Is Behaviour a Function of Biological Processes(Natur) - Essay Example

INTRODUCTION Why does one behave as he/she does? Is one destined – because he/she is genetically programmed – to, say, smoke? Or does one smoke because, in his/her community, smoking is naturally done and even encouraged? DISCUSSION The question of whether human behavior in particular or human development in general is accounted for by the human genes or by the environment was, in one form or another, traceable to antiquity (see Fujita, 1996). In history, the genes-environment divide or nature-nurture duality was set off by Charles Darwin’s thoughts on evolution, furthered by Gregor Mendel’s research on heredity, kept alive by Francis Galton’s behavioral genetics, and recently sparked by Richard Herrnstein’s The Bell Curve (1994). This debate represents the unresolved portion of the researches focusing on the relative role of genes and environment in determining the principles of human growth, i.e., from athleticism to a person’s predisposition to obesity (see Bryner, 2006). Through the genes, the characteristic traits from parents to offspring are biologically transmitted. Called heredity, this process is technically complex. It actually starts from fertilization of ovum, and is responsible for one’s physical features, predisposition to certain diseases, intelligence, sensory acuity, and other fundamental capacities and abilities (Sanchez & Berin 2006, p. 21). That one is different from the rest is fundamentally explained by that fact that different parents have different physical and mental characteristics that are transmitted to their offspring. During the nineteenth (19th) century, genes were thought to be the unbending determinant of human behavior, development and – eventually – fate. It was because genomes were considered as blueprints of the future of men and women, so it was thought that biology is destiny (Penn, 2003; Pinker 2004, p. 3). Hence, human beings are determined. Recently, there were still studies specifying the linkage between genes and behaviors and diseases. For example, it was recently found out that various versions of the gene CYP2AG determine the number of cigarettes a person smokes. Likewise, it was ascertained that some eighty per cent (80%) of a person’s potential to develop Alzheimer’s disease is genetic. Among the athletes, it is said that sprinters are more likely to have a certain gene variant that causes the skeletal muscles to contract more powerfully at high speeds – something that is absent among endurance runners. Alcoholism, too, is said to be linked to genes. First disclosed in the 1970’s, that there are now around twenty (20) gene candidates that could influence excessive drinking was established in 2006 (see Bryner 2006). Environment, on the other hand, is meant all the conditions outside the living organism which influence its growth, development and behavior from the time it is conceived to the time it dies. These external conditions include the physical, mental and moral agencies surrounding a person (Sanchez & Berin, 2006, p. 24; see also Fujita, 1996). In the concrete, these are the domestic, educational, and social influences with which one comes in contact. Simplistically put, the environmental influence maintains that genetic predisposition is not destiny (see Byrner, 2006). During most of the twentieth (20th) century, that human beings are born with clean slate of mind was popular (see Pinker 2004, p. 1-2). Aside from the fact that the position of determinism was rendered unacceptable after the collapse of Nazism (Penn, 2003), the appeal of the blank-slate-position issued from the realization that many differences among people in different classes and ethnic groups formerly perceived to reflect innate gaps in talents or temperament actually vanish through immigration, social mobility and cultural change (Pinker 2004, p. 2). Bolstering the nature-position, there are equally significant researches concluding that, by peer pressure, smoking – particularly the first smoke of more likely women than men – is begun to develop as a habit. Similarly, exposure to pesticides and industrial chemicals play a great role in the development of Parkinson’s disease. Likewise, alcoholism and even drug addiction are equally linked to environmental influences. Given the preceding, one may ask now about the state of the debate or whether the debate is finally settled. Fact is, more than being unsettled, the issue is even more muddled in the light of the new discoveries by the sciences of the mind, brain, genes and evolution. For instance, cognitive science has come to prove that complex innate mechanisms there are for learning and culture to be possible in the first place. Evolutionary psychology has recorded hundreds of universals cutting across the world’s cultures, aside from documenting that myriad of psychological traits – e.g., predilection for fatty foods, aspiration for social status, involvement in risky sexual liaisons, among others – are adaptations to evolutionary demands of an ancestral environment rather than actual demands of the current environment. For its part, developmental psychology contends that infants have an intelligent grasp of