Shenk states "To begin with a simple example: food. We theoretically choose what we eat, but in reality almost all of us conform to established cultural norms- we eat what our family eats, what our friends and neighbors eat, what our local community eats, what our nation eats." and also "Nothing in this book, therefore, is meant to suggest that any of us have complete control over our lives or abilities- or that we are anything close to a blank slate." Shenk implies that our choices and beliefs are simply moldings of what the people around us or society has imprinted onto us. Choice, is but a representation of what has been done to us multiplied by our own genetic blueprints to come up with a result. (118-120)
Can something so small as hitting your funny bone against a desk have enough impact to change the choices you make for the rest of your life? Can being bitten by a dog turn your world view upside down? Permanently change your attitude towards animals? If you believe the above examples would not create a sizable enough change, provide an example of an event you believe would demonstrate how the world around you can shape the choices you would have made for the rest of your life.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhat Shenk seems to be pointing out is that our genes can not protect or prevent us from exhibiting conformity. He uses this as an example of our environment or society affecting us more than our genes. However, he fails to take into account the possibility that our biological survival instincts, our genes, are what drive us to conform. Conformity breeds sympathy from others and thus help and support. We have seen that even tiny differences like skin color can cause utter lack of sympathy and thus lack of societal support. It is in our best interests to conform in most ways and thus gain the security of society and culture.
ReplyDeleteChoice is an extension of conformity. We choose from the narrow options allowed us by conformity. We tend to conform in choices because, even if the choices land us in a bad situation, we won't be alone. Our instincts tell us it is better to stick with the group, regardless of the consequences. Being stuck in a group is better than being stuck alone.
It has been demonstrated, time and time again that people hesitate from acting differently than others, even when they know that it would be the right thing to do. On a city block, when a woman was beaten to death, no one called the police or helped the woman because everyone 'assumed someone else would.'
As to small experiences inducing major life changes, anything can happen. Even if the probability is low, there are billions of people on the planet, so something strange is bound to happen. Sometimes it depends on chemical and hormonal reactions that may take place as a result of the incident. For instance, if a man gets into an argument, is beaten and suffers irreparable damage to the groin, his testosterone levels will go down, and he will most likely become less aggressive and assertive. He may interpret this as enlightenment, that the beating forced him to reevaluate his priorities. But it was biology, and hormones, a change induced by his environment and situation. Thus a sudden change in heart is not only dependent on a change in environment, but also a person's biological state at the time and the disruption of homeostasis that the change in environment causes. Shenk is correct in upholding the role of the environment in changes in life choices and decisions yet he downplays the role of genes, and the proteins and biological processes that they directly affect.
Emily Reinherz...ereinherz@aol.com
The nature of humans as social beings, in a society where certain choices and decisions are more common than others, solidifies Emily’s point that our choices, and our subsequent environmental influences on our gene expression is largely predetermined.
ReplyDeleteConformity is not necessarily a bad thing; it has helped our species survive and develop the social skills to work together to enhance our survival.
However, I believe that breaks in this conformity are actually fairly common and universal. According to Shenk’s thesis of G x E, genetics and environment play off of each other through dynamic development. Even small changes in either of these two factors can drastically affect the other, leading to changes in our characteristics and gene expression.
Mechanisms for environmental influence on gene expression are numerous and sensitive, one such example being the epigenome, controlled by histone acetylation and DNA methylation (Campbell 358). These factors are extremely sensitive, and are affected by choices such as diet and social interactions, and eventually these influences are incorporated into the epigenome (http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/epi_learns/).
Because of the sensitive epigenome, an individual is certainly not bound to societal conformity. Even minor differences in our choices incorporate themselves into our genetics, and eventually manifest as traits. But very importantly, these changes can even be passed down to the next generation through epigenetic inheritance. Not only our own choices and experiences, but also our ancestors, can completely change the way a person lives and acts. This has significant implications for evolution, as one organisms experience, such as a famine that slowed down its metabolism through epigenetic changes, can be passed down to the next generation and completely change how that organism lives (http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/inheritance/).
We are dominated by the interaction between our environment and our genes, and because of this our choices as humans are important for our children, and we have a responsibility to make good ones.
David Whisler (dwhis428@gmail.com)