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.
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?
Answer the above questions by responding to this post.
When you post a comment, tick the anonymous box and then finish your response with your first name and class only.
Please remember all comments are moderated.
Twin studies, such as the one involving Jim Springer and Jim Lewis, add to the nature nurture debate by adding positive information to the nature side and suggesting that twins separated into completely different environments can turn out being similar, and in this case VERY similar.
ReplyDeleteThe two Jim's cases suggest that twins who have come from different environments could be so similar in so many ways, which gives undeniable
evidence to the nature side of the debate. However, believers on the nurture side of the debate claim that all of these similarities
could be an eerie coincidence.
Other information that would be interesting to compare would be the difference in the environment in which the boys grew up in, friends they had, hobbies and interset they had and what kind of education they were given.
Jillease:)
Twin studies have always brought more conversation into the nature vs nurture debate because they can be a very good example of either. These twins at first glance would suggest that nature has a stronger impact on their brain patterning and thought, although at the end it suggests that behaviourally they are different. I believe that there is not enough information provided for me to make a decision of whether they are a result of nature or nurture, for this I would have to meet them.
ReplyDeleteI would be interested to meet them and ask questions about why they made those decisions regarding the names, there subject preferences, jobs etc.
Chris T
In this situation, the ‘Jim’ twins are a complete case of nature. They have never been in contact with each other, yet they share the same beliefs and interests. Especially with names they have chosen to call things, they seem to have an exact opinion.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I believe that some of these actions (who they married and divorced) are very coincidental. I don’t believe it to be possible for the ladies to have exactly the same personalities as well and the fact that the twins both divorced and re-married to the same named lady is also very unlikely to be a part of one’s nature.
It would be interesting to compare the brothers after they had been together for a period of time, to see if their appearance or the way they expressed themselves changed. In saying that, appearance cannot be controlled with nature, if they don’t have identical diets and nutrition, they will not be the same height or weight and probably have different skin.
I believe that twins will have a certain degree of similarities, however these two twins being separated for their entire lives, have a huge amount of simular nature but some coincidences.
This case of the two Jims is really astounding because both of them not only share the same face but the same preferences of holiday spot, car name of wives and sons and brand of drink and smoke. Only slight differences are apparent in the two but the rest leaves them almost indistinguishable. Twin studies assist in the nature vs. nurture debate, as it either proves or disproves one side of the debate. In the case of the two Jims, I think it is uncertain as to which side of the debate is proven to be correct. It would be interesting to see if you separated a set of twins and put them in two different places, with everything different from each other and only leaving one link between the two; their shared DNA.
ReplyDeleteAlex Reddy :)
Separating identical twins at birth is a good way to test how much of our personality and behaviour is due to nature, and how much is due to nurture. Being identical, the twins will have many of the same aspects of nature, but placing them in different backgrounds will test whether nurture plays a large role in their personalities and behaviour.
ReplyDeleteThe twins seemed to show quite a few strange similarities, for example they both named their sons the same name, with a one letter difference. Many of the similarities are name-based, which could suggest that it is just a coincidence. Otherwise, if it were a product of nature, they would have married their wives purely because they had that name.
Some of the similarities are the result of nature. For example, they both had very similar skills and abilities, like carpentry and mechanical drawing. Also, the fact that they both liked maths but disliked spelling could be down to nature as they may have had mathematical skills which meant they enjoyed it more than spelling.
In my opinion, this study does not really prove much other than that skills and abilities can be the result of nature. It also does not mention other parts of their life where there were no similarities, but judging by the small amount of similarities, there are more differences, which favours nurture.
Nature vs. Nature Twin Studies:
ReplyDeleteMany would argue that this particular twin study is solely the result of nature. However, I believe that this relationship between the two brothers was coincidental. How can names have anything to do with their nature? Likes and dislikes are decided by nurture whereas some skills may be hereditary. The both were good at carpentry and mechanical drawing. This was MOST likely the result of nature. However the likes and dislikes were MOST likely the result of nurture. The study doesn't tell us what kind of families they lived in, where they lived and other personal information. Therefore, it is too early to jump to conclusions.
Questions:
1. In my point of view, this study proves nothing. It simply points out the coincidences of the names which these twins had encountered. Apart from that, the abilities of the twins (which are mostly the same) are in favour of the nature debate. The other facets (one was good at oral and the other was good in writing) are in favour of the nurture debate if each of the members in one twin’s family was good at oral while the other family was more into written.
