Gold University of Minnesota M. Skip to main content. Link to University of Minnesota homepage
What's Inside
 
Subscribe

Subscribe with Atom
Subscribe with RSS 2.0
[What is this?]

Archives

View all

Recent Posts
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Powered by Movable Type.

Minnesota Gene Pool Blog

« Heelstick test can cause unnecessary parental stress | Main | Obesity and genomics: A Public Health Perspective »

Why do we do the things we do?

Why do we do the things we do? Is it because of our upbringing? Where we are in the birth order? The way we are treated in our relationships with our siblings or parents? How society categorizes us due to our sex, attractiveness, sexual orientation or racial background? How our religious traditions shape us? Do we do what we do because we observe other people in our sphere doing similar things? Or do we each have an inborn personality that merely unfolds as time passes and we pass through a pre-determined developmental process with doors opening and closing in orchestrated and predictable ways? Do we do what we do because of the innate strength (or weakness) of an intangible set of traits we collectively call "character"? Are some of us just more "good" or "evil" than our peers? Do we truly have free will? Are we completely responsible for all of our actions? Why do we do the things we do?

These questions have intrigued and vexed human beings ever since we made the leap from an animal conciousness to self-awareness. I wouldn't be surprised if this question has caused many of the members of our species more anxiety and angst than any other because we simply cannot find a complete and satisfactory understanding of either our own or others' behavior. It has been examined and approached from multiple perspectives, including religious, philosophical, humanistic, and psychological ones, all contributing their ideas, theories, observations, data and beliefs to the effort to understand, but the picture is never complete. And what is worse, these perspectives often conflict with or contradict each other to greater or lesser extents.
Genetics has also weighed in on this question, attempting tease out what is intrinsic and what comes from the greater environment in which we develop. Using naturally occurring experiments in genetics such as studying how behaviors tend to run in families and how the behaviors of adoptees compare to their birth versus their adoptive families, we have tried to answer what aspects of our personalities and behaviors are inborn and which are not. These studies have suggested that at least part of behavior has genetic underpinnings, even while our ability to reason and choose, along with influences from our environment, are also variably influential in the actions we make.

With the completion of the Human Genome Project and the Haplotype Mapping Project, new tools are available to attempt to better define exactly what areas of the genome are associated with certain types of behaviors. These studies have focused on attempting to map regions across the human genome that contribute to behaviors and mental states that range from serious mental illnesses to tendencies to take risks, to believe in a higher being or to experience happiness. All of these studies challenge us for several reasons, not the least of which is the fact that a major underpinning of our social compact with each other is grounded in the premise that we have true choice in our actions and that we have the free will to exercise these choices. Suggesting that this may not be starkly true, or even true in the majority of cases, is challenging to us on many levels.

Amy Harmon in the New York Times has written a thought-provoking article that considers the contributions of genetics and environment to our behaviors and the choices we make. It is part of an ongoing series entitled The DNA Age: My Genes, Myself. In her thought provoking article, she discusses the tension that is caused by the intersection of the various conceptions of behavior as described by differing disciplines of study or thought. She also details some of the challenges that a growing genetic understanding of behavior will mount to the greater conception of behavior in our society. For examples, if our genes contribute greatly to what we do, should people be punished for these behaviors? Or, on the other hand, if some behaviors are largely intrinsic, does that make them immutable and resistant to change, suggesting that some people who violate the rules our society has codifed in law are more prone to rescidivism than others? Should this be true, what does our justice system do with this information? Do we treat these people differently? Do incarcerate them for their entire lives? Lots of hard questions and no easy answers, at least right now.

As another illustration, the genetic associations with the tendency to gain or lose weight are beginning to shape the perceptions of how we view overweight people in our society. Genetic underpinnings of our behavior may help to explain why some people tend to become overweight in our present environment of unprecedented plenty while other people seem blissfully immune to the multiple high-caloric temptations that plague their plump fellows many times aday. Ironically, it may be that at least some of us who battle the bulge on a chronic basis, along with the risk of the diseases associated with obesity, were the ones who were more likely to survive and reproduce in times past precisely because we could take advantage of sporadic opportunities to store away calories for the inevitable future when the times would not be so lush. The strategies that were so successful in eons past seem to have come back to bite a lot of us in the present day.

I am continuing to reflect on this subject because, obviously, it interests me. However, I will stop now and refer you to Ms. Harmon's article. She does a nice job of reviewing some of the issues, especially the ethical and social ones, that a growing understanding of how genetics contributes to behavior will challenge us with.

The Wild Streak? Maybe it runs in the family by Amy Harmon. The New York Times June 13, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/15/health/15gene.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Posted by Kristin Oehlke on June 15, 2006 9:36 PM |


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/19046


Comments

Lately, I've been reading a book called Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises. In it he explores the answers to questions you have asked. To the question "Why do we do the things we do?" he answers, "No human does anything unless he believes it will increase satisfation. All human action is the attempt to change the state of being for a more satisfactory state." However, he follows with "Human action never brings full satisfaction; as soon as one want is satisfied another springs up." These "laws" of human behaviour may seem simple at first, but they are very profound. I would recommend this book to anyone who desires to study human nature.

Posted by: Life Skills | September 8, 2007 3:07 AM

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)