Experiment finds link between genes and behaviour
- This topic has 31 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 11 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Jonathan Chambers wrote:Some people, for example, are very averse to risk-taking whilst others display a gung-ho attitude to personal danger. Is it not possible that such behaviour is due to a genetic predisposition and therefore susceptible to modification?
Yes, perhaps, in fact it probably will have something to do with genes, but these are ways in which one part of their body, their brain, tends to work. As to specific behaviour they are a bit vague. You could say the same sort of bad eyesight. In other words, human genes govern the make-up and functioning of the body, not the way humans behave in society.
It would be interesting to know how many serial killers there were amongst the Native Americans, Eskimos, the Bushmen of South West Africa, or the aborigines of Australia. Prior to outside influenceDoes anyone know?
Alb this is another problem with mod queue, I posted this morning and it has not appeared and by the time it appears -assuming it does so – my post could be out of date!
Some very interesting comments her: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=o-brqskIoBw which should be a valid contribution to this discussion.
Darren could you tell me what is wrong with my posts?
This is off-topic. OGW posted at 11.35, his post is still not up at 258, why not. How long does his, "moderation queue probation go on? how many weeks? You just doing his moderation queue on an ad-hoc basis?This is wrong comrade!Steve.
Another link to read. This time, does DNA determine leaders?http://phys.org/news/2013-01-born-leadership-inherited-trait.html#ajTabsAnd even if it does, society has created social measures to thwart it free rein.
duplicate
And from the Leadership Quarterly (!) article itself (My emphasis):
Quote:Heritability of leadership role occupancy has been the focus of several studies over the last decade. Many of the studies employed the classical twin design … and find that about a third of the variance in leadership role occupancy can be explained by genetic factors. At the same time, researchers have not yet been able to identify specific genes that are associated with leadershipI have just watched the documentary provided by Brian on #16. I think that about does it for the human nature debate going on here. Shock horror! It is a two way street and that our genes are heavily influenced by our environment.It seems socialists were right all along, at least most socialists. As socialists we are trained and in turn train ourselves further, to observe and question how society functions, so that we can hopefully one day end up in a position to change it for the better.I recall reading about this subject as a fledgling socialist, how the socialist view went against the popular myth of human nature. But seeing as advocating a fully democratic socialist society goes against every popular political and economic idea that is forced down our throats( to support a minority controlled society) I am not surprised we have been accused of being wrong on just about everything we turn our attention to.We could see that human behaviour is very flexible, and that there were/are no universal behaviours applicable to every epoch and culture of our species. Many a article and pamphlet (available on this site) explains this. Does it come as any surprise that the popular academic supporters of the baser nature theory of our species, are the ones given mainstream media support. In comparison how often do the researchers and scientists in docu's such as this get mainstream attention? Is it accidental?Note the reporting of the intelligence gene theory in mice, from the mainstream press, as explained in the docu. What the press failed to report, was the mice genetically altered to be less intelligent, actually performed above expectation when placed in highly stimulating environments. In other words, a nurturing environment helped them overcome a genetic disadvantage.If you have not watched the documentary, I urge you to do so.
SocialistPunk wrote:I have just watched the documentary provided by Brian on #16. I think that about does it for the human nature debate going on here. Shock horror! It is a two way street and that our genes are heavily influenced by our environment.Just had a look at it. I think it's a clip from 'Zeitgeist: Moving Forward'. Here's the full film below, well worth a watch:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
Yet another link that may be of use.http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/brain/the-ultimate-class-struggle-how-poverty-can-harm-young-minds/article7882957/?page=all“The genes, in a sense, are listening to the environment,” says Marla Sokolowski, who specializes in genetics and behavioural neurology at the University of Toronto."Researchers have long recognized that not everyone abused or neglected as a child goes on to have problems. In some cases, genes can buffer against environmental effects and allow the brain to develop normally; in others, those that might otherwise be silent are triggered by adversity in early childhood and so influence brain development…Prof. Sokolowski says, by reducing the signals of key genes that guide brain development “like a dimmer switch.” This, in turn, affects cognition and behaviour with consequences that can reverberate through a lifetime."“The brain is not fragile; the brain is adaptive,” Dr. Herztman says. “The question is whether or not those adaptations will allow you to cope with the world you are then going to live in….“It’s a kind of vigilance – the brain is searching for threatening stimuli to thwart,” Dr. Hertzman says. But the epigenetic fine-tuning comes at a cost…The problem is that the developmental signals and the demands of modern society become a mismatch."
ALB wrote:Yes, perhaps, in fact it probably will have something to do with genes, but these are ways in which one part of their body, their brain, tends to work. As to specific behaviour they are a bit vague. You could say the same sort of bad eyesight. In other words, human genes govern the make-up and functioning of the body, not the way humans behave in society.I don't think it's possible to separate the two in that way, Adam. Our domination of the planet, for example, begins with the evolution of prehensile thumbs.
It's the other way round too. Some of the behaviour of non-humans also has to be learned. You might think that birds can fly by "instinct". Apparently not according to this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LI8yWl3AUOUIf even some birds need to learn to fly it's not surprising that humans, with our brain permitting adaptable behaviour, have to learn to do practically everything. In fact I can't think of any human social behaviour that does not have to be learned. Of course the biologically inherited capacity (such as prehensile thumbs,etc) to engage in such behaviour has to exist — that's why we can't fly, except by constructing aeroplanes..
I agree that it's both ways round, Adam. Just as the economic base of a given society conditions the superstructure and vice versa, so too does our genetic constitution condition our behaviour and vice versa. We appear to agree on that. But hang on one cotton-picking moment, Mr. B…not so long ago you suggested that what holds for mice does not hold for men. And now you're using bird behaviour to support your argument about human behaviour. Did I miss something?So birds have to learn to fly just as humans have to learn to speak and to socialise and yes, that couldn't happen without an innate capacity for such processes. And, of course, whilst such innate capacities undoubtedly exist they will not be developed without the appropriate external stimuli.This much is readily apparent but doesn't really contribute to an answer to the question at hand, which is this: why do some people behave in particular ways whilst others do not.Now, it seems to me that if we are going to be able to explain the enormous disparities between the behaviour of individuals within a given set of social circumstances then we must have recourse to something a little less nebulous than the notion of socially-conditioned learned behaviour.Incidentally, on the subject of human social behaviour that doesn't need to be learned, I'd argue that a sense of solidarity with our fellow men is pretty much an inbuilt thing that a) has enabled our species to survive several instances of near-extinction and b) isn't something that can easily be taught or learned if it isn't there in the first place. Most of us have that inbuilt sense of solidarity. Those who don't are a problem to society and become psychopaths irrespective of the material conditions of their existence.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.