(no subject)

[psycho-freak77.livejournal.com]

 

Hello everyone!

I was reading an older issue of Psychology Today earlier, and came across something interesting in my reading. In the Impossible Experiments article (here’s the link to it: http://www.psychologytoday.com/rss/pto-20080717-000004.html), there was mention of the 50-0-50 rule, which basically says that “adult personality is roughly 50 percent genetic, 0 percent how we were raised by our parents, and 50 percent socialization by peers and friends”.

So, if this is true, then why is there so many fanfic that involve the parenting screw-ups on the part of Fugaku and Mikoto, in relation to how they raised Itachi and Sasuke? And, provided the rule is true, what were the environments around both siblings, both seen and implied (besides the really obvious stuff, such as The Massacre for Sasuke), that could have influenced them to become what they were/are later in the series?

Comments

[atom0001.livejournal.com]

It seems to me that it is just another one of the billion theories regarding personality development. But it's pretty widely regarded among different psychologists, i.e. Freud and many of his followers as an example, and common sense among the general populace.

[psycho-freak77.livejournal.com]

True, very true. But if the general populace believes this, then how came when anything goes wrong with their child, the first thing parents do is blame themselves? My uncle recently got brought up on indecent assault charges, and the major problem that my grandmother has with that is looking in the mirror and saying 'how could I have raised a child that turned out like this'?

Now, it could just be that that's an isolated case, but that reaction, I found, was very common in parents/siblings/relatives of those that committed famous crimes. For example, throughout The Long Island Serial Killer, Joel Rifkin's, trial, his family maintained the belief that he did not have killed the women that he was on trial for killing, despite any and all evidence to the contrary.

[atom0001.livejournal.com]

Well, you sort of furthered my point. They believe it because it's not really far-fetched to see that the parent is a huge part of the child's life until the child begins to push away and become independent.

Parents do often blames themselves, yes, but there's always parents out there that are willing to blame numerous other scapegoats - music, literature, games, etc.

[psycho-freak77.livejournal.com]

(laughs)

That has me (vaguely) remembering something about a case where some parents tried to sue Marilyn Manson because their son shot himself while to his music.

And, what this entire thing seems to cycle back to is age, and what is done at that age. If, say, an eight year old takes a car joyriding, the parent is the one that takes the blame. If the same instance happens when the person is twenty though, the parent can't really be blamed.

[atom0001.livejournal.com]

Yeah, that was pretty much what I was referring to. As a fan, they've blamed him numerous times and it's pretty frustrating.

Well, yeah. Because the child is spending its formative years tethered to a parent, it only makes sense to that they are the reason. The thing is with a twenty year old is that it's pretty much normal for them to be joyriding.

[handmethesoap.livejournal.com]

A child's personality isn't shaped at all by their parents? Wow, why didn't I ever notice that before!?

[psycho-freak77.livejournal.com]

Well, if you really think about it, a kid probably spends more time around their friends than their parents, especially at the later ages.

[handmethesoap.livejournal.com]

Actually, I'd think that a kid spends much MORE time around their parents compared to anyone else. Especially at a young age, when the brunt of their growth (both mental and physical) take place.

[atom0001.livejournal.com]

Again, in my previous comment. Not entirely true. Just another theory that's floating around. Generally believed to be combination of social influences, genetics, and parenting.

[handmethesoap.livejournal.com]

Yeah, sorry, I guess the extreme sarcasm of my first comment didn't bleed through. I'm not really taking this theory seriously. ;]

[psycho-freak77.livejournal.com]

(looks down sheepishly)

Yeah, sorry I missed the sarcasm. I interpreted the tone of your comment wrong. Sorry. -.-;;

[psycho-freak77.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it seems like Sasuke was mostly caut out of the loop on the PreMassacre action, which is understndable for that situation. And I don't think you can accurately analyze his personality in the later manga chapters without including The Massacre because it had such a big impact. It'd be like giving a Geometry student a non-scaled triangle, and saying 'figure out the side lengths using mathematical equations' without giving them any of the values needed to get started. (...And if something like that can be done, it's far beyond my capabilities. If you want me to find the value of x, x had better be the only value I'm looking for.)

And I'm not a Psych student either (though I am taking it for an elective next school year XD), that's why I was asking other's opinions.

I, however, do tend to agree that a parent has minimal or no effect in their parenting though (as long as it's not a damaging relationship - as a rule, those tend to have more of an impact on anyone, no matter who the damager and damagee are). That is probably influenced by my own relationship with my parents though, as I can go for weeks without having the urge to talk to my parents. Usually, it's them that wants to talk to me, and then more or less forces the conversation (horrible as that might sound...).

