Logical, I enjoy posting with you and I enjoy your posts, I am totally okay with the fact that we have a different opinion. I am positive that I pointed that out in my posts. To give everyone, including you and I, a break from this subject, this will be my last post regarding the matter. Genetics play a role, yes. I agreed with you that they did. I disagreed that they were the only factor in any situation, which you expressed that you believe to be true in some instances. It is widely believed, according to the current research and professionals in the field, that genes give us potential , while socialization acts on that potential to make us who we are and how we behave. At this point in time, Few Scholars disagree (on either side) that it is not Nature VS Nurture, but rather it is, Nature AND Nurture that shape us. Genes and socialization interact in such a complex way with so many variables it would be virtually impossible to discuss all of it here. As the research used in the field suggests, Genes are a basic unit that contribute to particular traits a person MAY have, socialization can either trigger that gene or counter it. That is the empirical research and the widespread belief and approach used by professionals. There has been an actual gene found to be associated with sociopathic men. But the research shows that abusive social conditions seems to trigger the gene. Men with the gene who suffer abuse are more likely to become sociopathic. On the opposite side, boys with the gene who had not suffered abuse tend not to be sociopathic as men. And boys who were abused and did not posses the gene tend not to become sociopathic. (CASPI) So the socialization seems to trigger the gene. It was also found that it can contribute to countering genes. (SHANAHAN) Found that boys who had the sociopathic gene and had suffered abuse, also tended to suffer from depression. The study found that consistent access to a supportive social environment (family and friends) significantly reduced depression in those children. Those studies, amongst others, have found that socialization cannot only trigger genes, it can counter them as well, pointing to the fact that human beings are more than their biology. Biology and genetics give us capacities and potential, socialization and culture with that biology make us and our behaviors distinct. Biological determination would also not account for the resilience of many children and adults. If a person is at the mercy of their genes that means that there is no room for change or growth, and we know that not to be true in so many situations and cases. Psychologists use guidelines yes, because nothing is absolute, such as being born "evil" or sociopathic would suggest. That is not a guideline that I have ever been taught or have ever seen used in the field. The other reason most don't subscribe to biological determinism (born evil, born deviant) is because it has been historically used, in horrific ways,to explain "society" in biological terms. ( I am not saying that you ascribe to that) Biological determinism was used to justify Slavery. Genocide. It has also been used to justify economic inequities, sexism, and racist beliefs. It has obviously been disproved in all areas that it was used in the past. And in the field and professions, it is considered very dangerous ground. Therefore, all of the current research points to genetics being a contributing factor at times, but ultimately, the socialization and the environment's effect on those genetics are profound. That being said, I respect your right to have a differing opinion, and I have always respected your posts and enjoyed your debates. We will just have to agree to disagree and move on. I have enjoyed the friendly sparring.