"I am sexually attracted to brunets. I find blondes attractive but I would not want to have a long term, involved, and intimate relationship with a blonde, unless it is Kirsten Dundst; and no, I cannot explain my attraction to this female."

So it was your experiences that drove you to be sexually attracted to brunettes, or was it something you were predisposed to do by your genes?

Wow you’re on a roll dude; did you hit your head today?

You again offer such slam-dunk statements like “I even question this idea” and “Science does not support this idea”. Wow you took the time to write them down they must be factual.

Of course genes affect behavior. Oh Snap! Take that.

to studdyfinger, Hey dummy do the research then speak. I at least can say I have a bachelor of science degree and can read the research.

Your writing is so tenuous that I'm disinclined to believe this claim. It feels more like Lucas claiming to be a Ph.D. but really being a P.O.S. . . .

Plus, if you've got a B.S., why are you driving cab?

so he can spend his days cruising and picking up guys?

I'm curious, you seem so sure of yourself over this. Do you have conclusive proof to the contrary? Cause if you don't you can "question this idea" all you want but until you can prove the contrary is 100% true you should not be challenging anyone to provide proof that you can't prove the contrary of.

This is like me daring someone to show 100% proof that we can't win in Iraq when I can't prove with 100% certainty that we can. (sorry for mentioning the Iraq War here, first comparison that came to mind)

So infants that are born knowing how to cry and suckle have somehow learned this behavior?

Genetics determining behavior is well studied and documented in animal species. Beavers are not taught to build dams. Humans are not taught to suckle. Kangaroo infants are not taught to seek out the pouch. These are all genetically ingrained behaviors.

Simply put, there is no one right answer here as human behavior and psychology are highly complex and are a combination of genetics and environment.

There have been a number of studies that indicate substantive differences in the brains of hetero men vs women, and hetero men vs homo men. One such study was A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. Hum. Genet. 116: 272-278, 2005. PubMed ID : 15645181

Substantial differences in brain structure can only be explained by genetics.

I disagree.

Behavior is determined by both genetics and external stimuli. Genetic behavior would include things we can call "instincts." As Mason pointed out things like suckling and crying. This applies to all animals. Especially ones that are born and expected to live on their own.

I'll use frogs as an example. When they hatch they are subjected to the harsh realities of the world with no guidance by adults, yet as tadpoles they know how to hide, eat, and swim effectively. As they mature and grow new appendages they are able to venture onto land and hunt without observing others.

For people, instincts are quite limited to crying, eating, and crawling/walking, and perhaps some mannerisms or nervous ticks. (nailbiting, leg shaking, posture) However, most everything else is learned: language, manners, social interaction, and a whole host of common human actions.

Attractiveness is usually taught by a society. Older civilizations often found beauty in women that had a bit more meat on their bones then what we as a society see today for example.

I will concede that a lot of human behavior is determined by the environment, but basic fundamentals are predetermined. You have a wide range of personality types and those are normally carried from birth (unless some unforseen trauma dramatically changes one's attitude) that determine how a person will act when presented with a certain situation(dominant/submissive behavior). Watch a litter of puppies from birth to when they're a month or so old, you can see right away which will cower in fear and which will meet a challenge head on.

Traits such as violence or alcoholism may be present in the genetic code of an individual but could remain dormant for a time or forever. The environment may repress or encourage some of these traits to shine through. An person with an alcoholic gene that never touches a drink will not be an alcoholic, but if they hang out with a bunch of people that encourages them to drink, well then they'll just go overboard when the stimulus enters their system.

It's a very complicated topic to really go into in great depth, and is best fit for a thesis in psychology or genetics. The nature versus nurture debate has been argued over for awhile. I'm still inclined to believe it is not one or the other, but a good mixture.


I'm a little tired, so that may seem repetitive(like a good scientific paper should ) but I think my point is made.

For reference, I'm a second year zoology major, I know my genetics and animals.

~Zoo

Oh and if you'd like a little science to back up my claims, here ya go:
WWW Link

~Zoo