[kalliel]

I don't tend to agree with the 50-0-50 hypothesis, because it begs the question, what separates a parent's interaction with their child, and the child's peer's interaction with them, such that only one would have an effect? Other posters mentioned earlier that influence tends towards peers as the child ages, which makes sense given that he would end up spending more time with his peers than this parents. But at the same time, the average baby learns first from his parents. And even if he doesn't tend to interact much with his parents, or feel any great urge to have heart to heart conversations/ask advice/etc., I think much of a parent's influence on his child is implicit.

And this influence is something you don't tend to realize until you have been influenced by your peers, and you do begin to see your parents as fellow adults rather than just your parents--or you have children of your own, and you realize after you've done something, oh god, my mother/father did this all the time, and now here I am acting just like them. (The converse being you are nothing like your parents, which may or may not have something to do with rebellion--conscious or unconscious--against parental influence.

What's interesting about the Uchiha children and their relationship with their parents is, even though they didn't appear to have the closest relationship, they also didn't seem to have any real ties outside of that family. So I find it difficult to believe that their home life with their parents wouldn't have influenced them in some way. As far as fan fiction goes, well... It's as much speculation as the 50-0-50 theory itself. XD

Why Itachi and Sasuke turned out so differently probably does have something to do with genetics. They are of the same family, certainly, but their genes are not identical. I took a psychology course last year, so my memory is a bit hazy, but I believe genetics determines a child's temperament (again, quite possibly one of many theories on the subject), which in turn influences how a child interprets and reacts to his surroundings. And of course, Itachi and Sasuke did not have the same experiences, even if they lived in the same house; simply by virtue of one having an older brother and the other having a younger one, even.

Interesting discussion starter! ;)

[psycho-freak77.livejournal.com]

Well, what separates the effect of the two interactions might be what has more worth placed on it, especially at the later ages, when most teenagers with more readily listen to friends rather than parents.

And the idea about parental influence at younger ages may not have as much influence. After all, every child has to fly out of the nest sometime, and it's through leaving and the experiences that come of it that our opinions about the world around us change. If every parent had absolute influence over their child, every child would end up having the exact same views as their parent(s) did, and that may not be true. For example, conservative parents could have kids who grow up to be liberals, despite their childhood surroundings.

But your reverse psychology parenting comment was funny. My own parents make comments like that all the time: 'Well, when you have kids...'.

As far as the Uchiha family went, they did appear to be pretty isolated from everyone else, which turned out to be a major problem for Sasuke after The Massacre. His family was dead and he didn't really know how to deal with anyone outside of his family because he had never done so before (or at least practiced socializing with outsiders to any version of proficiency).

And you going into the genetic piece of psychology was nice, seems everyone else seems to be more concentrated on the behavioral aspect.

But as far the genes go, I think it really depends on what experiences you have that may more or less 'activate' (for lack of a better word) the gene. For example, those who have a family history of schizophrenia are advised never to use drugs, especially LSD, pot/marijuana, and crystal meth, because there’s a ridiculously high percentage of people who develop schizophrenia after using them, and that percentage is even higher in those who might have a possible gene (or combinations of genes) for schizophrenia.

It could be, for Itachi and Sasuke that their differing experiences led different genes (or combinations of genes) to 'activate' and cause different effects.

[aflaweddesign.livejournal.com]

You have to keep in mind that this is speculative. With ethical concerns and a multitude of restrictions in Psychology, the science is not pure. A claim is a claim and can only be supported; never proven. I, personally, feel that claim is extreme. Additionally, I don't believe personality is all that genetic.It seems absurd to break it down into such simple terms.

Parents are the ones that provide children with the homes and instill values into them. Children do display characteristics of personality that are similar to their parents, and someone can certainly argue that it is genetically inherited, but how can we say with absolute certainty that it's not because of how they were raised? Shy parents who don't socialize much end up restricting how much exposure their children get to other people. They may end up adopting this as well. It could be because they inherited it or because they learned it from their parents. The development of children is very likely an interaction between many factors. I'd be hesitant to break it down like that.

Also, Itachi was manipulated by his parents. He matured before he was meant to, born into a life of murder and despair. I'm not surprised things got screwed up. Probably an interaction between parents, lifestyle, value sets, and other neat stuff.

[psycho-freak77.livejournal.com]

While the whole personality may not be genetic, at least a part of it - formed by genetic predispositoins - probably is. And, while it's true that you can teach a student, that doesn't neccesarily mean that the student will listen and take the lesson to heart. Most everyone is taught that killing is wrong, yet murders still happen in horrifying frequency!

