Genetics Almost Meaningless

[ramin]

With a few exceptions,

 

Environmental defiency is responsible for psychological problems, and genetics is simply a source of variability.

 

All that stuff about things being "biological" is just reductionist crud. LOL....

[badchad]

If this were true, how come we haven't identified very many of these "environmental factors"?

 

Also, how do you explain the twin studies which have been carried out in the study of the major psychological disorders? As identical twins are genetically identical, why is there such a high incidence of psychological disroders amongst twins?

[ydoaPs]

hey ramin, any evidence for your claim?

[Hellbender]

while I agree with ramin to a point, I don't think genetics are meaningless. Your environment does addect you to some degree, but so do genetics. For example, clinical depression (as opposed to "the blues") is inherited, but can onset by environmental factors as well. Having the gene for it makes you more predisposed to it.

[Cadmus]

With a few exceptions,

I wonder if the fact that you were born a member of the species Homo sapiens might have anything to do with genetics.

[Mokele]

I wonder if the fact that you were born a member of the species Homo sapiens

 

I think you give him too much credit, Cadmus...

 

Mokele

[Glider]

I don't think genetics is meaningless at all. It only takes a minute difference in biology to make a large difference in psychology. It's a bit like putting on blue tinted glasses. Such a small act and only a pair of shades, but suddenly, the whole world is blue tinted.

 

Genes only code for proteins, but look at the balance between say, monoamines (5Ht) and monoamineoxidase (MAO). A little too little 5Ht, or a little too much MAO and your whole outlook on life; the way you percieve it, react to it and remember it, will be different.

[Ophiolite]

Environmental defiency is responsible for psychological problems' date=' and genetics is simply a source of variability.

 

All that stuff about things being "biological" is just reductionist crud. ....[/quote']We must be using a different definition of biological! I would have thought an organism's reaction to its environment was distinctly "biological".

[ramin]

If this were true, how come we haven't identified very many of these "environmental factors"?

 

This isn't a good argument.

 

Also, how do you explain the twin studies which have been carried out in the study of the major psychological disorders? As identical twins are genetically identical, why is there such a high incidence of psychological disroders amongst twins?

 

The twin studies are biased. They assume many things. Here's a passage from my textbook: "the degree of similarity in the environment for the two types of twins is generally assumed to be equal or nearly so."

 

Hardly a good assumption. And ofcourse identical twins will be socially influenced to be alike, not genetically.

[ramin]

while I agree with ramin to a point, I don't think genetics are meaningless. Your environment does addect you to some degree, but so do genetics. For example, clinical depression (as opposed to "the blues") is inherited, but can onset by environmental factors as well. Having the gene for it makes you more predisposed to it.

 

Genes shmemes. Deficient environment is a necessary part of all psychological disorders period. Yet, they never mention it. If a deficient environmet is a necessary part of all psychological disorders, genetics are meaningless and unimportant. That's the argument.

[ramin]

I wonder if the fact that you were born a member of the species Homo sapiens might have anything to do with genetics.

 

Hardly. That's due to evolution and whatever came before that.

[ramin]

I don't think genetics is meaningless at all. It only takes a minute difference in biology to make a large difference in psychology. It's a bit like putting on blue tinted glasses. Such a small act and only a pair of shades' date=' but suddenly, the whole world is blue tinted.

 

Genes only code for proteins, but look at the balance between say, monoamines (5Ht) and monoamineoxidase (MAO). A little too little 5Ht, or a little too much MAO and your whole outlook on life; the way you percieve it, react to it and remember it, will be different.[/quote']

 

Depending on the environment ofcourse. That's why I posted this. Everyone overlooks the environment, as if we are pressured to do so or something. Its the most relevant factor!

[ramin]

We must be using a different definition of biological! I would have thought an organism's reaction to its environment was distinctly "biological".

 

An organism's reaction? No, that's due to the organism's perceived role in the environment as a function of past environment and the nature of the environment.

[ramin]

hey ramin, any evidence for your claim?

