Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 16
  1. #1
    Anonymous Guest

    Default 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 hasnít 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. ďNo 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. ďAn 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 Ė 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.

  2. #2
    Tdol is offline Editor, UsingEnglish.com
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • Philippines
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    41,585
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    tofu Guest

    Default

    thx i will take notice of that

    if you want i can email you the document

  4. #4
    RonBee's Avatar
    RonBee is offline Moderator
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    16,571
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: can someone please edit this reflection?

    Quote 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. :(


    Quote Originally Posted by tofu20
    Are people a product of nature or nurture?
    "People" is plural. Try:
    • Are people products of nature of nurture?


    Quote Originally Posted by tofu20
    This controversial debate has been going on for centuries, yet there hasnít 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.


    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.



    Quote 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"?

    Quote 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.


    :)

  5. #5
    tofu Guest

    Default

    ill take note of that. thx for the corrections

  6. #6
    RonBee's Avatar
    RonBee is offline Moderator
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Other
      • Native Language:
      • American English
      • Home Country:
      • United States
      • Current Location:
      • United States
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    16,571
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: can someone please edit this reflection?

    Quote 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?


    Quote 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.


    Quote 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. ďNo 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. ďAn 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]
    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?

    Quote 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")

    Quote 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.

    Quote 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.)


    Quote 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?

    Quote 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?

    Quote 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*)

    Quote 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.

    :)

  7. #7
    Tdol is offline Editor, UsingEnglish.com
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • English Teacher
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • UK
      • Current Location:
      • Philippines
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    41,585
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Way to go, Ron.

  8. #8
    tofu Guest

    Default

    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

  9. #9
    tofu Guest

    Default

    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?

  10. #10
    Red5 is offline Webmaster, UsingEnglish.com
    • Member Info
      • Member Type:
      • Interested in Language
      • Native Language:
      • British English
      • Home Country:
      • England
      • Current Location:
      • England
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    3,370
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default Re: can someone please edit this reflection?

    Wow! Ron, you are a master at this!
    Red5
    Webmaster, UsingEnglish.com

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Edit "objectives and services of a charter"
    By bmo in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 02-Jul-2004, 18:46
  2. edit
    By bmo in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 25-Jun-2004, 18:05
  3. Edit please
    By bmo in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 30-May-2004, 08:17
  4. can somone please edit this short reflection
    By Anonymous in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 01-Mar-2004, 02:17
  5. can someone edit my 2 page reflection???
    By Anonymous in forum Ask a Teacher
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-Feb-2004, 19:16

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Hotchalk