2. DEFINITELY NOT! The two Jims may show some signs in favour of nature but the study does NOT provide us with any information about the families the two twins were brought up with. The names on the other are simply a result of coincidence.
3. In response to this study it would be interesting to compare what factors play a role in deciding twin's nature. This may include thing like date of birth and number of siblings each twin lived with. The family’s whole professional and economical status would be interesting to look at.
Twins studies give nature extremists evidence to suggest that genes define how a person will turn out. BUT most of those things are coincidence; plenty of people would smoke the same ciggarettes or drink the same beer - does that make them related. Basically most of those creepy coincidences could be found between lots of people. Because I think that nature provides a base for a person's likes and dislikes etc. and nurture builds upon the opportunities provided by hte genetics it makes sense that some traits are common. These common are a small amount of the total charactersitics that make up Jim and Jim's personalities, so it would be interesting to compare the vast amount of traits that they do not share, rather than a small selection chosen to prove a point.
ReplyDeletetom
I’m not sure that this twin study adds much to the nature vs. nurture debate because I believe that a lot of the similarities in the Jim Springer and Jim Lewis case are due to coincident. Also, being named James had nothing to do with them, as such, more with their parents. James is a very common name.
ReplyDeleteIn saying this, I do think that nature, obviously, plays a role in this, with the same interests (same job) and same talents. But, I believe that the marriage and re-marriage of two different women with the same name, again, is a very large coincident.
It would be interesting to compare how the brothers reacted when they saw each other – if one cried and one didn’t for example. Also, how they changed (or didn’t) after spending time with each other.
-Mel
Twin studies like “the two Jims” study adds a lot to the nature vs. nurture debate. It is a very questionable topic and it is very easy to argue that it is purely a case of nature and genes. I think that a lot of the “Jims” personalities come down to their genes however some of these personality traits come down to nurture and in some cases pure coincidence. For example they both liked maths which could mean that they were both born with genes more notably connected to the left side of their brain which is linked with numbers and logic which are necessary for maths. They do differ in wether they express themselves better orally or better at writing and this is therefore is a result of nurture. Coincidental things like their wives names have nothing to do with their personality, it is a whole other person and nothing to do with the twins.
ReplyDeleteInformation like intelligence, manners, violence and even sporting ability could be interesting to study on these twins. If the study was on things more like abilities and behaviour then more differences might be found and nurture could begin to come into the study more.
Mandy
I don’t believe that the Jim case is a clear case of nature. The fact that they enjoy the same thing may be as a result of nature but the fact that they both married women with the same name and divorced and then married again it is just a coincidence. As a result of the twin studies, scientists have a greater understanding of the Nature vs. Nurture debate. Other information that would be interesting to compare is fraternal twin.
ReplyDeleteIt is evident in this case that nature has a very large influence on a person’s personality and interests, due to the fact that the two twins had many abilities and interests alike. However, it is also apparent that nurture has had an effect in the twins ‘different’ lives; as in the fact that one can speak better than the other and one is better than the other at writing. But it is obvious that nature is the key factor in this case, because the twins were similar in so many ways. Therefore it appears as if the twins mainly a case of nature.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to compare other twin studies in more recent times, because some that I have seen are pretty similar to the ‘Jim’ case. This is because all twin cases add to the nature vs nurture debate as they give a lot of evidence to the argument that our biology makes up all of our personality and characteristics.
Katy
The similarities between the James’ I believe are due to both nature and nurture. It is likely that their genetics formed interests and talents in certain areas. These talents were then embraced and developed by their relationships with their adopted family and friends, as well the environments they were brought up on.
ReplyDeleteHow the men better expressed themselves is made up purely by their nurture. One was taught how to express verbally, the other through writing. This could have taken place by the way their families taught them how to behave, adapting or conforming to friends and/or based on their personalities.
Due the amount of similarities between the James twins it can be assumed that the twins would have shared in a similar environment (eg. their social class, similar education, friends), though it would be interesting to see just how similar their everyday environments were and what were some major events that occured which could have changed their values/personalities. Therefore, I am in agreement with Francis Galton who stated: “Nature prevails enormously over nurture when the differences of nurture do not exceed what is commonly to be found among persons of the same rank of society and in the same country."
Izzy.
