The Two Jims
Jim Springer and Jim Lewis are identical twins who were separated at four weeks of age, adopted by different families and reunited at the age of 39.
Unknown to each other, both families named the boys James. Both James’ grew up not knowing of the other, yet there were some uncanny similarities. Both worked as part-time deputy sheriffs, both had abilities in mechanical drawing and carpentry, both liked maths but disliked spelling, both drove the same type of car and each had married women named Linda. Both had sons, one of who was named James Alan and the other named James Allan. The twin brothers also divorced their wives and married other women - both named Betty. And they both owned dogs which they named Toy.
Unknown to each other, both families named the boys James. Both James’ grew up not knowing of the other, yet there were some uncanny similarities. Both worked as part-time deputy sheriffs, both had abilities in mechanical drawing and carpentry, both liked maths but disliked spelling, both drove the same type of car and each had married women named Linda. Both had sons, one of who was named James Alan and the other named James Allan. The twin brothers also divorced their wives and married other women - both named Betty. And they both owned dogs which they named Toy.
The twins were not similar in all facets of their lives; one expressed himself better orally; the other was better at writing. Initially, they wore their hair completely differently. One Jim preferred to wear his hair slicked back with sideburns; the other wore his over his forehead.
Information gathered from:
Funny Emails (2008) Retrieved 7th October 2008 from, treebeard31.wordpress.com/.../
Van Lersel et al. (2005) Nelson Psychology, Thomson Nelson, pg. 113
Questions:
· How do twin studies such as these add to the nature vs. nurture debate?
· Are the 2 Jims clearly a case of nature?
· What other information would it be interesting to compare?
Funny Emails (2008) Retrieved 7th October 2008 from, treebeard31.wordpress.com/.../
Van Lersel et al. (2005) Nelson Psychology, Thomson Nelson, pg. 113
Questions:
· How do twin studies such as these add to the nature vs. nurture debate?
· Are the 2 Jims clearly a case of nature?
· What other information would it be interesting to compare?
Answer the above questions by responding to this post.
Please remember all comments are moderated.
32 comments:
So they had the same named dog, son, wife, etc. That proves very little. It's just a name; a name is no indication of personality or anything! Even though this may be indicating towards nature, I still think nurture matters more.
Rohit. 10B.
Firstly, this is taken from something called "Funny Emails", and the other source is a blog website (which can also be edited by people who don't necessarily have expertise in any field).
Secondly, assuming this is true, the law of large numbers can apply to this: The fact they are both called James is irrelevant, as is the fact that they both married women with the same name and then remarried women with the same name. While this is unlikely, it has no nature or nurture factor. That they both had dogs with the same name is again unlikely but unrelated to the fact that they are twins.
If you compare ANY two people you're likely to find one or two similarities in subject preferences, which means that their liking maths and disliking spelling is not necessarily due to being twins.
The fact that they both had the same job is, again, the law of large numbers: There are thousands of other twin sets who DON'T have the same jobs, so the chances that at least one pair of twins do end up with the same job are extremely high.
There is no STRONG evidence here for nature being the cause of these similarities: It's just coincidence.
Cameron
10H
These types of twin studies show how two almost identical people have acted throughout their lives.
The two Jim's are not really a case of nature, as some things could be coincidence, like the names of their wives, but how they have acted throughout their live, like divorcing and naming their children, may have more to do with nature.
Some interesting information to compare would be thier IQ's, their education and codentials.
Ben P 10R
The two Jims, according to the information, is a strong supporter for nature. They where seperated and put into two different families in two different areas. But a question that should be asked is are we so suprised?
My answer is that it is a rare occurence. Although it can be argued that nature had a role to play, it was more coincidence than nature that defined the suprisingly similar lives of Jim and Jim.
Sean Patton
There's no way to test whether it is nature or nurture that made the the twins so similar, however it's not very likely that each of the boys were placed under such a similar set of circumstances which had them act so similarly.
It would be good to see how they did in schools, the types of families they were brought up in (what was the status of the parents, whether they had any siblings, where they lived, socio-economic status) and know generally more about their life to see whether any of their experiences were similar. This would help us see if nature or nurture may have had more of an effect on their lives.
