Are we responsible for who we are?

Is each of us truly the master of our own fate - free to forge our own destiny - or are we crafted and molded by our genes and environment?

Consider a person's physical appearance: It is determined by their genes and - in turn - determines how they are treated by others, which - in turn - shapes their personality. For example, a girl who meets a culture's ideal of beauty will be showered with male attention and will more than likely become conceded and self-absorbed. Which leads me to ask, can we really condemn someone for being a narcissist?

Consider a breakthrough scientist: They were born with an innately high level of intelligence (i.e. IQ) and subsequently had no decision in regard to their capacity to do well in science. Can we truly praise such an individual for doing what comes naturally to them?

Consider a murderer: They were born with relatively less developed frontal lobes and subsequently are innately impulsive. Can we condemn such a person for letting their anger get the best of them?

I liked it better when you quit gamespot

Whats wrong with you BRHD ? :(

Everyone's got reasons (or excuses, whatever you want to call them). Generally speaking, people don't give a shit about that, they just care about RESULTS.

The operating question is "what do you do for me?" If you're a loyal trustworthy companion who helps me out and provides some useful function to me, then I'm generally not gonna care how smart or stupid you are. The important thing is that you're providing me with something that I find to be of value. By that same reasoning, I don't care much about the dirtbag's upbringing. Sure, I recognize that environmental factors influence behaviour, so I have an interest in reducing environmental factors that contribute to crime. But that's on a societal level. On a personal level, if you rob me or physically assault me, I don't give a shit about your upbringing. What I care about is the fact that I got robbed/assaulted. You can talk all you want about your bad upbringing, but lots of people have a bad upbringing and most of them haven't robbed or assaulted me. In the end, your bad upbringing is just a reason, not a valid excuse. And everyone's got reasons. If I don't show up for my final exams, maybe the reason is that I wanted to stay home and play World of Warcraft instead. That is JUST a reason, and doesn't mean I shouldn't get flunked. If I rob a convenience store and shoot the clerks, the REASON is because I wanted money (hence the robbery) and I didn't want to get caught (hence killing the witnesses). That doesn't mean I shouldn't get convicted and be sentenced to the appropriate punishment should I be caught.

So, yes...the breakthrough scientist should be praised. Not because he's gifted with teh smarts, but because he made an important scientific breakthrough. Yes the murderer should be condemned. Not because he was born with relatively less developed frontal lobes, but rather because he freaking murdered someone.

@MrGeezer: Your response is unsatisfactory, because it places more emphasis on upbringing than it does on genes, which is contrary to the degrees of emphasis I placed on each in the OP. Furthermore, you have not answered the main question of this thread: Are we responsible for who we are?

Yes we are. From my own experience personality can actually shape you appearance. How you use your lips and eyes and all those face gestures all matter. Just relax and try to be a good person and if good doesn't come knocking at your door then you can call me an idiot.

Plus IQ is a pretty bullshit way to test someone's abilities. I've seen people who are considered "intelligence" fail their maths and physics exams and then there are people who seem pretty dumb and still they get better marks. You're not trying to become the next Gauss or Euler and neither am I. All I try to do is to be of relevance and for that to happen all you need to be is someone who uses all he has (Be it his intelligence good looks etc.) to the fullest.

@emil_fontz: do you have any evidence for the emphasis you have placed on genes.

You seem to want to continue with this genetic predisposition/IQ garbage but never seem to actually know what you're talking about

Your threads always make me laugh.

It's just about what you can be and what you let them make you ...

yes

Yes. Life is like Rocky 3.

Still trying to blame everyone else for the way your life turned out, I see...

Did you know that...

• women make only 77% of what men make?
• height positively correlates with income?
• attractiveness positively correlates with income?
• people with certain genes are far more likely to suffer from certain illness than people without them?
• males perform better in math intensive fields of study?

These are all proof that the quality of a person's life is determined by their genes. Why do you overlook this?

@emil_fontz: All of those (except genetic propensity for certain illnesses) are not only debatable but possible to overcome by other factors so why would a shortcoming in your physical appearance would be more determinant for your life than all the other things you can do for yourself? Isn't that just trying to reassure yourself that the outcome of your life is not your fault?

Your hypothetical suggestion is just that, hypothetical. That fact is that these trends have stood the test of time and are indicative of the affect a person's genes has on their quality life. This story is a perfect example of my argument.

That's not proof at all, besides from certain genetic disorders.

Those are all proofs of my point. Gender, height, facial and body structure, predisposition to certain diseases, and intelligence are all determined by genes. How can you refute this? You can't. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are not created equal. That they are each endowed with a unique combination of genes which determines their quality of life, their degree of liberty, and their potential to acquire happiness.

@emil_fontz: You taking everybody's arguments as hypothetical and conjunctures and all your opinions as facts and proof is the main reason people don't bother with you anymore...

OP is like that kid who always raises his hand first to answer a question from the teacher and always ends up being wrong.

LOL. I've given you a list of well-known statistics and an example (i.e. the article) that proves my point, yet this is your response? Would you like me to provide sources that prove each of the statistics I listed?

@emil_fontz: Yes please; go ahead and show me studies that show how the things you've listed represent insurmountable odds that prevent people from succeeding in life since that's the point I was trying to make and you seem to disagree with.

@korvus:

No matter how much makeup a woman who's considered unattractive puts on and how beautifully she styles her hair, she'll never be as preferred as a woman who's considered attractive.

A short man has no control over his height.

