the nature vs. nurture thing is an important distinction. IMO its some combination of both.
One example of this is the idea with homosexuality. there's probably a number of genes that contribute in combination with environmental factors. A similar idea: one study I read looked at the idea that there was a genetic basis for whether a person was affiliated with "liberal" or "conservative" political groups, which takes the "nature" thing to a level that I wouldn't have thought very probable, unfortunately I couldn't find a link to this study, but when i was googling for it, I found a link to this an article describing this one:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147
where they looked at the genetic basis for how religious a person is:
I think this really gives at least some evidence a genetic link between neophones/neophiles.
A couple of thoughts about that:
perhaps neophilia has become a genetically selected advantage just recently, just as the concepts of morality kind of evolved at the point where we were secure enough in our ability to survive that we didn't have to pick and choose who would live or die, maybe we're at the next level of consciousness evolution, or getting there, where we don't really need archaic forms or morality in order to guide us to do whats right or wrong? Are neophiles the first batch of psychological mutants that are learning to adapt to a high tech society? thoughts?
One example of this is the idea with homosexuality. there's probably a number of genes that contribute in combination with environmental factors. A similar idea: one study I read looked at the idea that there was a genetic basis for whether a person was affiliated with "liberal" or "conservative" political groups, which takes the "nature" thing to a level that I wouldn't have thought very probable, unfortunately I couldn't find a link to this study, but when i was googling for it, I found a link to this an article describing this one:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7147
where they looked at the genetic basis for how religious a person is:
QuoteGenes may help determine how religious a person is, suggests a new study of US twins. And the effects of a religious upbringing may fade with time.
Until about 25 years ago, scientists assumed that religious behaviour was simply the product of a person's socialisation - or "nurture". But more recent studies, including those on adult twins who were raised apart, suggest genes contribute about 40% of the variability in a person's religiousness.
I think this really gives at least some evidence a genetic link between neophones/neophiles.
A couple of thoughts about that:
perhaps neophilia has become a genetically selected advantage just recently, just as the concepts of morality kind of evolved at the point where we were secure enough in our ability to survive that we didn't have to pick and choose who would live or die, maybe we're at the next level of consciousness evolution, or getting there, where we don't really need archaic forms or morality in order to guide us to do whats right or wrong? Are neophiles the first batch of psychological mutants that are learning to adapt to a high tech society? thoughts?