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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
• How do twin studies such as these add to the nature vs. nurture debate?
ReplyDeleteStudying twins separated near to birth is an excellent way of deciding between nature and nurture. In the case of the James' (although the source does not seem reliable), it seems very apparent that their environment had very little influence on their way of thinking, going a long way towards proving that thought patterns are embedded in a persons genetics. Although both James' were different people, they had identical genes, so it stands to reason that any alterations towards thought patterns and processes.
• Are the 2 Jims clearly a case of nature?
It can only be argued with great difficulty that the two James' are not cases of nature. Each brother make almost identical life-choices after very different upbringings, it is not necessary to prove that this is the work of nature, only that this could not possibly be the work of nurture.
• What other information would it be interesting to compare?
Asking the twins to solve logic problems, or write short answer paragraphs could have better contributed to the insight into how their minds work. Should both minds work the same (or at least very similarly) it would go even further towards the nature over nurture argument. Long, detailed answers would be much easier to extract a conclusion from than some of the superficial details included.
Twin studies are a great source to compare and understand genetic and environmental influence on behaviour, as well as being very interesting. These studies can present evidence for the nature vs. Nurture debate and suggest the extent of each particular concept in the upbringing of a child. Although this particular tale appears to be one of fiction, I have to agree with Callum in saying there is no doubt that nature was the major influence in the James’s behavioural development.
ReplyDeleteAs briefly mentioned above, I believe it is strongly evident that the environment or the role of ‘nurture’ in the James’s upbringing played a minimal role. Genetics and heredity influences seem to be what have shaped this pair of twins into the people they are today, if it is actually true. The only mentions of environmental influence on the boys upbringing in this particular article is their individual hairstyles and strengths in oral and written communications.
Although in this case the distinction between nature’s affect and nurture’s sway is black and white, I’d be interested in comparing the James’s to another set of twins who were separated at birth and compare their personal tastes and traits, but also to a pair of twins who grew up in the same household. I’d also like to compare their results in say an aptitude test of some sort. Perhaps a test dissecting their emotional strengths would be interesting to compare as varying results could suggest differences in environmental influence, but similar results could confirm the intensity of nature’s influence.
Lily 10G
Even though I think this completely impossible and just here to support nature i will still share my option thinking it is true.
ReplyDeleteBecause of these studies it greatly supports nature side of the debate because it shows that even though both of the people grow up and lived in completely different environments they live almost the exactly lives. They like the same things and have the same things and think almost the same. Because of all this it shows that their genes and DNA have had an affect on them and that their environments haven’t.
As I said before this case completely supports and is a case of nature. These two had no memory of each other and had no reason to act like they did other then because they wanted to live like that. This shows that they both have DNA meaning liking the same thing. Something i would like to see is if this has happening to any other twins, just to see if it isn’t just one in a blue moon or do the case again and see the outcome. Asking more questions about their live and see if there was any environment or role models that actually made them act like they do, to show it was just a coincident that they both were like they were. E.g. it could have been the ‘thing’ at that time to be a sheriff or to do maths. Even though this is very hard to believe it supports the nature side.
phil 10N
For many years, scientists have been trying to solve the debate of whether our environment in which we are raised or our genes have an impact on our development in life. Twins studies add to the nature nurture debate as they are excellent forms of evidences to test the different theories. Because the debate is difficult to test, twins have become the most reliable test cases for finding the answers. From other twin studies and in the study provided above it can been seen that nurture has little to do with a person’s development and therefore, nature plays a major role. For instance even though both Jim Springer and Jim Lewis had been separated at birth and raised into different environments; they had similar patterns and incidents throughout their life. They grew up not knowing each other and yet still both worked as sheriffs; both liked maths and hated spelling; both had the same type of car; they both had the same name and both married a woman named Linda. The study can argue that even though they were both raised in different surrounding their similar genes played a role in their similar life. This therefore adds to the nature vs. nurture debate and it is a clear case of nature rather than nurture in both Jim Springer and Jim Lewis’s development.
