Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are leaving out physical traits, genetic mirroring, mannerisms, even pheromones. You obviously adapted, but even an infant is capable of picking up these genetic cues.
Of course it is not going to determine the outcome 100% of the time, but if you look at twin-studies you can clearly see that there are genetic predispositions & maybe this was not true for your family, Nim, but you cannot deny that it is easier for like-minded family members to raise like-minded children. Are there bio-families that are quirky & different? Absolutey. But do bio-families on average share more similarities than adoptive families over all? Yes. Does this create challenges for many adoptive families? Yes.
There are other factors that I believe have a much stronger effect on personality. I can't really explain it in depth here because I'd have to go into a deep conversation about spirituality and energy healing, which is way off-topic from adoption. But through my direct experience, I have seen MUCH stronger parallels between two people with this other factor in common than any two biologically-related people. It is a genetic factor but not in the way most people imagine.
I agree with this. My personality is no more similar to my family's than a stranger's. But my biologically-related family's personalities are no more similar to each other than a bunch of strangers either. Honestly, the only common thread my family has is the fact that we're family. We're all very different people. I have no problem with it at all, but I don't feel like the odd duck out for being different because everyone in my family is so different. My dad is smart with numbers. My mom is good with people. My sister is into visual arts. I'm into languages. We have vastly different strengths. My parents and sister are no more similar to each other than they are to me, or I am to them. If you look at my extended biologically-related family, they are even more vastly different.
I really don't buy the idea that being genetically related helps determine what you're going to major in, in college, or any of that. So much of that is also determined by if you have a good math teacher, if your English teacher knew how to not make you fall asleep. Yes, genetics are relevant when it comes to medical history (I have to ask the assistant to cross out that whole page and write "ADOPTED"). I've met a lot of families where two or more of the siblings are gay/bi/trans. I'd be interested to know if any of my birth relatives are LGBTQ (though in Russia they're probably buried deep in the closet). Then again, there are LGBTQ people in my adoptive family (who can actually be openly LGBTQ) too, so it wouldn't be earth-shattering to find my birth family had LGBTQ people in it. I do sometimes feel like the black sheep in my family, and I will admit that. I feel like the black sheep because I often have to hide a lot of my experiences from them--things that I've been through that they've never been through, so they just can't relate. But to chock it all, or even most of it, up to genetics just doesn't seem to make sense to me.
Honestly though, my friends and I have a lot more in common, and the reason is because friends are chosen later in life, when you've already developed your personality enough to know what and who you like or don't like. Children don't choose their parents (whether adopted or biological). Friends choose friends. My friends and I share many more of the same interests and values for that very reason. Most of my friends also say that they feel closer to me and their other friends than they do to their families, and they are all biological children.
Most people relate to their friends more than their family for the reasons you said and also there is the generational thing as well.. Having said that, I found that when I was your age, the generation thing was much more important that now. As someone now in my mid 40s, my friends are of all ages ranging from early 20s to 60s.
However, certainly it makes a lot of sense that we have a lot in common with peers since as you said, we actually are able to chose whom we hang around with, often those with a similar nature to us.
Actually, many would say that rather than saying nature vs nurture, it should be nature vs environment - a rather more broader comparison as environment includes our peers who certainly do influence us.
I've read quite a few other articles by her and they certainly make you think.
As for the subjects one did well at at school, genetics definitely does pay a part in that although I do agree that a great teacher can help improve one's knowledge and certainly make one more interested in a subject for which they may not necessarily have a natural aptitude. I also found I had certain talents in certain parts of certain subjects, eg I wouldn't say I was great at English but there were certain aspects that I was great at (one can see that trying to clearly express my point of view certainly ISN'T one of them lol) - as for maths, I did have a talent for certain parts of at it school (eg I was great at algebra, shocking at gradients lol). Subjects like art and music definitely require some sort of natural aptitude - for example, I remember you saying that you are very musical and I would say that that was due to genetics. Btw don't forget with genetics that a skill can still be inherited even if no-one else in either family shares that skill - it may be the unique combination of the genes of both families uniting to bring forth that particular skill.
