Reading3 Are You a "Natural?

" 19

Reading 3: ARE YOU A "NATURAL?"

Bouchard, T., Lykken, D., McGue, M., Segal, N., &Tellegen, A. (1990). Sources of
human psychological differences: The Minnesota study of twins reared apart. Scie-
nce, 250, 2 2 3 - 2 2 9 .

This study represents a relatively r e c e n t and ongoing fundamental c h a n g e in

the way many psychologists view h u m a n n a t u r e in its broadest sense. You can
relate to this c h a n g e in a personal way by first taking a m o m e n t to answer in
your mind the following question: "Who a r e you?" Think for a m o m e n t about
some of your individual characteristics: your "personality traits." Are you high
strung or laid-back? Are you shy or outgoing? Are you adventurous, or do you
seek out comfort and safety? Are you easy to get along with, or do you tend to-
ward the disagreeable? Are you usually optimistic or m o r e pessimistic about
the o u t c o m e of future events? Think about yourself in terms of these or any
o t h e r questions you feel a r e relevant. Take your time . . . . Finished? Now, an-
swer this next, and, fór this reading, m o r e i m p o r t a n t question: "Why are you
who you are?" In o t h e r words, what factors contributed to "creating" this per-
son you are today?
If you are like most people, you will point to the child-rearing practices
of your parents and the values, goals, and priorities they instilled in you. You
might also credit the influences of brothers, sisters, grandparents, aunts, un-
cles, peers, teachers, and o t h e r m e n t o r s who played key roles in molding you.
Still others of you will focus on key life-changing events, such as an illness, the
loss of a loved o n e , or the decision to attend a specific college, choose a major,
or take a particular life course that seemed to lead you toward b e c o m i n g your
c u r r e n t self. All these influences share o n e characteristic: they a r e all
environmental p h e n o m e n a . Hardly anyone ever replies to the question "Why
are you who you are?" with "I was b o r n to be who I am; it's all in my genes."
Everyone acknowledges that physical attributes, such as height, hair
color, eye color, and body type, are genetic. M o r e and m o r e people a r e realiz-
ing that tendencies toward many illnesses, such as cancer, h e a r t disease, and
high blood pressure, have significant genetic c o m p o n e n t s . However, almost
no o n e thinks of genes as the main force behind who they a r e psychologically.
This may strike you as odd when you stop to think about it, but in reality very
understandable reasons explain o u r "environmental bias."
First of all, psychology during the second half of the 2 0 t h century was
dominated by the behaviorism theory of h u m a n nature. Basically, that theory
states that all h u m a n behavior is controlled by environmental factors, includ-
ing the stimuli that provoke behaviors and the consequences that follow re-
sponse choices. Strict behaviorists believed that the internal psychological
workings of the h u m a n mind were n o t only impossible to study scientifically
but, also, that such study was unnecessary and irrelevant to a c o m p l e t e expla-
nation for h u m a n behavior. W h e t h e r the wider culture a c c e p t e d or even un-
derstood formal theories of behaviorism is not as important as the reality of
20 Chapter I Biology and Human Behavior

their influence on today's firmly e n t r e n c h e d popular belief that experience is

