It has just now struck me-and while this is not a previously mentioned topic in this journal, I have thought on it a little before-that I am a prime example of someone who is genetically determined.  Always before I had thought that society alone, our culture, makes us who we are.  However, just now, out of the blue, it has struck me, this is not entirely true of myself.  I was not, in my upbringing, surrounded by literature or writing.  Nonetheless, I hold a profound reverance for literature, and for writing literature.  I never once heard a poem by my parents or friends, save one small assignment in elementary school-where we were all relegated the task of writing a poem.  While it did not have to rhyme much, or at all, mine did-all of it, and I received quite an applause from my class.  Either I had tuned out the applause for others, or I had been the only recipient of such applause.  I had really dug into the project, relishing the opportunity to write, while others had not loved it as much as I.  I was not encouraged to read by my parents, not really by school either-it just sort of became my interest, out of nowhere, unless I recall incorrectly.  All of this is based on my recollections of my childhood, and I could be quite wrong.  Nonetheless, based on what I do remember, that was my first experience with writing.  In fact, my father, even to this day, frowns upon my spending time alone-wishing I would go out with friends.  This is truely not the sort of environment one would associate with the development of a lust for reading.  Another point of interest; my parents never asked me to play an instrument, and only showed any interest in it after I had decided, following a musical presentation at school, in the fourth grade, to play the trumpet.  Originally, it had been flute, but after a snicker from friends about the flute being a girl's instrument, I changed my mind.  (That at least, was culturaly determined.  I never switched instruments-sticking with trumpet from the start.)  However, unbeknownest to myself, my father had played the trumpet, and so had at least one of my uncles.  Could it be, then, that music was a genetic trait?  Following this line of thought, could it also be that one of my family members, part of my "gene pool", had the talent for writing?  I don't recall any such instance of seeing or hearing of such a traity in any ancestor.  Perhaps this trait could have been lost for a generation or two, buried in a recessive trait?

One reason I am thinking of this was my thoughts on buddhism.  When I talked to Robin, we discussed buddhism, and this recollection of what I said may may brught on this thought.  After unconsciouslly recalling the conversation-it just popped into my head- I remembered that buddhist's believed that the individuals talents and abilities were inherent even before birth, and that the placement of that shell for the Atman depended on those traits, so that the "human" would be placed in an environment to foster that trait.  Thus, the family and culture did not determine the child's personality, talents, and abilities.  Rather, everything was there to begin with-the environment was simply picked to foster that talent, to refine it perhaps.  Thus is what brought on the sudden realization that perhaps I am not shaped by my culture, and my interpretation of it, or, at least, not entirely.  Perhaps part of myself is genetic, or all of myself-is my genetic makeup alone.  This would explain my love for writing, my need to write, if you will, and my love of reading.  Unless, of course, there is another explanation.  Perhaps this environment I have grown up in has shaped my desires.  Perhaps as a child, too long ago to really recall, I learned of my father and my uncle(s) playing the trumpet.  Since it can be observed that, at least at a young stage, many children want to grow up "just like their daddy", this knowledge was unconsciously buried, until that day when the musician visited my school, demonstrating the various instruments.  However, it that was so, couldn't it be inferred that, since I picked the flute, at first, that I was striving to break from tradition, this would imply a cultural determinism, since I doubt rebellion is a genetic property.  I realized my "ancestors" had played the trumpet, and sought to be different.  As my earlier belief, and perhaps my still belief, is that it is our interpreatation of our culture that shapes us, this detraction would be a interpretation of my father and uncle(s) playing the trumpet.  Yet again, however, another complexity.  Suppose all my ancestors had really wanted the flute at first as well.  Maybe they were influenced by peers into choosing the trumpet as well.  Thus, a "flute gene" would be passed, not a "trumpet gene", and culture dictated the switch.  This then, would be a cross genetic/cultural determinism-my playing the trumpet.  Despite all of that, however, this does not explain the "writing and reading gene" if there is one. How am I to know if there was such a gene in my pool?  Only by interviewing my family members.  However, before that, it can surmised, as I started earlier, that that is pure cultural in nature.  School could have been a big factor. Also, the fact that my parents wanted me to do well in school could have tied into that.  To really unify these two, however, I must go back to Australia for a short bit.  You see, when my mother and father were divorced, my mother got custody of my sister and I, and we moved to Australia for a year, then they reconciled and got remarried.  However, once in Australia, I attended Balcatta Elementary school.  Education is structured differently over there, and, without recalling any of the specifics on why, I was not taught reading skills as early over there, as my counterparts would be in the United States.  The result of this mouthful-when I returned to the United States, I was unable to read at a sufficient level, and was forced to spend the rest of the mid-year I entered in, in kindergarden.  The next school year, I would enter into 1st grade, and my reading problem would be "history"(gone).  Thus, it can inferred that my reading (and the writing that I am sure deffinitely stemmed from that-I read a lot, and, eventually, had the craving to produce something myself in words) skills were made better by society, and my experience.  Either my parents made the effort, or I did on my own, or it was just regular school(I was not treated any different).  Whatevcer the case, I became a much better reader, and school was no longer a problem.  In f act, in the fourth grade I was given the opportunity to test for placement in G.A.T.E. Gifted And Talented Education.  I did not make it in the first time-my scores were high enough, but another two children's were higher, and only two could be admitted each year. Nonetheless, the next year, in Antioch, after we moved, I would take the test again and out of the three-Michelled Trokey being one, if I remember correctly, someone I had classes with even in junior and High school on an infrequent basis, I was the only one admitted.  Thus, from basically illiterate, to gifted and talented.  There was no reading gene-otherwise I would have had no problems picking up reading on demand in a "high priority" situation-needing it for school.  It is inconceivable that I had a "bad reading gene", otherwise I would never have started writing, the gene would have been too great, presenting many more difficulties than I experienced.

I have spoken with my mother.  She told me that, while there were no real writers on her side of the family, there were some amateur painters, one maybe above amateur...She also said that high intelligence ran in her family, and that she believed IQ was definitely heredity.  I can't say whether I agree or not, not now, following this above discussion.

In any case, this does bring up an interesting point.  The above mentioned studies are based on artistic expression.  Neither is truly based in intelligence-although this can be argued, I am aware.  Let it be known that I am not belittling music or literature.  Far from it, I hold them both as sacred. However, neither one requires a high IQ.  A rather unintelligent person, in the conventioal sense, can excell at either.  It is according to my mother, and I don't know whether to agree, that my father's side of the family is not known for very high IQ's.  She did state that Marlene, my aunt, and my father were both intelligent.  What she meant was that Jimmy, John, and Bill were not too bright.  In a straight, conventional sense, this might be true.  I cannot be sure, having not a close, intimate relationship with any.  However, call it arrogence or a self-inflated ego, but I do consider myself intelligent. Pinning this to a gene, however, or even a budle of genes, seems a little far-fetched and hard to prove.  Intell igence is very abstract, very subjective.  What is intelligent to one could be stupid to another, and vice-versa(?).  I must say, either despite this subjectivity, or with it, that intelligence is primarily cultural determined.  In the conventional sense, this  intelligence is the ability level one has to interact with one's environment, reasoning skills-thinking (and this is basically how Webster's New World Dictionary defines it as well.)  Thus, since one's environment constantly changes, according to culture, intelligence must be based on the environment and culture, making it culturaly determined.