Genetics Almost Meaningless

[john5746]

You probably think drug abuse is genetic too? Haven't you been reading my argument? Respond to the variable of deficient environment and stop running away!

 

Of course, there may be a genetic component to it. I think certain people are predisposed to become addicted to whatever - drugs, religion, exercise, etc.

 

I must add that any addiction is a complex thing. All people who are addicts were not necessarily predisposed to it, just as all addicts weren't necessarily influenced by their environment.

[john5746]

Yay for John... Kumbay-ya, let's just get along, falalalala, falalala, lalalala[/b'], let's get along

 

Yay for you also,

 

Hey, my Father, sister and myself cross our right leg onto our left knee and

shake it. My two brothers and mother do not. Genetic? Environment?

[AzurePhoenix]

Oh dear freakin' Lord. But is tourettes genetic to such a degree as to pass down my family without fail, and always, without fail manifest itself in the form of left foot tapping? And does it count if those in my fmaily can start it either consciously or unconsciously depending on our relaxation/stress levels? Just say yes, and my father's gonna get a huge earfull of angry chastizing.

 

Hey Ramin, if this tourettes thing checks out, I think Coral may have just shattered your whole theory. Damn genes

[AzurePhoenix]

Hmmm, John, who do you and your siblings most resemble, parent-wise? It seems to make a diff in my family, tapping wise

[john5746]

Doesn't apply in my situation. We each have attributes from both parents.

[AzurePhoenix]

Hmm, we (my cousins and I) have always been odd in mostly looking exactly like our shared grandpappy. Maybe that and our faithfully consistant tourettes will make an excellent study for some future nobel-prize winner some day. Notice that i also chronically type "hmmm"

[AzurePhoenix]

Hey, ramin, i have an idea that might settle this once and for all. If i have a baby, and let wolves raise it from birth, and we discover that the tapping is evident by the time its twenty (my family tap usually shows up between eight and sixteen) we will have at least some promising evidence that some psyche traits are inherently genetic.

 

Okay, I'm going to need a ticket to someplace with wolves, a map to the pack we'll be utilizing, and to make the whole thing possible, i'm going to need a cute, virile young man.

[Coral Rhedd]

Okay' date=' I'm going to need a ticket to someplace with wolves, a map to the pack we'll be utilizing, and to make the whole thing possible, i'm going to need a cute, virile young man. [/quote']

 

I just checked out your bio here. With that sense of humor, I thought you'd be much older.

 

P.S. Don't wear out the young man.

[AzurePhoenix]

no, but bitterness, and a cold, dead spirit are often enough to render someone prematurely senile. Oh, and when I talk about copious amounts of sex, oh, never mind. For the sake of integrity, let's just pretend I'm twenty-seven. So, why do you think I'm older?

[AzurePhoenix]

never mind, sense of humor i'm reading you loud and clear. i (in my senile youth) often skip small senetences, sentence fragments, and occasionally, paragraphs. So yes, many tell me that i seem older, despite looking younger, because of the cold bastardly-bitchy spiritlessness, blended with a fair level of fine humor

 

P.S. if the young man can't hold his own for a few hours with a single rowdy former cheerleader, he shouldn't be "paddlin' the canoe" in the first place

[Coral Rhedd]

So, why do you think I'm older?

 

Your writing skills. Hope you continue to hone them.

[ramin]

Have you seen those studies involving red foxes somewhere in europe i believe, in which over eighteen or twenty generations the people bred for people-friendly personalities in the foxes. Over each generation, by reinforcing the friendly genes, the began to develope floppy ears, spotted coats, even shorter snouts, as well as domestic dog-like characteristics, despite the fact that only personality was chosen for, implying a close association of personality and physical appearance on the gene in question. Now, if a purebred of one of these kits is raised next to a kit with a wild father and a captive bred mother, the hybrid displays clear wild-type behaviors, including wariness, aggression, and other wild-dog behaviors, wheras the "pure breed" is as docile as a golden retriever.

 

 

And that's where dogs and humans differ: cognitive power

[AzurePhoenix]

Really, i have seen no proof that humans are much smarter on a fundamental level than canids, especially no smarter than dolphins. We simply have better dexterity, and we have the excessive pride to bask in the glory of our gifts, and thus spend generations honing them to a blade's edge, rather than humbly revel in the sanctity of life itself, as do our fellow mammalian Einsteins.

[AzurePhoenix]

What ramin, you don't want to take up my offer on a decisive study? If you played your cards right, you could play and integral part , though I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you.

[ramin]

What ramin, you don't want to take up my offer on a decisive study? If you played your cards right, you could play and integral part , though I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you.

