I watched Laurence Steinberg’s video twice, and I definitely agree with Professor Steinberg. With the Nature vs. Nurture debate is not a topic of discussion anymore, because we are more than likely to have the debate about how genes and the environment affects how a person develop throughout their lives. I really don’t think that everyone grows up to become the same person as their parents just because they have the same genes. I really think it’s more about the environment and what type of environment era that person grew up in. A person can have parents that is educated and both went to an Ivy league school, but their kid ends up going to a regular college, or doing something else because of the society they are going up in. This could have an affect of someone especially if they are more into what their friends are doing. Some parents often wonder how their child turned out different then they are, because most times have changed, and with all the social media access that’s going around the internet, a lot of kids have more options to do a lot of things with their lives, even if it’s something their parents raised them correctly.  So I think that Professor Steinberg latest finding is correct, because genes doesn’t determine how a kid will be when they grow up to become an adult. They could follow in their parent’s footsteps, however they could go a different path, it just depends on what type of environment that kid is living in. The two people who I would like to compare are my coworkers.  Both of them will make good leaders, however one of them is in charged of our division. Both of them has the genes to become a leader, because they both have passion for leading their Sailors and making sure the division is going in the right direction. They both are smart and they are both attending college, however the one that’s in charge of the division is younger then the other one, and have fewer years in the Navy then the other coworker. The coworker that is not in charge can relate to Sailors better, because she has more experience then the coworker that is in charged. I truly think that the young Sailor that is in charge of the division is because of his personality, not because he is a good leader, and it’s all about the work environment and the younger leader fits in with the younger sailors. I also our chain of command allowed the younger sailor to have the leadership of the division is because the younger sailor can have a better understanding of how to handle the younger environment, because they comes from the same era of society, I honest would think that the older sailor would be the leader would be the leader of the division, because of her self driven skills, however due to the young environment within the division, the younger leader would be the perfect leader for the division. Post 2 I really enjoyed listening to Dr. Laurence Steinberg’s lecture. I agree with what he says how the gene might be there but it will not actually prese.

1. I watched Laurence Steinberg’s video twice, and I definitely
agree with Professor Steinberg. With the Nature vs. Nurture
debate is not a topic of discussion anymore, because we are
more than likely to have the debate about how genes and the
environment affects how a person develop throughout their
lives. I really don’t think that everyone grows up to become the
same person as their parents just because they have the same
genes. I really think it’s more about the environment and what
type of environment era that person grew up in. A person can
have parents that is educated and both went to an Ivy league
school, but their kid ends up going to a regular college, or doing
something else because of the society they are going up in. This
could have an affect of someone especially if they are more into
what their friends are doing. Some parents often wonder how
their child turned out different then they are, because most
times have changed, and with all the social media access that’s
going around the internet, a lot of kids have more options to do
a lot of things with their lives, even if it’s something their
parents raised them correctly. So I think that Professor
Steinberg latest finding is correct, because genes doesn’t
determine how a kid will be when they grow up to become an
adult. They could follow in their parent’s footsteps, however
they could go a different path, it just depends on what type of
environment that kid is living in.
The two people who I would like to compare are my coworkers.
Both of them will make good leaders, however one of them is in
charged of our division. Both of them has the genes to become a
leader, because they both have passion for leading their Sailors
and making sure the division is going in the right direction.
They both are smart and they are both attending college,
however the one that’s in charge of the division is younger then
the other one, and have fewer years in the Navy then the other
coworker. The coworker that is not in charge can relate to
Sailors better, because she has more experience then the
coworker that is in charged. I truly think that the young Sailor

2. that is in charge of the division is because of his personality,
not because he is a good leader, and it’s all about the work
environment and the younger leader fits in with the younger
sailors. I also our chain of command allowed the younger sailor
to have the leadership of the division is because the younger
sailor can have a better understanding of how to handle the
younger environment, because they comes from the same era of
society, I honest would think that the older sailor would be the
leader would be the leader of the division, because of her self
driven skills, however due to the young environment within the
division, the younger leader would be the perfect leader for the
division.
Post 2
I really enjoyed listening to Dr. Laurence Steinberg’s lecture. I
agree with what he says how the gene might be there but it will
not actually present itself unless the environment is conditioned
to condition that gene to be active. This is very apparent when
you have siblings who have the gene for something like
depression and they grow up in the same home, yet one
develops depression over time while the other had not.
The two people who come to my mind who may have the
genetic propensity for being a leader are David and Maria. Both
of these people were born into a family with parents who were
leaders. David’s father owned his own company with twenty-
five to thirty personnel working for him at any given time. He
was very known around Galveston and sought out for his
expertise in home building. This man was a natural leader in the
community. Maria’s father was in the Army and over an entire
platoon in Vietnam war. He served fourteen years and then
retired and held a high position at the International
Longshoreman Association in Galveston. Everyone knew him
and praised him for all the great things he did for the city.
People always showed how much they respected him
everywhere he went. Throughout the years, you could see that

