[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 41 KB, 542x585, MBTI.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5040605 No.5040605 [Reply] [Original]

What defines personality?

Genes? Environment?

Are there aspects of our personality that are unwavering and stick with us til death? Or is everything alterable?

Nature or nurture?

(I would appreciate some sources and articles to step me in the right direction in regards to the scientific workings of personality)

Also, is there really diversity in personality or are we all incredibly similar but don't realise it?

>> No.5040611

explain that pic, i have never seen them related that way.

>> No.5040613

>>5040611
Ignore it

>> No.5040616

/sci/ ? ;_;'

>> No.5040617

no you dick at least tell me where you got it and in return i will illuminate the very pulse and core of the human soul to you

>> No.5040619

>>5040617
No you won't. Especially if you don't know how to reverse search.

>google images

It's not important.

>> No.5040621

>>5040605
where can i find that personality test in OP's image ?

>> No.5040626

>>5040619
youre right i was bluffing, but at least i tricked you into telling me you can do that now.

>> No.5040628

>>5040621
http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/jtypes2.asp

>> No.5040637

>>5040626
I guess we can all share our personality results. I, personally, find I can't answer in the definitive for most of the questions. It's usually how I'm feeling at the time.

Anyway, as we do that - does anyone have any answers or speculation for my OP questions

>> No.5040653

well an understanding of your major neurotransmitters can give you a pretty good idea of why people have certain dispositions, as can neuroanatomy.

generally people are really all similar, they differ in terms of gradients. basic personality is is probably genetic, but major life events (less so conditioning, as was previously thought) can alter almost anything.

>> No.5040654

>>5040605
I don't have any exact proof so this is just a theory but the personality is derived from both nature and nurture. You have the information that already exists in your genetic code and the experiences that you endure through out your life. Both these things help shape your personality. There's also the factor of how you perceive and use this information but it can also be claimed that this action is your personality.

>> No.5040659

>>5040654
>>5040653

So, your personality at it's rawest (in your genetic code) determines the way you respond to your environment which can, in turn, also effect your personality by the consequences of such a response?

My questions has been stimulated by an observation of racial stereotypes. I was just questioning why there are so many people who fulfill a racial stereotype and then you come across the odd few who deviate so far from it (despite being raised in the same kind of culture and environment).

I had this one friend at school who was Tongan and was really quite intelligent, well-mannered, reserved and, actually. quite shy. He was big, bulky and well-respected as well. He was raised in a typical Tongan family and culture.

I then had like another 8 or 9 tongans in my grade who all acted the same, spoke the same, were barbaric, unintelligent and didn't give a shit about anyone or thing but their own 'kin'. They adopted all those Tongan values from their parents.

All except this one kid I was good friends with who seemed to be more 'western' in his dress-sense, values and was always into questioning science and religion etc. He enjoyed thinking for himself and being ambitious.

It made me re-evaluate whether the resilience of the person can negate most of the environmental affects on one's personality.

Thoughts?

>> No.5040664

>>5040659
>inb4 racism

It's an honest observation I made. And I shouldn't conceal it just because it has some 'racist' tendencies.

That's not to say that I didn't give this one guy a chance just because of his race. I don't do that. As I said earlier, I was good friends with him.

And it's not only Tongans, but most races in general. Most races have these values and cultures that just reverberate upon generations of offspring except and exceptional few who deviate far from it and think for themselves.

>> No.5040670

>>5040664
>>5040659
And I think this relates to that whole stigma of black people being uneducated criminals. And you have the Liberals who base it on the influence of their family and environment.

Yet, you have the handfull that are ambitious and deviate away from their familial history of poverty by seeking a better life for themselves.

It's all so confusing. It seems like none of this is black and white and it's difficult to accept that there may be no answer for this.

>> No.5040683

>>5040659
That's an interesting question and I don't know if I can answer it completely. But first I would like to say that you can't give the basis that they grew up in the same environment. Sure it could be similar but none of those people have the same parents, grew up in the same household, had the exact same friends, etc. To truly test all these variables you'd have to have the exact same person, in the same circumstances then observe how they develop and see if there's a difference.

As to why a person may fall into a stereotype I would have to say it's learned or a desire to fit in. A person may want to match with the group they most recognize with and have a feeling of belonging. For the guy who doesn't fit the stereotype it could be something within that tells him to be different from the group. Or possibly a deeper understanding of being a person. The fact is all humans are fundamentally the same, the differences all come from the environments we're raised in.

