I think I will start this with a quote and proceed from there.
"Researchers in the field of behavioral genetics have asserted claims
for a genetic basis of numerous physical behaviors, including
homosexuality, aggression, impulsivity, and nurturing. A growing
scientific and popular focus on genes and behavior has contributed to
a resurgence of behavioral genetic determinism—the belief that
genetics is the major factor in determining behavior." italics mine -
- - - - The preceeding will be found a little over half way down the
page. The quote is from Behavioral Genetics by the Human Genome
Project. ( http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/elsi/behavior.html )
Here you will find:
"What is behavioral genetics? "
"What indications are there that behavior has a biological basis?"
"How is behavioral genetics studied?"
"What implications does behavioral genetics research have for
society?"
The above page (and the website of which it is a part) will give you a
good overview of what behavioral genetics are about and make the
additional information I provide a little easier to understand. I
would suggest you read it first if this is not a subject with which
you are familiar.
For some reason, this part of your question jumped out at me as though
it were highlighted: - "...where people claim not to be capable of
altering or controlling them."
I am going to run way out on a little limb here and presume you are
speaking of court cases or any other situation where genetic
behavioral claims have been made over that of personal responsibility
or ethical behavior. (if I'm wrong, I will count on you to let me know
in clarification)
The following is another page from the website above: (
http://www.ornl.gov/hgmis/courts/courts.html )
This page deals with genetics in the courtroom but some of the
information provided can be used by extension in other situations
where genetic claims are being made to excuse certain behaviors.
This from the page: - "We can even expect claims challenging the
validity of individual responsibility based on free will
considerations in light of the discovery of genetic traits that, it
will be claimed, predispose certain individuals to violence or
antisocial, thrill-seeking behavior."
The sheer amount of information found here under the "articles"
section will keep you reading for days.
"Great Ideas in Personality--Behavior Genetics" is a page dealing with
a study of genetics and personality from the website "Great Ideas in
Personality - Psychology, Theory and Research" by G. Scott Acton,
Ph.D.
( http://www.personalityresearch.org/ ) - The results of three studies
can be summed up: - " Behavior genetics studies of adult personality
make one thing abundantly clear: genes are important, and unique
environment is important, but shared environment is not important at
all (Eysenck, 1990). This conclusion could be devastating to theories
such as psychoanalysis that place a premium on how parents treat their
children (assuming that parents tend to treat all their children
alike)."
Once again you will find a wealth of material in article links on the
page.
Part of your question also deals with moods, pessimism or optimism.
You may find this from the University of Pittsburgh to be of interest.
( http://www.zubenkolab.pitt.edu/news091001.html )
You will find a study strongly linking genetics to personality
disorders and moods.
And last of all for a place where you can pretty much put it all
together, the U.S. government. Whatever credibility value you place
on "official government" information is of course up to you. This is
a very long page with an extensive amount of information,
bibliographies, and other resources.
( http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research/genetics.htm ) - From The National
Institute of Mental Health
You may notice that I've tried to assign you homework. :) With the
exception of the University of Pittsburgh page, I have attempted to
research through sites that would provide extensive links to
additional information should you choose to follow the subject
further.
It would seem the evidence points to a strong genetic behavioral
connection.
I feel I have covered the basics of your question in full even though
it is a big topic. But that is the problem. In a format such as
this, 'big topics', usually only get very basic coverage in the
primary answer. Its a shame there are times when we can't post
volumes of information here.
Since this is a big topic (and one in which I have become very
interested ) I look forward to responding to your clarification
requests.
search - google
key terms - genetics +and mood, human genetics behavioral studies,
human genome project
Cheers
digsalot |
Clarification of Answer by
digsalot-ga
on
18 Aug 2002 21:47 PDT
Woops - the 'italics' I used to stress certain points didn't come
through the transfer from my word program to this format. So where
you see "italics mine" just pretend there are little squiggly letters
there. You may also pretend there is a little embarassed smily face
here.
