Final Blog

When I first thought of this inquiry question, I really had the presumption that environment had more of an influence on a person’s behavior.  I have always thought of behavior and personality traits, as something that a person could easily change and mold; depending on their surroundings.  Now, that I have done some research, I can really see how it is a combination of both environment and genetics.  I say this because I don’t think it is fair to say, that it can only be environment or that it can only be genes that makes a person who they are.  There are plenty of examples of people that grow up in a "good" family with positive influences and they still end up making bad life decisions.  And yet, there is also the opposite of situations, where people have rough childhoods and have no positive role models and yet they succeed beyond imagination.  

http://www.sacramentobmi.com/CausesofObesity

Even though, I believe this is a subject that will never have a concrete answer that every person can agree to, I do feel that with research and technology, we are getting a lot closer to understanding the possibilities of controlling and changing our own behavior.  

With all of this continued research and science, I would love to know more about which personality traits are more affected by our DNA and which traits can be influenced or changed by our environment?  And if the environment can change the physicality of our genes, and if that influences them to be "turned on" or "turned off", which process or therapies work best to make this happen?  Is this the key to helping people overcome bad behavior, addiction or even the curse of a genetic disease?

With the next project I feel strongly that I want to argue that it does take both environmental influence and genetic factors to give us our individual personalities. Even though, I have found some great sources, that have put a good argument for each side, I personally don’t see how traits can only be influenced by one factor. 

Synthesis

Both articles “Study Finds that Nature Beats Nurture in Character Traits” by Janice Wood and “Determining Nature Vs. Nurture” by Douglas Steinberg are both very convincing in stating their arguments.  I think Wood’s article is very persuasive showing that genetics can have a significant effect on behavior traits.  On the opposing side Steinberg’s argument is more persuasive, since it is proved by scientific evidence.  I feel that with actual new technology showing the physical changes in molecules surrounding and effecting genes, this helps win the current debate of “Genetics Vs. Environment”. 

Tying it all together...

While looking in the online articles from anythink library, I found one under Psychology and Behavioral Science that fits perfect into my research.  This article goes into the same "new theory", that I mentioned in a previous post, called epigenetics, which is the study that environment may have an actual physical effect on DNA.  What I am finding with a lot of my research, is that epigenetics could be the answer to the age old debate of nature vs. nurture.  This study is really compelling and the article does a great job of breaking down the process of the physical changes that could be happening to a persons' genes.  It is also very convincing, that it could be true, that behavior is something that is a combination of both genetics and environment and not based solely on one factor.  Epigenetics is also proving that molecule changes can occur in mature cells.  In the past, it was always thought that molecule changes could only be done in the early development stages.  What does this mean for future science and psychology studies?  Could this be as helpful as scientist are thinking it will be, to finding a cure for genetic diseases'?  If it can help with diseases, will it also help to cure mental illness or addiction?  Another, question I want answered when it comes to epigenetics, is do the genes that are affected by epigenetics have the same possibility as being passed down to future generations, as any other gene? 

Steinberg, Douglas. "Determining Nature Vs. Nurture." Scientific American Mind 17.5 (2006): 12-14. Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. Web. 12 Mar. 2015

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fcell.2014.00049/full

 Synthesizing

What main ideas related to your blog inquiry question did you find in each source? 

Source #1: “Study finds Nature beats Nurture on Character Traits”- This article talks about a study that was done with over 800 set of twins.  The results from the study proved there are certain character traits that seem to be passed down from ones’ genes and that environment is not a factor.  The article also points out that identical twins are twice as more likely to have similar personality traits than non-identical twins.  According, to this study it would seem that genetics has upper hand when pinpointing a factor of behavior.

Source #2: “Determining Nature Vs. Nurture”- This literacy article is stating something a little different than the first.  This article talks about a persons’ behavior is based off of a combination of genes and environment, not just one factor.  It also talks about a theory, that the environment has a physical effect on DNA, which could make certain genes more active than others.

What similarities and differences do you see in the way these sources and their authors approach, view, and make arguments about the issue? 

Similarities 

-Both articles believe they are revealing the “newer science” behind what influences people more genes vs. environment.
-They both are trying to figure out how where we get our behavioral traits from.

Differences

Source #1	Source #2
Study based off questionnaires	Scientific research studying physical chances in DNA
Believes genes are the dominant factor	Combination of environment effecting genes
Study by Psychologists	Study by Psychiatrists & Neuroscientists

What might the two sources/authors “say” to one another? 
I think the author of Source #2 would ask the psychologist from Source #1 why there are so many twins and siblings that are so different, if genes are the dominant factor?

Source #1 may want to know what kind of environmental factors can change genes?  Are there certain genes that are more likely to be changed by the environment? 

At this point, how do you position yourself in the conversation of these sources? What new insights and questions do you have?
At this point, the process of epigenetics is what makes most sense to me. I feel that with the environment physically effecting certain genes it could make some traits stand out more and even be passed down by generations.  I can see how it takes a combination of both factors; genetics and environment to makes us, as individuals.  It doesn't seem to be realistic to think that it is only one factor.     

research...research...research!

