Is there a Genetic Predisposition for 'Nerdy' Behaviour?

[jimmydasaint]

I hope no offence is taken here, and none is meant. However I am using as my definition the following:

 

Nerd - A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept.

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nerd

 

I just wondered how much of 'nerdy' behaviour is actually inherited and how much can be attributed to the environment? Moreover, is it causing a social distancing from more aggressive, selfish and downright nasty people which are to be found in most workplaces?

 

(Incidentally , I grew up initially as a streetwise Glasgow boy into a man interested in everything but master of nothing).

[JillSwift]

Could be.

 

Have a look here:

http://www.aspergers.com/

 

Geeky/Nerdy groups have a significantly higher percentage of Asperger's folks. Though it's clear that for many the behaviors are far more environmental or choice based.

 

 

 

 

Full disclosure: I'm an Aspie.

[jimmydasaint]

Aha! Thanks for that information about Aspergers JS. However, it is also possible that a large percentage of science or engineering 'nerds' make that choice due to their single-minded fascination with the subject. But, hold on, does that not mean Obsessive Compulsive Disorder? And does that not imply a genetic element?

[JillSwift]

Nah. (OCD tends to be about tight loops and a sense of order anyway, rather than single-subject obsessions.)

 

Another facet that may be a genetic predisposition is introversion. The geeky/nerdy set also has an unusually high number of introverts who have otherwise working social skills/instincts but have a predilection for internalizing their decision and learning processes.

 

Mind also that there are plenty of scientists, researchers, techies, etc. who socialize just like any other neuro-typical human. It's not until the unusual social behavior comes into play that the geek/nerd label is applied. I think that gives the idea of geeks & nerds a serious case of confirmation bias.

[jimmydasaint]

I agree there is a confirmation bias when atypical behaviour is shown. However, your posts have clarified the issue. So, can I summarise?

 

1. There is a genetic element to Aspergers Syndrome;

2. People classes as 'nerds' or 'geeks' have a higher-than-normal proportion of

Asperger's Syndrome individuals;

3. People classified as 'nerds' or 'geeks' have unusually high numbers of introverted

personalities.

 

If that is borne out by evidence then I would still unequivocally chill out with all sectors of the community anyway regardless of labels. My curiosity was in finding a genetic element to what the English would call eccentric behaviour. I have 2 highly intelligent friends with unusual behaviours that could be classified as either eccentric/geeky/nerdy and I was just innocently musing about the causes.

 

However, we should not forget that the environment has a tremendously potent effect on behaviour as well.

[Sisyphus]

That definition of "nerd" doesn't really encompass all the behaviors I think are generally considered "nerdy," but it's hard to define so I'll go ahead and use that one. Anyway, I'm sure there are plenty of genetic aspects to it. Aspergers certainly comes to mind given that definition, although, unless I'm mistaken, we don't yet know what the physiological basis is for that. And further, there is a lot more to being an aspie than just singlemindedness, social awkwardness, and technical inclinations. (Right, Jill?) All of those things are probably influenced by genetics, independent of whatever aspergers is.

[iNow]

Jimmy -

 

I'm going to copy your post from the religion and neurocortical mechanisms thread to here since thread you've created seems to encompass the topic more appropriately.

 

 

iNow, how do mate. This thread has developed into a fascinating discussion, exploring personal philosophies. However, I am quite interested in understanding if there is a genetic cause for those people who find it difficult to imagine what others are thinking. Also, are there any animal models for empathetic behaviour?

 

Moreover, is there research into the imagining of 'other worlds?' For example, I saw an interesting documentary where two professors visited an African tribe to experience hallucinatory visions and described seeing other imaginary worlds where there were serpents that communicated telepathically to them. Both professors saw mostly the same type of 'other world' creatures and the tribesmen saw almost exactly the same creatures themselves. This would argue for the similarity of the brain's architecture despite different cultural biases.

 

Finally, and I hope you can put me out of my misery on this one, are we all, as human beings, on a spectrum of OCD or schizotypal personalities? Additionally, are there genetic studies, or even genealogical studies to show if OCD or schizotypal behaviour more common in certain religious families and less prevalent in less religiously biased families?

 

I think you are being true to the OP and are being genuine in your efforts to stay on topic. However, it is a difficult and personal topic for many people to address.

 

 

I've got a few things on my plate this morning at work, but I'll try to return to this during the weekend. Hopefully, in the meantime people here will respond to some of your questions. Take care, man.

[JillSwift]

(Right, Jill?)

Yus

[iNow]

Hi Jimmy,

 

I'm a little surprised that nobody really addressed these questions, but there were a bunch of creationists and other crazies running around the site this weekend, so I guess that explains it.

