Marc a dit:
>Genes without environment are nothing. It's not nature or nurture. >It's
>nature and nurture. I can't see any contradiction between the >two.
Gerry en suite:
>Yes, genes and environment need a symbiotic relationship. So does
>nature and nurture. QUESTION: is behavior related to genes, >environment
>or both?
(Ssh, I'll tell them, shutup will ya?! Damn you! I'll get to that! You keep
your deoxybrose meddling to yourself, will ya?!) My genetics are telling me
to tell you that you are a boob. I'm sorry for that, but my "harsh" gene
took over and my "moral" gene couldn't stop it. :P
Of course behaviour is a combination of BOTH the environment and genetics!
The environment can just as easily affect the development of the brain as
genetics can. Consider cases of children traumatised from continuous mental
abuse by their parents (boy, I could tell ya stories). You think their good
genetics are going to take over and they'll live normal lives?? Nuh-uh. Not
necessarily. And it may not even be their genetics that saves them but how
they interpret this abuse as eventually being a positive or negative
influence on their lives. This future interpretation can again be determined
by the environment.
On the other hand, this person might have an identical twin brother
seperated at birth living in Smiley Ville, California growing up in a happy
bourgoisie mansion with Mary Poppins as mommy and Richard Simmons as... erh,
well... another mommy. This little guy _may_ turn out just fine with a
brimming smile from ear to ear and living a positive life with a positive
body image and positively loving aerobics, affecting people in a positive
way, hell, even with a positive balance in his swiss bank account... or that
nasty proneness to depression lurking in his DNA might take over, leading to
severe drug addiction and death while his abused brother is head of a
Fortune-500 Company, practising buddhism and sippin' tea with Tina Turner.
You get my point? I agree with Marc... but then this gets into other
behavioural aspects like sexuality. Sexuality may also be a matter of both
genetics and environment. Now this sounds contraversial but I don't mean in
a "don't-put-baby-boy-in-a-pink-room" kinda way at all.
I mean, a baby is forced to look at the world around him and make sense of
everything. I wouldn't doubt that at these very early stages of life (or
pre-natal?), the baby is also making sense of his or her sexuality (in a
very basic sense at first). He or she might decide for instance that hairy
men with moustaches are creepy because they don't play with them or that
they make the wrong kind of cooing sounds, etc :)
As these likes and dislikes build up over time, we arrive at a "sexuality"
which is unique for each individual. Perhaps "bisexuality" arises because an
early "sexual template" for this sexuality is not deeply formed - thus the
sexuality as a whole is based on things that can be found in either sex.
Deep thoughts by Glen. I find humans intriguing, I hope to become one, one
of these days <:S
- gLeN
______________________________________________________