Again, I've said above that nature and nurture/environment are both important at developing our personalities. Having said that, I do believe that if I personally had been raised by my bfamily or been adopted by another fairly functional family, I would probably have ended up very similar in most ways - I think my basic personality wouldn't have changed. My life would no doubt have been different and perhaps I might have expressed parts of my personality in different ways but I think the basics wouldn't have changed. I have also said that it is purely my experience that my personality is similar to bfamily - that is not something I expected btw, I actually thought we might be very different. Obviously also there are biological families that have nothing in common as well - no-one is denying that (though sometimes the not getting on with each is because they have too much in common lol).
I think the things where nurture (meaning parents) itself is important is in things like confidence etc. Also one thing with having adopted asiblings is that I can see that some of the things we actually do share are related to our upbringing (eg I think we have picked up a few of our adad's habits). Also, I do have the interesting experience of my oldest 2 asiblings being fraternal twins (one male, one female). They aren't like each other in many ways but I suspect that they are probably very much like their same sex biological parents in both looks and personality. Those are just my own observations and I may well be totally wrong. In regards to my asister's children, one son is just like their dad and one son just like their mum, however, I suspect when they are older, they will develop more of their own personality.
Anyway, I am just trying to say that even though biology isn't everything, I do believe it to be an important part of who we are. Our environment and peers certainly help shape whom we are as well but our genetic provides the original material to be shaped.
For me, it actually was very difficult to think that biology or genetics had a significant impact on the person that I became. How could I be Korean when I was nothing like other Koreans? How could genetics be a factor when I was clearly a product of American culture? The eye opener for me was when I had my own children. There are traits that can be softened or strengthened with environment, but the environment definitely didn't put them there.
To me, it really isn't that big a deal...Yes, it's interesting to see family traits of various kinds passed along the generations, but it's also interesting to observe differences in biologically related family members, and to sometimes wonder, "Now, where did THAT come from??" about something or another that seems to be unique to an individual.
In the case of family members who were adopted, of course it's more complex. Clearly, physical appearance may differ. But personality traits, skills, interests, talents, various intelligences? They can be anything at all, it seems, and may or may not coincide with the traits of the adoptive family. And of course, that same adoptive family may nurture various characteristics, interests, etc. which it values.
One of my young cousins who was adopted loves books and reading, and writes quite creatively, traits which also appear in many of our family's biologically related members (and which I encourage by giving books to many young relatives, this particular one and their sibling included). Many of my biological relatives also are quite musical and have fine voices - my two young adopted relatives cannot carry a tune in a bucket. That does not stop them from singing, and both enjoy listening to music. They just aren't good at singing in tune.
Does it matter? Not a bit. As long as parents nurture their children's interests, support and encourage their talents, expose them to all kinds of enriching things and are open to both chance similarities and chance differences between themselves and their children, be those children biological or adopted, it's all good.
It's so easy to say "it's no big deal" when you have not experienced the lack of it. Deny it all you want but the fact is without a genetic predisposition to something, you will not be good at it. Someone with no musical talent can practice the piano all their lives and never be a master at it - you need the genes. Someone with no mathematical ability can love planes and build model aeroplanes but will never be a pilot because you need crazy math skills to be an aeronautical engineer. The building blocks need to be there or no amount of encouragement is going to make you good - American Idol has shown us that.
To me, it really isn't that big a deal...Yes, it's interesting to see family traits of various kinds passed along the generations, but it's also interesting to observe differences in biologically related family members, and to sometimes wonder, "Now, where did THAT come from??" about something or another that seems to be unique to an individual.
In the case of family members who were adopted, of course it's more complex. Clearly, physical appearance may differ. But personality traits, skills, interests, talents, various intelligences? They can be anything at all, it seems, and may or may not coincide with the traits of the adoptive family. And of course, that same adoptive family may nurture various characteristics, interests, etc. which it values.