And child adoption of parental personality can either be a hit or miss. While your interpretation may be what happened for one person, it might not be for another (which appears to be the big problem with almost all psychology - it varies a lot from person to person). One of the most outgoing and social kids in my school lives with her dad, who doesn't socialize with anyone outside his family (his daughter and his son) unless he abseloutely has to.

[jade-wynds.livejournal.com]

So I read the link and googled it. The only person who actually seems to be talking about this theory is the same lady who wanted to test it (Satoshi Kanazawa; blog: The Scientific Fundamentalist). I read her original post on the 50-0-50 rule, and while she describes genetic work, there are no citations. So I followed her link to the book she got the theory from, and whatever Amazon let me read of it also showed references to specific experiments, but again without citations (and the study I actually read did not mention the name of the scientists). Her second post was more promising, giving the example of a specific researcher, but again there was no link to the paper and it's only one person.

I have not researched the study mentioned in the book or the specific person mentioned in the post further, but considering the lack of references and links, I am skeptical. I think that this is one of many theories and has not been conclusively studied. If true, it may be interesting. As a closet geneticist, I certainly believe that personality is in a large part hereditary. However, without looking into this further, the "environment" part of the theory seems to have "shared" and "unshared" categories. "Shared" environments deal with stuff that makes siblings similar to each other, but different from children from other families, and I think that how parents bring up their kids has a large affect on the shared environment. Basically, this seems bogus because by this logic, a kid growing up with a crack-addict mother and an abusive father who had a bunch of really awesome friends should turn out completely ok. Which doesn't quite seem right...

[psycho-freak77.livejournal.com]

Actually, that example does seem right. There are successful people that have grown up in bad environments, yet still become good people while in their adulthood. Linda Randall (this woman that I just had to write a paper on) grew up around alcoholism and untreated mental illness, and she just got nominated to become a 'Woman of Distinction' in New England because of her work with the homeless and the disabled.

[acediance.livejournal.com]

Very interesting :)

Well, for one thing, not everyone is familiar with that rule, or agrees with it (and it's definitely not something that the "general populace believes"). In fact, I wasn't familiar with it until this thread popped up and I went googling for it.

I think what the rule states is that if you have a child who is (for instance) very extroverted, no amount of parenting will change that. Certain characteristic traits - like aggression, extroversion, temperament, openness towards others - are more likely the product of our genetics rather than parenting. I don't think that means that bad parenting/child abuse doesn't matter. But bad parenting/child abuse isn't going to change an entire person's personality. A person who is stand-offish will be that way whether they grow up to be a villain or a hero. Sasuke would have still had Sasuke's personality even if he had been raised under better circumstances and grew up to be a hero.

When it comes to fanfic, I think people are prone to add in a lot of parental abuse because of the angst factor involved. Which.... LOL. Sasuke and Itachi don't need any more angst than what they've already got in canon. Also, you have to remember that for quite awhile (until we found out The Truth about Itachi), canon kind of implied that something was Really Wrong with the Uchiha family and with Fugaku's role as a father. (Which there was, really - admittedly, Fugaku was not the best father figure in the world; he was very hard to read and harder to please and he put a lot of pressure on his kids.) But that kind of impersonal perfectionism in the family was implied to have weighed so heavily on Itachi that it turned him into a heartless mass-murderer at age 13 who wanted to test his own abilities. Older fanfic (written before The Truth on Itachi was revealed) is probably going to assume that the above was the truth, simply because canon implied so.

I think (personality-wise) both Sasuke and Itachi are ultimately the products of their genetics. They're both like their father in many ways - loners, quiet, hard to figure out. I saw these traits in them as children (pre-massacre) and I think they would have developed that way as adults regardless of circumstances. Of course, when it comes to environmental factors (i.e. The Massacre), both brothers suffered - especially Itachi, I think. Once he had wiped out his clan, he was alone in the world, and he spent the rest of his days alone and really unable to develop any kind of intimate bond with anyone because he had this Big Secret to keep. And he was around some scary people. I think that made him out to be a more impersonal person than what he would have otherwise been had he been allowed to make friends and develop like a normal teenager.

Also, in the shinobi world, there's no such thing as therapy for kids with wiped out clans. The only way to overcome a problem is to become more powerful. So you end up with people like Sasuke who are too ambitious for all the wrong reasons and channel their huge personal problems into their ninja skills. (Orochimaru and Sasori were the same way as children, I'd argue.) They're obsessed with power because power is the only thing that can save them. It's really survival-of-the-fittest in Narutoverse.