Krysia, 10S
The two Jims studies is very interesting evidence in the nature vs. nurture debate. I see how some people could say that their two addopted parents could have brought them up in very similar ways.. but I don't see how similar parenting could lead them to live such 'identical' lives. I personally believe that this piece of evidence can only be linked to nature. How else could two twins lead such similar lives?
I believe that twin studies (giving that they are identical twins) can be quite useful to the Nature vs Nurture debate, because even if they grew up in the same family, one could be treated with more kindness then the other, given different choices in life,sent to different universities etc. So we can establish what things are the same and which are different between the people, the differences would be Nurture because they have to exact same DNA
No they are not, some things are different, also the names James are quite commen names, So is Betty and Linda, also Toy is a very common dogs name.
Their education could have been expanded and would have been an interesting point because if they recieved similar education that could explain their similarities
Also the families social standings, treatment of children and what they were sheltered to or not.
Mark Campbell 10M
I believe in this case, they are clearly defined by nature. However, I don't understand how their names as well as their wives' names, children's names and dog's names. I also strongly belive that the way they have been brought up would also have something to do with how they turned out.
I guess it would be interesting to know if the adoptive parents knew that their son had a twin as well as knowing where and what kind of environment the two grew up in.
I'm not going to try and turn this scenario around and say "they are defined by nurture" but it would be interesting to find out how the two men would differ if they had been brought up together with their biological family, or even for that matter together in any situation.
Sarah 10J
The twin study clearly shows the case of nature. They are identical twins that means they have similar DNA. In this case it showed that they had many things in common. However in the information it did not mention the background they were brought up in. Becuase it might have some infulence. They may have been brought up in a similar way. However this case shows that nature can have a huge infulence in us.
Flora 10R
I also think it would be very interesting to do a study on both of the Jims families and study how the parents treated the children, and the interactions with their siblings. it would also be interesting to see what kind of schools they went to and the friends they had.
peta
Twins are often used to assist in the nature vs. nurture debate. With virtually identical genetics, psychologists can identify whether nurture is more influential in who we are.
Even though they have extremely similar aspects of their lives, one could argue that the families, friendships and environments they were raised in were also very similar and therefore their nurturing was also identical as much as their genetics were. You could also argue that this was purely coincidental.
However it does seem that the Jims are a case of nature.
It would be interesting to compare their lifestyles such as when they wake up and how they do things. Another thing that could be compared would be the environments, families and friendships they grew up with.
Heidi 10F
How do twin studies such as these add to the nature vs. nurture debate?
Studies of twins as a whole may offer no help to the debate, as much as a normal person, but when twins that were raised apart are studied, you can observe whether they're alike, even if raised in completely different enviroments - like these two.
Are the 2 Jims clearly a case of nature?
Yes, i beleive they are, though some strong forces of luck (or some may argue destiny) come into play, just the fact that they have the same job choice, aswell as "similar abilities in drawing nd carpentry", these are the things that show that even though raised apart they think the same. Though some aspects ARE a product of nurture, such as hair style, something easily influenced by where/who you live with. But, just as I've argued, nurture just influences your nature, what we are born with is what we are, whether we choose to develop certain skills or not.
What other information would it be interesting to compare?
I would love to be able to compare whether their childhood tendencies (biting fingernails, tapping feet etc..) were the same.
-Duncan 10k
I'm sorry but I don't understand how some people can be satisfied with saying that this study comes down to coincidence. Mark, I have never met a dog called Toy and to hear that identical twins separated at 4 weeks old have a dog with the same name strikes me as something more than just coincidence. It would be interesting to see if the breed of dog is the same / similar.
Sarah
Peta, I agree with Krysia that it would be good to find out how similar their adopted families are before we decide whether this is purely influenced by nature or nurture. Things such as socio-economic status, the amount of people in their adopted families etc would be interesting to find out.
Jess
I find this very interesting. I can see how nature could affect their likes of similar things such as maths, and having similar abilities in Mechanical drawing and carpentry. But i find it hard to believe that their nature would make them both choose wives with the same names and naming their child and dog the same as each other. I think it would be interesting to see if they have the same manners and deal with things the same.
Elspeth 10M
The Twin study may show a case of nature as they exhibit many simliar genetic qualities, yet besides that it isn't a real study, the fact that they married two people with the same names etc shows that maybe their genetics may have had an influence upon their attractions etc (yet if that were to be true the two people that they married would have to have the same phsyical and social characteristics etc for that to occur). They show many qualities that show nurture: such as they way style their hair, but it would be interesting to compare their intelligence before they met each other and also whether they develop any mental illnesses or diseases...