ReplyDeleteAs Lilly has previously mentioned above, I would also be interested in comparing the two Jim’s life to other sets of twins. This would be an interesting way to do further research in the nature vs. nurture debate and results within each twin study could thoroughly be compared and discussed with other scientists. It would also be interesting to see whether the other twins have a major role with nature over nurture in their development as well as if they show the same similarity in their life as the two Jim’s have displayed.
Manraj 10D
http://www.enotalone.com/article/6229.html
• How do twin studies such as these add to the nature vs. nurture debate?
ReplyDeleteThese twin studies add to the nature vs. nurture debate because it is a good way of experimenting to see which side of the debate is true, however this doesn't fully clarify which side is true. Their relation is so similar, that they are basically clones of each other. However, there are many twins that may be identical however completely different in their personalities.
• Are the 2 Jims clearly a case of nature?
This is a very good example of nature having a bigger impact on our lifestyles and personalities than the side of nurture. However, if the families were very alike in raising the twins, then that would have had an impact on their similarity. This doesn't fully cancel out the side of nurture, and i am sure there are cases where two people that haven't met each other, that aren't related in any way, are very much alike though they have no similarity biologically.
• What other information would it be interesting to compare?
Other information that would be interesting to compare would be to see if 2 parents that were best friends and very similar though not related, raised a child each, and see if those children are similar in any ways. That would be a great factor of the nurture side of the debate.
Chloe 10J
I think it is a great way to solve the debate but looking at the case studies, there are still aspects from both nature and nurture, so you can’t be purely nature or nurture. Although this certain case study is leaning towards nature being the main aspect with these certain twins. Being an identical twin myself I believe that this case study is not that dependable. Because even with having the exact same genes as my sister, we are still very different people and I believe that it is to do with the different experiences we have had that have made us different from each other. Some examples are that she is louder and more outgoing then I and we have different friends. Although in some ways we are very similar, for instance we have some of the same interests such as playing the same sport even though we play opposite positions to each other.
ReplyDeleteAccording to this case study they are not fully a product of nature although according to this evidence, it seems that the James twins are a product of nature. There are still some nurture characteristics such as them wearing there hair differently and the way they executed there intelligence.
To compare even further you could compare twins that were raised in the same household and the same environment and see how it differs from the James’s twin study.
alice 10F
The uncanny story above seems to be a result of the nature debate. It seems almost impossible for all the factors observed above to be a coincidence.
ReplyDeleteHowever I disagree that even though the wife’s names were the same, I hardly believe that the women would be overly similar. Someone doesn’t fall in love with another person because of a name. As for the car there could be allegible excuses, such as there was a good deal on that certain car.
The similarities within their personal hobbies and talents, however, seem to be resulted from hereditary factors.
However, this is one case, out of many possible identical twins separated at birth. I highly doubt the same circumstances would be common with in a situation like the two James’. The story above supports the idea that nature plays a bigger part on one’s individuality, but could it be possible that some people are more based on one than the other? For instance, the exampled twins seemed to revolve their distinctiveness around genetic features, by displaying excruciatingly similar lifestyles, and values. However could another set of identical twins be so different, because of the way they were nurtured?
Even though the above story seems to steadily point towards the nature side of the argument, it is only one case, and therefore the theory cannot be set in stone.
Danika
Twins that have been separated at birth are a great way to help us understand and add to the argument of Nature vs. Nurture. Although this particular story does not seem to be real it helps to prove the argument that nature has a bigger influence than nurture. This is simply because there are too many coincidences, for example their career choices and their strengths, for nurture to be the biggest influence. However I do think that the environment in which they grew up in would have had a bigger influence so I have to agree with Lily and Callum that this tale is to unrealistic and therefore unreliable.
ReplyDeleteI would be interested in comparing the environments that the twins grew up in. This would help us to understand what influences may have occurred and what similarities there are which could have shaped them to become who they are today.
In conclusion this twin study clearly supports the idea that nature plays a much larger part in development than "nurture". However it would be more helpful to know more about the upbringing of the two twins to get a better understanding of their environment and their influences. So overall they are clearly an example of nature.