Cheers
digsalot
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
lizardnation-ga
on
19 Aug 2002 06:57 PDT
Hello Digsalot,
The coverage is impressive and as you've requested a clarification as
to the area of focus, I'll explain:
I would like to understand how genes impact
parent/child/family(including spouse) relationships, directly or
indirectly, where parents sometimes try to squeeze out of certain
areas their kids corner them in when they grow up by taking the fifth
in genetic causes for their behavior to be what it is/was.
The elements I have mentioned, being greed, selfishness as well as
belittling others and of being an pessimistic person who assumes no
return on the investment they put in others, including their own
offspring and spouse.
This may touch the area of self-sacrifice of ones resources, them
being mental as a prime and material as a secondary area of focus.
The above would cover this subset onces cleared a bit more. :-)
Thank you for the current resources, I'll take my time in sifting
through them, though I'll rate it as soon as I see the information is
heading in the right direction as it seems it does.
/Lizardnation
|
Clarification of Answer by
digsalot-ga
on
19 Aug 2002 12:09 PDT
Thanks for narrowing things down a bit. We are now leaving straight
behavioral and genetics studies and entering into the realm of
genetics and evolutionary psychology, even more fascinating.
In order to dovetail this with the above resources, I am going to ask
the indulgence of a day. There are a couple of sources which are not
online I would like to check.
Cheers
digsalot
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
lizardnation-ga
on
19 Aug 2002 16:24 PDT
Hello Digsalot,
I sure appreciate it, take your time. :-)
/Lizardnation
|
Clarification of Answer by
digsalot-ga
on
20 Aug 2002 09:02 PDT
I have had to break your clarification request down into sub-sections
and need to make sure I am understanding them properly. So this is a
request for a clarification of a clarification.
""I would like to understand how genes impact
parent/child/family(including spouse) relationships, directly or
indirectly, where parents sometimes try to squeeze out of certain
areas their kids corner them in when they grow up by taking the fifth
in genetic causes for their behavior to be what it is/was.""
*Short version* -[ Of course the kids a trouble maker. Just look at
his father and grandfather. Whaddya expect?] - - Now while the
preceeding statement does not directly address genetics as a science,
it does demonstrate a tendency for many parents (and others) to blame
'inherited tendencies" and take the fifth, rather than accept their
own responsibility in raising a problem kid. - - - - Am I on or off
track here?
There are seveal ways to go on this depending on whether I have
interpreted the question correctly.
----------------------------------------------------------
""The elements I have mentioned, being greed, selfishness as well as
belittling others and of being an pessimistic person who assumes no
return on the investment they put in others, including their own
offspring and spouse.""
I have found none of the negative attitudes listed above standing
alone in any source, even at the library. I have, however, found them
collectivly listed as personality elements of those who "might" be
genetically inclined toward a life of crime. I say "might" because
environment comes into play here as well.
Since the answer to the above seems to be a 'collective,' under the
heading of genetic tendencies toward a life of crime, I will wind up
sending you back to the Human Genome Project pages previously posted
above. They are already among the best resources to be found online.
---------------------------------------------------------
""This may touch the area of self-sacrifice of ones resources, them
being mental as a prime and material as a secondary area of focus.
The above would cover this subset onces cleared a bit more.""
We are returning mostly to the environmental here though genetic
traits toward "nurturing" do come into play. Since you will find a
wide variety of pros and cons presented, I will direct you to
( http://www.personalityresearch.org/evolutionary.html ) - From the
Great Ideas in Personality website and dealing with evolutionary
psychology.
Also - ( http://www.personalityresearch.org/basicemotions.html ) -
From the same website, dealing with Basic emotions.
And - ( http://www.personalityresearch.org/basicemotions.html ) -
behaviorism, with behaviorist arguments, criticisms and responses.
This is a tightrope topic in that 'genetic defense' or reasoning is as
emotional and controversial a subject as the 'insanity defense' in
explaining why we live our lives as we do. I am 'pointing' you to
where the information can be found. The reason I'm not giving it to
you in a predigested or synopsis form is that any such condensation of
information would be too subject to the philosphies of the writer and
would not be a fair answer to the question.
