[RonBee]

Originally Posted by tofu20

Any completely new emotion we experience would require an evolutionary change to our genetic material - meaning that our 'nurture' is actually our experiences over a lifetime. These experiences are what motivate us and create our emotions (our 'inner eye'). Our inner eye draws us toward certain experiences, and ignores others. Society may tell us to act in certain ways, but if our inner eye does not motivate us to do what society tells us, we will not do it. While most people are motivated by the dictates of culture, there are those who are not. Society formed because people have a genetic impulse to group together. The tendency to feel loneliness and isolation when away from society is genetic, as all emotions are.

Culture is an expression of our common tendencies as individuals. So the
messages society gives back to individuals must also be partly genetic.

So a person's makeup is determined entirely by genetics?

Originally Posted by tofu20

Behaviors based on nurture is a wrong assumption and is in fact an example of post hoc fallacy. This is when the first event is a cause of the second event..

• The theory that behavior is based on nuture is a wrong assumption and is in fact an example of a post hoc fallacy. A post hoc fallacy is the assumption that the first event is the cause of the second event.

That explains what a post hoc fallacy is, but it doesn't explain why the "nurture" theory is a post hoc fallacy. It also doesn't explain why the genetics theory is not a post hoc fallacy.

Originally Posted by tofu20

Our inner eye responds in different ways to different
environments, but no two people respond the same way in the same
situation, due to the distribution of traits across society. We only retain or
seek out experiences (nurture) which resonate with our genes (nature).
Therefore, nurture can never go beyond the framework that nature provides. Nature limits nurture, in that nurture can never go beyond the
potential that nature provides for nurture. One example would be the
experiment performed by a psychologist, John Money. You will find that he attempted to turn a boy into a girl by treating the person like a girl.
Unfortunately, the experiment failed. “No matter how much Joan's
parents tried, she simply refused to be a girl. She rebelled at wearing
dresses and preferred her brother's toys over her own dolls. This is
because when Joan was born, he was originally a boy. He had the boy
chromosome in his body. “An individual's identification as male or female
is formed before birth and is immune to both psychology and surgery

What can you find in there that should be deleted? Why was it unfortunate that the experiment failed? Did it really fail?

[quote]

Originally Posted by tofu20

Another example would be that parents can try to force their daughters to

play with action figures or fire trucks, but girls will usually reject them,

and return to playing with the dolls they love.

Is it an example of something, or is it simply a statement?

Originally Posted by tofu20

Also, there are some

reasons for an individual to be convinced that genetics play a large part

in a person, intelligence.

What are those reasons? (Say: "a person's intelligence")

Originally Posted by tofu20

When considering the biology of heredity, it is

obvious that genes provide humans with their own physical equipment,

which is in essence, their basis.

Rewrite that. Do it without the "it is obvious" phrase.

Originally Posted by tofu20

Genes and chromosomes are passed on

from each generation to the next. Therefore, without heredity, humans

would have nothing to hand down biologically to their descendants; and

this idea of genetics being purposeless is clearly incorrect.

Has anybody said that genetics is purposeless? (Without heredity people wouldn't have descendents.)

Originally Posted by tofu20

Our genes are different in everyone, and the environment in which we

live effectively tests the genes. People with effective genes will be

successful and create more people with those traits.

Is each individual genetically unique?

Originally Posted by tofu20

These scenarios are

vaguely and incompletely recognized by the inner eye.

What scenarios? What is the inner eye, and how do you know about it?

Originally Posted by tofu20

Therefore, if we

are in a crowded setting, we are genetically disposted to become

agitated. However, since we have never experienced such, we will not

behave such.

Eh? (*disposed*)

Originally Posted by tofu20

If we naturally are hyperactive, and are subjected to

situations that illicit hyperactivity we will of course become hyperactive.

You are talking in circles there.

:)