a.) Why is it flawed to ask how much of a particular behavior is due to genetics and how much is due to experience?
b.) Why is it appropriate to seperate the contributions of genetics and experiece when measuring the development of diffrences among individuals?
It is flawed to assume that a particular behavior is solely do to genetics. Behavior is controlled by nature and nuture responses. Genetics play a role because they can have a direct affect on one's patience level and cortisol responses to an issue or situation. Environmental genetics, or phenotypes can play a role in developing the functions of genes, but this has less affect than experience. Genetics may be responsible for inheriting genes of anger issues and lack of control, but every person's affectance level of carrying such a gene will be different. Many times behavior is much more related to a person's upbringing and what values, morals, and ethics their guardians have taught them. Furthermore their behavior will also be melded by the actions and judgments of their peers.
It is appropriate to separate the contributions of genetics and experience when measuring the development of differences among individuals because every individual carries different genes and is also raised differently. While the two factors will affect behavior, the combinations are infinite, and thus any interactions cannot truly be judged. In the long end, behavior will most likely be controlled by experiential learning and by the consequences felt by their actions.
***It is flawed to ask how much of a particular behaviour is due to genetics and how much is due to experience, because no behaviour is caused soley by gentics or experience. Nature or nuture can be a factor as well. How will we ever know what are the behaviours of genetics and what are the behaviours of expeience?...