Poll: Genes & Personality

[UncleCyril]

Do you believe that genes play a significant role in the development of an individual's personality?

[Genosse Kotze]

Well, sometimes. For instance there's lot's of depression and other "mental disorders" in your family history, it increases your chances of getting them as well. However, I will say that if you live with parents who behave in a certain way, you may not be able to help picking up some of these traits of theirs, and it wouldn't neccissarily be due to genitics. It would be interesting to see if adopted children, whose biological families had a history of "personality disorders," would develope the same "disorders" when raised with with new parents.

But if it's true that genes do influnece one's personality, I'm fucked!!!! My dad is a total dick!

[TC]

Sure, but most evolutionary psychologists have such a poor understanding of genetics and inheritance that they attribute personality and behavioral traits to genes in a way that isn't scientifically supportable. Genetics of individual differences is much more complicated than if 'if your ancestors acted a certain way they'll give you genes to act that way,' which comes from a misunderstanding of genetics.

I would recommend the book: "Love of Shopping is Not a Gene: problems with darwinian psychology" for a animal behavior research biologists take on mistaken attribution of behavior to genes.

[spartan]

yes but circumstances around humans when they grow up have more of an influence i think.

[RedAnarchist]

I've only seen the first few seconds but this documentary may be of interest - http://www.tv-links.co.uk/listings/9/5818

[Publius]

A significant role, yes. An absolute role? Depends on the genes.

[Dean]

Originally posted by Publius+August 19, 2007 03:16 am--> (Publius @ August 19, 2007 03:16 am) A significant role, yes. An absolute role? Depends on the genes. [/b]
Absolute, meaning irrevocably defining behavior in one way (i.e. 'genes say a person will like redheads)? I would have to disagree.

If you mean that genes contributing to diseases like bipolar will end up making someone have at the very least tendancies towards it, or gene(s) that may encourage sexuality towards redheads would not necessarily cause that attraction, but will certainly create internal tendancies towards that, than I agree.


ian_the_dawkinsian
Do you believe that genes play a significant role in the development of an individual's personality?
I think they can. But the environment a person grows up in will ALWAYS have more affect, even if genetic tendancies are still maintained. Disorders like Autism and Bipolar, when genetic, can be curbed significantly if it is noticed early and addressed by the parents and if tools to control and stifle the negative side effects of the disorder are given to the individual by society.

In general terms, however, I would have to disagree totally. Genes carry on certain psychological traits which one could call human nature, and they are not the same in all humans, but the synthesis that is created between environment and inherant drive is too important to ignore.

This new way of thinking created when the natural - or genetic - mental activity meets with the environment paves the way for future interactions with the world. And those future interactions again pave the way for more of the same. In the end, the choices are affected more environmentally than genetically as the latter gets left in the dust.

One could use mathematics to describe this:
I=Genetic tendancies or instinct, E=Environmental conditions, C=Choices
('Choices' is constantly 100%, as this is the issue of contention)

For a normal human, instinct is the initial compulsion. So, first, I=C.

But then he is cast into the world. Instinct clashes with environment, and one could describe the state of world - recognition as a state of I=E=50%. In other words, instinct, as a response to environment, is recognized as is the world. When you recognize the world, and not just the instinct to breathe, beat your heart, etc. you face two compulsions - to know, or become one with, your world and to know your instinct.

What happens after world-recognition? Again, choices are made - but with the recent choices taken into consideration. So E becomes a greater factor. As such, E increasingly is a relevant factor while I becomes less and less of one.

There are cases in which certain genes would always influence, and maybe it's true that mentally-relevant genes will always influence a person's choices, but the increasing relevance of choices made in reaction to environment - and then in reaction to past choices and environement - will always make the environment the most relevant factor.

Note that one might say that choices made are equally relative to instinct and environment, and as such their influence should not become better. This is false... choices always necessarily respond to a new environment; the instincts that make up a part of these choices are static in and of themselves. That is, enviroment changes but past environment still affects a person, while instincts do not come and go; only their relevance - as they relate to environment and experience and finally the resulting choice - changes.

People who have genetic bipolar and autistic disorders for instance will have perpetually - relevant instinctual genes, as we all do in some fashion (though not necessarily manifested as a disorder), but the actual choices that are made are relevant to environment still. So Publius's point on a gene's "absolute role" is indeed present for all people, as the role is still there even if it is negligible, but in regards to how it actuates personality it is usually increasingly irrelevant.

A bipolar person may go through cycles their entire life, and their environment may do little to change frequency, strength of manic / depressive states, but it will always affect many choices. I can see how genes may make certain psychological actions irrevocable, as in this case, but I don't think it is ever likely to be stronger than environmental conditions.