Shannon :)
• How do twin studies such as these add to the nature vs. nurture debate?
ReplyDeleteTwin studies provide factual evidence for both the nature and nurture sides of the argument. They are also a great source to compare and contrast the way people develop in different environments when they are genetically the same.
• Are the 2 Jims clearly a case of nature?
The Jims can be classified as being heavily influenced by the nature in which they were born with; I do not believe it was clearly a case of nature. Even though there are numerous reasons to prove the theory of nature, there are aspects of nurture involved in their lives as well. As the story suggests, even though the Jims led very similar lives and had the same genetic characteristics, they did not express themselves in the same way which could have been an influence of their upbringing. One Jim preferred to express himself in an oral way, while the other liked to write better. Another point for the case of nurture is the way the Jims wore their hair initially. They were most likely influenced by their fathers and friends growing up which made the styles completely different. It wasn’t until they met, however, that they wore their hair in the same way or similar styles. The names of both of their wives being Linda and Betty was purely coincidental. How can you possibly set out to marry a woman with the same name as an identical twin you have no idea exists? Another coincidence is the fact that they worked doing the same job. With the same strengths it is purely a choice to choose a job better suited to your strengths. Would you choose a job that wasn’t suited to you strengths?
• What other information would it be interesting to compare?
Other information that would be interesting to compare would be personal information such as favourite colour, music, movies etc. You could also compare the Jims results with identical twins raised in the same household. This could provide more interesting facts for the debate.
Maddy M 10N
For many years, scientists have been trying to solve the debate of whether our environment in which we are raised or our genes have an impact on our development in life. Twins studies add to the nature nurture debate as they are excellent forms of evidences to test the different theories. Because the debate is difficult to test, twins have become the most reliable test cases for finding the answers. From other twin studies and in the study provided above it can been seen that nurture has little to do with a person’s development and therefore, nature plays a major role. For instance even though both Jim Springer and Jim Lewis had been separated at birth and raised into different environments; they had similar patterns and incidents throughout their life. They grew up not knowing each other and yet still both worked as sheriffs; both liked maths and hated spelling; both had the same type of car; they both had the same name and both married a woman named Linda. The study can argue that even though they were both raised in different surrounding their similar genes played a role in their similar life. This therefore adds to the nature vs. nurture debate and it is a clear case of nature rather than nurture in both Jim Springer and Jim Lewis’s development.
ReplyDeleteAs Lilly has previously mentioned above, I would also be interested in comparing the two Jim’s life to other sets of twins. This would be an interesting way to do further research in the nature vs. nurture debate and results within each twin study could thoroughly be compared and discussed with other scientists. It would also be interesting to see whether the other twins have a major role with nature over nurture in their development as well as if they show the same similarity in their life as the two Jim’s have displayed.
Manraj.
http://www.enotalone.com/article/6229.html
Studies of twins are an extremely useful in the Nature v Nurture debate. They allow a naturalistic observation of what is usually impossible – the same person having two different lives. While I do agree with Callum and Lily on the belief that nature has a huge part in this particular study, nature is not necessarily the only factor. Twins are not the same person, and this is a factor that must be included when evaluating twin studies. Although they look alike, twins can have different personalities and traits, from birth or later on.
ReplyDeleteThe study of the two Jims certainly leans towards the nature debate. However, I do not entirely agree with the whole study. Names of dogs and wives are more likely to be a coincidence rather than a choice of a nature. The adoptive parents both naming their child James may even suggest a similarity in the personality of the different families. The similarity between these separated twins could be the inherited abilities from their parents, or could simply be a series of coincidences. For the study to be justified, the two families the Jim’s were adopted into would have to be examined and compared.
This study lacks validity, but is an interesting start to a large debate. Further studies could be conducted on twins separated at birth. An analysis could be conducted on twins living together, but with different pressures and activities. Contrasts could be compared to twins with identical interests to twins that are completely different in personality. This could attempt to explain whether twins are different by influences or biology. I believe this could be useful to delve further into the search of the nature v nurture debate.