>> No.5040684

>>5040683
>The fact is all humans are fundamentally the same

I was afraid that this may be true. How do I stop fighting this notion? I just can't handle knowing that, in our rawest form, we are all essentially the same.

In what way are we 'fundamentally' the same, do you think?

>> No.5040694

>>5040684
Well the only way I can see not fighting it is to accept it. What makes you afraid of it being true? It doesn't mean that people can't be unique. To me it means that we shouldn't be fighting each other and trying to find differences but work together towards a common goal so that we can all prosper.

Being similar also isn't limited to humans. It spans across all life on this planet. Life here adapted to the resources available and to its own existence (ie. without plants producing oxygen we wouldn't be here). Most animals on Earth function similarly being that we're carbon based, breathe oxygen and require water. It's quite possible that life has developed on other planets but using different elements for their basis of survival.

>> No.5040701

>>5040694
I meant similar in the way we 'think' as opposed to the fact that we are carbon-based lifeforms.

I've always loved the diversity of personality - the way we think etc and am just so scared of losing who I am at this present moment in 10 years time.

I can see heaps of similarities of myself now and myself 10 years ago but I just have such a fear that it may not continue to be so. I've notice an enormous improvement of my understanding of myself and a vast improvement in my depth and complexity in the way I think. I'm afraid of losing it all.

And if we are all fundamentally the same in the way we think - which i speculate so - then my notion of 'me' is flawed, as there is no 'me' or 'you' or 'individuality' at all. It's all an illusion.

If the environment is the only driving force in creating diversity of thought - that means we are just as easily susceptible of changing so dramatically 10 years down the line that you are essentially an entirely new person.

Sorry about my rambling.

>> No.5040704

There is no such thing as personality.

Personality testing is a discredited practice that nobody takes seriously anymore.

Trait theory was discredited by research over 30 years ago.

Keep up with the times OP.

>> No.5040708

>>5040704
What has now taken its place?

I've never had faith in 'personality testing'. It was far too restrictive. it's difficult defining a person's mindframe, to say the least.

Are you suggesting that we are all the same\?

>> No.5040714

>>5040708

There is no such thing as a "mind" or "personality".

All behavior is the result of the brain.

I personally don't think there are brain states that directly relate to folk-psychology ideas of emotions. i.e there is no specific brain state for "happiness" or "sadness", and all such correlations (up to now) have been due to bad interpretation of data. My stance might be termed eliminative materialism.

>> No.5040716

>>5040714
Isn't 'personality' essentially patterns of 'brain behaviour'

Personality isn't suggestive of a metaphysical mind.

>> No.5040726

>>5040716
Naw mang you can't use words in the common vernacular here. gotta talk in binary no emotions beep boop they don't exist beep boop.

If there's no specific differences between the brain state when one is happy and one is sad then that implies that there is some kind of invisible outside entity which controls these emotions, or that there's no difference between being happy and sad, which is ridiculous.

>> No.5040727

>>5040701
Everyone is capable of thinking the same way but by having people think differently we are able to expand our experiences and compound the knowledge we gain. There's no need to fear change because without it we wouldn't be able to evolve. You may be a different person 10 years from now but we you possibly wouldn't be that person without being the person you are today. The information you have gained does not go away. It can be forgotten but it can always be remembered or rediscovered by another individual. I came to the same conclusion to you that it's all just an illusion but it doesn't cheapen the experience unless we choose to see it that way. I've theorized that are consciousness is the delay as energy moves through our system and the realization arose that we are alive. It's not unrealistic to believe that we're all one since everything is believed to arise from a source energy and is all connected. This is all just one moment being experienced subjectively.

>>5040704
If there was no such thing as personality then everyone would be the same. I wouldn't doubt personality testing being flawed but it doesn't mean everyone is devoid of personality.

>> No.5040737

>>5040714
Emotions are chemicals in the brain brought upon by stimulus from the environment, either inner or outer. How the stimulus affects us and how we handle those emotions is determined by our personality.

>> No.5040738

>>5040727
>It's not unrealistic to believe that we're all one
I hope we aren't though, don't you? Why would this one stream of consciousness choose to split itself up into many personalities and experiences - each which may conflict with each other (therefore conflicting with itself)?

