery from hardship. I’d cite Christopher Reeves as an example of someone who had these characteristics and coped very well with his own disability.
definitly both, but the balance between them obviously varies from person to person dependant on what they inherit as their genetic dispositions and the environment surrounding them. one can even argue that our environmental surroundings (i.e. the people one interacts with) can be influenced by genetic predisposition - i.e. mental illness - and the extent to which genetic predisposition are ‘allowed’ to influence one due to environmental surroundings - i.e. the would-be bright happy kid who is utterly cowed by abuse - are both co-dependant and in constant competition.
1. Yes. (Both.)
2. Their genetics and their experiences.
So I dissapointingly don’t have an answer to the question; I do however, have more questions.
Everyone seems to be interested in the question how do we become the person we are today. Everyone who I have heard try to answer the question answers it in some combination of nature (their genetics) or nuture (how they were raised, the environment they were raised in, and the culmination of their experiences).
So here are some questions:
What does this mean for one’s will?
If nature and nurture mean everything does that mean their is no room for free will?
If their is free will how does it relate to nature and nurture?
If you do not believe in free will how does this affect your worldview?
How does free will relate to religion and atheism?
If you are a Christian, what do you think of Calvinism (which does not allow for free will)?
If we do not have free will what does this say about right and wrong? Can their be right and wrong (and here I mean right and wrong strictly in a moral sense) if a person is not able to make choices?
If you do not believe free will exists should you be angry at someone who commits horrible attrocities if the person could not choose a path other than commiting these atrocities? Similarly, do people who do good deserve praise if their good works were destined to happened by both their genetics and experiences?
And finally, weren’t most of these questions already firmly decided by the matrix trilogy? :d
My short, unexplored and completely undeveloped answer is that we have free will only in a few areas in which God allows it. For the most part I just flat out don’t know.:-?
Obviously this is off topic, however I do think it is vitally connected with the nature vs. nurture debate, and to me it’s continually fascinating. I’m eager to hear opinions on both my questions and on related questions that I most likely have never considered.
HoverFrog
I remember you implying in a previous post you don’t care much for sports.
If what you said was serious, maybe you were just born in the wrong country. Most American sports highly value giant mancrushers.:d
What do you mean by free will? Free of what?
Basically I’m wondering whether the choices we make are already predetermined by our genetics and the culmination of our experiences.
Or do we have the ability to make choices in spite of our genetics and experiences?
Here’s wikipedia’s definition of determinism (which is more or less the opposite idea to free will, or at least how I view free will):
“Determinism (also called antiserendipity) is the philosophical proposition that every event, including human cognition and behaviour, decision and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences.”
So let’s pretend I drink a lot of vodka, beer and basically everything that has alcohol in it. Let’s also pretend I have the gene that promotes alcoholism (and supposedly their actually is one). In this scenario my parents and friends are all heavy drinkers. Basically everything that has happened throughout my life and my genetics should lead me to become an alcoholic. Determinism would say that the choice I have in whether or not I will become an alcoholic is only an illusion. I will become an alcoholic. The philosophy of free will would say that I can choose to stay sober even though all my prior experiences should lead me to become an alcoholic.
Hopefully that analogy makes things somewhat clearer.
We do not have the ability to make choices in spite of our genetics and experiences. The very process of thinking and choosing involves consulting your experiences and (indirectly) your genetics.
When asked why I chose to do something, I typically answer ‘because of X, Y, and Z.’ My choice is determined on the basis of those things. If you make the choice non-determined instead, it shifts to ‘I chose to do something for no reason.’ In what way is this ‘free will’? If my choice is not determined based on my experiences and my genetics, then I am not making considered choices, I’m making random choices.
If you are not choosing to stay sober because of your experiences that lead you to value sobriety, etc., in what way is it a choice? You would have to say that you are staying sober for no reason.
The naturalism.org website has a ridiculous amount of material on the topic like The Scandal of Compatibilism - review of Four Views on Free Will.
I don’t like the sound of mancrushers, Goldeneye. They sound painful.
Our actions and thoughts may be pre-determined but that does no obviate free will. There are two kinds of free will after all. One is incompatible with determinism and that is the ability to make decisions outside of our genetic makeup and experiences. Another form of free will is the ability to make decisions within certain pre-defined parameters.