3. these two, David and Maria, both had the natural leadership
skills required to lead people. In middle and high school, the
both had crowds of people around them. People would do
whatever they decided to do.
According to Dr. Laurence Steinberg, just because someone has
“inherited a genetic inclination towards” “a certain personality
trait” does not necessarily mean that it will be recognized in
their behavior (n.d.). That is the difference with these two.
David joined the Army and had so much potential. He threw it
all away by getting kicked out and ended up back in our
hometown. From there, he became a leader figure but to the
wrong crowds. I believe he has a strong sensation seeking
personality where he was “always on the lookout for a new
challenge or high” (Friedman & Schustack, 2012). Surrounded
by people who were making quick money, he was easily
influenced into that life. He sold drugs, was in and out of jail
and prison, and wasted his life on doing drugs and partying
every night. Through all of this, he still had followers who
would do whatever he asked them to do. It was so unbelievable
to me every time I would visit to see how many young adults
were following him because they looked up to him so much. I
believe that the environment had much to do with where he
ended up. Although nature made him a leader, nurture turned
him into a leader in a different sense of the word.
Maria, on the other hand, took her leadership traits and ran with
it. She had always shown a temperament with the dimension of
sociability. She was always seen approaching and enjoying
others (Friedman & Schustack, 2012). She manages a restaurant
during the day and manages a bar at night. She knows how to
handle chaos and keep everything under control. The owners of
both establishments love her and trust her to run their
businesses. She does all the hiring and firing, manages the
schedule, and runs the establishments with ease. Her leadership
gene is very strong and definitely playing a large role in her
life. I believe that she was able to become such a great leader
though her environment. Her father was always teaching her

4. things and raised her and her sisters to be leaders in society. I
believe it stuck with her.
Post 3
In the shortest of replies to Dr. Steinberg, I agree. Keeping my
own little tradition of using more of a "melting pot" viewpoint,
I definitely think that genetic disposition and environment both
help shape personality and that no single theory properly
portrays personality, but all theories combined each add their
own little insight into the human mind. I view genes as simply
building blocks, which really is all that they are. What genes
give us are physical or physiological attributes. Now while this
doesn't dictate who we will turn out to be, I do agree that
certain genes combined with experience or environment can
combine to affect personality. The example I will use is
addiction. Some people are born with a slight chemical
difference to what would be considered "normal" and provided a
certain environment and exposure to addictive substances, these
two factors can and sometimes and often do result in
manifestation. What I really wonder, is which one affects us
more, genetic disposition, or environment, and is there really a
correct answer? I would suspect environment.
On the subject of leaders, I first want to say that I view leaders
and managers as two separate people. If anyone in this class
submits that people put in positions of leadership are simply
leaders because that is what has been provided to them, I am
formally disagreeing with you right now. I thought that was
important before I start. Since my position (as I described
above) is that genes are simply building blocks of a physical or
physiological nature, I don't know how much that really affects
the creation of a leader. I think environment plays more of a
role in this. I'll first consider an important aspect of what I
consider a leader which is communication. We all know that
there are people out there who communicate very easily and
very well, while we also know there are people out there who

5. seize up in fear when presented the opportunity to speak in a
public setting. Are people born like this, or is this a learned
response from life experience, or both? Animals are born with
an instinct to reproduce. This is driven by chemical responses
(physiology) but can the same be said to the same degree about
an emotion like fear? I know that during any emotion, certain
chemical processes occur, but the difference (to my
understanding) is that hunger, for example, is produced by
chemical interpretations in your brain, whereas when you
perceive something as scary in your world, this then results in a
chemical process (fight or flight). While I must admit, I'm no
geneticist, my knowledge is very limited and I can agree that
there may be a similar chemical difference occurring here just
as in the addiction example above, I still think environment
plays more of a role in the development of leaders. Effective
communication is a skill that can be learned if practiced
enough. Perseverance is most likely a trait that someone met
with adversity throughout their life will have further developed
than a person born on a silver platter (in my opinion). I don't
believe that people are born with the traits necessary to be a
leader in the same fashion that people are born to require food.
So, in conclusion, my answer is that 1 person may be an
effective leader while another is not because they have learned
and developed the necessary traits throughout their life to be so.
Or not, maybe I'm WAY off on all of this.