Scene 14

The debate has been a long one; nature vs. nurture. Which one is responsible? Are they both? Is genetics the real picaroon pathing the way to uncertainty for answers? Moreover, precisely, what are these things responsible for? I believe, it is not who but how. In this blog post, I bring to light some of the heavier questions about brain chemistry, conditioning, and the touch of epigenetics being responsible for who we are, and not something as vague or simple as, nature vs. nurture.

When we look at why someone is, we immediately think nurture; what are the parents doing? This kind of thinking dates back to the 1930s, however, not the main drive when J.B.S. Haldane was determined to compile a case study with evidence of Nature vs. Nurture. Despite his rich background in genetics, physiology, and evolutionary biology, he categorized his study through traits, skin color, certain conditions, as well as including details of someone's vein placement and height. The result of this study, his legacy remains being the first person to create the genetic linkage between mammals, opening the doors for many other scientists. Only, ironically enough, he stated genetics could very well be the ENEMY as to why we cannot locate a definitive answer, and I could agree.

As studies continued their focus shifted as we discovered more about mental illness. Now, they are creating the connection that mental illness could be the a more prevalent answer. I cannot speak for the world, nor will I ever dare try, but I think mental illness is a result of long time conditioning by manipulating someone's brain chemistry triggering a genetic evolutionary response through epigenetics, rather than it being a separate entity on it's own.

Nevertheless, I think the question still remains unanswered due to the lack of focus on what it is we are trying to answer. A new question forms my mind, "How do genetics, environment, AND brain chemistry play a role in someone's identity?" We should be looking at these things as separate boxes that make up who we are, not how can we determine which one is more important. I think Theodore D. Wachs was heading in the right direction.

I thought about how to break this question down and wondered if we should be looking at everything as different components rather than boxes. One small critical development in our brains, that no one is talking about, could be the answer-- what about the frontal lobe? Or, is it possible this could be a fourth component? It was not until John Harlow, the poor doctor who attended to a guy named Gage after a rod through the his head, did we know anything about the frontal lobe in 1848. As a result of that incident, many scientists have argued, this is where our very existence lies. Our frontal lobe is where first-degree judgments happen, profiling, and comparing-- an emotional response, along with much other mental processing's like, reasoning, call-to-action, and how we perceive ourselves. Damage to the frontal lobe, Harlow explained, renders you useless or lacking the innate ability to feel empathy.

Whether we are conscious of it or not, the frontal lobe also determines how we perceive others, regardless of background or detail that comes later. Concluding this little part critical in our brain chemistry.

A study done by Willis and Todorov only allowed the brain a fraction of a second to make a judgment or decision based on what was in front of them. In their case, they are trying to answer "the first judgment" phenomenon, and as a result, trustworthiness was the last thing to change even with the "full" story given. What does that say about facts over feelings? We could be give everything or very little, and our frontal lobe will still dictate how we act, think, and process information and feelings. Though, in terms of modern day brain function, with the rise in mental illness diagnosis, the frontal lobe thought has been watered down and drowned into the teachings of sociology instead of using genetics and biology.

Forgetting everything we know on the frontal lobe, we are now learning the differences between healthy, modern, and sick brains in terms of nature vs. nurture. Determining such things through mental illness labels, it has now become the thicker foundation to explain who we are. My theory is this; the contemporary brain chemistry IS a healthy brain because humans are very neurodivergent to begin with.

Everyone wants to be different while simultaneously wanting to fit in and because of that human instinct, there is no real telling. Or, to the contrary, we know this and human instinct is falsely diagnosed for money, social acceptance, and keeping people anchored at a certain level in life. Because, as we know, mental illness can only be detected on a brain scan. It is an abnormality in the brain causing unnormal symptoms of behavior, making it harder to carry on in modern-day society. I made this point before, and I will make it again- a self-fulfilling prophecy attitude could be the actual sickness of our communities. Which, argumentatively enough, is out of human instinct-brain chemistry.

I believe they do not want us to be diving into it further. As soon as we are all educated in the more deep-seated thoughts of existence, the elites know they can no longer control us. Alternatively, I like to say; they continue to condition us into what we should and should not know. These people are determining what is "good info," "false info," and "correct backed-by-science" info. Furthermore, notice how it all started with making education for-profit and not free.

Why is it that in college, we are only taught studies from the '80s? Better yet: comparing those studies to the early 2000s and never going past that? I noticed this was more prevalent, especially in Psychology classes and Biology classes. Education, or plain and simple, knowledge in this country is a privilege and not a right. When we pay for something, we are trusting that what we get is as advertised. Especially with such a hefty price tag like knowledge, the last thing you will do is question a ten-year professor or a textbook. Again, though, I want you to think about this for a second and shift your focus to what a textbook is and ask yourself, why is it that we pay 300 dollars for a book and only use ten pages out of the entire thing? I am willing to bet my life savings, not more than 50% of patrons read that textbook front to cover, even though that is where all the knowledge lies.

I know what you're thinking, "I haven't read an answer yet," and that is the point.

With a Biology background myself and with the simple studies I have done on genetics and epigenetics, they are hiding something from us, and it will take everyone to uncover it. Learn, read, discover, and question everything. Being a self-starter is all we are going to have left. After the last Revolution, that is all they had left. However, if you ask me, the trust was never there to begin with and Thomas Jefferson made sure of that. Because the truth is, there is no real answer as to why someone is. There are too many variables at play and based on the evidence thus far in our education and society, we know a few things and that is genetics, the frontal lobe, and personal feelings combined with decades of narcissistic conditioning by the system, we are who we are simply by existing.

Stay Sexy Scholars.