Anna, 10M
For centuries scientists have struggled to create an accurate answer to the famous and conventional debate of Nature vs. Nurture. Scientist also have used twins in their studies to ‘understand heredity and environmental influences on behavioural development’ (Drexel Nature vs. Nurture, 2008). Due to the circumstances of these twins, it is obvious that nature played a nominal role in James’ personal development and had little effect on their similarities which these two share. This is an important argument for the nature debate which helps to prove how genetics can hinder your individuality and personality. Although these two Jims were different people in different lives, their genes have influences their actions.
ReplyDeleteAs it argues above, it would be very difficult to dispute otherwise. Even though these two Jims were separated at birth, their life choices and personalities are considerably similar as Callum mentioned. It is not wise to say that it was purely nature which created these similarities as there may be other circumstances which have created this remarkable story. We are however able to conclude that nurture, if any, played a very minimal role.
All the necessary and interesting studies in which to compare this set of twins have already been mentioned above through both Lily and Callum’s posts.
Nick M 10K
Information gathered from:
Nature Vs. Nurture (2008) Retrieved 10th October 2009 from, http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~rm35/
Twin studies help with this debate as it helps to decide between nature and nurture. If they are separated at birth and grow up with very similar lives it is considered nature. However, if they are completely different in the way they act and their personality it is considered nurture.
ReplyDeleteIn this particular study it adds to the debate because of the many freakish similarities between the two. Both were called James but got the nickname Jim, both married two women with the same name, both had a dog named Toy, both had sons named James and they both had the same interests and abilities.
Studying these twins has been a great way for people on the nature side of the debate to argue the point. How could they both have such similar lives when they were separated so early? Is it just a huge coincidence or is it simply nature that has planned the path for these two men. However, both also had differences, such as the way they did their hair. This then falls to the nurture side of the debate saying that yes, nurture may have been the reason for such similar lives but the way they look and the way they act towards people is because of nurture. The way that one expressed better orally and one was better at writing also suggests that this could be from their adopted parents actions and the way they have taught them to be. Maybe the dad of each Jim wore their hair the way their son did. Or maybe it was their friend groups that wore their hair that way. The twin’s hairstyle and way of expressing themselves could have been from conforming to their friends at school and/or work, which falls on the nurture side of the debate.
So is this a case of nature? Yes and no. Maybe it was nature, or maybe it was just a coincidence. A freak of nature if that’s how you want to think of it. Certain aspects of the twin’s separate lives suggest that it is a case of both nature and nurture.
Amanda
Twins are definetely a great way to examine the nature vs nurture debate, and it's very interesting to see how they both Jims ended up so similar.
ReplyDeleteThis happens all the time, though. Lots of twins are very similar in some ways, and yet completely different in others, it's just how people are. But in the case of these Jims, it seems that they are both extremely similar, almost identical people, with next to no differences. The difference in hairstyle doesn't compare much to their entire lifestyles being the same.
It would be fair to say that these two are a case of a very strong, nature-type upbringing, which had almost nex to no influence from nurture. The only explaination I could see nurture providing would be that they both had parents, general lifestyles and wives that were all very similar. But, given how they've turned out, it woudn't be out of the question, but still pretty far fetched. Many people would see this as a case of an almost all-nurture upbringing, with very little input from nature.
The whole concept of twins and their lifestyles is very predominant in the nature-nurture debate. Many twins have very similar traits, but also some that are completely different from each other, and it makes them very distinguishable from each other. It's the small things that make the difference.
Fraser 10N
1)Twin studies, such as the one above, have contributed to the Nature/Nurture debate in many ways, and supply us with valuable information on this topic. These studies look at a set of twins who have been separated and no longer live in the same family. If Nature was the main cause of ones being, then each twin would be the same in many aspects such as their medical record, their behaviours, their education, their life experiences and their likes and dislikes; overall the person that they are. This is because twins have identical genes. However, if the nurture side of the debate is more accurate, then the twins would grow up pretty different. But this would rely on the family and how they raised their child. Due to ethical issues, a set of twins cannot be separated just for an experiment, so genuine situations can only be used.
