Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
TheMeanDM wrote: Would like to begin a discussion about genetics and what people feel/believe/can prove what kinds of traits are passed down the line.
A few starter questions to break the ice:
Do you believe that certain behaviors can be genetically passed down?
Do you believe things like depression are genetic...or is everyone perhaps ulnerable to depression given some set of circumstances?
Are addictions encouraged by genetic or simply created through circumstanes/experiences?
Just curious about the community's thoughts.
Personally, being a guy who studies history for a living, I cannot really give a good scientific definition/explanation of this.... But my personal belief is that it is a wide, hazy, grey area that we either haven't done any/enough research on, or we lack some other understanding of the issues.
-I definitely believe that certain behaviors can be passed down, though I don't necessarily think they are genetic. I'm not talking about some kind of hereditary kleptomania here, but rather small things. For instance, my dad "thinks with his tongue." By this I mean that when working in the shop, if he's really focused on a tight cut or some very meticulous work, his tongue will stick out slightly. When I get into a deep concentration mode, my tongue sticks out while doing that task..... And I've noticed when my daughter is doing her homework, if she's thinking through a tougher math problem, her tongue sticks out. Or, if she's playing her Nintendogs, and focused on the various tasks in that game, her tongue sticks out.
-I don't believe that depression itself is genetic, however I think that a good argument could be made for a genetic disposition for it, which wouldn't make a person more vulnerable, but rather (IMO) when they go through depressed periods, the depression is worse than those who are not "genetically disposed" to it.
-Addictions, I think are kind of the same way... I only really have anecdotal evidence for this, but I have a number of friends who grew up in an "alcoholic" household. One friend has only told stories of their father's alcoholism, and never once saw the man drink... This friend today is capable of "regular" drinking (by regular, I mean like hanging out around the grill, and drinking 2-3 beers over the course of a few hours). I have one friend who had the stereotypical alcoholic father, and while in the army, picked up drinking, but never exhibited any sort of problems, and I drank with him regularly, so I saw how much he drank. I cannot say whether or not he drank in such a controlled manner because he was afraid of becoming like his dad, or whether there was indeed no genetics involved. Another friend, from my first rugby club was a certified drunk (alcoholics go to classes), and while I have no idea about his upbringing, I know a bit about his professional time in the AF, as well as his home life.
So basically, I personally think that there is a bit of both that goes on in any given situation.
TL;DR: it's a giant complicated mess and anyone who says that one or the other is the correct answer is hopelessly ignorant of the subject.
There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices.
Well I know in my family, at least, the men are super prone to depression (going back to my gg grandparents). But we are pretty sure its because the men (once again my family) have serotonin level problems
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/08 04:17:30
TheMeanDM wrote: Would like to begin a discussion about genetics and what people feel/believe/can prove what kinds of traits are passed down the line.
A few starter questions to break the ice:
Do you believe that certain behaviors can be genetically passed down?
I don't know. I wasn't raised by my dad and we lived on separate continents for 16 years, but I do know that I have a lot of his mannerism. That's about as anectotal and unscientific as it gets, to that's why I'm sticking with 'I don't know'
Do you believe things like depression are genetic...or is everyone perhaps vulnerable to depression given some set of circumstances?
It's a mix of both. Variations in brain chemistry are part of the problem in depression, and can place people more at risk for it. There is a reason why the best treatment for depression consists of a combination of medications which work on the chemistry portion of the disease, and therapy to work on the mental portion of the disease.
Are addictions encouraged by genetic or simply created through circumstanes/experiences?
Same as above, it's a mix of both. Some people have higher levels of the happy chemicals in the brain, or a higher level of base activity or responsiveness in the pleasure center of the brain. That can put them at a higher risk of developing addictions, but it's not a guarantee that they will, nor does the lack of those factors guarantee that they won't.
Peregrine wrote: TL;DR: it's a giant complicated mess and anyone who says that one or the other is the correct answer is hopelessly ignorant of the subject.
Off topic forum is no fun if you get the right answer in the 3rd post
Personally, I am inclined to suspect genetic elements in a lot of human behavior (because evolution), but what, and ho much of an influence it produces, I cannot say. Given our previous experience with complex bio-medical ethics situations, the correct response to anyone claiming to have the correct answer is to back away slowly.
