010 | Goldenrod City | Text

[usedlaserbeam]

When posed the question, "which contributes more to personality - nature or nurture?", a psychologist once replied, "which contributes more to the area of a rectangle - its length or its width?" The simplistic answer, therefore, is that neither one contributes more to a creature's personality; rather, that it's some interdependent combination of

Comments

Text.

[hasearthbooks]

As a researcher in the field of genetics, I must sincerely thank you for this abundance of input that you provide.

Something *else* far too simplistic would be saying that we are the result of the genetic memory encoded in our DNA. Because that memory is itself the result of a complicated series of factors, for many of which the very distinction between "nature" and "nurture" is incredibly blurred. Is our nature nothing but the memory of the nurture of our ancestors? Perhaps. And is nurture the inevitable result of the nature of what is around us, including ourselves? Again, perhaps. Perhaps the very act of distinguishing between the two is pure folly.

Surprisingly, or perhaps not, food appears to play an important part in all of this. Physical and psychological characteristics seem to have a very strict relation with what the individual, family and/or population consumes and has consumed over the previous generations.

Myself, I believe it is far less reductive to think of ourselves and of the beings around us as the product of stories, past and present, projected towards stories of the future.

Text.

[usedlaserbeam]

Ah, I'm far from an expert in the matter, so it might be wise to take my input with a grain of salt; I'm certainly not qualified to speak with the authority of a researcher, and particularly not one in your field of study. If anything, I should be the one grateful to you.

If you don't mind the inquiry, I'd be interested to hear more about your 'product of stories' model of the issue. Does that imply that individuals are ultimately just players in a greater predetermined scheme?

[hasearthbooks]

Ah, no. Mine was far from being a metaphysical consideration (though now, of course, I have to ask you - is that what *you* think?). As a matter of fact, it's a very practical one. You see, stories have exactly the degree of depth and detail that is adequate to their purpose. The exact same story can be told in a simplified version that can fit into a single page if all the author wants is to convey a resume of it; or it could take up entire volumes if the author pursues a broader purpose.

Similarly, if our task is as ambitious as analyzing life in all of its complexity, then there is a whole multitude, if not an infinity of factors that become relevant and should be taken into consideration.

[usedlaserbeam]

That's a remarkably innovative way of looking at the problem - one I admit I hadn't heard before. And to answer your question, I'm not fond of the idea that I'm not in control of my own actions and destiny, so predestination isn't a theory I generally subscribe to.

Predisposition, on the other hand, might be something of a murkier consideration.

[hasearthbooks]

Predisposition? How interesting. Do tell.

You see, where I am from, an individual societal caste and occupation are genetically encoded. The encoding depends on the quality and quantity of food received during the gestation phase - the better and more plentiful the food, the higher the caste. And yet, our lives are far from being predestined - the genetic encoding (like all DNA, actually) can change over time, or be made to change by environmental factors and, again, nourishment.

[usedlaserbeam]

Predisposition - put another way, I suppose you could call it a variance in thresholds. Take, for example, a hypothetical action. Under a given amount of influence, a person will perform that action. The point at which the person concedes to perform might be called their threshold - the point where inaction becomes action. People with a higher threshold would therefore take more effort to influence, whereas those with a lower one would need less effort.

Those with low thresholds required for performing given actions might be said to have a predisposition toward those actions - that is, they're inherently more inclined to perform them than the average person might be. They're not predestined to, but they're more likely to.

[hasearthbooks]

And those with low thresholds for actions that break the norms of societal life and common sense might be said to be madmen. Or born criminals, if we decide that such people can be said to exist. I see. It's a very interesting theory, and actually quite true. If I told you that many, if not all, of those thresholds are originated from corresponding biochemical phenomena, would you believe it?

[usedlaserbeam]

I'd certainly entertain the theory long enough for you to describe it. Whether or not I'd believe it would depend largely on the support you offered for it, since at the moment I can't say either way.

[hasearthbooks]

I merely wonder how I can make such an explanation seem interesting. I'd even send you some literature if I had it with me - you like reading, don't you? You strike me as the sort.

Let's start from the record that language keeps of it. For example, you can say about a bad-tempered person that they are *bilious*. In fact, constantly high levels of liver activity and bile secretion result precisely in that kind of disposition. In that respect, the medicine of ancient times was *almost* correct.

Whereas the process by which a fear stimulus receives an active reaction as a response is governed by adrenaline. If somebody's disposition is fearful, the odds are that their kidneys aren't as responsive as they should normally be.

And I could go on.

[usedlaserbeam]

I do enjoy it, yes. There are few things more satisfying than a good book, in my experience.

The medicine of ancient times...that's the four humors theory, isn't it? How curious to think it came so close to the truth.