I think it’s safe to say that anyone with a sibling has had the experience of being compared to this other human who shares 50% of his/her DNA. For some, it’s an overachieving eldest who sets the standards uncomfortably high. For others, it’s the “bad kid” who has paved the way so that it’s possible for the other kids to get away with just about anything. What is interesting about these comparisons between siblings is that in many of cases, or at least in mine, these siblings have been raised by the same parents, in the same house, growing up listening to the same music, and going to the same schools.
My brother and I look practically identical. When we were growing up, we played the same sports, watched the same tv shows (he always got to pick because it was physically impossible for me to get the remote from him), had many of the same friends, and even had the same scores on standardized tests. On the other hand, our GPAs, our current lifestyles, and our interests in things from music to possible career paths couldn’t be more different.
Why are siblings so different? Is it due to the half of their DNA that is different or is it because they had different kindergarten teachers? The problem with discussions on determinisms is that there are far too many variables. Maybe my brother and I differ because he had a kindergarten teacher who liked to dispel myths like the existence of Santa Claus and I had a kindergarten teacher who thought it was necessary for us to take Spanish lessons. Maybe we’re similar because we happened to have the same third grade teacher. Or maybe we’re similar/different because half of our 20,000 genes are similar/different. The problem is there is no way to tell what are the absolute causes for specific similarities and differences. The question of nature versus nurture is too broad to address all of the possible causes.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
That's true. Maybe that's why identical twin studies are still so difficult and even unreliable. Even if twins are separated but raised in the same city, they're still subject to the same water and air contaminants, which may cause a disease that gets chalked up to genetics. Either way, I think teachers and peers have a part in how a person develops. Every person you encounter introduces you to new ideas, and no two people are going to encounter the exact same set of people.
ReplyDeleteThis is a nice post, but i think its more of a result of your up bringing, like the parental influence. that would have something to do with the kind of people you would like to hang out with
ReplyDeleteBeing a genetics major, nature vs. nature is a controversial subject I love taking about. Having studied genetics only in the simplest forms so far, I still believe that nature has a huge impact on people and their lives. It seems like so much is known about genes but there is still a lot more research that needs to be done. Of course, I do not totally believe that its all in heredity. Environmental factors also play a role. The real question is, is it only a minor role? Differences in lifestyle lead to things like obesity and cancer. Or do they? It was recently discovered that a certain expression of genes gives people a greater chance of being obese or of having cancer. I really enjoyed this post by the way!
ReplyDeleteThis is a good post, it brings up the legitimacy of the nature vs. nature debate in a new way. I would definitely agree that there are WAY too many variables in both cases to be able to tell which is correct. However, i could see (not in the near future) science being able to predict certain traits of a person given their genes. This could be a way to test the outcomes. However then one must take into account whether or not experiences during ones life can alter the biological structure. So i guess i'm back to not being able to prove either way. Oh well
ReplyDelete