"a" versus "ur"

It's a question that's plaqued the philisopical for thousands of years: Are we who we are due to our genetics, or due to our experiences, and if it's both, then in what ratio? This essential question is woven into a myriad of ponderings that stem from it: Do people change, and if so, how much? Is that really just the nature of the beast? Can an old dog learn new tricks?

More importantly, however, is the question of where do our genes end and our life experiences begin?

I won't deny that our genetics lay the foundation for our being. In the few moments we're alive, our actions are solely based on our genetics (where’s the grub?). But when do we start to change due to our experiences? And do we? Just because you learn calculus or how to play the piano doesn't mean that they decision and aptitude didn't come from your genes. (It also doesn’t mean that it didn’t come from the chocolate bar you just ate.)

Let me attempt to tackle this question in sequence. First, how can your genes give you an aptitude for playing the piano? It seems like a rather impossible feat, seeing as how pianos have only been around for a relatively small portion of time. How could our genetic structure adapt to hold information about playing the piano? (Besides magic, although magic is awesome.) My answer is simple: it doesn't. Instead, it categorizes talent.

Most people who have a talent for something have a talent for related things. I have a talent for math, and so this lends itself to a talent for physics as the majority of physics is mathematics. Similarly, someone who has a talent for words is most likely good at debating. (Or rapping, even if that’s just a lot of “mofo”ing.) The counter point to this line of thinking is what about specific, out of the ordinary talents? There are people who are horrible in math, but can do pattern analysis exceptionally well. Why is this?

Overlap. Just like any properly drawn Venn diagram, we have overlap in our talents. A natural interest in art may lead to an ability to look at a picture and recognize a pattern present in it. (Or acting really snobby.) They may not seem related, but they are. Additionally, a talent in music may come from math skills (for recognizing numerical patterns) and an appreciation for art (in order to make said patterns appealing to the ear).

This being said, we can end up with highly refined talents, such as being able to visualize the complex structure of biological components of a theoretical plant. Our genetic structure could not specifically give us the talent for this, but the interference from our other talents did. Just as two musicians harmonize to create music, so too does your genetic structure conduct your talents.

Now, have you ever noticed how some people work so hard on a certain area, and just can't get it? Or people try to give up smoking but can't? (Winners don’t do drugs kids!) Perhaps you've seen people continually fall into the same problems, no matter how hard they try. Currently, it's up for debate as to whether or not these things occur do to the nature of the person, or who they've become to be and their mental roadblocks.

Many people study very hard and try their best to understand engineering, and just cannot. One theory is that they were born without the ability to learn it. Another theory is, however, that they failed once and then they expected that they'd fail again. This expectation then occurred, resulting in their continued annoyance at engineering and the belief that they could not succeed in it. (Some people might just argue that they shouldn’t even attempt engineering, as it’s a waste of their life anyway.) Alternatively, they could have been told at a young age that they couldn't build a fort cool enough, so again they got discouraged, and the same result was the outcome.

These two theories are at the heart of the nature versus nurture the debate. Some people want to know that they have free will and can control their own life. Others would like to be able to dismiss their failures as simply fate (all while silently cursing their parents).

What does it matter though? So what if we're all pre-programmed automatons? Who cares if eating that second chocolate bar was your own choice, you fat worthless slob? I'll tell you who: me. I care.

Should I get rid of my friend who thinks that soap operas are the holy grail of television? If she can't change, then who cares about her? If she can, then I'll just strap her down in front of some Terminator and cure her of the disease. Enough is enough though! These philosophers would tell us that if she doesn't change, then it could just be because of some mental roadblock baloney.

So how the hell can we find the answer? If we test one of the theories, and seemingly disprove it, then the other philosophers just go "That was meant to happen due to their genes!" or "They chose to stay that way!" The truth is, if we can't prove it either way, and the results are the same, then the why doesn't matter.

“I don't give a damn”, I guess is the right attitude. If your friend can't stop watching soap operas, either accept it or move on. It's either the nature of the beast, or their stupidity. And that's the real point. So, eat that second chocolate bar, because even money says that it's not your fault. And I'd take those odds any day. Just remember, the result will be that it will damage your teeth anyway, so make sure to brush. That is, unless you're not meant to...

Who knows what we’re programmed to do… Was I meant to write this?... Will I become homophobic?... Will I start a mass revolution involving elephants painted pink flying through the skies in hot air balloons, ready to do my evil, if hippie-idealist, bidding?!...

I hate my parents.