Well, on a very basic level, we now know that for example hormons control our behaviour. Since the production and balance of hormons is done by organs that have (also) a genetic make-up, this relatively obvious means that if your dad has enlargeds lymphatic glands for genetic reasons (!) you might just as well have them yourself, with all the consequences that derive from that.
Studies hint to a genetic component of certain forms of depression, i.e. the risk of you getting a depression is higher, if your family has a history of depressions. Still, everyone is susceptible to some form of depression given the wrong circumstances.
Actual behaviour and expression depends on a lot of other factors that may or may not be genetic, and often are not.
Just because your father and your uncle and your grandfather died of pancreatic cancer does not mean you will die from it. But there certainly seems to be a genetic disposition towards it.
Problems with the pancreas and/or gall bladder might have turned them sour, behaviourally speaking, i.e. ongoing pain and physical stress might have reinforced aggressive reactions. Which in turn might have institutionalized violence in your family. Now you are aggressive and violent, as well.
Are you violent because of your genetically created gall stones or because your daddy taught you that the normal (i.e. "right") reaction to pain and stress is aggression?
Will you turn non-aggressive once your gall bladder is removed?
Changing physiological elements does not negate learned behaviours. But it might alter or stop certain stimulus-response-chains. I.e. certain stress levels might still itch your aggression but your body would no longer bring you to those stress levels as often as before.
My own father turned from being a very aggressive man to tame as a sheep when he got into his mid-50s. Was this a physical change (menopause) or a psychological change?
Hard to say, but I tend to believe hormonal changes had a lot to do with it.
It is a mixed bag, really, and we are only just beginning to understand to which extent.
Just as an anecdote, my wife's Dad, when he used to sleep he'd put one arm in the air and rock back and forth. And not gently, really rapidly, aggressively back and forth. It like nothing the family had ever seen. When he was young his parents were concerned enough to take him to get some help, but we're talking about a mountain town in Croatia in the 50s, there wasn't much they could do.
He grew out of it in his teenage years, forgot all about the rocking and in his 20s he moved to Australia, and had twin girls, my wife and her sister. The sister had a kid of her own, and he rocked. At this point my father in law remembered that he was told he did it, and contacted his parents in Croatia. It was exactly what was described.
They had another kid who also rocked by not as often nor as violently. When my wife and I had a kid she didn't rock at all.
So there's a behaviour that couldn't have been learned, but is quite elaborate. And it started out of the blue with my father-in-law, as no-one in his family had done it before, and now is showing up in two of his grandkids.
I can't tell you how genetics works, but I can tell you it's a weird story.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Physical, social and mental traits are rarely the product of a single gene, there are usually a whole series which interact with each other, other genes and environmental cues to produce a particular phenotype.
its not nature Vs nurture, its nature and nurture.
treslibras wrote: Well, on a very basic level, we now know that for example hormons control our behaviour. Since the production and balance of hormons is done by organs that have (also) a genetic make-up, this relatively obvious means that if your dad has enlargeds lymphatic glands for genetic reasons (!) you might just as well have them yourself, with all the consequences that derive from that.
Someone I love has been diagnosed as Bi-Polar. The extent to which they just lost the plot and became a completely different (crazy) person because their body chemicals weren't in balance provoked some serious soul searching in me- how much of what I call myself is just the product of meat and chemicals?
My Mother's side of the family are hotheads with tempers and a susceptibility towards alcohol issues. My dad's side are painters, decorators and artists. I sit with my foot braced against my other leg, the same as my great grandfather whom I have never met.
I reckon genetics can govern potential ( I was never going to be a sprinter or gymnast) but not necessarily outcomes.
I think the nature/nature divide that people have in mind is the effect of family, peer and social factors in shaping behaviour rather than specific genetic factors. For obvious reasons these are often very hard to distinguish.
Studies on identical twins separated at birth are one interesting way to look at this.