- Matt 10 F -
This is such a strong arguement for the nature side of this debate.
However, I think that only their similarities in abilities, likes and dislikes helps to support the arguement.
The idea that the twins married people with the same name has to be a coincedence.
What really needs to be compared is the personality of the people that they married - what they are attracted to. The fact that they were married to people of the same name does not support the arguement.
However, the fact that they named their children similar names is evidence of their similar likes/dislikes.
- Beth 10L -
Perhaps with the names and of the dogs and children it may have been affected by their genetics themselves. Their prefereneces and their likes may have been heavily influenced by their genetics. I believe that in this case nature has played a larger role in their life than nurture.
sagaR 10F
“Both James’ grew up not knowing of the other, yet there were some uncanny similarities. Both worked as part-time deputy sheriffs, both had abilities in mechanical drawing and carpentry, both liked maths but disliked spelling, both drove the same type of car and each had married women named Linda.”
I’m still leaning towards Nurture in this debate. I assume that both of them have been brought up in a similar environment (they both lived in a house, they had a sufficient amount of nutrition in their diet, both had loving, caring parents).
I noticed that they did not mention about what sort of school that the twins went to. The twins could have been encouraged by their adopted parents and teachers into developing a particular skill. Maybe it could have been the quality of the school they went to.
Furthermore, according to Encyclopaedia of Psychology (2008, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_g2699/is_0002/ai_2699000233), studies of identical twins raised in the same environment have shown that identical twins can develop markedly different personalities.
What do you guys think? With this case, do you think our futures are set in stone or are we free to choose and do what we wish?
Jonathan, 10S.
Are the 2 Jims clearly a case of nature? I would be inclined to say that nature has effected:job preference which is generally dictated by ability "Both worked as part-time deputy sheriffs" and also their inherit skills "both had abilities in mechanical drawing and carpentry, both liked maths but disliked spelling". As for the same names of important figures in their life, eg. wife,dog,son it seems that it is complete coincidence. I think that the socio-economic background of the families they were adopted into would be quite similar, eg. a working class family, and would play a large role in their development.
James Bennett
These twins add to the nature vs. nurture debate as there are similarities that need to be explained. The nurture was obviously different in the twins as they were brought up by different families although, the families could include the same values. Therefore both could have been brought up with similar values although they were brought up in different families. The nature (genetics, hereditary, genes etc.)are almost identical, which could have been predictable as twins are the closest to each other over anyone else as they spend 9 months together in the womb before any other human contact.
The 2 Jims are a case of nature mainly although I don't think it is just a solid nature case. The values that could have been imprinted on the twins could have been almost identical therefore both of the nature and nurture debate are implanted on this situation. Although genetics play a big role in twins as their DNA is almost identical and therefore the debate would sway towards the nature side although it is not as solid as only nature it also consists of nurture.
For example, it would be interesting to compare if the family with one of the twins was abusive, the Jim would be different to his recent outcome as his family would have degraded his confidence and it could also lead to contributing to him not marrying. if one family was more academically inclined with their son, the Jim could have resulted in having a profession as a doctor or lawyer instead of the occupation of a sheriff. Therefore the nurture does play a significant part in the upbringing of the twins and the astounding similarities. The difference of upbringing would be interesting to compare.
Alka 10J
This twin study shows the case of Nature. These identical twins grew up in completely different places not knowing each other, however they turned our so similar. It can be debated that this is just a coincidence because how many times can this happen to a twin separated at birth right?
Maddie 10e
ok first of all this is so crazy!! like when i was reading this i was like this cant be true it is just way to freaky!.
ok well. the Jim twins and other twins such as these (is there seriously anyone else out there like this extreme case?) add to the nature verse nurture debate as obviously they were nutured in completly different surroundings and ways and therefore add an interesting twist on the debate. Also it helps as it adds strong information towards one way in the debate with very convincing and interesting information which then help to determine the big question... nature or nurture?
