Do Our Sociodemographic Positions Influence The Way We View Genetics?

Blue-eyed babies are adorable:  I think this is something most of us can agree on.  However, anyone who passed 9th grade science knows that there aren't a whole lot of blue-eyed babies around.  Blue eyes are a recessive trait and are usually overpowered by the dominant brown eye gene (as depicted by the punnett square below).

[Blue eye gene is b; Brown eye gene is B]

Genes work like this, and not only with eye color.  Biological studies prove that pretty much every natural anatomical feature on an individual is there because of their inherited genetics.  However, the question still remains:  does the same go for non-anatomical characteristics?

In other words, are our personalities and abilities controlled by our inherited genetic code?  Would the same punnett square depicted above work if (for example) patience was B and a short temper was b?  An article I read this week for class explains how and why different people hold different opinions on this issue.

The article was written by Sara Shostak of Brandeis University, Jeremy Freese of Northwestern University, Bruce G. Link, and Jo C. Phelan (both of whom are from Columbia University), and says that research has proved the following hypothesis:

American citizens of a more conservative political position and/or an upper- to middle- class status tend to believe genes are the main cause of one's character and personality.  Those of a more liberal political position and/or a lower- to middle- class status tend to believe the contrary:  that one's personality and character is shaped by his or her experiences in life and among society.

When I first read this article, I was dumbfounded.  How could someone find a correlation between these two things?!  I mean, they're totally unrelated, aren't they?

After a little thinking, however, a light bulb went off in my head.

Those of a liberal democratic political position are strong pushers of the notion that "all men are created equal"...hence the tendency to favor taxing the rich and giving to the poor.  Those of a conservative republican political position, however, favor the idea of a capitalistic society as well as that of a "self-made man."

Therefore, if liberals believe all men are created equal, wouldn't this mindset lead to the similar assumption that all babies are born equal and genes have little to do with their natural personalities?  And wouldn't higher-class conservatives have reason to believe themselves to be more naturally advantaged because of a likely genetic history of a good work ethic, an aptitude for learning, and a strong sense of determination that so led to their current state of economic success and high-class social status?

In class, we're learning about how society may or may not shape who we are.  George Herbert Mead's hypothesis of a Social Construction of Self suggests that our personalities and characters are largely influenced by the world in which we live.  Charles Horton Cooley, however, believes in a Looking-Glass Self and thinks that one's view of himself is caused by what he thinks others think of him (...you got that?)  Both these men would most likely be on the side of the liberals when it comes to this argument.  Neither one brings up the idea that genes are why we are who we are (hence why they're sociologists and not geneticists).

As for me, I have to say I agree with the conservative viewpoint.  I have seen in myself many a character trait like one or both of my parents.  I like the same kind of music as my dad and the same foods as my mom, I communicate the same way as my father (my mom's a whole different story), and the same goes for all four of my biological siblings.  Since I'm only 16 and don't really have a fully-developed political position, this is just what I've concluded through personal experience alone.  Therefore, my opinion isn't really one of great contribution to my conclusion above about the article I read.

Still, it's my opinion and I think I'm right.  :)

"Don't Put Your Elbows on the Table!" - Examining A Questionable American Folkway

"Elbows off the table!"

These dreadful words have been spat at me almost every evening for approximately 16 years.  Doing the math, that's almost SIX THOUSAND TIMES that I've heard the command.  And even still, I have no idea why I must keep my elbows off the table.  Sure, I've probably asked a few times.  But the answer I always received never went deeper than "because it's bad manners" or "because I said so".

After doing some research on the topic, I found out the REAL reason why you should keep your arm-knees off of your eating surface at all times.  Apparently, back in the olden days, banquet tables were not as sturdy as they are today, and so if someone put their elbows on the table and leant too heavily, the table could collapse.  And so, people who committed such a dangerous crime were sanctioned in a very negative way.  Also, common sense tells us that elbows can easily knock over drinks, so I guess there's Reason #2.

However, the question I still have is WHY ON EARTH CAN'T I PUT MY ELBOW ON THE TABLE?!  Being a dedicated student and athlete, dinnertime is probably the point during my day when I am most likely to drop dead of exhaustion.  When sitting at the table eating dinner, my neck often feels it needs a break from having to hold up my big brain all the time.  And so I will casually rest my elbow on the table, place my beautiful face in my upward-faced palm, and feel such comfort, relaxation, and happiness as I let gravity do all the work.  I can hardly describe the euphoria.

And then it comes.  The death stare.  Either from my mother or father (more often than not my father).  A look of complete disapproval.  Eyebrows lowered, bottom eyelids slightly raised, jaw clenched ever so slightly. 

"Elbows off the table!"

Why does he care so much anyway?!  Our table is sturdy enough to withstand the puny force of my one elbow.  In fact, everyone in my family could have their elbows up if they so desired.  And as for knocking things over, the only thing within range of my elbow is my half-glass of milk, and to be honest that's a chance I'm willing to take.

Then it hits me.  Back some thirty years ago, my dad was in the exact same spot I'm in; my grandfather at the head of the table.  The exact same scenario most likely occurred many a time with my father, and so he believes he must do the same for his children.  Such a cultural folkway is in existence solely by sheer familial pass-it-down ways.  My father was brought up to believe an elbow-free table is a happy table, and my guess is that my grandfather learned it from his father and so on.

So if we can't blame it on my father, and we can't blame it on his father, who can we blame it on?  The answer is simple:  America.

Leave it to America to keep such a stupid, inconvenient folkway alive after so long.  In class this past week, we've been talking about culture and learning how each different culture carries a different set of values, morals and folkways.  Some made sense at one point (doing "cheers" at dinner http://www.snopes.com/food/rituals/clink.asp, shaking hands when meeting someone http://disciplinedcreativity.blogspot.com/2009/02/why-do-we-shake-hands-with-people.html, etc.) but should now be considered obsolete, and do not provide themselves as anything more than a simple nuisance to tired people (cough cough no elbows on the table cough cough).

Personally I'm against it completely, and I will pass around a petition tomorrow during class that will thus allow any and all elbows to roam freely to whatever dining surface they so desire whenever they so desire.  Sign it if you agree.