Biological vs. environmental influences in a person’s makeup.
If we walked in another person’s shoes, how different would we be from them?
The old adage asks an important question; one that may have more than one answer.
The crux of it is related to the psychological discussion on what is the most influencing factor in a person’s personality and psychological makeup: biological vs. environment.
I think the prevailing belief among the masses leans toward the biological side, yet the truth leans toward the environmental side.
Both are important in the ultimate makeup of who and what a person is and how they behave and think.
It makes sense that the environment a person is around will have the most impact on their makeup. Who their parents were, if they had both parents, siblings, etc. The factors are endless, yet their culmination is a uniquely influenced person, a societal creation, a manifestation of social mores.
The main factors are:
Those are just some of the main environmental variables that influence a person’s overall makeup. I’m sure there are some peer-reviewed studies that can prove the advantages of growing up rich vs. poor for instance.
Just look at the tendency for children of famous people to follow in their parent’s footsteps, whether sports, music, business, acting, etc. Growing up with a parent who accomplished becoming a professional in an elite field is often enough for the child to do the same.
Some may say, they have similar biological makeup, yet many others have similar as well, yet didn’t reach that level. The difference is having someone in the environment who is doing said things, giving children a better chance of doing the same.
Having money or not makes a huge difference in outcomes with people.
Not to say, having money produces better outcomes, yet it does produce more opportunity and gives people a better chance of reaching their potential.
Still, their character might not be mature, and their mentality might be weaker than a person who grew up poor, yet found a way to make it, notwithstanding they never reached their potential in a certain area where they had talent, etc.
The teeter-totter of life ensures everyone is on an even playing field, even if it doesn’t seem like it. Whatever you have there is something you don’t have in contrast (you can’t not have something you have). Certain things are less desirable, yet they may bring more faith or character building.
At a certain point, we are in control of our environmental influences for the most part. Let us choose wisely, for they will form our personality and character.
Being grateful for what we have and not coveting what others have is important. Being content with what we have while working to improve things is important.
Understanding that no one has everything, and every level of society offers unique benefits, we can appreciate who we are while always trying to refine and improve our issues and situations.
The point is: Get away from being a respecter of persons, stop worshiping celebrities, and be content with who you are — be grateful for what you have, including the experiences and environments that influenced your life, and forgive any and all offenses involved.
Also, don’t let others look down on you and convince you of their worth at the cost of your own.
Ultimately, we can learn to empathize with our fellow humans without condoning their crimes or behavioral issues. If we walked in their shoes, would we be any different than them?
I think we would be different in some measure with our inborn traits, yet facing the same environmental factors, we’d be more similar than most would think.
If you’d like to support my writing, click here.
The old adage asks an important question; one that may have more than one answer.
The crux of it is related to the psychological discussion on what is the most influencing factor in a person’s personality and psychological makeup: biological vs. environment.
I think the prevailing belief among the masses leans toward the biological side, yet the truth leans toward the environmental side.
Both are important in the ultimate makeup of who and what a person is and how they behave and think.
It makes sense that the environment a person is around will have the most impact on their makeup. Who their parents were, if they had both parents, siblings, etc. The factors are endless, yet their culmination is a uniquely influenced person, a societal creation, a manifestation of social mores.
The main factors are:
- Parents/guardians
- Siblings
- Friends/acquaintances
- Financial situation
- Stability with home/school
- Culture
- Area lived at
- Social mores
- Abuse suffered
- Tragedies endured
- School experience
- Physical looks and abilities (biological, yet creates a different environment as well)
- Major societal changes/disruptions
Those are just some of the main environmental variables that influence a person’s overall makeup. I’m sure there are some peer-reviewed studies that can prove the advantages of growing up rich vs. poor for instance.
Just look at the tendency for children of famous people to follow in their parent’s footsteps, whether sports, music, business, acting, etc. Growing up with a parent who accomplished becoming a professional in an elite field is often enough for the child to do the same.
Some may say, they have similar biological makeup, yet many others have similar as well, yet didn’t reach that level. The difference is having someone in the environment who is doing said things, giving children a better chance of doing the same.
Having money or not makes a huge difference in outcomes with people.
Not to say, having money produces better outcomes, yet it does produce more opportunity and gives people a better chance of reaching their potential.
Still, their character might not be mature, and their mentality might be weaker than a person who grew up poor, yet found a way to make it, notwithstanding they never reached their potential in a certain area where they had talent, etc.
The teeter-totter of life ensures everyone is on an even playing field, even if it doesn’t seem like it. Whatever you have there is something you don’t have in contrast (you can’t not have something you have). Certain things are less desirable, yet they may bring more faith or character building.
At a certain point, we are in control of our environmental influences for the most part. Let us choose wisely, for they will form our personality and character.
Being grateful for what we have and not coveting what others have is important. Being content with what we have while working to improve things is important.
Understanding that no one has everything, and every level of society offers unique benefits, we can appreciate who we are while always trying to refine and improve our issues and situations.
The point is: Get away from being a respecter of persons, stop worshiping celebrities, and be content with who you are — be grateful for what you have, including the experiences and environments that influenced your life, and forgive any and all offenses involved.
Also, don’t let others look down on you and convince you of their worth at the cost of your own.
Ultimately, we can learn to empathize with our fellow humans without condoning their crimes or behavioral issues. If we walked in their shoes, would we be any different than them?
I think we would be different in some measure with our inborn traits, yet facing the same environmental factors, we’d be more similar than most would think.
---
Comments
Post a Comment