Since 1992 I have been looking into the nature vs nurture debate through various sources of evidence. Twin studies, conducted by researchers who are also interested in this debate, showed that twins who were reared apart were more likely to have similar interests and lives than those reared together. The obvious conclusion was that genetics was the more powerful influence. However, the fact that twins raised together were less similar was assumed to best be called an environmental effect. As a result many observers, myself included, claimed that a 50/50 (gene to environment) influence could be determined to be a good, though rough, fact.

Since January 1996, when I discovered the game gene influence on life forms and the process of change in life forms called simolution, I failed to reexamine my conclusions on the twin studies. Now, April 2002, I realize that the effect on twins when they live together is probably not, what could be called, an environmental effect. The effect is actually the game effect. Environmental effects are a distant third influence in regards to behavior.

In order for the twins adjusted behavior to be considered environmentally caused it should be considered true whether or not they are next to the twin sibling or not. But this proximity with the sibling is the only consistent factor in their having such a major differentiation. All the other factors looked at, from social status to education, have little or no significant consequence in their choices or personalities.

What might be called environmental, namely the influence of the twin sibling, cannot rightly be called environmental because it is a result of the choices of both the 'receiver' of 'influence', and the 'giver' of 'influence'. Their interaction directs the differences , the environment does not.

If both twins were blind and deaf, or were just unable to play games with each other, the environmental effects on their differentiation would be nil. Therefore it is not environmental effects that we are talking about.

But if the twins grew up away from each other, but could play games over the internet, for example, while aware of who they are playing with, they would definitely have a similar differentiation as to that seen on twins who grew up together.

This raises another question. If it is the interaction of the subject within its games which influences behavior, where does the environmental influence come in? After all, rocks can fall on people and injure them, that's an environmental influence. Like the butterfly effect on the weather, cannot the sight of a butterfly change a person's future behavior? The answer is, never in and of itself can a rock or a butterfly influence behavior. Only in the unnecessary thoughts and choices made is behavior then altered.

Say the person hit by the rock has the goal of seeing his son at home. The rock which hit him could kill him, and while that would be influential, that would not influence his behavior. Now, the rock can slow him down, force him in a new direction, or even prevent him from continuing on his way. That would seem to be influencing behavior, but not really, as his game is his behavior, his playing of the game is all that is effected. It is irrelevant to his behavior how he plays the game since his play involves many avenues which involve many learning moves which are not behaviors but strategies at best.

Genetics is the other possible influence and while it is first and foremost it cannot predict the future any better than a palm reader can. All this is reason why genetics must create a reader of the present in the form of being with a game playing disposition.

 GRH