Behavioral Genetics General thread

Jew detected.

post them here

Post them then, I get no responses when I post any sort of genetics study to lefties.

No you haven't you cringeworthy sperg

>posting facts to libtards
What are you doing ?

This is what I can deduce from you post and my previous knowledge of behavioral genetics.
>any factor that influences an individual's behavioral traits can be classified into two categories: genetic factors and environmental factors
>genetic factors are permanent, and are inherited in a probabilistic manner based on the parents' genetic traits. Ie: Mendelian Assortment
>environmental factors are any experiences or occurences that shape the behaviour of an individual through self preservation, or self betterment. Ie: Pavlovian Conditioning
>An ongoing discussion in behavioral genetics is "to what extent do genetics shape an individual's behaviour". Where can we delimit the effects of natural coding and environmental molding, and which plays a large role in determining behaviour?

You seem to hold the idea that genetics influence an individual's behaviour more than environmental factors do, as evidenced by your third point which can be summed up by the saying "you can't teach an old dog new tricks".
I'd somewhat agree with that statement:
as an individual ages, they accrue more experiences and gain a more holistic view of the possible, and most probable states of their environment. Ie: a mouse in a forest biome learns that hawks generally pose a serious threat, and that staying in the cover of tree roots is usually a valuable survival tactic.
As an individual encapsulates these experiences, they come across less and less "outlier" experiences that force them to change their behaviour. As such, they often become rooted in their previous behaviours. This rooted behaviours can (mistakenly or not) be attributed to genetic, natural behaviours. Delimiting where these "rooted behaviours" stem from genes or past experiences is subject to discretion and is often impossible to discriminate between the two. That is why the question of "nature vs. nature" is such a foundational question of behavioural genetics. It goes around in circles lol.

Last paragraph was riddled with typos, sorry for no proofread.
Re:
As an indivdual encapsulates these experiences, they come across less and less "outlier" experiences that force them to change their behaviour. As such, they often become rooted in their previous behaviours. This rooted behaviours can (mistakenly or not) be attributed to genetic, Mendelian factors. Identifying the extent the which "rooted behaviours" are caused past experiences is subject to discretion and is often impossible to discriminate between genes or environment being the causal factors for a certain behaviour. That is why the question of "nature vs. nature" is such a foundational question of behavioural genetics. It goes around in circles lol.

Me again.

It is very interesting the see the effects of genes and perceived lack of effect of environment on psychological tendencies. It is a no brainer that IQ remains relatively constant as it is a measure of mental aptitude, not behaviour and therefore cannot be modified by an environment and may only be attributed to genetics.
However, in the reared apart twins, how where the environments in which they were raised substantially different? It is an important question that was not addressed in your cotation.

people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/papers2/three_laws.pdf

"your third point"

Actually, it is not of my authorship and rather one of the laws of the field. I think it is quite odd someone with understanding of behavioral genetics is unfamiliar with such things.

Anyway see that PDF for a good summary of the laws and their rationale. Also take note of the part on the results of GWAS and other studies which are now identifying specific genes related to behaviors.

A good example although taboo is the different repeats of the MAOA gene and link to violence/crime.

>It is a no brainer that IQ remains relatively constant as it is a measure of mental aptitude, not behaviour and therefore cannot be modified by an environment and may only be attributed to genetics.

That's not a no brainer at all. If someone's environment causes poor health that can affect their ability to think.

Best example of your point, Stephen Hawking.

Thank you for the quality post exposing poor health's effect on IQ.

I also fail to fully grasp the mental thoughts going through the contrarian's brain.

I usually see the rationale of environment or epigenetics. The thing is under the broad definition of epigentics, a gunshot wound to the head which destroys 60% of the brain is an epigentic effect. It's widely known that epigentic markers are wiped multiple times during reproduction and therefore transference to next generations is not really a plausible explanation.

So we are left with environment. Which is a big factor and I won't dismiss it. I don't think anyone is arguing against environment mattering. I think the contrarion takes the most extreme "100% genetics" example as everyone's argument. Thinking that people who argue genetics are the main determinant also believe a gunshot wound to the head is no big deal if you have good genetics.

Meanwhile these same people reject all genetic explanation. Crying about and rejecting any study that supports genetic determinism in the least. Ignoring it in any social or world view on the state of things. Generally being completely unreasonable anti-science extremists that will imagine away the weight of science and study in favor of "cultural bias", "the study should have done X" etc, with no real mind to ever accept the results.