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
lizardnation-ga
on
20 Aug 2002 21:05 PDT
Hello Digsalot,
Thanks for the narrowing down of the subject, you were on the dot
where it came to the example of the kid turning out to be so and so
because of father and grandfather. The person in question is that kid
growing up and using that as an excuse for their actions with intent
which one would like to analise and clarify as not being valid enough
to be as an excuse anymore and bring back the responsibility, as
you've explaned, part of their remaining life and the correction of
what is correctable back to being their own and only their own. :-)
/Lizardnation
|
Clarification of Answer by
digsalot-ga
on
21 Aug 2002 09:43 PDT
A little knowledge can be a dangerous thing. I know, its an old line,
but it seems to apply in this case. And here I am editorializing when
I said I wouldn't.
If I am reading things right, I am hearing about a young man who is
blaming "genetics" for his actions and doing so with the proverbial
"little knowledge."
Genetics seems to be a split field in that there are certain genetic
characteristics which cannot be changed. They compel such things as
eye, skin, hair colour, sexual preference, for example, and there are
certain genetics which do not "compel" but "impel." The so called
"personality" genes which give disposition toward certain behaviors.
When we are dealing with the genetic material which "impels," any use
of it as a final excuse for bad behavior is just that, an excuse.
With some people, there seems to be some confusion between what
compels and what impels. Sexual preference falls into that category.
Such genetic traits are considered compeling by science but are
dismissed as "impulsive" by certain religious groups who believe
superstition supersedes science. I don't know if this is what you are
aiming at, but I have known people who have been through those
"religious" sexual turn arounds and some have even married. In
private conversation, and I have had many with them as part of an
anthropological study, every single one of them claims to be living a
life of total hell. If that is where you are going, please don't.
There is an article which helps explain how a little knowledge can
hurt. In fact, it explains how just a "little knowledge" comes into
being. It is called "Fish Dream of Fighting Rats--Now That's a
Story!"
( http://www.the-scientist.com/yr2001/mar/opin_010319.html ) - there
is a free registration needed to access. The website belongs to "The
Scientist" which is a biomedical online journal.
The reason given for the confusion in public understanding has to do
with the way many scientific stories and discoveries are presented.
some quotes follow:
"since we are endlessly fascinated with ourselves, scientists studying
neuroscience, genetics, or psychology, regardless of how remote their
findings are from offering any bona fide explanation of complex human
behavior, always have an edge over geologists and chemists. News
stories tend to focus on what gets reported in a single paper,
isolating the findings from the historical and scientific context
scientists use to determine if the results are interesting, important,
and meaningfully interpretable. What makes science truly interesting,
fascinating, puzzling, and troubling to interpret sometimes is its
incremental process--and this also makes telling the story of science
not quite news in the "man bites dog" tradition."
( break)
"you're probably saying to yourself, 'yes, many of these stories are
silly and overwrought, but what's their harm? Scientists get their 15
minutes of fame. Nonscientists hear and read stories making research
seem interesting, relevant, and cool.' Unfortunately, these stories
risk diminishing, not enhancing, scientific literacy. The way these
stories often get told provides no room for skepticism, no framework
for analysis, no ability for weighing the data, and no route for
following the argument. These stories are not about science. In fact,
they are antiscience. That's the harm. "
Both of the above quotes are from the article "Fish Dream of Fighting
Rats--Now That's a Story!"
If the person you are speaking of gets his "little knowledge" about
genetics from such popular sources, then he hasn't a solid leg to base
any claim on. He is making excuses and you need not give in to them.
I will leave you with one final quote (though you are always free to
request further clarification)
The Quote is from the same article as above, but I think it is
important enough to put here.
" Popular writing about science leaping huge knowledge gaps with
superficial connections may make good copy today, but it works to
undermine the fragile understanding of the scientific process
possessed by most nonscientists. What do scientists and journalists
expect to gain by fueling urban mythologies and folk psychologies
yielding serious misconceptions about the truth of what is known and
what is knowable? Popular writing about cloning has misled people into
believing they can re-create their dead pets. Overexposure of the
Human Genome Project has created false beliefs that there are genes
"for" all kinds of complex traits and learned behaviors. The
unfortunate use of "global warming" as a catch phrase for complex
climate changes has made it all too easy to scoff at science during
every winter cold snap."
The article was writen by Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D., program
director at the James S. McDonnell Foundation.
|
,
0 Comments
)