Plants show genetic physical traits but also are influenced by environment. Take a strong stock seed and see how it does in poor soil, for example, or a weaker strain in ideal solid with great attention. Animals show inherent behavioral traits that are influenced by environment.
Humans are essentially just another animal- primates that believe themselves to be special snowflakes. Yet, they reproduce just like other primates, are influenced by hormonal and chemical changes, etc. indicating they are not so different. Likewise, behavioral studies indicate that circumstances influence behavior (shocker!) much like any other responsive living creature.
So broadly speaking, yes there may be heritable tendencies in behavior and human behavior is also strongly influenced by circumstance. Studies on other primates indicate chemical addictions are not unique to humans and most addictive substances have a measurable effect on biochemical levels. Generally, this is tied to pleasure response, which drives behavior to seek out that response. It is likely that certain brain configurations, natural chemical levels, etc. may influence this interaction. "Addiction" is kind of a broad term indicating compulsive behavior to seek out these pleasurable experiences at cost to basic function. Given that biology can influence response and circumstance accounts for access, both would be inherent factors to explain addiction. However, excluding extreme variation in biology, there are certain chemical substances that will induce dependency (and drive addictive behavior) in any almost human. This is sometimes survival behavior- for example humans are chemically dependent on oxygen, water, etc.
Addressing human chemical and behavioral addictions includes addressing very complex overlapping issues of chemistry, behavior, family relations, etc. There is no simple solution because it is complex behavior with multilayered causation and involves complex, branching decisions.
I think with the massive amounts of genetic research being done the answer to your question is that we don't know...YET.
Your genetics are far more likely to impact your physical characteristics and nurture your mental/behavioural.
Its my personal belief as an amateur psychologist with a Bsc in psychology that everyone is born as a blank slate (tabula rasa principle) and your environment shapes you more than any genetic code could but for the vast majority of people your environment is your genetic related family so simple observation cannot differentiate accurately.
TheMeanDM wrote: Would like to begin a discussion about genetics and what people feel/believe/can prove what kinds of traits are passed down the line.
A few starter questions to break the ice:
Do you believe that certain behaviors can be genetically passed down?
Absolutely. I think you can have a genetic predisposition for alcohol abuse. Now does every behavior get passed down? No.
Do you believe things like depression are genetic...or is everyone perhaps ulnerable to depression given some set of circumstances?
Bipolar disorder and depression are mostly genetic, but I'd argue trauma and the like can cause someone to become depressed.
Are addictions encouraged by genetic or simply created through circumstanes/experiences?
Just curious about the community's thoughts.
Eh, 50/50. I think alcohol dependency can be influenced by genetics, but it's also as much of a factor if someone you grew up with abused alcohol, like a father figure.
TL;DR: Sadly going to have to agree with Peregrine that it's a wash. A) it's too unknown to make any definitive call which has more impact and B) you can't deny that each doesn't have an impact on a person.
I think with the massive amounts of genetic research being done the answer to your question is that we don't know...YET.
Your genetics are far more likely to impact your physical characteristics and nurture your mental/behavioural.
Its my personal belief as an amateur psychologist with a Bsc in psychology that everyone is born as a blank slate (tabula rasa principle) and your environment shapes you more than any genetic code could but for the vast majority of people your environment is your genetic related family so simple observation cannot differentiate accurately.
I disagree. I don't think you can just say that one heavily outweights the other. What about people who had normal lives and became serial killers due to depression or schizophrenia? You can't count out having chemical imbalances and say that loving attentive parents will fix everything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/08 14:27:27
Honestly, I think we could all go round and round with hand picked examples of nature over nurture, and vice versa....
For instance, I just saw a "news" article on Facebook that a prominent (I guess, I don't listen to the crap) Christian music star came out as gay.... now, his nurtured environment was obviously a Christian one, where being gay was unacceptable. He decided he'd be happier and better able to live life by following his nature.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: Honestly, I think we could all go round and round with hand picked examples of nature over nurture, and vice versa....
For instance, I just saw a "news" article on Facebook that a prominent (I guess, I don't listen to the crap) Christian music star came out as gay.... now, his nurtured environment was obviously a Christian one, where being gay was unacceptable. He decided he'd be happier and better able to live life by following his nature.
