|
Padriag -> RE: Nature vs nurture (7/11/2006 2:16:50 PM)
|
First off, thank you Ownedgirlie for taking the time to find, read and post those links. That took some effort and I always appreciate that.
Now on to the meat of it.
I’m not saying genetics has nothing to do with it. Would be more accurate to say that is has a very limited influence that in some cases is completely surpassed by the influence of environment (nurture). What influence genetics does have I think is largely misunderstood, not only by the D/s community at large, but even by many researchers themselves (who seem so bent on proving their theories right, they sometimes seem blind to other explanations, but then a lot of research is driven by grants that encourage them to prove something or other right, not to consider if it might be wrong).
Taking for example the very first link you posted. This links to an article on a gene sequence found in chromosome 11 which regulates the levels of dopamine. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter (among other roles) that affects our memory, problem solving ability, and also how we process pleasure (it is linked with endorphins in how some are able to process pain into pleasure). The article postulates that those with this particular gene sequence are more prone to novelty seeking behavior. To quote Dr John Gunderson…
quote:
"I think the finding is less specific than it is general, in that it initiates a conceptualization of personality that has generally been reserved for symptom disorders," said John Gunderson, M.D., director of psychosocial and personality research at McLean Hospital. "That is, there may be some kinds of specific genes that may be accountable for personality traits, and while it has been thought for many years that personality is composed in part of genetically determined temperament, this is a much more specific kind of finding than has been expected."
While agree with the first part of Dr Gunderson’s statement, that specific gene sequences or specific hormone levels may initiate a conceptualization of personality, or in simpler terms, they trigger a pattern of behavior, I disagree with the rest of his statement which implies that these gene’s actually control the behaviors. There is a huge difference between triggering a pattern of behavior, and being the governing factor in a pattern of behavior. And Dr Kenneth Kendler, in that same article seems to share my concern when he said, "I think it appropriate to view these results as quite preliminary, pending additional replication."
Not only does it need more repetition, it needs challenging. For example. Its one thing to say that specific levels of dopamine (which are regulated by a specific gene) can initiate novelty seeking behavior. But its quite another to say that that gene controls novelty seeking behavior or "hardwires" someone towards novelty seeking behavior. Questions these researchers need to ask include the following. Are there cases of individuals with this gene who do NOT exhibit novelty seeking behavior, if so, why? Are there cases of individuals who do not have this gene but do exhibit novelty seeking behavior, if so, why? If either or both those questions has a positive answer, then at that point all we can say is what Dr Gunderson originally stated… that this gene sequence can initiate novelty seeking behavior, but, and I add this, it neither controls it or guarantees it. And this is what I’m saying about genetics in relation to dominance and submission. Yes, there may very well be various genetic traits that my initiate dominant or submissive behavior, but they neither guarantee it or control it… in short, nobody is hardwired this way.
At best, genetics give people an advantage in various areas, sometimes a significant one. They can initiate behaviors, but beyond that point its up to the environment as to how things develop. But people will still seek genetic or chemical causes for dominance and submission anyway. I remember a group I encountered a few years back that had the notion that serotonin was THE dominant chemical. The fools were taking mass doses of 5PHT, an artificial form of 5HT, in the belief that it would make them "uberdoms". What these idiots didn’t know is that highly elevated levels of 5HT has been linked to schizophrenia, psychosis, mania, mood disorders (depression and anxiety), paranoia, as well as increased aggression. It’s a wonder none of these "megadoms in a pill" didn’t end up committing violent crimes.
I’m also reminded of a 5’4" basketball player who could slam dunk with the best of him. Nature (genetics) hadn’t given him the height of other players, but that didn’t stop him, he learned to be a great player anyway. That's an example of nurture (environment and personal choice) trumping nature. And to my mind that’s a good thing. Because not only is it a very human quality, its also liberating. None of us is trapped by our genetics, if we apply ourselves, we can go beyond those genetics to do all kinds of things.
I’d also put this out for consideration on the whole topic, and most especially for those who believe dominance cannot be taught. Consider the Leathermen, who I am given to understand, have the tradition of beginning as submissives and learning to become dominants. Their belief is that one has to "come up through the ranks" and that this also produces better dominants. Regardless of whether you believe it produces better dominants or that such "progression through the ranks" is necessary, one thing is undeniably true… for them it works and has been for over a half century. That simple reality is hard to argue with and it gives us an example of dominants who learned to become what they are.
So while yes, genetics may play a role, I think it is a very minor role compared to the influence of the environment and learned behaviors. I think dominance and submission certainly can be taught and learned, and that neither requires extreme measures.
Food for thought.
|
|
|
|