No matter how hard someone with a relatively low IQ tries, they will never become a physicist or engineer.

Do you see my point?

@emil_fontz: I understand what you're trying to say but I have experience with most of those situations and they're not as bleak as you paint them.

You said

But even if we accept that all of these are true, saying that these determine's a person's quality of life is not only overly dramatic but a huge generalization and not a proof in any sense of the word.

I once wanted a specific job and then found out that the owner of that particular company was a woman who only hired females. I still asked for an interview, sold the hell out of my skills during the interview, got the job, worked twice as hard as any girl in there and kept the job.

In Portugal I was above average height, never felt any preferential treatment for it. Here in the Netherlands I'm severely below average height and it has been in no way detrimental to finding a job or getting payed the same as everybody else.

I don't consider myself to be a very good looking guy but never had trouble getting girls interested in me or bosses/coworkers interested in socialising with me because I know how to be presentable, well groomed and friendly.

I've had severe asthma as a child and that did nothing but good for my life...taught me patience, responsibility, feeling grateful to be alive...if anything, in the long run, the illness IMPROVED my quality of life.

Yes, some things make life hard, which only means you'll need to work extra hard to be at the same level as the "blessed" ones....complaining you're a short and ugly woman and therefore have a terrible life is just being weak...

Also, people who study hard and work hard do better in any field. A wildly intelligent guy who skips classes, doesn't give a fig and gets stoned all day is probably not going to do better that a less intelligent one who studies his ass off.

Your anecdotal evidence does not disprove the statistics I provided. Also, every statistic has outliers.

@emil_fontz: You do realise that your statistics also don't disprove what I said, right? My problem is not with you stating that those items can affect income and whatnot, is with you stating that not only does it affect it but it DETERMINES quality of life, which is ridiculous.

Look at this man. Look at him!

Indeed.

@emil_fontz: That's the ugliest human being you can come up with? Yeah, he isn't pretty, but he's also not clean, his nails are not clipped and he doesn't seem (yes, I'm being judgmental but a photo is all I have to go on) to be the most socially adept person in the world. Get yourself clean, fix your teeth and I see no reason for him not to have a perfectly normal life...seen guys uglier than him working in a bank...

You made an assessment of his mental faculties based solely on his appearance, thus supporting my argument that a person's appearance (which is genetically determined) affects their quality of life. Just imagine how hard it is for him to earn genuine respect from people and not pity, seeing as how most people think like you!

No, I made an assessment based on his posture...in real life you can, you know, go talk to people and assess them that way...or are you saying his looks would prevent you from talking to him? Because that would make you an asshole...

And over here folks we have an early attempt by Blu to justify his future serial spree.

I assumed that you were referring to his looks, because I thought that there was nothing aside from them upon which you could have made your judgement (but I guess I was wrong). Anyhow, perhaps you are right about him being able to get a job, but do you really think he'd be able to get the girl of his choice or any girl for that matter? Do you think he'd ever have children? Do you think he can ever become a renowned movie star who earns respectable roles and not specific character types?

Anyhow, this is dragging on. Let's just agree to disagree.

based on his post history, he definitely seems to show the signs for that

@emil_fontz said:

@korvus said:

@emil_fontz: You do realise that your statistics also don't disprove what I said, right? My problem is not with you stating that those items can affect income and whatnot, is with you stating that not only does it affect it but it DETERMINES quality of life, which is ridiculous.

Look at this man. Look at him!

...i'll just leave this here:

http://www.gortonstudio.com/paul-clarkson

TL;DR:" Gorton Studio was the first specialist prosthetics school in Europe, and has now led the way in teaching the subject for 10 years." i.e. it's not real

@lostrib:

I actually knew it wasn't real; I used it to illustrate my point.

No, my response is satisfactory because it places more of an emphasis on results than on reasons. If I were to key your car and slash your tires, are you supposed to wait until you discover why I did it before determining if you should get mad at me?

which it apparently didn't. So you're trying to illustrate your point, which you claim is fact, by using something that's not real...

Just stop

I felt that it would be insulting to use a picture of a real person. I tried to do so but became guilt-ridden.

Bit on the pretencous side.

I know I am. Can't speak for everybody, though.

Based on your previous post history, it wouldn't seem like you feel bad or guilty about anything

Why feel guilty about it if we aren't at least partly masters of our own fate? You can post whatever insulting thing you want and then, assuming that you really believe this to be true, comfort yourself with the knowledge that it wasn't your fault.

Feeling guilty about it is an acceptance of some level of personal respnsibility. Now, whether or not you're ACTUALLY responsible (after all, a child might feel guilty that his parents are getting divorced), the fact that you FEEL responsible tells me that you don't really believe that bullshit about how we're just products of our genes and environment. If you truly believed that to be the case, then you'd know that nothing that you do is ever your fault and you therefore wouldn't feel bad about being a dick.

Your claim here is that you didn't post a picture of a real person BECAUSE you'd feel bad about insulting someone (as opposed to, "I didn't post a picture of a real person because it was impossible given my genes and environment"). By YOUR admission, the thing that dictated your behavior wasn't a lack of free will, but rather a willingness to choose the course of action that results in you not feeling bad. That implies that you COULD have posted a picture of a real person and then just felt bad about it later.

So stop playing devil's advocate, because you've just destroyed your own argument. No one here is stating that genetics and environmental factors don't have an impact, but you yourself have just (unknowingly) admitted that you believe that we are at least partly "masters of our own fate."