the primary or exclusive architect of h u m a n nature.
A n o t h e r understandable reason for the pervasive a c c e p t a n c e of envi-
r o n m e n t a l explanations of behavior is that genetic and biological factors do
not provide visible evidence of their influence. It's easy for s o m e o n e to say "I
b e c a m e a writer because I was deeply inspired and e n c o u r a g e d by my seventh-
g r a d e composition teacher." You r e m e m b e r those sorts of influences; you see
them; they a r e p a r t of your past a n d present conscious experiences. You
would find it m u c h m o r e difficult to recognize biological influences and say "I
b e c a m e a writer because my DNA contains a g e n e that has been expressed in
me that predisposes me to write well." You can't see, touch, or r e m e m b e r the
influence of your genes, a n d you don't even know where in your body they
might be located!
In addition, many people a r e uncomfortable with the idea that they
might be the p r o d u c t of their genes r a t h e r than the choices they have m a d e in
their lives. Such ideas smack of determinism and a lack of free will. Most peo-
ple have a strong dislike for any t h e o r y that might in some way limit their con-
scious ability to d e t e r m i n e the o u t c o m e s in their lives. Consequently, genetic
causes of behavior a n d personality tend to be avoided or rejected. In reality,
genetic influences interact with e x p e r i e n c e to mold a complete h u m a n , and
the only question is this: W h i c h is m o r e dominant? Or, to phrase the question
as it frequenüy appears in the media, "Is it nature or nurture?"
T h e article by T h o m a s B o u c h a r d , David Lykken, and their associates at
the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis that is referenced in this c h a p t e r
is a review of research that began in 1 9 7 9 to e x a m i n e the question of how
m u c h influence your genes have in determining your personal psychological
qualities. This research grew out of a need for a scientific m e t h o d to separate
genetic influences ( n a t u r e ) from environmental forces ( n u r t u r e ) on people's
behavior a n d personality. This is no simple task when you consider that nearly
every o n e of you, assuming you were n o t adopted, grew and developed u n d e r
the direct environmental influence of your genetic d o n o r s (your p a r e n t s ) .
You might, for e x a m p l e , have the same sense of h u m o r as your father ( n o of-
fense!) because you l e a r n e d it from him ( n u r t u r e ) or because you inherited
his "sense-of-humor" g e n e ( n a t u r e ) . No systematic a p p r o a c h can tease those
two influences apart, right?
Well, B o u c h a r d a n d Lykken would say "wrong." T h e y have found a way
to d e t e r m i n e with a reasonable d e g r e e of confidence which psychological
characteristics a p p e a r to be d e t e r m i n e d primarily by genetic factors and
which a r e molded m o r e by your environment.

THEORETICAL PROPOSITIONS
It's simple, really. All you have to do is take two humans who have exacdy the
same genes, separate t h e m at birth, a n d raise them in significandy different
environments. T h e n you can assume that those behavioral a n d personality
characteristics they have in c o m m o n as adults must be genetic. B u t how on
 Reading3 Are You a "Natural?" 21

earth can researchers possibly find pairs of identical people (don't say
"cloning"; we're not t h e r e yet!)? And even if they could, it would be unethical
to force them into diverse environments, wouldn't it? As you've already
guessed, the researchers didn't have to do that. Society had already d o n e it
for them. Identical twins have virtually the same genetic structure. T h e y a r e
called monozygotic twins because they start as o n e fertilized egg, called a zygote,
and then split into two identical embryos. Fraternal twins a r e the result of two
separate eggs fertilized by two separate sperm cells a n d a r e referred to as
dizygotic twins. Fraternal twins a r e only as genetically similar as any two non-
twin siblings. As unfortunate as it sounds, twin infants are sometimes given up
for adoption and placed in separate homes. Adoption agencies will try to keep
siblings, especially twins, together, but the m o r e i m p o r t a n t goal is to find
good homes for them even if it means separation. Over time, thousands of
identical and fraternal twins have been adopted into separate h o m e s and
raised, frequently without the knowledge that they were a twin, in different
and often contrasting environmental settings.
In 1 9 8 3 B o u c h a r d and Lykken began to identify, locate, a n d bring to-
gether pairs of these twins. This 1 9 9 0 article reports on results from 56 pairs of
monozygotic reared-apart (MZA) twins from the United States and seven
o t h e r countries who agreed to participate in weeklong sessions of intensive
psychological and physiological tests and m e a s u r e m e n t s (that this research is
located in Minneapolis, o n e half of "the Twin Cities" is an irony that has not,
by any means, g o n e u n n o t i c e d ) . T h e s e twins were c o m p a r e d with monozy-
gotic twins reared together ( M Z T ) . T h e surprising findings continue to rever-
berate throughout the biological and behavioral sciences.

METHOD
Participants
T h e first challenge for this project was to find sets of monozygotic twins who
were separated early in life, r e a r e d apart for all of most of their lives, a n d re-
united as adults. Most of the participants were found through word of m o u t h
as news of the study began to spread. T h e twins themselves or their friends or
family members would c o n t a c t the research institute, the Minnesota C e n t e r
for Twin and Adoption Research ( M I C T A R ) , various social-services profes-
sionals in the adoption a r e n a would serve as contacts, or, in some cases o n e
m e m b e r of a twin-pair would c o n t a c t the c e n t e r for assistance in locating a n d
reuniting with his or h e r sibling. All twins were tested to ensure that they were
indeed monozygotic before beginning their participation in the study.

