'Nature-Nurture and the Cloned Human\r'

'The troika levels in biopsycho br otherly theory (explained in Myers, 2006) be biological, psychological (e.g., cognitive and excited influences), and loving-cultural (unusual since these influences include those studied by social psychologists, e.g., family, peer, and other convention influences).  The influences in the three levels generally move with each other in accounting for the unevenness in the midst of individuals.  However, if a person wanted to be tollerd, the person and the clon should be communicableally identical, i.e., a result of the first level.  We do know that identical gibe ar essentially clones (Myers, 2006).\r\nGenetics can axerophtholly account for typicals such as patrimonial sex, and also can influence or fail to influence other record characteristics of identical twins.  Influence, however, means that transmitted science interact with influences from the other two levels.  Until the last dissever of this paper, the assu mption that evidence based on identical twins can be generalized to clones has been accepted.\r\nSimilar article: The plate of the Boy Who Became a Girl\r\nThe coating of psychologists studying personality is to account for the variant between individuals.  behavioural-genetic research, which has been furthering this goal, has been motivated by findings that similarities between identical twins do non vary as a flow of whether the twins were re bed together or apart, in that location is considerable between-twin division, and adopted baberen do not share characteristics with their adoptive families but do share them with their biological families (reviewed in Harris, 1995).  at that place impart been consistent findings that 40-50% of the between-individual variability in personality characteristics is attributable to genetics, and the percentage of variability accounted for by genetics depends on the characteristic being studied (reviewed in Harris, 1995).\r\nStudi es of genetics and IQ scores (reviewed in Neisser, et al., 1999) realize provided evidence that genetics account for a large percentage of between-individual (but not between-group) variability in scores (whatever these tests actually broadside!), though results can be talk terms by other influences, e.g., by social expectations (from level three) and cognition (from level two).\r\nFor example, children who do not care enough round their grades to appreciate the worksheet and memorization approach that passes for didactics at many schools (social expectations) may depict these tests (cognitive influences) as yet another rampart invented by the educational system.  Nonetheless, if you score salubrious on an IQ test, there’s a high opportunity that your clone will too.  There are genetic predispositions for many characteristics, with varying degrees to which non-genetic factors interact with genetic ones, e.g., depression (Behar, 1980), attitudes (Turner, 1993), alcoholism ( hammock, 1990), altruism (Ruston, 1989), diffidence (Kagan, Reznick, & Snidman, 1988).\r\nNeed for Further look for\r\nWhen people think of cloning, they seem to be asking doubts such as, â€Å"if Einstein or Mozart were cloned, would the clone grow up to be a scientific or melodic genius?”  First, the clones and persons would differ in some(prenominal) or many of  their experiences both in the lead birth (i.e., in the womb, identical twins differ in their positions, access to nutrition, etc.) and  after.  The clones would be predisposed towards scientific or musical theater accomplishment.  However, Watson and Rayner (1920/2000) demonst arseed that classical conditioning resulted in â€Å"Little Albert” becoming frightened of anything hairy after only two trials in which the presentation of a white rat was followed by a loud noise.  So who knows what would happen if Einstein’s or Mozart’s clone tripped over an c yclopaedia or violin?\r\nHowever, Einstein and Mozart were at the extremes of scientific and musical genius, where genetics are a greater influence than for aunty Edna, who teaches science at Dung Hill High School, or for Grandpa Patrick, who entertains his family with heart-warming renditions of â€Å"When Irish Eyes are Smiling.”  So there should be a high probability that Einstein’s and Mozart’s clones would exploit important contributions to science and music.  To my knowledge, there wealthy person not been identical-twin studies, where one or both twins received historical knowledge for their accomplishments.\r\nA second type of question is related to possible differences in transcript and cloning.   Increasingly sophisticated methods of monitoring witticism activity, e.g., functional magnetic resonance imaging, have resulted in studies that have provided evidence that position areas of the virtuoso become activated as we develop new-ma de abilities and acquire new forms of memories, and that over the course of development, there are permanent varys in a person’s brain (reviewed in Damasio, 2002).\r\n plausibly the most interesting possible change is related to our understanding that we have an inwrought world separate from others.  Piaget (1952/1963) studied how such a wizard of self actual during childhood, and there’s evidence that divers(prenominal) brain areas are activated in repartee to self-relevant information than in response to other information (reviewed in Zimmer, 2005).    and so the question arises:  Is it possible for Aunt Edna and her clone to have a shared sense of self?\r\nReferences\r\nBehar, D. (1980).  Familial substrates of depression:  A clinical view.  The Journal of\r\nClinical Psychiatry, 41, 52-56.\r\nDamasio, A. R. (2002).  How the brain creates the mind.  scientific American Special\r\nEdition, 12, 4-9.\r\nHarris, J. R. (1995).  Where i s the child’s environment?  A group socialization theory of\r\ndevelopment.  Psychological Review, 102, 458-490.\r\nHill, S. Y. (1990).  spirit resemblances in relatives of male alcoholics:  A par\r\nwith families of matched control cases.  biological Psychology, 27, 1305-1322.\r\nKagan, J., Resnick, J. S., & Sidman, N. (1988).  Biological bases of childhood shyness.\r\nScience, 240, 167-171.\r\nMyers, D. G. (2006).  Psychology eighth stochastic variable in modules.  innovative York:  Worth.\r\nNeisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. et al. (1999).\r\nIntelligence:  Knowns and Unknowns.  In R. J. Sternberg & R. K. Wagner (Eds.),\r\nReadings in cognitive psychology (pp. 486-532).  Orlando, Fl:  Harcourt.\r\nPiaget, J. (1952/1963).  The origin of intelligence in children.  New York:  Norton.\r\nRushton, J. P. (1989).  Genetic similarity, human altruism, and group selection.\r\nBeha vioral and Brain Sciences, 12, 503-559.\r\nTesser, A. (1993).  The importance of hereditability in psychological research:  The case\r\nof attitudes.  Psychological Review, 100, 129-142.\r\nWatson, J. B., & Rayner, R. (1920/2000).  Conditioned emotional reactions.  American\r\nPsychologist, 55, 313-317.\r\nZimmer, C. (2005).  The neurobiology of the self.  Scientific American, 293, 92-101.\r\n'