There's so much evidence of it I wouldn't know where to start. What do you want to talk about, anxiety, autism, gender, aggression, depression? Each and every one of these has either clearly been shown to not exist in non-deficient environments, or can be easily argued to be due to that. Social trends such as less quality family interaction, pressures of globalization also point clearly in the same direction. The best clue I can think of right now against arguments made FOR genetic importance, is the ridiculousness of the paradigms used. The paradigm is that genetics produce an early temperment which influences reactions from the environment. Yet, for some mysterious reason, the fact that only certain types of environment would "react" instead of proact towards a child is fully left out. The real paradigm should clearly state that a child is reacted to depending on the nature of the reacting environment.

[ramin]

The easy thing to do is just blame everything on genetics...

[Mokele]

The twin studies are biased. They assume many things. Here's a passage from my textbook: "the degree of similarity in the environment for the two types of twins is generally assumed to be equal or nearly so."

 

Hardly a good assumption. And ofcourse identical twins will be socially influenced to be alike, not genetically.

 

So how do you explain that twins reared *apart* are *far* more identical than even siblings raised together?

 

Deficient environment is a necessary part of all psychological disorders period. Yet, they never mention it. If a deficient environmet is a necessary part of all psychological disorders, genetics are meaningless and unimportant. That's the argument.

 

Then your entire arguement is a fallacy of false dilema. Bad environment can *trigger* genes that would have otherwise never mattered, or accelerate or worse pre-existinge genetic factors.

 

The foolishly simplistic notion of "nature *or* nurture" has long since been abandoned. Both play a role, and both genes and environment can interact, in a suprising number of ways.

 

Hardly. That's due to evolution and whatever came before that.

 

And evolution is do to what? Oh, that's right, *genes*.

 

And what governs the development of you from a zygote into a human embryo then fetus? *Genes*.

 

Everyone overlooks the environment, as if we are pressured to do so or something. Its the most relevant factor!

 

I hardly agree that it is overlooked, but even if it is, that's no excuse for going to the opposite extreme which is just as foolish and unsupportable.

 

n organism's reaction? No, that's due to the organism's role in the environment and nature of the environment.

 

And how does the organism detect it's environment and process that information?

 

Oh, that's right, with senory cells that are coded for by *genes*, and a neural system laid down according to *genes*. The neural system can change, but the overall form and instincts are in *genes*.

 

Or perhaps you could offer an explanation of why a Queen snake fresh from the egg that is exposed to q-tips soaked in extracts of various organisms will only strike at the crayfish-soaked one? We're talking about *all* individuals in the species displaying the *same* reaction to a stimulus that occurs literally the moment they stick their nose out of their eggs. What other than genes can explain that?

 

All oganisms have *some* level of genetic control over their behavior, and *some* level of environmental control. The levels of each, and the complexity of their interactions, often depends on the complexity of the organism. Environmental factors don't matter nearly as much as genes in a jellyfish, but in a human it's more complex. But to deny the influence of genes altogether, while using a body and brain those genes built for you, is foolish.

 

Mokele

[ramin]

So how do you explain that twins reared *apart* are *far* more identical than even siblings raised together?

 

Their environments are the same. Also, are they both disordered? The argument is that genetics is not important in disorders.

Also, just a note that the sample of identicals reared apart is highly biased.

 

 

Then your entire arguement is a fallacy of false dilema. Bad environment can *trigger* genes that would have otherwise never mattered

 

How is this important again? If the environment triggers genes that would have been unimportant if the environment wasn't insufficient, you prove my point!

 

or accelerate or worse pre-existinge genetic factors.

 

This is very vague. What do you mean? Do you have an example?

 

The foolishly simplistic notion of "nature *or* nurture" has long since been abandoned. Both play a role, and both genes and environment can interact, in a suprising number of ways.

 

You're misunderstanding my argument. Ofcourse both play a role. But the role of genetics is almost not important at all.

 

 

And evolution is do to what? Oh, that's right, *genes*.

 

And what governs the development of you from a zygote into a human embryo then fetus? *Genes*.

Genes is not the beginning or the end. It is simply a code that makes an organism pathological in a deficient environment.

 

 

 

I hardly agree that it is overlooked, but even if it is, that's no excuse for going to the opposite extreme which is just as foolish and unsupportable.

 

Foolish? Not with your arguments at all. Furthermore, my comments have clearly shown its overlooked:

 

"The best clue I can think of right now against arguments made FOR genetic importance, is the ridiculousness of the paradigms used. The paradigm is that genetics produce an early temperment which influences reactions from the environment. Yet, for some mysterious reason, the fact that only certain types of environment would "react" instead of proact towards a child is fully left out. The real paradigm should clearly state that a child is reacted to depending on the nature of the reacting environment."

