Human Brain Genetics

[pioneer]

In the animal world, animal behavior can be attributed to genetics. The question I have is, since humans have been practicing various forms of religion for at least 10,000 years and since for most of history, this training has been an all day event through both choice and forced social conformity, has this caused religious based genetics to be engrained within humans?

 

For example, the domestication of animals during that same time period has led to basic changes in animal behavior that now appear to be engrained in their genetics. Is the human version of this domestication, due to religion, also engrained in modern human genetics?

[dichotomy]

I don't think religion has been around long enough to have a significant genetic impact. Its more likely a significant behavioural conditioning impact that religion would cause, and that would eventually lead to a genetic impact, if the religion was successful enough?

 

Are there temperament traits in religious groups like there are for dog breeds?

[Paralith]

In the animal world, animal behavior can be attributed to genetics.

 

And the environment. Many animals exhibit flexible behavior to accommodate environmental variability. While this variability would not be possible without the genetics that enable it, the key point here is that a behavioral change does not always require a genetic change.

 

The question I have is, since humans have been practicing various forms of religion for at least 10,000 years and since for most of history, this training has been an all day event through both choice and forced social conformity, has this caused religious based genetics to be engrained within humans?

 

The only way that religion could have a directional effect on the human gene pool is if those individuals with genetically determined behaviors that are solely desirable in the context of religion have greater reproductive success than those individuals without those behaviors (or who have those behaviors to a lesser degree).

 

As per my earlier point, it is possible that the specific behaviors humans tend to exhibit when they're part of a religious group may be one aspect of our inherent behavioral flexibility, and are not dependent on a genetic difference between them and other people.

 

Even if the behaviors humans tend to exhibit when they're part of a religious group are dependent on genetic differences, then those behaviors must only give them a reproductive advantage in the environmental context of a religion. If those behaviors are also advantageous in any socially cooperative context, then religion obviously won't be the sole driver of any resulting genetic change.

 

Of course, it's also possible that behaviors associated with religion are a combination of behavioral flexibility and purely genetic variation, which I imagine is a more likely scenario.

[pioneer]

If we look at an example, such as reading, up to the last hundred years, or so, most people did very little reading. Now there are children who can read at a very young age. Electronics are even more compressed for change. I have seen small children take to cell phones and computers, and self learn, better than older adults. With religion one is talking 10,000 years of repetition, with each generation taking to it easier until it finally becomes engrained.

 

For example, fairy tales and children go hand in hand being one of the easiest ways to teach a small child skills. Their brain makes this path, the path of least resistance. It is not even resistance since most children crave it. If we try to teach them reason, one has to fight against inertia, since reason has only been broadly conditioned for 100-500 years. It is my theory that whatever comes most natural to children is natural. They lack the will to push into areas that may not be a natural part of them unless they naturally copy. At that point, there could be confusion between natural and conditioned.

 

One can look in terms of biology. Crawling is the easiest with even small children learning to do this without much help. Humans did not always walk upright, so traces of that may still be in the brain's genetics. Then walking and then running are next, which are activities almost everyone can do. Advance movement, maybe beyond simple dance, takes more will power, since this is not fully defined within the genetics, at this, for most most humans.

 

An experiment for the brain, which may never happen, is to withhold forced conditioning such as education and see what are the natural limits that humans pick up. This would sort of give up a hint on how the genetic layering is set up. Whether reason is part of genetics or whether it is still being evolved with conditioning would be interesting to see. I don't mean that in a negative way, but natural reasonable skills may imply very fast genetic transfer.

[Paralith]

If we look at an example, such as reading, up to the last hundred years, or so, most people did very little reading. Now there are children who can read at a very young age. Electronics are even more compressed for change. I have seen small children take to cell phones and computers, and self learn, better than older adults. With religion one is talking 10,000 years of repetition, with each generation taking to it easier until it finally becomes engrained.

 

That may be true - but, is this the result of genetic change? Not necessarily. With succeeding generations the knowledge base of the culture continues to grow, giving children a greater "head start" each time.

 

For example, fairy tales and children go hand in hand being one of the easiest ways to teach a small child skills. Their brain makes this path, the path of least resistance. It is not even resistance since most children crave it. If we try to teach them reason, one has to fight against inertia, since reason has only been broadly conditioned for 100-500 years.

 

You'll have to provide some sources for that statement, because I'm inclined to believe that's not true. Reasoning ability has long been favored by natural selection, and I think you will find that human children have a great deal more reasoning ability that many other adult animals.

 

It is my theory that whatever comes most natural to children is natural. They lack the will to push into areas that may not be a natural part of them unless they naturally copy. At that point, there could be confusion between natural and conditioned.

