How do genes and experiences interact to influence people?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : History & Theory of Psychology : One Thread

Thanks a lot for answering my previous question. Here I have another one to ask.

How do genes and experiences interact to influence people? Is the person we become a product of innate, inborn tendencies, or a reflection of experiences and upbringing?

-- Joe Chan (angelic_4283@yahoo.com), June 17, 2004

Answers

Hi Joe, You may be interested in the new book by the David and Ann Premack entitled Original Intelligence: Unlocking the mystery of who we are. I hope this helps. Paul

-- Paul Kleinginna (pkleinginna@georgiasouthern.edu), June 17, 2004.

Or simply read the discussion on nature vs nurture in any major textbook or encyclopedia of psychology.

-- Hendrika Vande Kemp (hendrika@cox.net), June 19, 2004.

Hendrika Vande Kemp is correct that 'this question is covered in any "nature/nurture" chapter' but..., having read through a large percentage of such chapters myself, I've come to the conclusion that *interactionism itself (whether additive or multiplicative)* is wrong- headed way of approaching the development of psychological processes in human beings.

The purveyors of "intelligence tests" tried to use interactionism and reached a disciplinary deadlock (around 1925) between those whom viewed nature or nurture as the 'primary component' or influence... [see: http://www.comnet.ca/~pballan/C4P1.htm ].

R.S. Woodworth --with his middle of the road approach to psychology-- tried out a "multiplicative" portrayal of the 'genes and environment' issue and was perhaps the first (though maybe only one of the first) to explicitly adopt the interactionist "rectangular" metaphor --which is still in place in most textbook writings to date.

[see: http://www.comnet.ca/~pballan/Woodworth.htm ]

*also see the subsection: "Weakness of Traditional Interactionism (1946-1979)" at: http://www.comnet.ca/~pballan/C7P1.htm

During the 1960s-1990s, the Head Start movement in the U.S. attempted to provide a "dynamic interactionist" *rationale* for their program but even this variety of argumentation did not halt the innatist (and racist) camps both outside and inside the social sciences. [see "Project Head Start: Rationale, scope, and assessment" at the above link].

Occasional historical examples of another approach [which I have labelled **Transformative**] can be found (including Dewey, G.H. Lewes, Vygotsky, Leontyev/Leontiev, and James Lawler] but have as yet not been explicitly adopted into the disciplinary mainstream of psychology. The basic argument there is simalar to that made in Richard Lewontin's book *Not in our Genes* and you might also learn alot by looking through Lawler's book *I.Q., Heritablilty and Racism*.

In conclusion, I guess that my particular answer to your specific question "How do genes and experiences interact to influence people?" is that they don't! In fact, human culture *transformes* the biological and even social realm into the social-historical.

[see: http://www.comnet.ca/~pballan/C8P1.htm ]

Cheers,

Paul F. Ballantyne

-- Paul F. Ballantyne (pballan@comnet.ca), June 19, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