Post a New Question


posted by .


Why is it flawed to ask how much of a particular behavior is due to genetics and how much is due to experience?
It is inconsistent to think that behaviors are solely due to our genetic make-up. When it comes to our behaviors we gain it through nature and nature. All the behavior that we have is gained through experience. So with this genetics would be responsible for inherited issues such as anger issues or a lack of a person’s control. So unless they have a mental illness or some other diseases that can affect your behaviors all of our behaviors would be learned. We are not born to act a certain way although we may have certain genes that may make a certain part in our personality stronger we are more less taught to imitate what we are suppose to do or how we are suppose to act. So if they were to come from a family who was very dysfunctional they will most likely live that same kind of life, but if they come from a caring and loving family and they had the support growing up they will probably be a caring and loving person when you are older. So with all that in mind I think that behavior is through experimental knowledge and by the cost felt by there actions.

Why is it appropriate to separate the contributions of genetics and experiences when measuring the developments of differences among individuals?

With genetics it has to do with the “Collective unconscious “theory according to Jung. Then with experience it is a learned behavior which gives ones viewpoint to the existing reality. When it comes to experience we can decide how much of that experience we want to let into our life and how much of it we will let it influence our person. Then with genetics it is already encoded in us so we can decide how much of it we want to use of it.

Respond to this Question

First Name
School Subject
Your Answer

Similar Questions

More Related Questions

Post a New Question