 

 

And how does the organism detect it's environment and process that information?

 

Oh, that's right, with senory cells that are coded for by *genes*, and a neural system laid down according to *genes*. The neural system can change, but the overall form and instincts are in *genes*.

 

Or perhaps you could offer an explanation of why a Queen snake fresh from the egg that is exposed to q-tips soaked in extracts of various organisms will only strike at the crayfish-soaked one? We're talking about *all* individuals in the species displaying the *same* reaction to a stimulus that occurs literally the moment they stick their nose out of their eggs. What other than genes can explain that?

 

All oganisms have *some* level of genetic control over their behavior, and *some* level of environmental control. The levels of each, and the complexity of their interactions, often depends on the complexity of the organism. Environmental factors don't matter nearly as much as genes in a jellyfish, but in a human it's more complex. But to deny the influence of genes altogether, while using a body and brain those genes built for you, is foolish.

 

Mokele

 

The snake and human environment are very different. You should've known that anyone can use that against your argument. Environment shapes the biology of humans that is relevant to disorders. The fact that genes code the beginning biology is no argument at all, since that starting biology can become anywhere inbetween pathalogical to non-pathalogical in all kinds of domains in just a few days even, depending on the environment. You've overlooked the critical period of biological development fully. Biology clearly takes various paths due to environment. That's why I'm saying that biology is overemphasized: because people think everything causal is biology, just as you've just done, while that is very false, and while that promotes determinism, and ironically (as freedom is "embedded" in Western culture) a far smaller human free will than true. Biology is the medium between environment and behavior.

[rakuenso]

holy crap. Ramin, from what sources do you base all your inferences on. What you have previously stated exactly ties back to Mokele's previous statement. What you are arguing infact is that environmental factors directly affect the genes of various organisms. Therefore you just proved to yourself that genes do play a role because they are the substrate (for lack of a better term) that environmental factors play on. Also you have offered no examples nor factual information as opposed to Mokele.

 

Before you seriously get me into a pointless debate (wtf?). Tell me this first: would you call x-rays an environmental factor? if yes/no, explain why and include factual information along with your sources. Secondly, and more importantly: Would you say that Hunting Disease is caused by environmental factors with little or no play done by the genetics?

 

Also another personal question? What university do you goto and how much background biology and neuroscience experience have you had? Have you ever even read on at least the basic pathway of protein synthesis?

 

as for this quote:

 

 

The snake and human environment are very different. You should've known that anyone can use that against your argument. Environment shapes the biology of humans that is relevant to disorders. The fact that genes code the beginning biology is no argument at all' date=' since that starting biology can become anywhere inbetween pathalogical to non-pathalogical in all kinds of domains in just a few days even, depending on the environment. You've overlooked the critical period of biological development fully. Biology clearly takes various paths due to environment. That's why I'm saying that biology is overemphasized: because people think everything causal is biology, just as you've just done, while that is very false, and while that promotes determinism, and ironically (as freedom is "embedded" in Western culture) a far smaller human free will than true. Biology is the medium between environment and behavior.[/quote']

Your first initial statement never mentioned a thing about humans nor snakes, therefore it was a general topic not specifically limited to one species. And Please, do not bring politics into this already pointless enough debate.

[ramin]

holy crap. Ramin' date=' from what sources do you base all your inferences on. What you have previously stated exactly ties back to Mokele's previous statement. What you are arguing infact is that environmental factors directly affect the genes of various organisms. Therefore you just proved to yourself that genes do play a role because they are the substrate (for lack of a better term) that environmental factors play on. Also you have offered no examples nor factual information as opposed to Mokele.

 

Before you seriously get me into a pointless debate (wtf?). Tell me this first: would you call x-rays an environmental factor? if yes/no, explain why and include factual information along with your sources. Secondly, and more importantly: Would you say that Hunting Disease is caused by environmental factors with little or no play done by the genetics?[/quote']

 

 

I guess you're escaping my words out of fright. What else would explain misinterpreting a clear argument and avoiding it? Tell me, is the construction of a deterministic ideology, as I've clearly argued to be the case in thinking about psychology, a "pointless" discussion, or important? No, I'm not worthy of your avoidance.

