Entry 3: Draft 3

Under the circumstances that socially affiliated behaviors are in relation to likeness, popularity may have a biological origin (Burt 86). This is  a statement I found in an article by Alexandra Burt that I have to disagree with. In an analysis of  male adolescents, it was found that between the genes A-allelle, and G-allelle, those with G-allelle were more popular.  Meaning that the relationship between serotonin and popularity is partially genetic in the case where certain genes lead teens to experience to a particular social situation (Burt 86). After saying this Burt amitted that since behavior varies it would be impossible to conclude this. Teens who are perceived popular,  popular because they act out of their natural character, are proved to be more aggressive than those who are popular because of their natural character (Sandstrom, Cillessen 476). Therefore, perceived popular teens will do more wild things, but I don't believe that has anything to do with biology. There are many children whose parents or generations before them may have been aggressive, or may have had a stressful life event, and that child isn't aggressive or doesn't value popularity highly at all. It all has to do with the mind set of the child and what he or she values through their own personal experience.

      I understand that there are things in the blood system that could make you more dominant and aggressive therefore more reactive to others. But I also believe that can be changed with a certain mind set. My sister has to take certain pills for her seizures and she is a bit aggressive because of the pills, but a few of my other little brothers and sisters act the same way she does sometimes and they have no condition. The aggression could just be a result of being spoiled, or overwhelming stress from a personal experience. Just because aggressive behavior, or genes that enhance socially affiliated behavior may be inherited in the blood stream doesn't mean that behavior could ever have to surface.