lifechariot

Not quite. My understanding is that different expressions of the genome are different phenotypes in their own right. One genomic expression is its own phenotype and a different expression is another, different, phenotype. That is to say, phenotypes are limited to specific observable trait expressions of a genome. If another expression of the same genome exhibits different behavioural traits, its defined as another phenotype. The nature vs nurture issue is an old version of this debate, and it didn't account for how genomic content is designed to elicit an interactive attachment relationship in which further phenotypes can then be deployed. Conversely, if an attachment relationship is not elicited or perceived, certain developmental phenotypes seem not to be expressed or developed. The neuroscience consensus around the attachment system is that the genome (nature) is designed to interact with a mother/primary caregiver (nurture), so it's not nature vs nurture, but nature and nurture. When a phenotype is designed to seek a response within a highly specific relationship and uses the interactions only from that relationship to encode the development of the brain (say the right hemisphere in the first year and a half of life), the old nature vs nurture debate is no longer relevant, for the premise is no longer "vs". This is further complicated by the fact that parents are designed from the same genetic content, so in most situations, a baby that is interacting with its mother (nurture) is actually interacting with a genome (nature) to which its related, and this relationship is proven to alter, update or inform gene expressions (nature & nurture as a genomic design). Therefore a baby is receiving cues from a related genome which is adapted to an environment and expressing innately recognisable, yet intricate, phenotypes while the baby's limbic system, cortex and HPA axis are in their initial growth spurts. Thus setting the neural foundation for how the child will respond to the environment.

Thank you for replying everyone. I think that I'm using the terms appropriately from what's been said here, yet I'm sure someone can increase my finesse, for clearly people are not understanding exactly what I mean when I write. I'll put put it another way: There are studies that show different plants and animals call on specific genomic content depending upon which environment they are born. Say, a specific animal/plant family that is born in one region of the word will become a certain 1 of 2 possible genomic colour expressions and exhibit a 1 of 2 certain genomic behaviours. Colours and behaviours that once expressed are with it for its lifespan. The 2 possible colours and behaviours are limited by the content of the genome (genetic material), yet once expressed are referred to as its phenotypic expression. One phenotypic expression is executed in one climate and the other in another. It follows that, in more highly evolved creatures, epigenetics is concerned with turning on or off genomic content, so changing phenotypic expressions within the lifespan for adaptability? I'm really struggling to articulate these concepts. Even what I just wrote feels awkward and clumsy. Yes. I think you are right. I put that somewhat haphazardly. Although the urge to attach in proven to be innate, so genomic content, the expression of that genomic content is correctly referred to as its phenotype. What I meant for people to read was that the urge to attach comes from genomic content. Does that sound right?

I have many thousands of hours studying and researching emotions and their development. A critical role in emotional development is the process of bonding which is outlined in Attachment Theory. The principles I talk about are empirically proven. I find myself increasingly needing to explain them in terms of genetics to people who ask me to outline the principal of the process. My understanding of genetics is not professional, and I am insecure of the terms I find myself using and feel duty bound to use correct terms to form the most accurate description I can. I ask people who have a grounding in genetics to criticise the following paragraphs (which are my response to someone asking for clarification of my use of the term 'chemical imbalance'), and tell me if I'm using incorrect terms and suggest improvements to both language and concepts? ""Thank you for reading the posts, and yes I will elaborate on my meaning of 'chemical imbalance' as you have shown interest. I used the definition chemical imbalance to refer to the metabolic constitution that is created by a baby's innate urge to attach (genotype), yet also the modulated levels when those expressions are met with an environmental behaviour - such as oxytocin and vasopressin (from the primary caregiver), and so also the establishment of a unique set of metabolic constitutions (phenotypes) which are adapted responses based upon the innate expression and response received. All of these things together could clumsily be referred to as 'temperament', yet this term lacks considerable definition. That is to say, it's proven that babies innately seek attachments with a primary caregiver, so there is a genetic basis urging the baby to attach (genotype) that creates an initial metabolic constitution - or levels. Oxytocin and vasopressin are hormones that have been empirically proven to directly related to the creation and maintenance of the bonding behaviours - attachment - and specifically when 'contact comfort' is received. This has been proven across mammal species in prairie voles, rats and humans. This suggests that when the initial and innate expressions of attachment are expressed by a baby that the creation of hormones, such as oxytocin (through interaction with the primary caregiver), creates a unique bond which establishes a newly modulated metabolic constitution which becomes the new basis of the baby's expressions of attachment (phenotype). Attachment is a genetically based behaviour that is modulated by interaction that produce certain hormones and neurotransmitters. The research seems to suggest that the initial genetic urge to attach undergoes a specific modulation when it encounters oxytocin. As oxytocin is also proven to have potent anti-stress effects and be created by contact comfort, a baby's ongoing metabolic levels are most significantly related to these principal concerns. Including counteracting anxiety-based constitutions which are created from perceptions of fear (stressors). As oxytocin is directly related to the creation and maintenance of attachments, it is therefore crucial to a child's developing emotional behaviour which is nested in the primary caregiver attachment, and the anti-social personality traits that result when no attachment is created because of its absence. I am a Perceptual Philosopher and generally use the terminology of the fields in which I research, yet the term 'temperament' is seriously inadequate to describe such complexities, and I as of yet I have found no other term which specifically refers to this, so I used 'chemical imbalance' as a catch all."" Thank you for reading my post.