Procedure
T h e researchers wanted to be sure they obtained as m u c h data as possible dur-
ing the twins' one-week visit. E a c h twin c o m p l e t e d approximately 50 hours of
testing on nearly every h u m a n dimension you might imagine. They c o m -
pleted four personality trait scales, three aptitude a n d occupational interest
22 Chapter I Biology and Human Behavior

inventories, a n d two intelligence tests. In addition, the participants filled in

checklists of household belongings (such as power tools, telescope, original
artwork, unabridged dictionary), to assess the similarity of their family re-
sources, a n d a family e n v i r o n m e n t scale that m e a s u r e d how they felt about the
parenting they received from their adoptive parents. They were also adminis-
tered a life history interview, a psychiatric interview, and a sexual history in-
terview. All these assessments were c a r r i e d out individually so that it was not
possible for o n e twin to inadvertently influence the answers and responses of
the other.
As you might imagine, the hours of testing c r e a t e d a huge database of in-
formation. T h e most i m p o r t a n t a n d surprising results are discussed here.

RESULTS
Table 3-1 summarizes the similarities for s o m e of the characteristics measured
in the monozygotic twins r e a r e d apart (MZA) a n d includes the same data for
monozygotic twins r e a r e d t o g e t h e r ( M Z T ) . T h e d e g r e e of similarity is ex-
pressed in the table as correlations or rvalues. T h e larger the correlation, the
g r e a t e r the similarity. T h e logic h e r e is that if environment is responsible for
individual differences, the MZT twins who shared the same environment as
they grew up should be significantly m o r e similar than the MZA twins. As you
c a n see, this is not what the r e s e a r c h e r s found.

'Adapted from Table 4, p. 226.

**1.00 would imply that MZA twin pairs were found to be exactly as similar as MZT twin pairs.
 Reading3 Are You a "Natural?" 23

T h e last column in Table 3-1 expresses the difference in similarity by di-

viding the MZA c o r r e l a t i o n on e a c h characteristic by the M Z T correlation. If
both correlations were the same, the result would be 1.00; if they were en-
tirely dissimilar, the result could be as low as 0 . 0 0 . E x a m i n i n g c o l u m n 4 in the
table carefully, you'll find that the correlations for characteristics were re-
markably similar—that is, close to 1.00 a n d no lower than . 7 0 0 for MZA a n d
MZT twin pairs.

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS OF FINDINGS

These findings indicate that genetic factors ( o r the genome) a p p e a r to a c c o u n t
for most of the variations in a remarkable variety of h u m a n characteristics.
This finding was demonstrated by the data in two i m p o r t a n t ways. O n e is that
genetically identical h u m a n s (monozygotic twins), who were raised in sepa-
rate and often very different settings, grew into adults who were extraordinar-
ily similar, not only in a p p e a r a n c e but also in basic psychology a n d personality.
T h e second demonstration in this study of the d o m i n a n c e of genes is the fact
that there a p p e a r e d to be little effect of the environment on identical twins
who were raised in the same setting. Here's B o u c h a r d and Lykken's take on
these discoveries:

For almost every behavioral trait so far investigated, from reaction time to reli-
giosity, an important fraction of the variation among people turns out to be as-
sociated with genetic variation. This fact need no longer be subject to debate;
rather, it is time to consider its implications.

Of course, some will a r g u e with B o u c h a r d a n d Lykken's notion that the time

to debate these issues is over. S o m e varying views a r e discussed in the n e x t sec-
tion. However, a discussion of the implications of this a n d o t h e r similar stud-
ies by these same researchers is clearly warranted. In what ways do the genetic
findings r e p o r t e d in this study c h a n g e psychologists' and, for that matter, all
of o u r views of h u m a n nature? As m e n t i o n e d previously, psychology a n d West-
ern culture have been dominated for over 50 years by environmental think-
ing. Many of o u r basic beliefs about parenting, education, c r i m e a n d
punishment, psychotherapy, skills a n d abilities, interests, occupational goals,
and social behavior, just to n a m e a few, have been interpreted from the per-
spective that people's e x p e r i e n c e molds their personalities, n o t their genes.
Very few of us look at someone's behavior and think, T h a t person was born to
behave like that!" We want to believe that people learned their behavior pat-
terns because that allows us to feel some measure of confidence that parent-
ing makes a difference, that positive life experiences can win out over
negative ones, and that unhealthy, ineffective behaviors can be unlearned. T h e
notion that personality is a d o n e deal the m o m e n t we a r e born leaves us with
the temptation to say "Why bother?" Why b o t h e r working h a r d to be g o o d
parents? Why b o t h e r trying to help those who a r e down a n d out? Why b o t h e r
trying to offer quality education? And so on. B o u c h a r d a n d Lykken would
want to be the first to disagree with such an interpretation of their findings. In
24 Chapter I Biology and Human Behavior

this article, they offer three of their own implications of their provocative con-
clusions:

