Please Criticise My Use of the Terms Genotype & Phenotype

[lifechariot]

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.