As far as I'm aware, that's pretty basic stuff in epigenetics, and no it does not mean people should avoid stress. It means that genetic expressions adapt (turn on or off) to highly specific stressors for environmental adaption reasons. It's not only about depression either. There are numerous examples in epigenetics of how stressors - say famine - in one generation leads to an adaptive gene expression in next generation. The issue isn't if it happens, but what are the mechanisms as to how it happens.

Strange, I don't think you get the epigenetic principle to which Luke is referring. If I understand Luke's questions correctly, he is referring to the epigenetic gene modification that stressors place on a persons. Epigenetics shows that stressors can 'turn on' or 'turn off' gene expressions, so I think what Luke is asking is: "When Mr X who works in health care has a depressive gene (Type Y) activated - for example - by accumulated workplace stress, the potential of Mr X's offspring inheriting the Type Y activated gene expression is found true, so how can it be reasoned that his workplace setting in health was 'good' for humanity?"

I have many thousands of hours studying and researching emotions and their development. A critical role in emotional development is the process of bonding which is outlined in Attachment Theory. The principles I talk about are empirically proven, and yet I find myself increasingly needing to explain them in terms of genetics to people who ask me to outline the principal of the process. My understanding of genetics is not professional, and I am insecure of the terms I find myself using and feel duty bound to use correct terms to form the most accurate description I can. I ask people who have a grounding in genetics to criticise the following paragraphs (which are my response to someone asking for clarification of my use of the term 'chemical imbalance'), and tell me if I'm using incorrect terms and suggest improvements to both language and concepts? ""Thank you for reading the posts, and yes I will elaborate on my meaning of 'chemical imbalance' as you have shown interest. I used the definition chemical imbalance to refer to the metabolic constitution that is created by a baby's innate urge to attach (genotype), yet also the modulated levels when those expressions are met with an environmental behaviour - such as oxytocin and vasopressin (from the primary caregiver), and so also the establishment of a unique set of metabolic constitutions (phenotypes) which are adapted responses based upon the innate expression and response received. All of these things together could clumsily be referred to as 'temperament', yet this term lacks considerable definition. That is to say, it's proven that babies innately seek attachments with a primary caregiver, so there is a genetic basis urging the baby to attach (genotype) that creates an initial metabolic constitution - or levels. Oxytocin and vasopressin are hormones that have been empirically proven to directly related to the creation and maintenance of the bonding behaviours - attachment - and specifically when 'contact comfort' is received. This has been proven across mammal species in prairie voles, rats and humans. This suggests that when the initial and innate expressions of attachment are expressed by a baby that the creation of hormones, such as oxytocin (through interaction with the primary caregiver), creates a unique bond which establishes a newly modulated metabolic constitution which becomes the new basis of the baby's expressions of attachment (phenotype). Attachment is a genetically based behaviour that is modulated by interaction that produce certain hormones and neurotransmitters. The research seems to suggest that the initial genetic urge to attach undergoes a specific modulation when it encounters oxytocin. As oxytocin is also proven to have potent anti-stress effects and be created by contact comfort, a baby's ongoing metabolic levels are most significantly related to these principal concerns. Including counteracting anxiety-based constitutions which are created from perceptions of fear (stressors). As oxytocin is directly related to the creation and maintenance of attachments, it is therefore crucial to a child's developing emotional behaviour which is nested in the primary caregiver attachment, and the anti-social personality traits that result when no attachment is created because of its absence. I am a Perceptual Philosopher and generally use the terminology of the fields in which I research, yet the term 'temperament' is seriously inadequate to describe such complexities, and I as of yet I have found no other term which specifically refers to this, so I used 'chemical imbalance' as a catch all."" Thank you for reading my post.