Julia Sandoval
ENGCMP 0200
March 30, 2009
Personality is something unique to human nature. It is an innate aspect of a person, and cannot easily be changed or manipulated. It is characterized by nurture and nature, yet nurture more than anything else. However, genes do play a part in determining personality, concerning the chemical balances and their influences on basic emotions. It is unreasonable to say though, that genes can be manipulated in order to specifically shape and construct a personality in a human. Even with the same genetic makeup, which would supposedly create the same personality (given that the assumption is that genes alone influence personality), twins do not have the same personality. They are different people, no matter if they are reared together or separate; they may have similarities, but even the most genetically alike people are not the same. Using twin studies, I will argue that genes do not fully determine our personality, and only have a partial genetic influence.
The term “personality” is defined by Webster’s Dictionary as “the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group; especially: the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics b: a set of distinctive traits and characteristics.” The definition implicates that personality is a mix of behavioral and emotional characteristics.
To be continued…
2 comments:
What does the first sentence mean? That only human beings have personality? Or something else? Some of your word choices cause problems - for instance, do you mean that personality is characterized by nature and nurture, or shaped by them (I assume you really mean the latter).
Now, let's turn to your thesis. From my point of view, this seems like a trivial argument. Why? Because I'm not aware of anyone who would disagree with you: everyone agrees that personality is at least partially shaped by environment. What variation or altered version of your argument could avoid the risk of triviality? (The focus on twin studies is a good idea - I'm just unsure of where you're going with it).
Your definition of personality is fine - you should give some thought when you're farther along to where in the paper it belongs.
I think I'm going to change my thesis to expand on another essay i've written, called "A fraction of a Soul?" I realize it's risky to change my argument only a couple days before the paper is due, but i feel i'll be more inspired and interested by the topic. I'm going to expand on it in the ways in which you originally suggested, and hopefully it turns out to be a more obvious argument. I still want to incorporate my views on twin studies and how genetic engineering can be influenced by studying them. I will argue that unless there is a will to live and make rational decisions, a sould cannot be attributed to a portion of a human, beit larger or smaller than a whole person. Please let me know what you think.
Post a Comment