ReplyDelete2)This case shows us that the two Jims are clearly a case of nature and not nurture. This is because they both end up have the same lives even though they were brought up in different families. However, the difference in the families is not mentioned in the text above so we have to assume that the families are reasonably different. If these two families were very similar in the way that they nurtured their children, then the results of this study are irrelevant, as the same conclusion could have been drawn if the twins were in the same family.
3)It is extremely unlikely that a situation like this would ever occur. The fact that both of the Jims marry people with the same name is completely silly. People do not marry because of their name, but more because of the person that they are. It would be a very big coincidence if this situation ever occurred.
Katie G
Studying a case such as the one above strongly persuades one to rest on the nature side of the nature vs. nurture debate. And obviously it should, with evidence such as this showing that no matter what experiences the two James’ faced throughout their lives, they have an uncanny identitical resemblance which seems almost impossible.
ReplyDeleteBut the fact that they both fell in love with a woman who had the same name is sheer coincidence, who’s to say how many woman there are with the name Linda. The fact they divorced is most certainly not based on nature considering that the modern day statics are 9/10 marriages will end in divorce, and yet again, the re-marrying of a woman with the name Betty may start to sound rather freaky, but god know’s how many Betty’s there are in the world.
The two men lived completely separate lives but their personality traits have proven to be rather similar. There seems to be just too many coincidences within their personality to be a matter of chance, considering they are family, so I believe that part of the twins is purely a factor of nature.
The evidence of the case given has been most certainly biased towards the nature side of the debate, but I do not believe it was clearly a case of nature. What about the other questions they didn’t ask the twins, or they asked but didn’t post the information. Who’s know the differences they have between them.
If one was to purely lie on the nature side of the debate it would be interesting to ask some more personal questions between the two James’. Like their wedding date, or their first kiss for example, the name of their first kiss. I don’t believe there have been enough questions asked between the two, to simply base your opinion on one study with barely enough information.
Corrina 10P
How do twin studies such as these add to the nature vs. nurture debate?
ReplyDeletePeople would think that Twins look the same, think the same, do the same and wear the same thing. Apparently none of these things are true, a part from looking the same but only a few amount of twins don’t looked the same or opposite gender twins. Twins personality isn’t exactly the same, let say for example Mia and Tia are girl twins. Mia is always the nice one and try to be as good as possible and Tia is the totally opposite to Mia. Parents would treat them both the same and they may choose Mia as their favourites. Therefore Tia would change her whole personality differently due to the parents have their favourite one between them.
Even though Twins are unique and they are genetically identical, it’s true that twins demonstrate more similarities then siblings. Except the environment that twins lives in does matter, just as the example, so it’s more base on nature then nurture unless parents want their twins to do exactly the same as they wish. However mostly twins absorb information around them, and you can’t really prove that they see the same thing each day or learn the same thing each day. Twins usually choose different occupations and have different life-long ambitions. It has one lively evidence that there’s these twins were separated when they were born. An upper middle class living on Korea raises one twin, while in Saudi Arabia has raised another twin. Being raised in such different environment, the identical twin would they believe in the same beliefs? Would they do the same? Wear the same? Eat the same? Or do their hair the same?
To these questions the answer is obviously no! So the nature and the environment influence takes more priority, because no one in this world would do everything the same or think the same neither twins can do that. Everyone is unique on this planet that are create for different things, even though twins looks the same doesn’t mean they do everything the same together. So for this debate proves that Nature has more priority.
Diana 10D
How do twin studies such as these add to the nature vs. nurture debate?
ReplyDeleteAs identical twins also called monozygotic twins have identical genes, the effect of genetic factors or the environment factors that contribute to traits such as personality traits, behaviors and psychopathology can be compared. Thereby supporting or refuting. The twin studies are difficult to control and there are certain limitations. Also the results can be overestimated or underestimated.
Are the 2 Jims clearly a case of nature?
Yes. The identical twins whose genetic materials are 100% alike were placed in different environments but made the extremely similar choices as one another without the knowledge of the existence of the other twin. This suggests that the decisions and behaviour of humans are the product of the nature.
