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
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?
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 #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.
-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?
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.
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.
I like the idea of epigenetics. As human beings we are a complex organism, and I believe it is true that narrowing down our behavior to only one factor is unrealistic. There are so many different types of people, and yes, they are always changing. Some because of their environment, and others because of the desire to. In any case, keep up the good work. I am leaning more toward environment as a make up of behavior. I only say this because of my own experiences. I know people have and do make a choice to change if they need to, especially in the right environment.
ReplyDelete