[psycho-freak77.livejournal.com]

.....Your explanation...is amazing. You back up everything, and cover all the bases so there's not really anything that I can argue back. The writing is excellent, especially the conclusion. I tend to admire good conclusions the most because, for the most part, I can't write them to save my life.

Nice job here. :)

[acediance.livejournal.com]

Thank you! I really love discussing things like this, to be honest. So I'm glad I was able to articulate myself well and that you liked my comment. XD

[monkeybananayum.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a misunderstanding. Parenting and the way people are raised definitely influences their thoughts and behavior even into adulthood. I don't think the 50-0-50 rule argues that.

But that's not quite the same as personality really.

Like, I have four sisters and we were all raised the same, in the same house, and treated equally, but we all have very different personalities. I think that's what the article was talking about.

This article explains it better, maybe it will be of help:
http://blogs.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200809/the-50-0-50-rule-why-parenting-has-virtually-no-effect-chi

[demondreams.livejournal.com]

aint buying it, sorry

[danieloflorien.livejournal.com]

This is simply not true... parents are your first role models and you can see the effect in abusers and those who are abused who's fathers were abusers. My mother was two steps from trash and she was my role model for how not to live my life. So Sasuke's parents were a key part of his life (remember he was only 6) and for Itachi they were both his love and his bane. His loyalties to the village eventually superseded his love of family, but he also stopped a coup that could have ignited the 4th great ninja war.

[helike]

Honestly, just by looking at yourself... Can you really say that the way your parents raised you had no effect on your personality? Because I can't tell it about myself. Just think with whom children spend the most time when they're younger than 4 - 5 years old. I'd rather go for 50% is genetic and the rest come from the outside - parents, friends, school. And the theory is really handy for some parents that should have never been parents in fact >.>; Maybe it's just to make them believe they've never screwed up. And I suppose that's the real purpose of creating this theory as it simply suggests that parents might well not care about raising their children as whatever they would do, it will have no effect in their personality.

And well... it's not the only personality related theory. The oldest one said it the personality is genetically determined, the other one that it's the effect of the environment we live in. And then there is the other one which says 50%/50% - genetic/environment and environment includes parents, too. Or whoever raises up the child. Parents have no influence on the child personality only when they have nothing to do with raising said child.

And I'd better abstain from expressing my opinion about what I really think about Fugaku and Mikoto's ways of raising up children.

[elfinmouse.livejournal.com]

I highly recommend you take that with a big grain of salt. Psychology Today is a newsstand magazine designed to sell with articles worked into simple language so anyone can understand it. I would never take any information from it as fact - there's a very good chance anything in it could be false or misrepresented, which I think may be the case here. There have been repeated, highly documented twin studies that prove that children take on many of their traits and beliefs from parents/the environment around them. True, similar studies have also proven the influence of genetics and peers, but the core values and life lessons are taken from the parents.

To say parenting has 0 influence on your final personality is absolutely ludicrous and seriously puts this article and the publisher in a bad light.

This level of publication is only really good for seeking out a topic and getting a vague overview of what it's about. I suggest looking up peer reviewed articles and finding a solid example of where this theory has been explored and tested officially.

[phlogistics.livejournal.com]

I'm of the opinion that if all of the people in your social life affect who you grow up to be- as they theorize, by 50%-, then there's no reason that your parents couldn't be considered part of your social group. I mean, how could you spend so much time around a parent and not learn from them? The basic social values you hold when you're a little kid would be based almost entirely on what your parents- the main people in your life- have taught you, which affects who you will grow up to be friends with, who then affect you...

Basically, your parents aren't nonentities. They have to have had SOME impact on how you think, and I know people whose parents have had VERY strong impacts on their beliefs- whether to become similar, or to become completely different because of distaste for and rebellion against a parent.

But then again, how you react to your parents and your friends is based upon the 50% of your personality that is supposed to be fundamentally unchangeable...

I suppose there's no way, really, to prove how much of us is who we would always be and who others make us. We can only make some well-educated guesses. All I know is how I'VE been affected, and that I HAVE been at affected least a little by my parents- if not because my mother is my parent, but because she is like my friend; or because my father has taught me about people by his actions and his words (though not in any ways he had intended).

But being only one person, there's no guarantee I'm the rule- there are always exceptions...

.....My brain just exploded. Watching a three hour movie and then using the computer for two more hours is a bad idea... too many bright screens... >..