What other information would it be interesting to compare?
A study from New England Journal of Medicine published in 2000 discovered that the development of certain types of cancer is closely related to the environmental factors rather than biological factors as exposure to a particular environment can lead to twice as many cancers as the influence from biological factors. According this research, only three kinds of cancer, breast, colorectal, and prostate cancers are correlated to genetics.
Another interesting study is the heritability of intelligence. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life published by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray suggest that 40-80% of intelligence is determined by the biological factors, thereby, excluding the environmental factors such as poverty, lack of education, and other social problems. It has been concluded that the data collected have been manipulated and misinterpreted as it was biased according to ethnic groups and low population validity.
Intelligence quotient test measures the ability to reason and solve problems. It is the most common form of measure of intelligence. However, there are many criticisms about the accuracy of IQ tests as it fails to measure the complex realm of intelligence. Most scientific studies examining the effects genetics and environmental influences are based on the IQ results. According to Alan Kaufman, the author of an article, “Genetics of Childhood Disorders: Genetics and Intelligence”, heredity plays an important role in determining a person’s IQ but environmental factors are also crucial. He also discovered that body size (e.g. being overweight) and intelligence are similar in terms of heritability and environmental pressure. Most overweight people have genetic predisposition, however, through diet and physical exercise, they can overcome obesity. Therefore, both genetics and environmental factors interact to determine the IQ.
Information gathered from:
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2233/Genetics-Environment-TWIN-STUDIES.html
http://www.libraryindex.com/pages/2234/Genetics-Environment-GENETIC-ENVIRONMENTAL-INFLUENCESON-INTELLIGENCE.html
Jess L 10B
Twins studies can have a profound effect on the nature vs. nurture debate because it shows how two people with exactly the same DNA will act in different environments.
ReplyDeleteThe above story about the two twins Jim and Jim is clearly a result of nature. There are too many exact similarities for the twins’ behavior to be a result of nurture. They both married women named Linda, named their sons James Allen, named their dog Toy, got divorced and married women named Betty and both drove the same type of car. The chances of this many similarities between two people are one in a million and could only be the result of genes. Nurture may have had a slight effect on their behavior such as their hairstyles but the similarities are astonishing.
Of course this doesn’t prove nature> nurture. This is only one case study and could be the result of pure chance, as there might be many other cases were twins turned out totally different.
Adrian 10P
Phil brings up a really, really good point.
ReplyDelete[Quote]E.g. it could have been the ‘thing’ at that time to be a sheriff or to do maths. Even though this is very hard to believe it supports the nature side.[/Quote]
A lot of what happened could have been entirely Nurture, they grew up in the same popular culture, probably with the same television shows, school syllabus and general expectations of them. This could account for a little under half the examples shown in the blog post.
Twin studies are important to the Nature vs. Nurture debate because, theoretically, the twins have the exact same DNA and should be exactly the same person. This is because it attempts to take away the “nurture” side, as the children will have different upbringings and the same DNA.
ReplyDeleteOn a first glance – this scenario is clearly nature. Everything does appear to be the same. If we ignore that it is an unreliable source, it almost seems to confirm the nature debate. Although, there are some other factors at work. Why were both of them called James? This could be due to two reasons. One, they looked like a James and two; the families who nurtured the James’ liked the same names – therefore, might have had a similar impact on the twins. As for the abilities of mechanical drawing and dislike of spelling, it may have been a latent ability in DNA, brought forwards due to simular upbringing.
The names of their wives’, however, can only be seen as a coincidence. Unless, of course, both of the twins married someone because it was in their DNA that they liked her name. Overall, this article seems to be focusing on the coincidence of it all, and not the nature aspect. It also completely ignores any nurture elements that may have influenced certain behaviours.
It would be interesting to compare the two families and the way they brought up their children and where they lived. It would also be best to compare other aspects of the twins’ lives – that do not revolve around coincidences, of course. This may include hobbies, other talents and interest, habits, emotions, etc. As this article is obviously biased to nature, it is important to not make assumptions.
~ Emma