Yea...I know, it's only in my on-line class, but it was fun. We had to respond by explaining our thoughts on the "interactionist model", which is a little deeper than the nurture vs nature model that has been so popular. So, below is what I posted. Following this is the response of one of my "classmates"....it isn't your typical academic response..how could it be? I would die of boredom.
MAIN DISCUSSION POINT: INTERACTIONIST MODEL:
The interactionist model is more than the nature vs nurture debate that has been so popular the last several years. It's more dimensional and takes a deeper look at the complexities of the human organism and what constitutes the whole of it. The interactionist model consists of three components: 1. the genetic make-up resulting from its evolutionary journey, 2. the organisms experiential experiences, and 3. its perception of those experiences. Together, these three components work together to inform the organism's existence,
Regarding number 1, the example of maze-bright and maze-dull rats cited in our textbook demonstrate that behavior can be developed through selective breeding, in addition to learning. A group of rats who were rewarded with food when consistently and successfully navigating a maze (maze-bright rats) were bred with maze-dull rats. Their off-spring were selected out and the bright rats were bred with the bright rats and the dull rats with the dull. This was done over 21 generations. With few exceptions, the generations of bright rats consistently delivered on the promised IQs and performed exceptionally well, while the dull rats were found drooling, smoking in the restrooms, and having unprotected sex in cars.
Another evidence of interactionist (gene-experience that makes us who we are) is the mating game. The male will look for a curvy, female (indicative of fertility), while a female will seek out a powerful male (indicative of providing a secure situation to raise her offspring). Our text states that 3% of mammalian species are monogamous, including humans, which allows for one male per female, allowing for optimal survival of the offspring to occur. But are we really perceiving our evolutionary history screaming at us when we're at a club scoping out the dance floor for our next possible relationship or even dance partner? No. On matters like this, our genes remain the silent match-maker, always hovering, always judging, but never outright saying, "Oy vey! With a car that cheap, you think you're gonna see Paris in the spring?" or to a gentleman, "Please! With a brow bone that heavy, you have a better chance at conceiving a child than this woman!" Evolution, genetics, experience and perception are always working together to help us make sense of our surroundings and our place in them. There are no easy answers, unless you have the opportunity to ask my Aunt Shirley. Then! The answers are all right there. But until Biopsychology has that opportunity, the interactionist model is the best we have.
Pinel, J. Biopsychology 7th ed., 2009, Pearson A&B, Boston, MA, USA
And the classmates response:
Does everyone have an Aunt Shirley? I like your sense of humor. When I view your discussion there are weird symbols, is it my computer or yours? I like your description of the interactionalist model as more dimensional than other models, taking a deeper look at our complexities (Katz, 2009). thanks
Week 2 discussion entry 1, Katz, Deborah. Retrieved from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=3348988 March 10, 2009
Yea...see that up there...that "(Katz, 2009) and the reference that follows the word "reference"...yea...that's me...hahahahahahahah...doesn't that look officious?.....hahahahahahha.....oh....that just made my heart giddy-up....I appreciate my classmate....and I will thank her forever as the first to reference me....I intend to be referenced in the future, but based on other things, this?...this was a gift.....and I'm still smiling....and thanking my imaginary conversation with my wonderful Aunt Shirley....