 

THE ARGUMENT IS: genes are not important for the majority of psychological problems and analyses, not that they don't play a "role." They provide a starting template when the child enters the world. If the environment is deficient or uncaring, this template will not develop into a happy and well-functioning organism.

 

I've stressed that this applies to *most* disorders repeatedly, again an indication that you are avoiding the argument.

 

The current paradigm of nature-nurture interaction leaves out the variability in the environment that contributes to development! If you are able to reason, you will notice that this is a stupid, oppressive, paradigm.

 

If you are going to respond, understand the argument. It will be worth it. Also give an intelligent response. Time does not grow on trees.

[ramin]

 

as for this quote:

 

 

Your first initial statement never mentioned a thing about humans nor snakes' date=' therefore it was a general topic not specifically limited to one species. And Please, do not bring politics into this already pointless enough debate.[/quote']

 

 

You think psychology and society are unrelated? Now that's just basic! Please, don't be afraid to integrate related domains of life. Biological determinism categorically emphasizes determinism and has an effect on how we view and act no the world. Critical thought, on the other hand, will show that biological determinism is oppressive to all humans, period, and can have a positive effect to life. Wasn't that simple?

 

Also, the argument used by your friend was trying to draw an anology between snake genetics and human genetics without looking at how humans manipulate their own environment. You should have noticed that... I was criticizing the argument s/he made, not the use of animals in the argument. Comon now...

[ramin]

 

Also another personal question? What university do you goto and how much background biology and neuroscience experience have you had? Have you ever even read on at least the basic pathway of protein synthesis?

 

Let's just say I know more than you do. At least with reference to the arguments you've used thus far.

[ramin]

What this thread has proved is that it should be mandatory for psychology enthusiasts to take courses in basic philosophy.

[Coral Rhedd]

Ramin, would you please pick a specific disorder that you feel best fits your thesis so this discussion can proceed in a coherent manner? Maybe you feel that some particular disorder is caused almost entirely by environment? Go for it.

 

The range of disorders is so wide that I feel no rational discussion can take place without narrowing at least somewhat your approach.

 

It is well documented and known even to ignorant lay people like me that Huntington's is entirely genetic.

 

However, I would have some sympathy for the thesis that in disorders such as PTSD and major depression environment is not given appropriate weight as a factor in the expression of the illness.

 

I think there are significant societal reasons for this.

[ramin]

Ramin' date=' would you please pick a specific disorder that you feel best fits your thesis so this discussion can proceed in a coherent manner? Maybe you feel that some particular disorder is caused almost entirely by environment? Go for it.

 

The range of disorders is so wide that I feel no rational discussion can take place without narrowing at least somewhat your approach.

 

It is well documented and known even to ignorant lay people like me that Huntington's is entirely genetic.

 

However, I would have some sympathy for the thesis that in disorders such as PTSD and major depression environment is not given appropriate weight as a factor in the expression of the illness.

 

I think there are significant societal reasons for this.[/quote']

 

 

This is the problem: Psychologists have constructed a paradigm for understanding development, and disorders, that neglects the nature of the environment as a factor. Take a look at it: http://www.advocacynet.info/psychology/development.jpg. (I apologize for the low quality upload).

The paradigm leaves out the very nature and variability of the environment, and explicitly says that environment is in reaction to phenotype. In other words, society is passive and unintelligent towards raising kids, simply reacting to the child "according" to the child herself. This is the very definition of a deficient environment, but is accepted as "the way it is," scientifically!

 

It is taught to thousands of students everyday in psychology. As seen in this thread, people have adopted it (as they have neglected the critical period of development and attempted to describe things fully via neurological mechanisms). It inherently relieves society of any responsibility in development and disorder, and practically gives great force to the same.

What follows from my argument is that many developmental disorders are there because we allow underdevelopment and deficiency. For these disorders, genetics should not even be mentioned. I'll probably bring up specific disorders, such as autism. But the main argument is against the oppressive and stupid paradigm.

[atinymonkey]

Two things: -

 

• You are over simplifying the case. Genes do influence some aspects of psychology, and enviroment influences by a much more acute degree. You cannot ignore one in favour of the other.
  
• Where did you get your degree?