1. Clearly, intelligence is primarily d e t e r m i n e d by genetic factors ( 7 0 % of

the variation in intelligence appears to be due to genetic influence).
However, as the authors state very clearly,

[T]hese findings do not imply that traits like IQ cannot be enhanced . . . .

A survey covering 14 countries has shown that the average IQ test score
has increased in recent years. The present findings, therefore, do not de-
fine or limit what might be conceivably achieved in an optimal environ-
ment, (p. 227)

Basically, what the authors a r e saying is that although 7 0 % of the varia-

tion in IQ is d u e to naturally o c c u r r i n g genetic variation, 3 0 % of the
variation r e m a i n s subject to increases or decreases due to environmen-
tal influences. T h e s e influences include many that a r e well known,
such as e d u c a t i o n , family setting, toxic substances, a n d s o c i o e c o n o m i c
status.
2. T h e basic underlying assumption in B o u c h a r d and Lykken's research is
that h u m a n characteristics are d e t e r m i n e d by some combination of ge-
netic a n d environmental influences. W h e n the environment exerts less
influence, differences must be attributed m o r e to genes. T h e converse is
also true: as environmental forces create a stronger influence on differ-
ences in a particular characteristic, genetic influences will be weaker.
F o r e x a m p l e , most children in the United States have the opportunity to
learn to ride a bicycle. This implies that the environment's effect on
bicycle riding is somewhat similar for all children, so differences in rid-
ing ability will be m o r e affected by genetic forces. On the other hand,
variation in, say, food preferences in the United States are m o r e likely to
be explained by environmental factors because food and taste experi-
ences in childhood and throughout life are very diverse and will, there-
fore, leave less r o o m for genetic forces to function. Here's the interesting
part of the researchers' point: they maintain that personality is m o r e like
bicycle riding than food preferences.
T h e authors a r e saying, in essence, that family environments e x e r t
less influence over who the kids grow up to be than do the genes they in-
herit from birth. Understandably, most parents do not want to h e a r or
believe this. They a r e working hard to be g o o d parents and to raise their
children to be happy individuals a n d g o o d citizens. T h e only parents
who might take some c o m f o r t from these findings a r e those who a r e
nearing their wits' e n d with out-of-control or incorrigible sons or daugh-
ters a n d would appreciate being able to take less of the blame! However,
B o u c h a r d a n d Lykken a r e quick to point out that genes a r e not neces-
sarily destiny a n d that devoted parents can still influence their children
in positive ways, even if they a r e only working on a small p e r c e n t a g e of
the total variation.
 Reading3 Are You a "Natural?" 25

3. T h e most intriguing implication that B o u c h a r d a n d Lykken suggest is

that it's not the environment influencing people's characteristics, but
vice versa. T h a t is, people's genetic tendencies actually mold their envi-
ronments! T h e following is an e x a m p l e of the idea behind this theory.
T h e fact that some people are m o r e affectionate than others is usu-
ally seen as evidence that some parents were m o r e affectionate with
their children than were o t h e r parents. In o t h e r words, affectionate kids
c o m e from affectionate environments. W h e n this kind of assumption
has been studied, it is usually found to be true. Affectionate people have,
indeed, received m o r e affection from their parents. B o u c h a r d a n d
Lykken are proposing, however, that variation in "affectionateness" may
be, in reality, genetically d e t e r m i n e d so that some children a r e just b o r n
m o r e affectionate than others. T h e i r inborn tendency toward affection-
ate behavior causes them to respond to affection from their parents in
ways that reinforce the parents' behavior m u c h m o r e than genetically
nonaffectionate children. This, in turn produces the affectionate behav-
ior in the parents, not the o t h e r way around. T h e researchers c o n t e n d
that genes function in this way for many, if not most, h u m a n characteris-
tics. They state it this way:

The proximal [most immediate] cause of most psychological variance

probably involves learning through experience, just as radical environ-
mentalists have always believed. The effective experiences, however, to an
important extent are self-selected, and that selection is guided by the
steady pressure of the genome, (p. 228)

CRITICISMS A N D RELATED R E S E A R C H
As you might imagine, a great many related studies have been carried out
using the database of twins developed by B o u c h a r d a n d Lykken. In general,
the findings continue to indicate that many h u m a n personality characteristics
and behaviors are strongly influenced by genes. Many attributes that have
been seen as stemming largely or completely from environmental sources a r e
being reevaluated as twin studies reveal that heredity contributes either the
majority of the variation or a significantly larger proportion than was previ-
ously contemplated.
F o r e x a m p l e , studies from the University of Minnesota team found n o t
only that the vocation you c h o o s e is largely d e t e r m i n e d by your genes but
also that about 3 0 % of the variation in your overall j o b satisfaction a n d work
ethic appears d u e to genetic factors (Arvey et al., 1 9 8 9 ; Arvey et al., 1 9 9 4 )
even when the physical requirements of various professions were held con-
stant. O t h e r studies c o m p a r i n g identical (monozygotic) twins with fraternal
(dizygotic) twins, both r e a r e d t o g e t h e r a n d r e a r e d apart, have focused m o r e
directly on specific personality traits that a r e t h o u g h t to be influential a n d
stable in h u m a n s ( B o u c h a r d , 1 9 9 4 ; Loehlin, 1 9 9 2 ) . T h e s e and o t h e r studies'
findings d e t e r m i n e d that the people's variation on the characteristics of
extraversion-introversion (outgoing versus shy), neuroticism (tendency to
26 Chapter I Biology and Human Behavior

suffer from high anxiety a n d e x t r e m e emotional reactions), and conscien-

tiousness (degree to which a person is competent, responsible, and t h o r o u g h )
is explained m o r e ( 6 5 % ) by genetic differences than by environmental factors.
Of course, not everyone in the scientific community is willing to accept
these findings at face value. T h e criticisms of B o u c h a r d and Lykken's work
take several directions (see Billings et al., 1 9 9 2 ) . S o m e studies claim that the
researchers a r e not publishing their data as fully and completely as they
should, and, therefore, their findings c a n n o t be independendy evaluated.
T h e s e same critics also claim that many articles a r e reporting on case studies
demonstrating strong environmental influences on twins that B o u c h a r d and
Lykken fail to consider.
In addition, some researchers have voiced a major criticism of o n e as-
pect of twin research in general, referred to as the "equal environment as-
sumption" (e.g., J o s e p h , 2 0 0 2 ) . This a r g u m e n t maintains that many of the
conclusions drawn by B o u c h a r d a n d Lykken about genetic influence assume
that monozygotic a n d dizygotic twins raised together develop in identical en-
vironments. T h e s e critics maintain that such an assumption is not valid a n d
that fraternal twins a r e treated far m o r e differendy than a r e identical twins.
This, they c o n t e n d , draws the entire m e t h o d of twin research as a determi-
nant of genetic influences into question. However, several o t h e r articles have
refuted this criticism a n d supported the "equal environment assumption"
(e.g., Kendler et al., 1 9 9 3 ) .

RECENT APPLICATIONS
In 1 9 9 9 , B o u c h a r d reviewed the n a t u r e - n u r t u r e evidence from the Minnesota
twin registries ( B o u c h a r d , 1 9 9 9 ) . He c o n c l u d e d that, overall, 4 0 % of the vari-
ability in personality a n d 5 0 % of the variability in intelligence appears to be
genetically based. He also reiterated his position, discussed previously, that
your genes drive your selection of environments and your selection or avoid-
a n c e of specific personality-molding environments a n d behaviors.
Research at the Minnesota C e n t e r for Twin and Adoption Research con-
tinues to be very active. S o m e fascinating research has e x a m i n e d very c o m -
plex h u m a n characteristics a n d behaviors that few would have even guessed to
be genetically driven, such as love, divorce, and even death (see Minnesota
Twin Family Study, 2 0 0 7 ) . They have studied people's selection of a mate to
see if "falling in love" with Mr. or Ms. Right is genetically predisposed. It turns
out that it is not. However, the researchers have found a genetic link to the
likelihood of divorce, eating disorders, a n d age at the time of death.
B o u c h a r d a n d Lykken's research has been applied to the larger philo-
sophical discussion of h u m a n cloning (see Agar, 2 0 0 3 ) . If a h u m a n being is
ever successfully cloned, the question is, as you a r e probably thinking, to what
e x t e n t will a person's essence, an individual's personality, be transferred to his
or h e r clone? T h e fear that h u m a n identity might be c h a n g e d , degraded, or
lost has been a c o m m o n a r g u m e n t of those opposed to cloning. On the o t h e r
 Reading 4 Watch out for the Visual Cliff! 27

