/sci/ - Science & Math

Personality wise that is.

Basically Im asking how much of our personality is decided by genes.

>>5284356
Do you even Twin Studies?

>>5284355
>>5284356
More than you might think. I can't cite or link to specific studies, but IIRC there have been many cases of identical twins who were raised separately, and may not have even known about each other, who ended up in similar career fields and on similar life paths.

Not to mention the somewhat cliche but nonetheless all too true experience that many of us have with "becoming our parents" as we get older.

Eeire.

you might be similar, but not the same. even if they were raised in the same environment they wouldn't be the exact same personality wise

>>5284361
Completely identical genetic make-up.

Would you not share the same consciousness..

>>5284364
This is actually true. My maternal uncle was adopted when he was 1, the adoption centre had reported his brother missing, presumed dead due to some clerical error, they both did end up working in IT but in different parts of the country, eventually both met randomly at some conference of a business merger and were completely stumped as to why they are so similar in appearence. Also, they are both clean shaven, short cropped hair and both wear the same brand and power glasses, both have wives and twin girls, it is so fucking eerie.

>>5284392
We are made of genes. Even though we don't think of ourselves that way, everything that we are comes from that. There is certainly a place for "nurture" but even then our genes predetermine how we will react to the various stimuli we are faced with in life.

>>5284395
>There is certainly a place for "nurture" but even then our genes predetermine how we will react to the various stimuli we are faced with in life.
You seem to not understand the importance of environment.

Also, identical twins aren't 100% genetically identical.

>>5284361


do you even twins genetically identical?
organisms do not need to possess mutations to possess genetic differences.

once the pre-fetal collection of cells differentiated into 2 distinct organisms, the repeated transcription of the genetic material to reproduce each cell produces errors that result in subtle cellular differences between each.

thus, you can say that twins differ by AT LEAST the minimum average error of natural transcription.


Not enough to distinguish with electrophoretic separation
(aka "DNA testing"), but if you were to fully sequence (down to individual bases, not just fragments) a large number of cells from each of the 2 twins, you would find some percentage difference that corresponds primarily with transcription error.


it would be cost prohibitive to test someone's genetics this way.... it would cost like $1 million even today. "DNA testing" is not an analytical technique for IDENTIFICATION....

it is for COMPARISON only. You cut up your DNA at specific points... the comparison should share the same fragment sizes because they share ancestry.

what those fragments contain is a mystery until you remove the fragments from the gel, and then sequence them further...

that 2nd step adds tremendously to the cost, and the process is sequential.... after the 1st separation, you have to sequence hundreds of fragments, so the cost grows very fast.

>>5284398
>"There is certainly a place for 'nurture..."

>"You seem to not understand the importance of environment."

And no, they aren't 100%, but until we have actual human clones to observe, they are the closest approximation.

>>5284392
We should not be surprised by a few similarities between them.

There are thousands of pieces of information in one's life and it is very likely (and not surprising) that any two people will share many similarities due to the large number of possibilities.

>>5284401
>it would be cost prohibitive to test someone's genetics this way.... it would cost like $1 million even today. "DNA testing" is not an analytical technique for IDENTIFICATION....
Do you honestly think sequencing a genome costs $1,000,000? lol

no. epigenetics.

>>5284414
and neuroplasticity

>>5284401
>but if you were to fully sequence (down to individual bases, not just fragments)
What does this even mean?

Obviously not OP.

>>5284366
By what line of thought do you come to the conclusion that completely genetically identical people share the same consciousness, but that the rest of us all have 'unique' consciousnesses?

I just don't see any possible argument that would hold up for more than the slightest breeze.

Conjoined twins.

>/thread

>>5284355
It depends on what you mean. Being around certain people can change how you speak/behave and let you know your boundaries. Being shown the appeal in less obvious things in life (example: having a good professor) can influence your education and career, and as a result your conversations will tend toward that field while your thoughts will make associations using examples from that field.

However, it doesnt necessarily dictate how you make decisions at the core. Morality and major decisions can be dictated by logic. The world has lots of information available to everyone assuming theyre born in a decent country when it comes to these important decisions. Where there is not information, it can be agreed that the decision is a gray area. As a result, not everyone necessarily tends to believe what their culture does when they know that there is more to the world - though, they may eat or dress a certain way simply because it is more accessible or acceptable.

So, though you may dress, speak, eat, and behave differently with a job in a completely different field, it might not define what you consider to be a different personality. The core decision making and as a result the final decisions for important things can still be identical.