One of my young cousins who was adopted loves books and reading, and writes quite creatively, traits which also appear in many of our family's biologically related members (and which I encourage by giving books to many young relatives, this particular one and their sibling included). Many of my biological relatives also are quite musical and have fine voices - my two young adopted relatives cannot carry a tune in a bucket. That does not stop them from singing, and both enjoy listening to music. They just aren't good at singing in tune.
Does it matter? Not a bit. As long as parents nurture their children's interests, support and encourage their talents, expose them to all kinds of enriching things and are open to both chance similarities and chance differences between themselves and their children, be those children biological or adopted, it's all good.
Craig, just out of interest, if your adopted relatives expressed interest as adults in meeting brelatives and it were possible and the rellies were functional, would you accept that perhaps meeting brelatives might help an adopted person understand themselves better and put things in context? Fairly obviously that it isn't always possible and fairly obviously people can survive quite well without doing so but if it were possible, can you see that sometimes it can be enlightening and enriching in itself? I'm not saying it is possible or even advisable in your relatives case because I have no idea of their bfamily background but that is why I specified if the rellies were "functional".
None of us are saying biology is everything, we are just trying to say that it isn't nothing. I know many APs on other forums who will say categorically it means nothing and thus there should be no wish for their children to want to have anything to do with their bfamilies. To me, meeting my bfamily and coming face to face with biology helped me figure things out a bit more. Your above scenario was not dissimilar to my own adoptive scenario but I do still think I have benefitted greatly from knowing more.
In the past, adoptees and bmoms were considered neurotic if they wanted to connect with each other and I know from many forums, blogs and newspaper article comment sections, that there are still many who believe that this is so.
Also, too often I see comments on the blogosphere that implying that curiosity re birth relations is a reflection on an adoptees upbringing (and how insulting is that to other APs?). Other comments often imply that a well-adjusted adoptee is one with no curiosity re relatives.
Last edited by susankate; 10-04-2012 at 09:37 PM..
It's so easy to say "it's no big deal" when you have not experienced the lack of it. Deny it all you want but the fact is without a genetic predisposition to something, you will not be good at it. Someone with no musical talent can practice the piano all their lives and never be a master at it - you need the genes. Someone with no mathematical ability can love planes and build model aeroplanes but will never be a pilot because you need crazy math skills to be an aeronautical engineer. The building blocks need to be there or no amount of encouragement is going to make you good - American Idol has shown us that.
Where is anyone completely denying genetics? I've seen a few people completely deny conditioning, but I haven't seen anyone completely deny genetics.
I know that I have a very language-oriented mind. I did translation for 8 years and am studying to be an interpreter. Neither my parents nor my sister are like that. That said, I've met people who are also very language-oriented who aren't genetically related to me. One of my best friends and I have 6 languages in common. We have no genetic relation at all. So how can you ultimately be sure that say, for example, your biological father's interest in journalism and your interest in journalism are strictly a result of genetics, and not also at least part coincidence? I really feel that people look for parallels where they want to see them, because I can find tons of parallels between myself and many people I know, none of whom are genetically related to me. For example, my dad's S.O. and her daughter and I are all frighteningly similar in personality and likes. We are all very musical and language-oriented. We value creativity and beauty. Unless I'm Black and don't know it, we're definitely not related genetically, lol. Now if we happened to be biologically related, I'd probably be chocking it all up to our genes when in fact the parallels are all there without the genetic connection. I know that genetics play a part in personality traits and so on, but I just think that people tend to force similarities that aren't always there.
Last edited by nimchimpsky; 10-05-2012 at 05:59 AM..
Where is anyone completely denying genetics? I've seen a few people completely deny conditioning, but I haven't seen anyone completely deny genetics.
Whose completely denied conditioning?
Nim you made comments that were seen as "genetics are nothing," but that is not what you meant & people responded to the assumption that you did.
Mirren (I believe or others) made comments that were seen as "social factors are nothing," but that is not what they meant & people responded to the assumption that they did.
Anyone else see this going on?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
