Nature v. Nurture

My entire adult life all of social and biological science has been engaged in the dispute that either DNA or Socialization can explain everything about human behavior.   The biologists can explain a lot at one end of the spectrum with DNA.  The Social Sciences can explain a lot at the other end of the spectrum with learned experience.  But for all of my life it has been equally apparent that neither, nor both, explanations can begin to account for the richness and diversity of humanity.

It drives me crazy.  The data is out there to fill in the gap between nature and nurture, and, to me, has been for years, decades in some cases.

When I was in college nearly 40 years ago I learned that our brain has lots of different systems for processing data that all overlap in the mass of wiring in our head.  Different systems use different chemicals (nuerotransmitters) to differentiate their communications from the overlapping systems communications.  At that time people had known for decades the many of these neurotransmitters were cyclical.  Some would be more prevalent in the spring or fall, whereas others might be more prevalent in the summer and the winter. Some of the cycles were complementary, other of the cycles seem unconnected to other cycles.  For some neurotransmitters there are daily and yearly cycles, for others there are monthly and yearly cycles.

Being a non-scientist I was free to leap to the conclusion this sounded like astrology to me.  The fluctuations of these chemicals in the first year of developing life would be different for every person, as we would all start from a slightly different mix than anyone else.  I wasn't the only one to see this intriguing connection.  In the early 1980's a researcher reporting on a study at the National Institute of Health on nuerotransmitter cycles was quoted as saying something like ...this sort of sounds like astrology - isn't that amusing, we aren't of course taking that seriously -   I knew at the time he couldn't say there might actually be some core truth to astrology because that would have ended his career.

40 years later DNA or learned experience are still the only options on the table for explaining personality for the social and hard sciences.   This despite the fact biologists have discovered that women born in the spring reach menopause well before women born in the fall.  Recent studies have found humans exhibit three different mixes of bacteria that live in our gut, the variation between people doesn't seem to be related to DNA, upbringing or life style.  Your blood type can't really be explained with DNA, upbringing or lifestyle.

Business has not been so timid.  Auto insurers have done studies and discovered that Gemini's are the worst drivers, Capricorns the best.  A fact that was floated out into the media land then disappeared.

I'ts unfortunate that science has ceded astrology to commerce.  Astrology predated modern science by hundreds, if not thousands, of years.  Commerce in astrology by folks quite willing to go far beyond what traditional astrology is capable of doing was established long before science came on the scene.  The folks willing to say whatever you need to say to make the sale are still profiting in the little books in the supermarket checkout line, the blurbs about your daily horoscope in the newspaper, even the charts done by professional astrologers.  If science could get beyond its disdain for rampant commercial hucksterism the underlying body of observational data could be a road map toward research delineating how variations in nuerotransmitter cycles impact our development and personality.

Red State / Blue State - The odd case of biting the hand that feeds you

I have previously alluded to the curious fact that Republicans, who are seeking to cut government spending get their greatest support in States who actually receive more money back from the Federal Government than they pay in taxes, while the Democrats who defend government spending generally represent the states that pay more than the get back.

A September 11 opinion piece by Robert Reich broke it down into detail, using statistics from the Tax Foundation. Mr. Reich did not specify which figures from the Tax Foundation he used but it appears he used the figures from 2005, the most recent data they have (see link to the study itself below).

Kentucky, Alabama, Louisiana, Alaska and Mississippi all get more than $1.50 back from the Government for every dollar they pay in taxes.  The top beneficiary is Mississippi at $2.02 back for every dollar of taxes spent, followed closely by Alaska at $1.84 back per $1 paid.  Pretty good return on investment I would say.

Arizona, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Montana, Nebraska, Wyoming and Kansas all get back between $1.10 and $1.50 per $1 paid.

The Red State exception is Texas who get only $.94 back for every dollar paid.

The largest Blue States on the other hand, are footing most of the bill.   Californians get back 78 cents for every $1 paid.  New York 79 cents, Massachusetts 82 cents and Oregon 92 cents.

Here is the link to the actual compiled data by State for the period from 1961 to 2005 (they say they are compiling more current data)  http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html