NATURE v/s NURTURE

Why We Are What We Are- Nature Heredity: Consists of Genes which are segments of the Chromosomes, which is a part of DNA. 23 pairs of chromosomes in the human body. Genes are either DOMINANT or RECESSIVE. For every physical trait, you receive two copies of the gene, one from your father, and the other from your mother. For example, if your mother has blue eyes, and your father has brown eyes, you will have a copy of brown eyes from father and blue eyes from your mother. Now as far as eyes are concerned, brown eyes have dominant genes while blue eyes have recessive genes When the two genes are different, it is the stronger one that shows up in the organism, hiding or masking the weaker one. The gene that shows up is called dominant, while the masked one is called recessive. While the dominant gene shows up, the recessive gene is still there though masked. Recessive genes are showed up only when the organism receives recessive copies from both parents. Thus, Dominant and recessive are terms used for genes that are strong and weak respectively Dominant genes show up in the form of a trait while recessive genes get hidden by dominant genes It is only when an individual receives recessive genes from both parents that recessive gene shows up.

Genotype v/s Phenotype An organisms genotype is the set of genes that it carries. An organisms phenotype is all of its observable characteristicswhich are influenced both by its genotype and by the environment. Polygenic Inheritance Many traits such as intelligence, height, shape, weight, colour, and metabolic rate as well as many forms of behaviour are governed by the cumulative effects of many genes. Maturation For certain kinds of behaviors maturation is enough- during development, our neural connections are continually developing to help one cope with ones environment (e.g. walking). For other behaviors, learning is required,(such as learning a skill). Why We Are What We Are- Nurture

Environment Ones development is affected by environmental factors before birth(such as stress, alcohol or drug consumption, smoking or illness during pregnancy). Environmental Factors which affect ones development before birth are known as pre natal environmental factors. Post Natal Environmental factors include those factors which affect ones development after birth and include: Physical Factors(whether there is adequate nourishment provided, is the environment conducive for proper or impoverished development); Social(Relations with family, friends, teachers and peers at school, colleagues at work) and Cultural Factors (whether one is born in a rural/urban setup, whether one belongs to an individualistic or collectivistic; conservative or liberal culture). Research On Inheritance Family Studies Similarities and differences among biological relatives to discover the role of heredity in physical or psychological traits. Co-Twin studies Mono Zygotic and Di Zygotic twins studied to determine the role of heredity and environment in psychological traits Adoption studies Mono Zygotic twins reared apart studied to determine the role of the environment.

So the next time you read supposed researches stating a link between Race and I.Q., Genetics and Leadership consider whether the above techniques have been used to conclude the results

Nature v/s nurture debate: The nature versus nurture debate concerns the relative importance of an individual's innate qualities versus personal experiences in determining or causing individual differences. It is seen that heredity has a stronger role to play in determining ones Aptitude(i.e. ones potential), as compared to ones Interest, which is strongly influenced by the environmental exposure. Fast-growing understanding of the human genome has recently made it clear that both sides are partly right. Nature endows us with inborn abilities and traits; nurture takes these genetic tendencies and molds them as we learn and mature. End of story, right? Nope. The "nature vs nurture" debate still rages on, as scientists fight over how much of who we are is shaped by genes and how much by the environment. This is useful to understand, as it helps one to realize that no amount of training can bring about fantastic changes in ones personality the changes can only be modest, because it is difficult to say whether it is equally or unequally affected by nature or nurture. However it in not true for skills are they are relatively more influenced by the environment, and thus one can benefit a lot from skill training.

