can someone please edit this reflection?

am i suppose to double space where there is a new paragraph

please check grammar and sent stru, past tense..etc

how is my conclusion..too short?


Are people a product of nature or nurture? This controversial debate has

been going on for centuries, yet there hasn’t been a conclusion to the

dispute. I strongly believe that people are a product of nature once they

are born. This reflection will prove that human behavior is determined by

its genetics rather than the experience they have during their lifetime.


Our basic nature is determined by genetics; we have over 30,000 genes

that determine our physical layout, hair, eye color, and form. Our

genetics also determine the types of emotions and motivations we can

experience, such as happiness, sadness, fear, etc. genes. 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.


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.. 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

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. Also, there are some

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

in a person, intelligence. When considering the biology of heredity, it is

obvious that genes provide humans with their own physical equipment,

which is in essence, their basis. 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.


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. These scenarios are

vaguely and incompletely recognized by the inner eye. 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. . If we naturally are hyperactive, and are subjected to

situations that illicit hyperactivity we will of course become hyperactive.

However, others who do not display this characteristic trait, may not be

influenced so when given the same situations.


In conclusion, when we are born we are genetically pre-programmed,

and since our experiences are constantly changing, we learn from them

throughout life – but will still behave in a way that is inherently genetically

based. That is why I believe that people are a product of nature once

they born.

[Tdol]

I'll have a look later when I've finisghed work, but the first comment I'd make is that you should avoid contractions in such writing; you have 'hasn't' in the second line.

thx i will take notice of that

if you want i can email you the document

[RonBee]

Originally Posted by tofu20

am i suppose to double space where there is a new paragraph.

• Am I supposed to double space before a new paragraph?

Yes. Space before a new paragraph but not after every line. :(

Originally Posted by tofu20

Are people a product of nature or nurture?

"People" is plural. Try:

• Are people products of nature of nurture?

Originally Posted by tofu20

This controversial debate has been going on for centuries, yet there hasn’t been a conclusion to the dispute.

It's the subject that is controversial, not the debate. Also, if you say it "has been going on for centuries" you don't need to add that it isn't finished. Perhaps:

• This controversial subject has been debated for centuries.

Originally Posted by tofu20

I strongly believe that people are a product of nature once they are born.

It is unclear what you mean by that sentence.

Originally Posted by tofu20

This reflection will prove that human behavior is determined by its genetics rather than the experience they have during their lifetime.

Rather than "will prove" it would be better to say "will argue" or "will present the case". Perhaps:

• This reflection will present the case that human behavior is determined by genetics.

Originally Posted by tofu20

Our basic nature is determined by genetics; we have over 30,000 genes that determine our physical layout, hair, eye color, and form.

How would you rewrite that omitting "physical layout" and "form"?

Originally Posted by tofu20

Our genetics also determine the types of emotions and motivations we can experience, such as happiness, sadness, fear, etc. genes.

The word "genetics" is construed as singular. Perhaps:

• Our genetics also determines the types of emotions we can experience, such as joy, sadness, and fear.

:)

ill take note of that. thx for the corrections

[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.

:)

[Tdol]

Way to go, Ron.

how can i reword this setence then??

If we naturally are hyperactive, and are subjected to

situations that illicit hyperactivity we will of course become hyperactive

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.

can i write

The rationalizations for behavior based on nurture are after-the-fact justifications. 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). For example, parents can try to force their daughters to play with fire trucks and baseball bats, but girls will usually reject them, and return to playing with the dolls they love.

does this expalin what post hoc fallacy is?

[Red5]

Wow! Ron, you are a master at this!