objects, intentions, numbers, faces, tools and languages. And behavioral genetics reveals that temperament emerges early in life and remains fairly constant throughout the life span, and that much of the variations among people within a culture comes from differences in genes while in particular cases genes can be tied to aspects of cognition, language and personality. Neuroscience asserts that genomes contain a rich tool kit of growth factors, axon guidance molecules, and cell adhesion molecules that help structure the brain during development, as well as mechanisms of plasticity making learning possible (cf. Pinker 2004, p. 2-3). Taking a more specific development of scientific insight, one notes that the gene expression is actually influenced by the environment. Genes have what is called epigenetic marker, which, as a tag, adjusts the intensity of gene expression. In the concrete, even identical twins who were born with the same epigenome will over time turn up as completely different (read: with different epigenome) because of environmental factors such as chemical exposure, diet and other lifestyle differences. One of the twins may develop cancer or schizophrenia, while the other may not; or one of the twins may display a disorder such as addiction, while the other may lead a healthy lifestyle (see Bryner, 2006). Following the preceding, one realizes that whether behavior is caused by the genes or by the environment appears to be an erroneous question. It is because currently scholarship maintains that both heredity and environment jointly determine the development of behavior in an individual (Kahayon & Berba, 2004, p. 68). Succinctly put, behavior is not a product of either nature OR nature; it is the result of the genes AND the environment. Sarcastically put, Pinker (2004, p. 4) quotes: “Surely, ‘everyone knows’ that the nature-nurture debate was resolved long ago, and neither side wins since everything-is-a-mixture-of-both-and-it’s-all-very-complicated.” Penn (2003) points out that the genome is mistakenly conceived as a blueprint. Rightly understood, it is more of a recipe. What is meant is that the effects of genes and the environment cannot be separated or partitioned any more than one can attribute different crumbs of a cake to different words in a recipe. With this point of view, “behavior – being a phenotype – is shaped by the complex interactions of many genes and inextricable interactions among themselves and the environment” (Penn, 2003). Pinker (2004, p. 3) holds that between the genes and environment – in relation to human development and behavior – the interaction must be perceived to be holistic. Nature and nurture, accordingly, are not mutually exclusive. This means that genes are not capable of directly causing behavior, and so is environment. Behavior, then, is not solely either innate or genetically program instincts. It is because heredity is directed by genes, but the expression of genes is turned on and off throughout life based on environmental cues. Genes allow the human mind to learn, to remember, to imitate, to imprint, to absorb culture, and to express instincts. To a certain extent, it is the genes that are responsible for human behavior. But they are not just heredity carriers, for they are active during the course of human life. By being active, it is meant that the genes are responding to the environment. That is, while genes direct the construction of the human constitution in the womb, it is also genes that set about dismantling and rebuilding what they have made almost at once – all in response to (human) experience. Completing the equation, the environment significantly influences the behavior-programming genes. Genes are not puppet masters pulling the strings of one’s behavior; fact is, they are designed to take their clues from environment (Penn, 2003). On this account, the nature of genes actually lends itself for the purpose of the environment. CONCLUSION In summing up this paper, one may consider this analogy: when planted in a bad soil, a good seed grows not well. Similarly, a fertile soil cannot make a bad quality seed grow. Going back to the question proposed at the outset, this paper is now in the position to answer. One behaves as he/she does because of his/her nature and the environment he/she is in. References: Bryner, J. (2006). Nature versus nurture: Mysteries of individuality unraveled. Live Science. Retrieved 7 May, 2009 from http://www.livescience.com/health/060718_nature_nurture.html. Fujita, F. (1996). Nature versus nurture. sci.psychology. Retrieved 7 May, 2009 from http://folk.uio.no/roffe/faq/node11.html Hernandez-Kahayon, A. & Villacarlos-Berba, R.T. (2004). Psychology towards a new millennium. Manila: National Bookstore. Penn, D. (2003, 17 November). On nature versus and nurture [Review of the book Nature via nurture]. Human Nature Review, 3(461-465). Retrieved from http://human-nature.com/nibbs/03/penn.html. Pinker, S. (2004). Why nature and nurture won’t go away. Daedalus (Fall Issue) 1-13. Retrieved 8 May, 2009 from http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articles/papers/nature_nurture.pdf. Sanchez, C. & Berin, E. (2006). Psychology applied to business and industry. 3rd Ed. Manila: National Bookstore. Read More