I've been studying Psychology for the past two years or so and it's a hazy area and not completely figured out yet.
But it looks to be nature and nurture. You can't just ignore one part because certain variables that can't be explained by nature can be explained by nurture (e.g. twin studies) and vice versa (e.g. hereditary diseases).
Hey sebster, interesting story indeed! I think it lends some support to my own thoughts on the matter.
And d-usa....that is also rather interesting to hear about...and it also lends support to my thoughts about this.
I never knew my dad...I mean, I knew his name and where he lived, but knew nothing about him beyond that.
Just last week, I learned that he passed away in 2013. He was only 62...which in this day and age is really still fairly "young". I reached out to his widow, in hopes to learn about his health history and why he died.
Not only was she gracious enough to tell me about his health history and cause of death, but she also shared with me some of his behavioral...traits? tendancies?
It sounds strange, but Ifind myself looking back through history and thinking "Wow....that seems like something he would do" (or did do)....and yet I never once met the man or knew anything about him
I think with the massive amounts of genetic research being done the answer to your question is that we don't know...YET.
Your genetics are far more likely to impact your physical characteristics and nurture your mental/behavioural.
Its my personal belief as an amateur psychologist with a Bsc in psychology that everyone is born as a blank slate (tabula rasa principle) and your environment shapes you more than any genetic code could but for the vast majority of people your environment is your genetic related family so simple observation cannot differentiate accurately.
So, would you agree that there are heritable physical characteristics? Would you agree that brain, organ, nerve, and endocrine system structure are potentially heritable characteristics? If so, then how is anyone a "blank slate"? Biology will bestow certain reactive trends in behavior (IE fear causes changes in hormone production which causes differences in perception and behavior). Additionally, differences in perceptive and memory faculties will directly affect reactions to environmental stimuli. Their is no either or here; biology affects perception and experience which in turn affects biology. Tabula Rasa is a nice thought experiment and historical stepping stone of understanding, but nothing more- humans are animals born with instinctual drives and encoded behaviors. Some of them are replaced or overridden by experience, training, adaptation social pressures, etc. The question is not whether such basic behaviors exist, but to what degree, what changes them, and how much they may be altered or new behaviors developed.
Educational psychologist Laszlo Polgar postulated that "geniuses are made, not born", he then conducted an experiment with his three daughters teaching them chess. All three of his daughters went on to become Grandmasters, and his youngest daughter Judit Polgar is considered one of the greatest players of all time. So I would say he proved, fairly conclusively, the importance of nurture.
David R. Dow also did a very interesting TED talk, about death row inmates, where he again emphasises the importance of nurture (or lack there of).
I think nature obviously plays a part, especially when it comes to illness. Scientists have already identified genes associated with depression, which suggests there is a hereditary factor. But I think there is also an unhealthy aspect to chalking things down t nature, which I don't like, especially for things such as addiction. Like it gives people an excuse: they can't help themselves. I think that's almost never the case... while some people might have it harder than others, I think everyone has the ability to turn things around.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/06/09 09:56:05
Smacks wrote: Educational psychologist Laszlo Polgar postulated that "geniuses are made, not born", he then conducted an experiment with his three daughters teaching them chess. All three of his daughters went on to become Grandmasters, and his youngest daughter Judit Polgar is considered one of the greatest players of all time. So I would say he proved, fairly conclusively, the importance of nurture.
Some would argue your point this way.
This man chose chess for his daughters and taught them because he had an aptitude for this and perhaps more than a passing interest. Even more so if he was capable of coaching his daughters to be such excellent players. That means he has the mind to be able to think strategically and logically, all which translate very well to the game of chess.
Certainly, nurture plays a role, but also perhaps each daughter had the genetics to excel at this mental task, unlike me. I suck at chess no matter how hard my Dad tried to teach me the game.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/06/09 13:48:20
Smacks wrote: Educational psychologist Laszlo Polgar postulated that "geniuses are made, not born", he then conducted an experiment with his three daughters teaching them chess. All three of his daughters went on to become Grandmasters, and his youngest daughter Judit Polgar is considered one of the greatest players of all time. So I would say he proved, fairly conclusively, the importance of nurture.