This is a very interesting blog topic but highly sensationalised. A lot of the occurrences are clearly coincidental, for example the name of their wives. They clearly did not marry the people because of their name for people can have the same name but a different personality. The naming of their children is also questionable but could be explained by the personality of their parents. A tendency for divorce has been seen in many families so part of this can be attributed to that. Many cases of this type of twin story can be found on the internet so it is made quite clear that nature played a great role in the development of these twins.
ReplyDeleteNature versus nurture has been an ongoing debate and is far-off being settled. There are two types of twins; Fraternal and Identical. Fraternal twins are formed in two different eggs, so genetically they are proved to be about the same as non twin siblings. Identical twins both share the same egg. This means that they have the same genetic make-up and share more than 97% of their genes.
ReplyDeleteThis story shows that nature played a huge role in the twin’s life. Even though they were brought up by two different families, they had similar interests and hobbies. I do believe that this story showed some interests and similarities due to nature and the genes that they had, However, I do believe the things like the fact that they both married a woman named Linda, and then later got divorced and remarried a lady called Betty was a coincident. I do not believe that our genes are responsible for choosing our life partner. People do not choose their partner because of their name. Just because they share the same genetic make-up, doesn’t mean they ‘like’ the same names and are only attracted to people with the name Linda. I truly believe that that is a coincident and therefore I don’t believe it is a case of nature; However, I do believe it did have an impact in this particular study.
Some interesting things to compare would be to see if fraternal twins (who share 50% of genes) would be the same after 39 years.
I think that a lot of these facts are strong to support the nature side of the debate, such as their appreciation of mechanical drawing and carpentry, maths, and dislike of spelling. These are simple things that a person would have a natural talent or appreciation of. Having said this, a lot of the information seems irrelevant. They had no control over their own naming, and although the names of their wives are an amazing coincidence, I think that that is all that is, a coincidence. I think it would be interesting, instead of researching the names of their wives, to research their wives personalities. In conclusion, although a lot of the facts seem irrelevant, i think this does support the nature side of the debate.
ReplyDeletehttp://drbeetle.homestead.com/twins.html
ReplyDeleteThe twin studies add to the nature and nurture debate by proving that twins may become different due to their environment and nurture. This was done be separating two twins at birth and putting them in two different environments to grow up in. It showed that they both had many similarities but were also different in many ways due to both their nature and nurture. Identical twins share 99% of their DNA meaning they have many biologically similar characteristics but as shown in the experiment may develop many differences due to their nurture or environment.
The case of the two Jims showed many traits of nature development such as interests and jobs but there were also many traits that were brought up by the nurture part of development. I would find it interesting to compare this test to the test about identical twins compared to fraternal twins and their similarities.
Joel Latt-Day
Psychologists and scientists often rely on twin studies – preferably twins separated at birth, to determine the influence of nature or nurture on individuals. Identical twin share the same set of DNA and therefore by looking at twins that are adopted and raised in different environments, psychologists gain further insight into the Nature vs. Nurture debate.
ReplyDeleteThe case of the two Jims is used as evidence of the impact of nature on an individual. I believe the fact that they are skilled in mechanical drawing and carpentry is due to their shared DNA. I do not believe the fact that many of their names were similar has any meaning and is merely a coincidence.
It would be interesting to compare fraternal twins raised in different environments and see the impact of only 50% of shared DNA.
I am not sure about this twin study and how much is nature and how much is nurture. It seems that the similarities between Jim Springer and Jim Lewis, most of the similarities where the names used. Names are usually given by two people, like parents. Both of their sons are named James Allen/Alen these names were also chosen by their wife’s not just by them their selves. Also even know their wife’s have the same name they probably have completely different personalities and traits I do believe that things like their jobs and talents are made by nature, because both Emily and Lucy do the same areas of sports like basketball and netball and are good at them. I do believe that twins will have a certain degree of talents, but the case of these two twins being separated from 4 weeks to 39 years, have a lot of simular nature but also a lot of coincidences.
ReplyDeleteNicole
This information found about the twins definitely contributes to the nature side of the debate in that they were separated until they met at 39, but still had major similarities.
ReplyDeletePsychologists everywhere have said that this is one of the most astounding and coincidental example of identical twin separation in the sense that so many aspects of themselves and their lives are the same. Some of the most astounding things are that they married someone with the same name, named their son the same name and named their dog the same name. I still believe that when they did these things they were still just coincidental, why should it matter what the name is? Shouldn’t it be if their wives had the same personalities? What does it suggest if they marry someone with the same name? Does that mean that they just married them for their name? Does it show that we are just born to marry someone with a specific name?
