rse (the conceptual apparatus of genetics) which places in a logical system the empirical propositions concerning this kind of causation. The assumption is, or should be, that genetic relationship may account for the shape of the nose, not that it accounts for the entire flesh-and-blood organ. Terms such as heredity or environment do not refer to anythIn addition to socialization there are other factors that effect an individual and the relationship of these factors to the personality factor must be considered. In this matter, however, there is much confusion because of the perennial failure to distinguish between an abstraction and a concrete entity. One might as well discuss a book in terms of ideas versus ink, or plot versus format. The flesh-and-blood individual is unique, for there is none other exactly like him. To explain him in all his particularity would be a never-ending task that no one working as a scientist would attempt. Instead some of his traits may be singled out, traits that he shares with certain other people, and these used as a basis of understanding. Thus if a woman has a peculiarly shaped nose, one may find the explanation in the fact that certain of her ancestors exhibit a similarly shaped nose. But notice that one is already in the realm of abstraction. The woman's ancestors cannot have identically the same nose, because her nose is unique. They merely have similar noses.

Shape has been singled out for attention, and absolute size, complexion, powder, etc. have been ignored. Also, she and her ancestors have many other things in common in addition to nasal shape and genetic relationship. If genetic relationship has been picked out to explain the shape of the nose, the reason lies in a certain universe of discourse (the conceptual apparatus of genetics) which places in a logical system the empirical propositions concerning this kind of causation. The assumption is, or should be, that genetic relationship may account for the shape of the nose, not that it accounts for the entire flesh-and-blood organ. Terms such as heredity or environment do not refer to anyth

as versus ink, or plot versus format. The flesh-and-blood individual is unique, for there is none other exactly like him. To explain him in all his particularity would be a never-ending task that no one working as a scientist would attempt. Instead some of his traits may be singled out, traits that he shares with certain other people, and these used as a basis of understanding. Thus if a woman has a peculiarly shaped nose, one may find the explanation in the fact that certain of her ancestors exhibit a similarly shaped nose. But notice that one is already in the realm of abstraction. The woman's ancestors cannot have identically the same nose, because her nose is unique. They merely have similar noses.

Shape has been singled out for attention, and absolute size, complexion, powder, etc. have been ignored. Also, she and her ancestors have many other things in common in addition to nasal shape and genetic relationship. If genetic relationship has been picked out to explain the shape of the nose, the reason lies in a certain universe of discourse (the conceptual apparatus of genetics) which places in a logical system the empirical propositions concerning this kind of causation. The assumption is, or should be, that genetic relationship may account for the shape of the nose, not that it accounts for the entire flesh-and-blood organ. Terms such as heredity or environment do not refer to anyth

a basis of understanding. Thus if a woman has a peculiarly shaped nose, one may find the explanation in the fact that certain of her ancestors exhibit a similarly shaped nose. But notice that one is already in the realm of abstraction. The woman's ancestors cannot have identically the same nose, because her nose is unique. They merely have similar noses.

Shape has been singled out for attention, and absolute size, complexion, powder, etc. have been ignored. Also, she and her ancestors have many other things in common in addition to nasal shape and genetic relationship. If genetic relationship has been picked out to explain the shape of the nose, the reason lies in a certain universe of discourse (the conceptual apparatus of genetics) which places in a logical system the empirical propositions concerning this kind of causation. The assumption is, or should be, that genetic relationship may account for the shape of the nose, not that it accounts for the entire flesh-and-blood organ. Terms such as heredity or environment do not refer to anyth

es.

Shape has been singled out for attention, and absolute size, complexion, powder, etc. have been ignored. Also, she and her ancestors have many other things in common in addition to nasal shape and genetic relationship. If genetic relationship has been picked out to explain the shape of the nose, the reason lies in a certain universe of discourse (the conceptual apparatus of genetics) which places in a logical system the empirical propositions concerning this kind of causation. The assumption is, or should be, that genetic relationship may account for the shape of the nose, not that it accounts for the entire flesh-and-blood organ. Terms such as heredity or environment do not refer to anyth

rse (the conceptual apparatus of genetics) which places in a logical system the empirical propositions concerning this kind of causation. The assumption is, or should be, that genetic relationship may account for the shape of the nose, not that it accounts for the entire flesh-and-blood organ. Terms such as heredity or environment do not refer to anything tangible but to an abstraction. To treat them as if they were on the same level as the concrete individual, as in phrases like the individual and his environment, is to invite complete muddlement. Of course "the individual" may be viewed as an abstraction, but in this case it is necessary to be clear as to what level of abstraction and system of discourse one is employing.