 

 

You asked these questions in the "how religion hijacks neurocortical mechanisms and why so many believe in a deity" thread, but I pushed them here since they were a bit off topic there.

 

 

I am quite interested in understanding if there is a genetic cause for those people who find it difficult to imagine what others are thinking.

Ever heard of autism?

That's very much genetically caused. Here is a link discussing the differences in the brains of autistics which really covers this pretty well:

http://autism.about.com/od/causesofautism/a/AutismBrain.htm

 

There are definitely other cases of people struggling to understand the thoughts of others, but autism was just the most obvious example.

 

 

 

Also, are there any animal models for empathetic behaviour?

I believe so, yes, but I'm struggling a bit right now to think of the proper search terms to find them. For example, there has been a lot of work which shows that primates tend to have an innate sense of "fairness," and how chimps will rescue and protect complete strangers if they see them in distress. However, I cannot recall at the moment who did that work, or what search terms to use to offer a link. Maybe someone else can comment?

 

 

Moreover, is there research into the imagining of 'other worlds?' For example, I saw an interesting documentary where two professors visited an African tribe to experience hallucinatory visions and described seeing other imaginary worlds where there were serpents that communicated telepathically to them. Both professors saw mostly the same type of 'other world' creatures and the tribesmen saw almost exactly the same creatures themselves. This would argue for the similarity of the brain's architecture despite different cultural biases.

I agree with your conclusion that there is great overlap in the neural architecture despite cultural differences, but I would caution you against using hallucinatory experiences to quantify those. Hallucinations are very "loose" and nondescript... they tend to be vague and difficult to use in scientific comparisons. However, I do agree that commonalities in visions can often be associated with how our brains are primed to receive certain stimuli in specific ways, and that this priming transcends any learning or environmental differences.

 

 

Finally, and I hope you can put me out of my misery on this one, are we all, as human beings, on a spectrum of OCD or schizotypal personalities?

Yes, absolutely. As you mention, it is a spectrum, and for that reason we all land on it somewhere (either "off the charts," "not at all," or "somewhere in the middle.").

 

 

 

Additionally, are there genetic studies, or even genealogical studies to show if OCD or schizotypal behaviour more common in certain religious families and less prevalent in less religiously biased families?

Great question! The data certainly seems to suggest that schizophrenics are more likely to themselves be religious, but I am not familiar with any comparisons about the likelihood of schizophrenia between religious and nonreligious families. Part of the challenge here is that so much of religion is taught (indoctrinated), and while human genetics predispose us toward such practices, it's difficult to parse out the taught aspects of religious practice. In short, we can pretty easily identify schizophrenics and whether or not they are themselves religious, but it's a bit more difficult to identify a "religious family" or "nonreligious family" and then count how many schizophrenics are in their group and make broad comparisons with a valid sample size... although, somebody somewhere has likely performed such an survey (and this particular question does fit in the other thread, sorry for missing that).

Edited October 5, 2009 by iNow

[Mr Skeptic]

Well, I'm a nerd and so are my siblings. We just find people to be rather boring. Especially the ones that talk about their personal lives, celebrities, or watching sports. It's not that I don't have social skills, it's that I don't care. Maintaining relationships takes time, time that I would rather spend elsewhere. Besides, most people around me are the boring kind*.

 

* The kind that I find boring and would say people like me are boring.

[StringJunky]

"Also, are there any animal models for empathetic behaviour?" - JimmyDaSaint

 

I found this article by Frans De Waal who is a Professor of Primate Behaviour amongst other things. Here's a relevant extract to answer your question:

 

"For a demonstration of primate empathy consider a zoo bonobo named Kuni. When she saw a starling hit the glass of her enclosure, she picked up the stunned bird and climbed to the top of the tallest tree. She carefully unfolded its wings and spread them wide, holding one wing between the fingers of each hand, before sending the bird like a little toy airplane out towards the barrier of her enclosure. But the bird fell short of freedom and landed on the bank of the moat. Kuni climbed down and stood watch over the starling for a long time. By the end of the day, the recovered bird had flown off safely.

 

The way Kuni handled this bird was different to anything she would have done to aid another ape. Instead of following some hard-wired helping scheme, she tailored her assistance to the specific situation of an animal totally different from herself. This kind of empathy rests on the ability to imagine the circumstances of another. Adam Smith, the father of economics, must have had actions like Kuni's in mind (though not performed by an ape) when he offered us the most enduring definition of empathy as "changing places in fancy with the sufferer".

 

http://www.annular.org/~sdbrown/the-empathic-ape.html