 

Of course children naturally copy. In fact, some studies suggest that human children are more likely to copy an adult when it comes to solving a problem then they are to actually try and solve it themselves, even if they're more than capable of doing so. This desire is important for a species like us with extreme behavioral flexibility, because our parents teach us which behaviors are the most appropriate for the environment into which we are born.

[pioneer]

I always come back to kittens. Say we take a kitten from the mother and all its siblings at 4-6 weeks. It is too young and too immature to have obtained much in the way of external programming. We can then raise it with children and dogs, so its input data is different, but it still comes out as a cat, with only slight quirk tweaks. In fact, a kitten will project imaginary play games to develop its hunting skills. When it is an adult, it is self taught, based on innate brain programming. It does allow for variety.

 

Humans would do the same thing defaulting to base parameters. Social "pressure", combined with the flexibility of learning, allows humans to come out in other ways. The goal is the reduce this pressure by taking a socially designed path of least resistance to the pressures of culture. Without this pressure, there is still an internal pressure, but to take a pre-programmed path of least resistance. Cats are independent and don't fully give in to the peer pressure of the environment. Dogs form a closer rapport with humans and they will give into the human peer pressure and try to be what the master wants. I remember my sister has a small dog and a bunch of cats. The puppy learned how the use the litter box by watching the cats, with one of the cats adopting it like a kitten. Humans, are monkey see monkey do, so we can shift in any direction. The pressure of internal and external will tend to favor whatever pressure is greater. For example, one may have natural artistic talents. That is the natural. But it is hard to make a living this way. That is the social pressure. So one becomes an accountant with the natural a hobby.

 

One would need to remove the social pressure variable to show the balloon is not floating in that direction all by itself. There is a social wind pushing it away from natural propensities. If we treat it like it is one variable, then the results always come out the way culture expects. Coming back to the religious training of 10,000 years, the balloon has floated in that direction so long one might expect some hard wire changes in behavior. But there is a new wind in town, that is blowing in the opposite direction and will eventually set up its own hardwiring changes in the human brain. It is sort of the battle for the herd's direction. But without the push it will default to what has been programmed into it, for the longest time span. The cows will come home at night, on their own, unless we force the herd to stay in the field. Eventually they will learn to stay there at night. But it takes time. I am not passing judgement, but the longest term conditioning eventually sticks for windless inertia.

[lucaspa]

In the animal world, animal behavior can be attributed to genetics. The question I have is, since humans have been practicing various forms of religion for at least 10,000 years and since for most of history, this training has been an all day event through both choice and forced social conformity, has this caused religious based genetics to be engrained within humans?

 

Probably not. As someone noted, organized religion hasn't been around long enough.

 

However, you need to consider another issue: have humans evolved a genetic module in the brain that allows communication with deity? IF there is a deity then communication with humans is going to be done thru the material entity that is the human brain. So let's postulate a genetic module in the human brain that constructs circuits possible to receive communication from deity. This has obvious survival benefit: getting advice and help from deity in handling life's problems is going to be beneficial. Therefore, those indivdiduals with the genetic module will pass it down to their offspring and the genetics will get close to fixation.

 

Currently, 90% of humans report being theists. Does that mean that 90% of humans have the module or part of it?

 

It's an alternative hypothesis to the one that "religion" is genetic.

 

For example, fairy tales and children go hand in hand being one of the easiest ways to teach a small child skills.

 

Skills? Or moral and social lessons?

 

Their brain makes this path, the path of least resistance. It is not even resistance since most children crave it. If we try to teach them reason, one has to fight against inertia, since reason has only been broadly conditioned for 100-500 years.

 

No, reason has had to be present from the start of the hominid lineage. After all, it is our ability to reason and solve problems -- such as making tools for a problem -- that is a hallmark of our evolution.

 

I have noticed that the logic and reasoning of children is very pure. They make mistakes (most of them humorous) because they lack relevant information, but their logic based on the info they have is perfect.

 

One can look in terms of biology. Crawling is the easiest with even small children learning to do this without much help. Humans did not always walk upright, so traces of that may still be in the brain's genetics. Then walking and then running are next, which are activities almost everyone can do. Advance movement, maybe beyond simple dance, takes more will power, since this is not fully defined within the genetics, at this, for most most humans.

 

Bad premise. The reason crawling is "easier" is because a child's brains and muscles are still developing. Humans, remember, are born "premature" so that their heads can fit thru the birth canal. The muscle coordination and balance required for walking is, as you noted, more than required for crawling. The baby has to wait until the physical development is sufficient for walking.

 

Advance movement, by your argument, would not be "will power", but depend on variations between individuals for motor skills. Those on the far right of the bell-shaped curve would be the Michael Jordans and ballet dancers.