hand, results of twin studies, such as those of B o u c h a r d a n d Lykken suggest

that "the cloned person may, u n d e r certain circumstances, be seen as surviv-
ing, to some d e g r e e , in the c l o n e . . . . However... r a t h e r than warranting c o n -
c e r n , the potential for survival by cloning o u g h t to help p r o t e c t against the
misuse of the technology" (Agar, 2 0 0 3 , p. 9 ) . In a separate study e x a m i n i n g
the issue of identical twins and cloning (Prainsack & Spector, 2 0 0 6 ) , re-
searchers found that identical twins rarely consider the genetic aspects of
their real-life e x p e r i e n c e of being identical twins. In addition, from a personal
perspective, they did n o t view the idea of h u m a n cloning as u n n a t u r a l or im-
moral but were m o r e c o n c e r n e d a b o u t the ethics underlying the reasons for
h u m a n cloning. Of c o u r s e , this is philosophical discussion so far, but as the
prospect of h u m a n cloning looms ever closer, it b e c o m e s increasingly impor-
tant and interesting food for thought.

Agar, N. (2003). Cloning and identity. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 28, 9 - 2 6 .
Arvey, R., Bouchard, T., Segal, N., & Abraham, L. (1989). J o b satisfaction: Environmental and ge-
netic components. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(2), 187-195.
Arvey, R., McCall, B., Bouchard, T., & Taubman, P. (1994). Genetic influences on job satisfaction
and work value. Personality and Individual Differences, 17(1), 2 1 - 3 3 .
Billings, P., Beckwith, J . , & Alper, J. (1992). The genetic analysis of human behavior: A new era?
Social Science and Medicine, 35(3), 227-238.
Bouchard, T. (1994). Genes, environment, and personality. Science, 264(5166), 1700-1702.
Bouchard, T. (1999). Genes, environment, and personality. In S. Ceci, et al. (Eds.), The nature-
nurture debate: The essential readings, pp. 9 7 - 1 0 3 . Maiden, MA: Blackwell.
Joseph.J. (2002). Twin studies in psychiatry and psychology: Science or pseudoscience? Psychiatric
Quarterly, 73, 71-82.
Kendler K., Neale M., Kessler R., Heath A., & Eaves L. ( 1 9 9 3 ) . A test of the equal environment as-
sumption in twin studies of psychiatric illness. Behavioral Genetics, 23, 21-27.
Loehlin,J. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publi-
cations.
Minnesota Twin Family Study (2007). What's spcial about twins to science? Retrieved March 10,
2007 from http://www.psych.umn.edu/psylabs/mtfs/special.htm.
Prainsack, B., & Spector, T. D. (2006). Twins: a cloning experience. Social Science & Medicine,
63(10), 2739-2752.

Reading 4: WATCH OUT FOR THE VISUAL CLIFF!

Gibson, E. J . , & Walk, R. D. (1960). The "visual cliff." Scientific American,
202(A), 67-71.

O n e of the most often told anecdotes in psychology c o n c e r n s a m a n called

S. B. (initials used to p r o t e c t his privacy). S. B. had been blind his entire life
until the age of 5 2 , when he u n d e r w e n t a newly developed operation (the now-
c o m m o n c o r n e a l transplant) and his sight was restored. However, S. B.'s new
ability to see did n o t m e a n that he automatically perceived what he saw the way
the rest of us do. O n e i m p o r t a n t e x a m p l e of this b e c a m e evident soon after the
operation, before his vision had cleared completely. S. B. looked out his hospi-
tal window and was curious about the small objects he could see moving on the
g r o u n d below. He began to crawl out on his window ledge, thinking he would