All aspects of behavior are inherited and environment has a small effect. This is what actual scientific study supports in every case. It is the law of the field. It's a shame certain viewpoints or fields such as social scientists reject all of these claims purely because they contradict a wishful thinking world view.

nature.com/ng/journal/v47/n7/full/ng.3285.html

Abstract•

Despite a century of research on complex traits in humans, the relative importance and specific nature of the influences of genes and environment on human traits remain controversial. We report a meta-analysis of twin correlations and reported variance components for 17,804 traits from 2,748 publications including 14,558,903 partly dependent twin pairs, virtually all published twin studies of complex traits. Estimates of heritability cluster strongly within functional domains, and across all traits the reported heritability is 49%. For a majority (69%) of traits, the observed twin correlations are consistent with a simple and parsimonious model where twin resemblance is solely due to additive genetic variation. The data are inconsistent with substantial influences from shared environment or non-additive genetic variation. This study provides the most comprehensive analysis of the causes of individual differences in human traits thus far and will guide future gene-mapping efforts. All the results can be visualized using the MaTCH webtool.

researchgate.net/publication/276922271_Meta-analysis_of_the_heritability_of_human_traits_based_on_fifty_years_of_twin_studies

i think the problem here is the people who can discuss the topic (not just regurgitate mantra) are the ones who are least at the mercy of instinct so it can be hard to see how others are chained to more basic neurological function. i tend to see a lot of arguments along the lines of "i'm above such primitive biology" though the mistake here is the implication that reasoning isn't biological. the more one can reason the greater the possibility for novel behaviors that don't fit the mold.

*tips fedora*

*tips fedora*

*tips fedora*

RACE ISN'T REAL IT'S A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!

I understand this differently. I approximate it as a fault of the gradient of empathy.

I hypothesize a lot of people interesting in things like this have a type of simple empathy. The simplistic empathy they have allows them to project their own sense of reasoning and emotion onto others, but is not complex enough to understand others do not share the same reasoning and emotions.

We see this often in anthropomorphism of animals. A wide range of human population project human behavior, motivation, and emotion onto pets or simple animals. I think the same people do the same with everyone in society. So the wide variety of people on earth appear as different looking versions of the viewer. Rather than as individuals with unique brains that may be completely different.

Hence the view of the world is very biased towards certain ideas.

It would be interesting to see how certain world viewpoints can be determined from the simple test of "Does this dog look lonely and like it wants a friend?" to a sterile picture of a random dog laying down.

Meming aside, exposures such as lead or a lack of social stimulation early in life have been shown to affect intelligence. I'm not sure why this is such an upsetting notion to some people.

If Stephen Hawking had suffered from meningitis during infancy he probably wouldn't be such a genius.

The post said poor health which is a very vague and much higher % of population thing.

Also it's not that people who believe in genetic determinism reject environment. I am still very much in favor of maximizing the environment.

I feel like "Nurture" people are arguing as if the two choices are A) 100% nature; B) 100 nurture.

I am just saying that genetics are the key determining factor in outcome. Not that it is the only outcome.

I am also not advocating we should ignore lead poisoning or stop sending children to school. Obviously any optimization we can provide for better outcomes is useful. We just need to base our decisions and understanding of things off the reality of genetic determinism.

It seems as though contrarians want it to be 100% Nurture and refuse to accept 50% genetic. While at the same time straw manning the opposition as not accepting environment factors.

>It seems as though contrarians want it to be 100% Nurture and refuse to accept 50% genetic. While at the same time straw manning the opposition as not accepting environment factors.

No that's not what I was saying. I was responding to the guy saying ' therefore cannot be modified by an environment and may only be attributed to genetics.' Which is incorrect. I agree that every trait has both an environmental AND a genetic component. I don't know who these 'contrarian' strawmen are but my views are not as you describe them.

mistaken as I skimmed the thread that you responded to a stupid post implying 100% genetic.

IQ is very highly heritable but not entirely a result of genetics. This is pretty much a proven fact at this point.

I was mainly upset at the implication of poor health = low IQ. When the majority of illnesses or health issues will not change it at all.

This thread is pointless Veeky Forums is currently full of summerfags that think any one can swim as well michael phelps if they spend as much time in the pool as he does.

Kill thyself

The vite spiral. This spiral is growing following a fundamental law of #nature, namely the #Fibonacci spiral. A mathematical sequenze of #numbers that can be converted in a #spiral. The Fibonacci spiral describes the less amount of #energy required to build a spiral with biological structures.