David R. Dow also did a very interesting TED talk, about death row inmates, where he again emphasises the importance of nurture (or lack there of).
I think nature obviously plays a part, especially when it comes to illness. Scientists have already identified genes associated with depression, which suggests there is a hereditary factor. But I think there is also an unhealthy aspect to chalking things down t nature, which I don't like, especially for things such as addiction. Like it gives people an excuse: they can't help themselves. I think that's almost never the case... while some people might have it harder than others, I think everyone has the ability to turn things around.
I don't think it's as clear cut as that. Sure, you can teach them chess, but that doesn't mean they'll be come Grandmasters. You can't deny they had a certain aptitude for chess, else they would not have taken to it so quickly.
That isn't to say they didn't work hard to get to Grandmaster status, but that simply "I taught them so they did well at it" is not as clear cut as it sounds.
Or Polgar proved that people with a natural aptitude in something do really well when they receive training and support in that aptitude.
Can all humans become professional athletes simply because of conditioning and training? Of course not- while the training should improve all of them, some will lack requisite coordination/strength/endurance/etc. to reach the highest levels. This also applies to mental and skill traits. Hence why even those with the physical traits may lack the determination or mental skillsets necessary to reach the top of the field. Some people will never be "geniuses." So what? Trying to force people to be something they cannot be by saying the should "try harder" or could have had a better environment is pointless and ultimately destructive.
That is not to say that failure is somehow intrinsic- as a species that has managed to survive and prosper to global domination, that is clearly not the case. But to assume anyone can be anything if they just "try hard enough" is a mantra that completely ignores reality.
The video was interesting, but not really directed to the topic except to illustrate that persistent questions rarely have simple answers.
jmurph wrote: Or Polgar proved that people with a natural aptitude in something do really well when they receive training and support in that aptitude.
Can all humans become professional athletes simply because of conditioning and training? Of course not- while the training should improve all of them, some will lack requisite coordination/strength/endurance/etc. to reach the highest levels. This also applies to mental and skill traits. Hence why even those with the physical traits may lack the determination or mental skillsets necessary to reach the top of the field. Some people will never be "geniuses." So what? Trying to force people to be something they cannot be by saying the should "try harder" or could have had a better environment is pointless and ultimately destructive.
That is not to say that failure is somehow intrinsic- as a species that has managed to survive and prosper to global domination, that is clearly not the case. But to assume anyone can be anything if they just "try hard enough" is a mantra that completely ignores reality.
The video was interesting, but not really directed to the topic except to illustrate that persistent questions rarely have simple answers.
I think anyone can be anything, they may just not make it to the same skill level as others. Given enough practice, I could be a pretty decent house guitar player, but I doubt I'd be the next Slash or Yngwie Malmsteen.
Most people can learn to do most things that humans are capable of. However, there are many that will be unable to do certain things well or at all. The simpler the task, the greater the likelihood of proficiency and mastery. My point is that sometimes people do have biological limitations and "pushing" them to "do better" only goes so far.
jmurph wrote: Or Polgar proved that people with a natural aptitude in something do really well when they receive training and support in that aptitude.
He began his experiment before Judith was even born. I appreciate a healthy amount of scepticism, but if a guy says that a child can be a prodigy in anything because of nurture, then chooses chess before that child is even born, and she then goes on to be the greatest female chess player of all time (by a long way), and he does the same thing with 2 other children, then I'm inclined to say it's because of nurture.
jmurph wrote: Can all humans become professional athletes simply because of conditioning and training? Of course not- while the training should improve all of them, some will lack requisite coordination/strength/endurance/etc. to reach the highest levels.
Actually, I disagree. Tiger Woods had quite a similar story, his father started him playing golf at age 2, and "nurtured" that skill pretty hard. Tiger Woods is widely regarded as the greatest golfer of all time.
I believe that with training and conditioning from a young age (and disability allowing), any child can, in fact, become a professional athlete. Perhaps not the world number one, but you can bet they'd be pretty damn good.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/06/09 22:55:57
~1.5k