On the wsj website there is an article called “Nature vs.Nurture: New Science Stirs Debate” wrote by Jonathan Rockoff.   Rockoff explalins that there is a newer theory proving how the environment has a great affect a persons’ genetic make-up.  The theory, has proved that depending on a person’s genes, the DRD4 gene, to be specific, it can cause certain people to have more of sensitivity, towards their surroundings, and can affect their individual personality.  The theory goes on to categorizes people as being “Orchids”- which are the people that able to either exceed beyond exception with a positive environment or they can be the person who will have devastating tendencies and actions if they were surrounded by negative environments.  On other end of the spectrum there are people that are considered to be “Dandelions” these are the people that are not as affected by their surrounds and are able to have a more consistent personality, no matter what influences are around them.  This is very interesting to me because it really ties the environment factor in with the gene factor.  So does this mean that our environment has more of an effect on our future generations than it does to our own personal behavior?   If, so how much of an effect?  Does it carry on to our children or even into their future generations? 

The research also gave specific examples of the type of traits that were found to be more affected by ones’ genes such as; sense of purpose, social interactions and the ability to continue to learn and develop new skills.   This was a great point because I have wondered about this, are there certain traits that are more influenced by our genes and other genes more influenced by the environment?

 

The second source I found this week was an article that stated that a persons’ genetics has the bigger influence on behavior.   The article titled “Study Finds Nature Beats Nurture in Character Traits” can be found on the Pysch Central website.  The article is based on a study, from the University of Edinburgh.  They conducted a study of DNA and personality traits of more than 800 sets of twins.  According to their research it was twice as common for the identical twins to show similar personality traits vs. non-identical twins. I found this to be very interesting because one could say that according to the results of this study ‘Yes, this does prove genetics is the reason we are, who we are’.  

I want know, what about all the set of twins, even identical twins, that seem to be completely opposite of each other?  I personally have seen many twins at our elementary school and they are very different.  They are different when it comes to their interests, social interactions, learning ability, and for some it seems like opposites at everything!  So, if traits and personality are caused by genetics, why are there so many twins that are on the opposite side of the spectrum?   I find all of this information very interesting.  I am looking forward to researching the different thoughts and theories.

The debate goes on...

After looking at many different articles, websites and blogs I have noticed that there is still a lot of debate going on whether human behavior stems from our genes or from the environment. This inquiry, kind of has me going in circles, which I guess makes it a research topic.  Because I am constantly going back and forth and finding more sub-questions. 

I found one article that has really stood out for me on The Atlantic website by Alice G. Walton.  Watson explains that the different lifestyle choices, such as food and exercise could have an effect on the molecules surrounding a persons' genes.  In turn, this makes certain genes more active and bring out certain personality traits.  The article also gives examples how food, exercise and even bad habits could "sway" certain genes.  It also brings up the point that certain "bad" genes; such as a gene that may carry a disease may have the ability to not be passed down, to the next generation. This brings me to wonder, does our environment have a slightly larger control over our personality and behavior?

Most of my searching on the web, has led me to articles that wouldn't give their direct opinions on which is the more dominant factor; genes vs. environment.  Then I found another article by Etan Smallman, on Metro News that has a very similar opinion to my previous source on The Atlantic.  Smallman is more persuasive in his article and shows some credibility by interviewing a Child Clinical Psychologist and Neuroscientist about the subject.  Both seemed to agree that the environment has a bigger impact on an individual.  Smallman stated both professionals agreed that the main focus of our future should be on the environmental factor. 

I am really intrigued to see if this is a newer theory and to see if it is becoming more of the consensus.  I am personally still a little torn between the two.  In order to make a more solid case on my research, I plan to go the library again and look for some published books.  I also would like to see if I can find some publications that will lean more toward the gene factor. I think it would be great to find a lot of information for both sides. 

What Makes Us, Who We Are?





 

 

 DNA- What can it tell us about human behavior?

 

I am very intrigued by thought of what makes us, who we are?  Are the decisions we make in life based on our DNA or is it something we learn?  



Watching my two boys grow into young men, I can’t help but wonder what they are going to be like as adults?  Who are they going to “take after”?  Are they going to have my shy and reserved attitude or will they have my husband’s risky demeanor and his slick way with words?  Or, will they each have the perfect combination, of the two?  Will the traits that they have now, as young children, carry on into their adult lives?  Later, when they are faced with tough decisions, will the choices they make be based on their genetics or will it stem from observation and things they were taught during childhood? 

 

I don’t know if I dwell over this more than most parents, or if it something each of us wonder as we are raising our children. Maybe, I wonder about it because of my own childhood and the situations I observed while growing up or maybe it is because of the families I come into contact with at work, each day.  I often think when I see a young child that is living in a less than ideal situation, what will that child will be like when they are an adult?  Will they follow into a their parents poor behavioral patterns or will they learn to make better decisions?  

 

 

With my research and blogging, I want to find out how much of our behavior and personal choices are really up to us and how much is apart of our DNA?  I think a lot of my research will be based upon studies and opinions of professional psychologists and scientists.  I should be able to find many different scholarly articles and books, written by professionals with a lot of experience.  This has been a topic that has been debated for many years.  I can’t wait to learn more about the psychology and/or science behind human behavior.