It would be interesting to see the setting in which they grew up in and if both pairs of adoption parents had similar parenting abilities and ideas. Also to see what social classes they grew up in and if they had any brothers or sisters in their adoption families.
Kiran
Twins like these add to the nature vs. nurture debate because they are identical twins and therefore they should have the same natural behavior because of their genes. Moreover if they were separated at an early age it would mean that their behavior would not have been influenced by the same parents. So if they had different behavior when they were 39 then it would show that their behavior was due to nurture because they have the same genes they should have the same behavior. Furthermore if they had the same behavior then this would show that their behavior is a product of nature. So that is how they add to the nature vs. nurture because they are a good and reliable example of how our behavior is shaped.
ReplyDeleteI don’t believe that these two twins are clearly a product of nature however I do believe nature does play a major part in their behavior. I believe that they aren’t totally a product of nature because this blog has only shown all the things that they do the same and has only shown a small sample of things that they do differently. They may do multitudes of tasks differently that this blog hasn’t stated. Furthermore there are some things that the twins don’t do the same so the twins can’t be purely a product of nature but only a major part of them can be a product of nature.
Iain
10A
The Jim twins’ studies have shown an incredible outcome of separated twins. In terms of nature and nurture, it is clear that a human poses some or many genetic similarities and abilities from their parents. For example, the two Jim twins (although separated for around 39 years) are identical in height (both 6ft tall), weight (both 180 pounds) and personalities (for example, they both smoke Salem cigarettes, had a dog called “Toy”, fingernail biters and even died on the same day due to the same illness. At this point, it is quite clear that nature is more dominant than nurture. However, there were differences in the Twins (such as hair styles and presentation) which are likely caused by their different environments, lifestyles and families. It is impossible a “100%” case of nature, as environmental factors must influence a human’s lifestyle. For example, if one was to compare a pair of twins living in separate and identical boxes, we’d find still find some different characteristics depending on the way each one of them adapts to their environment. Therefore, it is true that twins have genetically similar abilities and traits, but environmental factors can influence them and thus produce other features.
ReplyDeleteTiffany
In the case studies of the “Jim twins”, it becomes apparent that many of their actions are very similar. This has caused a great debate in whether the twins’ actions are due to nature or nurture. The study makes it evident that both the Jims’ actions are due to nature, however, I believe that the actions are due to both nature and nurture.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the fact that they named their wives, sons and dogs the same are completely coincidental, rather than being a work of nature.
Some of their similarities may appear to be the result of nature, such as having the same abilities of mechanical drawing, carpentry, and their like for maths and dislike for spelling. However, I believe this is actually due to nurture because it is a result of their past experiences, how their parents raised them, the social living, and their education. Nevertheless, some of these skills may be acquired from nature, but the way they actually use these skills or express their talents is a result of their upbringing.
Twin Studies
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1 - How do twin studies such as these add to the nature vs. nurture debate?
These studies add to the nature vs. nurture argument, heavily favoring the nature side of the debate. As both James’ had so many similarities despite being separated at four weeks of age, it seems a little more than just coincidence that these amazing similarities exist. Although there are some differences, such as one expressed himself better orally, while the other was better at reading, the similarities of marrying and divorcing women with the same name, then marrying again with women with identical names. This greatly favors the nature side of the debate.
Question 2 - Are the 2 Jims clearly a case of nature?
Although it would seem that both Jims are clearly an act of nature, it could possibly be a very rare coincident as it is unlikely that the two Jims would have that much in common without having met each other. It appears to be more of an unusual coincidence not at all relating to their nature.
Question 3 - What other information would it be interesting to compare?
In my response to this study, I think it would be interesting to investigate what traits and characteristics are developed through nature, and what comes from nurture, to see what these two boys had in common as a result of nature and nurture.
The twins add to the nature versus nurture Debate because even though they grew up with totally different lives but they still have very similar lives. This adds to the nature side of the debate.
ReplyDeleteThe two twins clearly support nature over nurture because even though they were separated at such a young age they grew up with uncanny similarities showing that your genes have a big influence on how you will turn out to be as an adult.
I think it would be interesting to compare how nurture has effected teh way they grew up.
Connor R-J