(Now, the ACTUAL reason why you have been reading what you just did in the beginning of this chapter The above section was just to help you understand the notion clearly, to enable you to understand what comes next So obviously, you need to pay more attention to what comes next and LEARN IT WELL!) Implications at the workplace dynamics Nature Vs. Nurture 2.0 By: Keith H. Hammonds October 31, 2000 http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/40/nicholson.html?page=0%2C0

"It is now time to return to the idea that some people are simply born with potentialities for leadership," says Nigel Nicholson in his new book. -Executive Instinct: Managing the Human Animal in the Information Age

"I want to help put an end to utopian dreaming in management," Nigel Nicholson announces, before we've even had a moment to sniff the couch, scratch ourselves, and settle in with his new book. "It is time to get back to reality." Uh-oh. Reality? This can't possibly be good. Instinct warns us of impending danger. Blood rushes to vital organs. In fact, the threat is worse than we had feared. For the essential message of Executive Instinct, Nicholson's chaotic but appealing discourse on organizational behavior, is this: We human beings are just what we were 100 centuries ago. That is, we are -- gulp! -- animals, genetically designed in body and mind for survival in the wild. Trouble is, things have changed a lot in the 10,000 years since we hunted and gathered on the savanna. Our seminomadic lives gave way to organized agrarianism, which later yielded to manufacturing, colonialism, and mercantilism. Sadly, we didn't change with the times -- not in any way that matters. So we arrive at the Information Age to find ourselves, if not obsolete, then at least horrifyingly out of place -- proverbial fish out of water. And not just out of water, but hundreds of miles from the nearest pond. Nicholson, a professor of organizational behavior at London Business School, is an adherent of the somewhat controversial school of evolutionary psychology. Rooted in neuroscience, this discipline asserts that our minds are not so much culturally conditioned as they are hardwired to survive and reproduce. The "profile of human nature," Nicholson writes, "was fully delineated long before the dawn of recorded civilization." Yup, it's nature versus nurture -- now applied to the workings of business organizations. Expect the sort of minor outrage that Nicholson encountered when he first proposed his thesis in a Harvard Business Review article two years ago. But clearly, Nicholson is right. We are who we are. Rationally, we understand that everyone is born with talents and weaknesses. Culturally, though, that reality has never been very palatable.

The theory is troublesome because most of us believe so fervently in the possibility of selfimprovement. This faith is as American as Dale Carnegie. With the right parenting, a great education, and lots of hard work, anyone can grow up to be president. It's the American way. Well, tough. Nicholson argues that we can shape behavior, "but only within the limits set by the human design" -- a design fueled more by survival instincts than by reason. We seek out challenging situations for psychic buzz. At the same time, we feel a strong aversion to loss. We judge people and situations quickly, and innately see others as being either in or out of our group. Our work lives are dominated by these forces, Nicholson says. We fiercely avoid failure, yet we can be induced to take risks when faced with highly tangible threats. We enjoy gifts of strategic capability, but we are hamstrung by our capacity for self-delusion. Take, for example, the question of leadership. "It is now time," Nicholson writes, "to return to the idea that some people are simply born with potentialities for leadership." (Uh-oh again.) By accident or design, Nicholson says, people who want to be leaders are more likely to display the alpha-male biochemical profile -- elevated levels of testosterone and serotonin. And those who succeed as leaders typically want to dominate and to achieve through competitive striving. They have natural ability, and they are graced with strong physical constitutions. So, too, with the workplace gender gap: We are who we are. Men and women have different hardwired psychologies, so it's normal for them to want to do different things and to do the same things in different ways. Business organizations today remain mostly male in design and in operation -- in large part, Nicholson asserts, because men are genetically programmed to dominate. "Our instincts are pretuned to those behaviors that bring about good reproductive outcomes: for men, winning status in competition with other men; for women, having good networks and the emotional radar to enhance choice." What's more, "the disturbing possibility remains that as long as the profit motive drives how we organize, the more ruthless push of male values will continue to predominate." Such conclusions -- surely upsetting to some, commonsensical to others -- appear to be supported by reasonably reputable science. At the least, they are intriguing. The question is, Are they useful? It is tempting, if we believe in our own immutability, to just throw up our hands and call it a life. Nicholson has a better idea: Accommodate reality by changing the workplace. Because "modern business often tries to suppress or ignore" natural human impulses, organizational dysfunction is more or less the rule. Fix that disconnect, and we make the workplace happier and more productive.