[Publius]

Absolute, meaning irrevocably defining behavior in one way (i.e. 'genes say a person will like redheads)? I would have to disagree.

Some combinations of genes can absolutely define behavior.

If a person is born with genes that make him or her mentally retarded, then those genes have an absolute effect on everything from language acquisition to abstract reasoning skills, and though teaching can help, a lot of that genetic disparity is just impossible to overcome.

Now, you're correct about the example you gave; finding an ABSOLUTE cause for something like that is highly unlikely, BUT the Bouchard twin studies do show an eerie similiarity between absolute twins raised apart.

From: http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/02/08/revi....08angiert.html (http://www.nytimes.com/books/98/02/08/reviews/980208.08angiert.html)

"By comparing identical twins reared apart with fraternal twins reared apart, and with twins and non-twins reared together in varying combinations, researchers have come up with an array of ''heritability correlations,'' numbers signifying the degree to which the differences in a trait observed between two sets of people can be ascribed to genetic, as opposed to environmental, factors. They have concluded that ''tough-mindedness'' is 54 percent heritable, for example, while radicalism is 65 percent heritable. On the question of I.Q. scores, statistical swords have clashed long and angrily. Figures generally have ranged from 40 percent heritable to 70 percent heritable; Bouchard recently declared the consensus figure for the various studies to be a heritability of 66 percent."



If you mean that genes contributing to diseases like bipolar will end up making someone have at the very least tendancies towards it, or gene(s) that may encourage sexuality towards redheads would not necessarily cause that attraction, but will certainly create internal tendancies towards that, than I agree.

That's basically what I'm saying.

But some genes, or at least combinations, can have what I would term absolute effects, while others have only minor effects, merely slightly raising probabilities.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:50 pm
"By comparing identical twins reared apart with fraternal twins reared apart, and with twins and non-twins reared together in varying combinations, researchers have come up with an array of ''heritability correlations,'' numbers signifying the degree to which the differences in a trait observed between two sets of people can be ascribed to genetic, as opposed to environmental, factors. They have concluded that ''tough-mindedness'' is 54 percent heritable, for example, while radicalism is 65 percent heritable. On the question of I.Q. scores, statistical swords have clashed long and angrily. Figures generally have ranged from 40 percent heritable to 70 percent heritable; Bouchard recently declared the consensus figure for the various studies to be a heritability of 66 percent."
My problem with these studies, or at least the information I have of these studies, is that they are too vague. Radicalism and stubbornness, for instance, can be so similarly defined as almost being the same thing, and also defined as opposites.

What constitutes radicalism? For me, everybody is radical. My understanding of the cultural norm is that it means an excessive and maybe violent deviation from the norm, usually "politically."

So what is stubbornness? Is radicalism not stubbornness - going steadfast against the grain?

If I saw more of the study, it might be interesting and may change my views, at least to some degree, on this issue. But one has to wonder, if two genetically identical twins are put in the same society, how they could turn out differently. I feel that people have genetic inclinations towards certain mental conditions (not necessarily disorders, just conditions) and being put in the same society will further the similarity.

Let us take the following example.. Twins A & B are genetically inclined towards selfishness in the material sense. They are seperated at birth. Though the inclination is small, the society they are both put in is the same (as I'd expect most twins seperated at birth are put in the same or similar countries). So their response to their environment, or society, has the exact same instinctual basis but is only slightly deviant from the environmental basis.

The problem with these studies - and there have been many - is that they have a small sample, define their results too vaguely and most importantly have very similar social conditions. The percentages may be the most damning information provided: if something is "54% inheritable" that means a 46% chance of not following the "genetic trend." That sounds like a meaningless statistic to me. Take the avg. of the rest... 54, 65, 66 (ignoring the range 40-70) - 61 1/3%. So their correlation, if we take only the quoted statistics (which is an inaccurate judgement, but still shows a trend) is only ~62%? One has to to wonder if they skewed their judgement of personalities to further their hypothesis.




If you mean that genes contributing to diseases like bipolar will end up making someone have at the very least tendancies towards it, or gene(s) that may encourage sexuality towards redheads would not necessarily cause that attraction, but will certainly create internal tendancies towards that, than I agree.

That's basically what I'm saying.

But some genes, or at least combinations, can have what I would term absolute effects, while others have only minor effects, merely slightly raising probabilities.
I think I can accept that, but I still am unclear - what is an 'absolute effect'? Is it truly absolute, i.e. directly causing action, or is it more vague, as in the above 'tough-mindedness' and 'radicalism'?