The 2 Jims obviously have the same DNA and were bought up in different situations yet they were both similar (very VERY similar!!) when they grew up. This situation points more towards nature then nurture however i still think nurture would have impacted there lives quite a bit. this is because the blog that Miss O'neil put up does not describe their personalities or their beliefs which means they could actually be completely different people and that could be because of how they were raised.
also i have a question...
guys, is it possible that even though they were adopted into different families that they were brought up with very simialr beliefs and nurtured in similar ways?
other information that would be interesting to compare is their personalities, for examples they could be completely different, one could be a hard worker who loves sport whilst the other could be interested in animals (i couldnt think of anything else) and who doesnt like work.
it would also be interesting to see how they were raised and what type of friends they have.
Mardi 10E
Even though I think nurture defines who we are more than nature, I think this twin study supports the nature side of the debate.
I think its highly unlikely that the two boys would be adopted by families that believe raise their children the same way, etc. so i think their interests and abilities in mechanical drawing and stuff would possibly nature.
But i think that the spoken and written expression would be nurture? Because the families could be interested/good at one of them leading to the boys being good at it too.
Maddy E - 10D
Cameron, you raised some interesting points. i particularly liked the one about where the information came from. it is so true anyone could have just made this up or changed certain things and therefore it may not be completely accurate.
Also i agree with most people when they say that a lot of this information doesnt prove nature or nurture as it is really coincidental. just because they have the same named wife doesnt prove anything, they doesnt prove what type of person they are. not everyone with the same name acts the same way.. otherwise that would be bad for me because there are a lot of GUYS with the same name as me (although alka that would explain why i am so strong). :P
~Mardi 10E~
@Duncan - I agree with you wholly that nurture simply influences what nature already has given us. I also think that what you said about comparing their childhood tendencies, that's something I haven't thought about which would be quite interesting.
Overall, and I think many people have been suggesting this, I think further information is needed to provide a definite conclusion as to whether this is a case of nature or nurture. This information covers only small aspects of their entire lives and does not provide any conclusive evidence that would be useful to the nature/nurture debate.
Krysia, 10S
Even if the names were identical (such as the dog, the wives etc.) the personlities and composition of this people could have been completely different. Maybe the twins found they had a similar attraction to the names but the people who had the names could have been completely opposite in the wives' cases, therefore the twins could have been attracted to completely opposite people and it was just coincidence involved in the names as they are common names for the wives. This shows that there could have been significant differences in the twins' choices of people although this would rely on their nurture as their nature would be more similar rather than the way they were nurtured. This is just a thought though.
Alka 10J
This case is interesting because it can not be explained by nature or nurture.
The names really have not much relevance, maybe they chose it because their parents had a dog named toy, and they didn’t realise it
The fact that they chose the same names however, and married the same people is more nature side than nurture.
This is because being twins, they might have been attracted to the same type of people, which in coincidence, had the same name.
In grade 4, tony was at one end of the school and i was at the other, and he started crying and then i did, and a teacher asked me why i was crying and i said i don’t know...
James M 10L
this example is quite interesting, it seems nearly unbeleiveable however it is true. it could either be a true case os coinsidence or some sort of connection between the two of them. the twins may have grown up the same way and through this would think and act similar. this could have played a part in their choices in life.
Anthony
I agree with what most other people wrote here, that the similarities are not a cause of nature completely.
I believe this text is biased, trying to convince us that these two men are identical in everything, but if we think about it logically, they are most probably barely similar at all. All examples given about them are purely name based, and have no link to personality. If the twins were similar in personality, there would be a possibility that nature was the main influence on these twins, but without the knowledge of the twins' personalities, no one can be sure.
I looked up some more twin studies on the internet and found that the similarities mentioned are similar to this twin study, and found only one where personalities were similar, and they were hardly similar at all.
From what I have read, I believe we can conclude that these twins are not similar by nature but by pure coincidence
Website with some twin studies:
http://science.howstuffworks.com/genetic-science/twin1.htm
Elisheba R. 10E
This can not be purely coincidence. These twins are an example of nature! How else could they be so similar? They must just naturally think like each other. They must have some a strong genetic relationship.
However the article does not give much information on their upbringings. We are very much positioned to believe this is a cause of nature. If I knew more about their upbringing maybe my answer would be different. Till then this is more a result of nature than coincidence.
Alina
Just a small thing to add: It may be a 1-in-a-million type coincidence, but with 6 billion people on earth, that's a lot of millions.
Krysia, 10S
Post a Comment