 

Call me

[AzurePhoenix]

Keep in mind Ramin, I'm loud, but flexible. And willing to test new waters

[AzurePhoenix]

in the name of science, of course

[ramin]

Of course' date=' there may be a genetic component to it. I think certain people are predisposed to become addicted to whatever - drugs, religion, exercise, etc.

 

I must add that any addiction is a complex thing. All people who are addicts were not necessarily predisposed to it, just as all addicts weren't necessarily influenced by their environment.[/quote']

 

 

Did you get all this out of your magic hat?

[ramin]

I'd prefer to wait for Newtonian's response before offering my opinion.

 

Well don't wait for much

 

 

 

Did you respond to my questions in your post #88?

 

Yes I did. I mentioned that many other things have gone up as well, such as neglect. Neglect can turn biological differences into disorders.

 

How do you know I am running? How do you know I am not listening?

Because you didn't respond to my argument. You can't blame genetics when there is a deficient environment allowing the genetics to take a certain path. Drug addiction is not even a matter of dispute. It is genetic only when someone is neglected and does not develop the right control. Sure, some might be born with better control, but that's irrelevant since control can be easily accomplished with a good environment. You see?

 

most people (I don't exclude you.) seem to be offering many opinions with little evidence.

 

Ofcourse you won't exclude me. I clearly presented just as logical of a position on autism as other explanations, even more logical. And the genes vs. environment thing is just obvious via simple logic, in accordance with empirical evidence.

 

I am also wondering if you have an agenda. With all respect to your mention of a deficient environment, which I think you are saying results from deficient care, I have no idea what your solution to that deficiency might be. For all I know you want to execute parents who do not understand their child's every nuance. I think that might be a little extreme.

That is extreme, and I never said it. I said some norms and social influences and trends constitute the deficient environment. The parents, and even some institutions, are caught in the middle. For example, there is a high motivation for conformity, no matter what that entails. That poses pressures on children that start out different.

[ramin]

A Deficient Environment can be blamed for anything genetic in regards to psychological disorders.

 

Sure it could, but currently the trend is to do the opposite. Its much harder to say a genetic disorder such as Huntington's is due to the environment. Much easier to say drug-addiction, depression, anxiety, and mysteries such as autism, are genetic. That's the issue.

I understand your worry that people will sit back and blame their genes. Well, people will try to blame anything - the environment, government, genes, America, terrorists, etc. Understanding ones strengths and weaknesses is ok in my book. That doesn't mean give up on the weaknesses, no you may need to work that much harder to overcome them.

That's exactly what I'm saying is going on here. Running away from responsible, accountable, society.

 

I fail to understand what is so magical about psychological issues that seperate them from physical issues.

Psychology can be influenced by ideology, and so can biopsychology. But not biology.

Of course on the aggregate, the environment rules but in regards to an individual, people respond differently to the same stimulus.

Why not? (I agree) Diversity and variability exists and is good. The problem arises when the environment becomes simplistic and does not attend to differences. Then differences can become pathological.

[AzurePhoenix]

its documented knowledge, especially here in Arizona, that Native Americans often tend to have alcoholic tendencies. The funny thing is, no matter how nice any of them happen to be, they're almost always going to be truly angry, mean drunks. My dad knows, he's a cop. Plus i'm a quarter navajo cherokee blend or somethin' like that, also from my father's side, but this time from his mother. she was a beautiful, lovely person, but one hell of a bitch when she downed a coupla glasses of wine. That seems to carry marginal genetic weight, don't it?

[ramin]

its documented knowledge, especially here in Arizona, that Native Americans often tend to have alcoholic tendencies. The funny thing is, no matter how nice any of them happen to be, they're almost always going to be truly angry, mean drunks. My dad knows, he's a cop. Plus i'm a quarter navajo cherokee blend or somethin' like that, also from my father's side, but this time from his mother. she was a beautiful, lovely person, but one hell of a bitch when she downed a coupla glasses of wine. That seems to carry marginal genetic weight, don't it?

 

 

No AzurePhoenix, ofcourse not. That's what they want you to think. Look at how much you are neglecting by your very statement, and even, look at your very statement. You are alleging marginal genetic weight. First, then, who gives a darn about something marginal in comparison to something substantial? Second, there are clear, complete, social explanations for First Nation drug and/or alcohol abuse, as well as anger, in this day in age, such as that Natives on the whole have lost identity and society.

[ramin]

Also, let me clarify something for everyone on this thread. We can continue the argument in a more precise manner. My main claim is not about single disorders like Huntington's etc; it is about the missing link in thinking about development and disorders. What follows is that genetics is unimportant in many cases that they are currently being emphasized, or even mentioned.

