Question

Q: what it's your comment on the following paragragh explian ?;

The cases of Anna, Isabelle, and Genie each demonstrate the critical importance of human contact during early developmental years. Social scientists now accredit very few behaviors to instinct, but rather to learning from those around us. Rather than our biological blueprint mapping out exactly how we will live and act, our DNA constructs the parameters of potential that we have to grow into. Social scientists can use the tragic cases of social isolation to fill in the gaps that our genetic make up does not cover. These cases also demonstrate that social interaction is the foundation of personality due to the complete lack of responsiveness and human-like traits in the cases of the three girls. An aspect of George Herbert Mead's theory of social behaviorism emphasizes the importance of imitation in the short lives of young children. "According to Mead, the key role to developing the self is learning to take the role of the other," (Macionis 134). I agree with Herbert's assessment of personality; because without social interaction, children have no one to mimic in order to learn empathetic responses or other social behaviors. Although individuals may seem completely unique and independent on the outside, they have acquired even those attributes that set them apart from a motley of peers and familial influences.

Answer 1

I do agree that many of the behaviors and traits the we acquire are, in fact, derived from the influence of our family, peers and other important agents of socialisation. However, what makes them unique is their interaction with our genetic predisposition and biological make-up. I would also go on to say that it is our genetics that predispose human beings to thrive in social settings. The fact that human personality only develops in the context of a social setting in fact lends support to the idea that we are perhaps genetically predisposed to seek out social interactions for serving many functions.