The old skool thread

[NeonSamurai]

My turn before the rowdies get into it further...

Topic, Psychology:

Perhaps the oldest and longest running debate in the field of psychology is that of nature versus nurture, or biology versus environment (personally I prefer these two terms as they are more precise). Originally in the early days of psychology, the argument was very polarized; the great minds of the day argued for one or for the other, with the attitude that people were born into the world either as tabula rasa (blank slate), or that everything we are we are born with (or later viewed as being contained in our genetic makeup). These views were eventually discarded for the more current understanding that both are true, that it is almost never entirely nurture or nature, but ratio of both. So now the argument revolves around how much is it nurture and how much is it nature, when examining aspects of the human mind, such as personality.

In clinical practice the biology vs environment question invariably comes up when working with mental illness. The consideration of biology vs environment strongly ties into treatment planning; drugs are not a whole lot of use if the person's problems are all environmental, and therapy may not be of much benefit if the person's problems are entirely biological (there are some major exceptions to this). The problem though, is that often times it is difficult to tell what the underlying cause is; is the person depressed because they have few social contacts, or are they depressed because of a chemical imbalance that made them more anti-social and isolative, which caused the person to loose most of their social contacts. Generally speaking the answer is that both biology and environment are playing a role, and both are interacting with and influencing each other. This is why in modern clinical practice, the standard approach is to provide both drugs and therapy together to treat mental illness.

The whole process gets even more convoluted when you factor in that in clinical practice it is very common that you are not dealing with one single mental illnesses (such as depression), but multiple illnesses (such as depression + anxiety) that are interacting with and influencing each other (and each having their own biology and environment factors).

Some light reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature_...re_and_nurture

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

In clinical practice the biology vs environment question invariably comes up when working with mental illness. The consideration of biology vs environment strongly ties into treatment planning; drugs are not a whole lot of use if the person's problems are all environmental, and therapy may not be of much benefit if the person's problems are entirely biological (there are some major exceptions to this). The problem though, is that often times it is difficult to tell what the underlying cause is; is the person depressed because they have few social contacts, or are they depressed because of a chemical imbalance that made them more anti-social and isolative, which caused the person to loose most of their social contacts. Generally speaking the answer is that both biology and environment are playing a role, and both are interacting with and influencing each other. This is why in modern clinical practice, the standard approach is to provide both drugs and therapy together to treat mental illness.

My question would be, and it is something that I have wondered about for a long time, is the correlation between pre-natal genetics more powerful than the environmental factors in regards to severe and sudden mental illness? In other words, is there simply a switch that gets flipped in one's genes that say 'at 24, this individual will become schizophrenic', or are continued environmental stressors enough to push one towards it. I had come across students in my time in K-12 education that I thought may be future sufferers of the disorder, but do not pan out in that manner. Given the peculiarity of the onset of schizophrenia, is it possible to every truly know?

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Topic, Psychology:

Perhaps the oldest and longest running debate in the field of psychology is that of nature versus nurture, or biology versus environment (personally I prefer these two terms as they are more precise).

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Given the peculiarity of the onset of schizophrenia, is it possible to every truly know?

I've asked myself a variation of that question more than once: Is it my parents' fault or my own? On the one hand I realized a long time ago that my foibles are my own, and trying to attribute my problems to someone else is even on a good day "shifting the blame". On the other hand an honest appraisal leads me to question whether they indeed had a hand in making me what I am. I think that part of rationality is asking yourself that very question. Why am I who I am today? What really happened? One can dwell on past mistakes in an attempt to understand why, but one also has to ask the question "Could I have really avoided those mistakes? Am I doomed to be who I am?"

Of course it's also easy to waste too much time worrying about things we have no control over. Then right back into the trap of "But do I really have no control?" It's enough do drive you crazy.

[Sailor Steve]

It was a nice try, Tak, but the children just can't leave it alone.

Sorry.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

It was a nice try, Tak, but the children just can't leave it alone.

Sorry.

I'm not dissuaded, Steve. In fact, I have tommorow's post already formulated in my mind. The kids will calm down soon enough. They always do.

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

I'm not dissuaded, Steve. In fact, I have tommorow's post already formulated in my mind. The kids will calm down soon enough. They always do.

My third grade teacher always use to say, "Kids are billy goats"

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by geetrue

My third grade teacher always use to say, "Kids are billy goats"

Well, you're chewing on everything in sight.

[NeonSamurai]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

My question would be, and it is something that I have wondered about for a long time, is the correlation between pre-natal genetics more powerful than the environmental factors in regards to severe and sudden mental illness? In other words, is there simply a switch that gets flipped in one's genes that say 'at 24, this individual will become schizophrenic', or are continued environmental stressors enough to push one towards it. I had come across students in my time in K-12 education that I thought may be future sufferers of the disorder, but do not pan out in that manner. Given the peculiarity of the onset of schizophrenia, is it possible to every truly know?

We're not entirely sure about that one, there is definitely a genetic factor as schizophrenia tends to run in families. The current concept is that one can be genetically predisposed to developing it, but it is not a certain outcome. It is felt that certain kinds of environmental stresors are either triggers of schizophrenia, or can bring about an earlier onset of the illness. There is a high correlation between marijuana use and schizophrenia for example, but the relationship is bidirectional in that marijuana use is a predictor of schizophrenia, as schizophrenia a predictor for marijuana use (either can precede the other). It is also not unusual for the first schizophrenic episode to happen during periods of high stress.

Interestingly enough, it is not unheard of people to only have one or a couple of psychotic episodes and then never have any further. We also don't know why schizophrenia can develop earlier in rarer cases. Adolescent early onset schizophrenia is pretty rare and the earlier form is extremely rare. Brain development in general seems to be a significant factor in it's developing, since the frontal cortex doesn't stop developing till around age 22-24, and f-mri studies have shown that the schizophrenic brain generally functions differently.

Anyhow I will stop there for now as I could go on for hours on this topic.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I've asked myself a variation of that question more than once: Is it my parents' fault or my own? On the one hand I realized a long time ago that my foibles are my own, and trying to attribute my problems to someone else is even on a good day "shifting the blame". On the other hand an honest appraisal leads me to question whether they indeed had a hand in making me what I am. I think that part of rationality is asking yourself that very question. Why am I who I am today? What really happened? One can dwell on past mistakes in an attempt to understand why, but one also has to ask the question "Could I have really avoided those mistakes? Am I doomed to be who I am?"

Of course it's also easy to waste too much time worrying about things we have no control over. Then right back into the trap of "But do I really have no control?" It's enough do drive you crazy.

The general answer is yes... and no The parent child relationship style is hugely important during the first two years, infants need attention, contact, and affection to develop properly, and without it (or insufficient quantities of it) will suffer moderate to severe developmental delays which generally cannot be fully recovered later in life (this is why in another thread that people adopting orphans from certain countries do not know what they are getting themselves into).

Beyond that it is an interplay between the person's inborn nature, and their interactions with the environment. So yes, parental influence has a very large impact on how the person develops and who they become. Many values and belief systems are inherited from parents. But so does the greater environment (some of which is the person's own choice) influence who a person becomes; such as choice of friends, school system you are exposed to, media exposure, etc.

For the more philosophical question you asked, personally I think the answer is a bit of both. Had the environmental aspects I had no control over as a child been different, things probably would have turned out differently in some areas, but I am not sure that my internal self would have changed hugely. Personally I think that the core of one's personality is genetically based, but the expression of it is malliable by environment.