 

The missing link is that 1-genetic contribution is greater in deficient environments. And so, we must take this under consideration. If a genetic contribution does not exist in a different, sufficient environment, usually in the form of a proactive environment, then the genetics are not important and the environment only should be the focus of improvement. This means, depression, drug-abuse, and to a good extent (but perhaps not fully) disorders such as schizophrenia and autism (though I can't be certain about severe autism as of yet), should not be deemed genetic disorders. They do not exist in basically sufficient environments.

2- heriditary estimates are flawed because the similarities they detect could be due to social forces such as imitation

3- the child's negative temperment does not bring a negative reaction. That's a temporary correlation. The cause is the nature of the environment reacting to the child. A negative temperment can become a positive one in an informed environment.

 

I'm sure there is more, but I'm sure they will come up soon...

[Glider]

No AzurePhoenix, ofcourse not. That's what they want you to think. Look at how much you are neglecting by your very statement, and even, look at your very statement. You are alleging marginal genetic weight[/i']. First, then, who gives a darn about something marginal in comparison to something substantial? Second, there are clear, complete, social explanations for First Nation drug and/or alcohol abuse, as well as anger, in this day in age, such as that Natives on the whole have lost identity and society.

In fact we know there is an hereditory component in alcoholism. There are neurological differences in the brains of alcoholics, localised to the left hemisphere (I can't remember the precise location). This difference has been observed in the sons of alcoholics. It is passed down the male line.

 

You are right about the environment. This hereditory component provides a propensity for alcoholism, but it does not guarantee the individual will become an alcoholic. In effect, it just increases the probability (risk) significantly above those without this difference.

 

The same has been observed in primates. There are those with a propensity for uncontrolled drinking, and those who find the effects of alcohol aversive. This, within the same species. This occurs at a resort at which these animals regularly come down to scavange food and drink left by tourists. In this case, the environment plays a significant role, because it is that which determines access to alcohol. Nonetheless, within that environment, there are still those who will go to extreme lengths to scavange alcoholic drinks, and those who avoid it and scavange only soft drinks. A good example of a nature/nurture interaction, I thought.

 

The nature/nurture debate is old. It has been many years since anyone argued for the sole influence of one or the other. Most people now acknowledge that both play a significant role and these days look at the relative impacts of each.

[Newtonian]

Not quite. I'm saying genes don't constitute fixed behaviors later on. The environment determines how genes are to be manifested. In deficient environments, as is implied by "deficient," factors that are supposed to lead to normal behavior are not supplied, and thus the genetic makeup of the person becomes important in determining their pathology. Because if the environment was good the genes would not lead to pathology, I'm saying genes should not be stressed causally.

No the degree to which the defective gene affect the organism is the determining factor.A geneticist would explain a little better.

Take schizophrenia although a great deal is known about its biology, the causes of schizophrenia have not yet fully been elucidated.Hence your argument. Through twin and adoption studies, we know that there is an inherited genetic component.Environmental stress may manifest or contribute to episodes of this illness,equally regardless of environment schizophrenia will not be manifested.Indicating environment only playing a minor role,and genetics as causal.

Other things have been on the rise, such as decreased responsibility of parents and society, as well as lack of empathy and understanding. As with many other disorders, a child's biological makeup might expect certain things, and if not received, their behavior will be unregulated or pathological.

A cop out,and untrue.

The majority of individuals on this planet can relate to a shitty upbringing.In the 50's many were poor ,i remember queing up in school to recieve shoes that were donated by more affluent pupils parents.I remember the majority of xmas's getting nothing more than an apple/orange and a few sweets.Hey i was no isolated case,it was hard times which affected society at the time.

There was no childline in the 50's many were physically and mentally abused,along with their mother(divorce wasnt so easy then)

To simplify the point there are millions starving,suffering genocide,poverty,orphaned ,unloved etc.How deficient an environment could they be.Yet according to your argument,the majority of the population of the planet should be running around nutters.The fact that they are not indicates that environment plays a minor role.

 

 

Go look at graphs or "heriditary envidence" of schizophrenia, a very "biological" disorder compared to depression, drug-abuse etc, comparable to autism. Even this disorder cannot be fully explained via biology or biased heriditary findings because some people with the same amount of shared genes as another with schz, will not have the disease.

Not exactly,they will have the defective genes.The way that these affect /and to what degree the organism is unknown presently.However as you point out in some the disorder will manifest itself,in others it wont.Regardless of environmental stress,the disease will not neccersarily manifest.But later generations it may.

In a nutshell environmental stress,certainly will not help people with a disposition to mental illness,though equally certain it will not cause episodes of mental illness.

An individual can be in the most horrendous of environments and be well adjusted.An individual could be in the happiest of environments and be a pathological fruitcake.Which to me at least indicates a genetic cause.