> It can be forgotten but it can always be remembered or rediscovered by another individual
Can it be remembered by the same individual, do you think? I've always found solace in thinking "if I forget who I am at this point in time - this contemplative mindframe - in 10 years time, the fact that I was able to think it once means I will be able to think it again".
Do you think this holds true? We are now dabbling into philosophy, really, as there is no real answer to this - but does there seem to be some logic to it?
>Everyone is capable of thinking the same
Do you really think so? What makes us want to think differently or feel a preference in thinking a certain way?

>>5040726
So the brain does not change it's state when experiencing emotions? Are you sure? that sounds really odd.

>> No.5040740

>>5040737
>How the stimulus affects us and how we handle those emotions is determined by our personality.

Then what exactly is 'personality' if we are separating it from emotion?

I actually agree with what you just said but it now delves us into the deeper question of what exactly 'personality' is and whether it is a hereditary trait or one created by the environment.

>> No.5040741

>>5040738
That's what the tripper was implying, I was explaining the ludicrousness of it.

>> No.5040743

>>5040741
Sorry, my error.

>> No.5040751

>>5040738
I have no qualms of being one with the universe. I actually find it reassuring. The conflicts arise by not seeing each other as equal or related. As to why would a consciousness choose to split this is a question I cannot definitely answer. Maybe it wasn't a choice or maybe it was out of boredom or loneliness. Maybe there wasn't a consciousness until the split. But with multiple perspectives within the universe spread out so vastly we have a chance to exponentially accelerate our progress of knowledge and experience.

I think it's possible to remember the information since once you have the thought, it has already happened; You can't deny that it occurred if you experienced it. You may need something to trigger the memory depending on how deep it's buried but it's possible.

What makes us think differently all comes back to personality. As I stated, I believe it's a combination of experience: past (genetics), present (environment) and possibly perceived future. Why we're like this is still trying to be discovered. A way to look at it though is like society. We have people specialize in different skills and professions so people can focus their efforts on fewer things. We rely on each other and work together as a whole. If you have a problem being viewed by people with different perceptions then each perception offers more information so the problem can be more adequately solved.

>> No.5040766

>>5040751
Thanks, I enjoyed this discussion.

>> No.5040805

It's most likely nature and nurture.

/thread

>> No.5040823

>>5040805
I don't think nature plays as big a role as we think, though.
I think our response to it is far more important and comes back to the heredity of personality and our resilience to the environment.

>> No.5040837

Both.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_way

>> No.5040850

>>5040837
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_way

I'm not sure Buddhism is an adequate explanation of your thesis.

>> No.5040874

A person's nature is far more important than nurture plebasaurus

>> No.5040897

>>5040874
what makes you say that?

>> No.5040926

interesting thread. hopefully more people will post

>> No.5040981

>>5040926
anyone? ;_;

>> No.5040994

>>5040874
The child of a handsome and sucessful businessman will never learn language if the house dog is responsible for his entire upbringing. Nature and nurture have equal opportunity to make or break a phenotype.

>> No.5041044

unless you're a sociopath or autistic or some other unlucky shit, nurture is way bigger than nature.

there's thousands of different variables for what makes you think the way you do. from how much sunlight you get to how many times you masturbate in a month. for some people reading a book can change the way they think. changing your diet can too.

ya'll are just looking for a reason to blame your awkward anti-social habits on your parents.

>> No.5041048 [DELETED] 

>>5040994
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vem__5si6Us

>> No.5041183

>>5041044
I don't think people are trying to blame their problems on someone else. It's just a discussion of what personality is and where it comes from.

>> No.5042531

>>5041183
I think the person takes precedent over the environment.

It is the relationship between both, no doubt, but if you get two people at birth under identical environmental circumstances they will not turn out the same.
That's because they will each respond differently to it.

Nature takes precedent over nurture. I know a few people who come from piss-poor families and have had the resilience not to be too greatly affected by it - seeking education themselves as opposed to relying on their parents.

So it was their hereditary personality that triggered that response to a poor environment - leading to the consequence of seeking education themselves.
The environment is a consideration but a lesser one under inherit personality

>> No.5042611

really?

>> No.5042635

>>5042611
yes

>> No.5042672

>>5042531
Hmm, I'm not sure.

I'd like opinions on this.

>> No.5042677

Part nature, part environment.

If you were indoctrinated from infancy to be a guido, you'd be a guido.

>> No.5042685

>>5042677
I don't know. I mean, so many people are indoctrinated to be religious and have the resilience to think for themselves and turn out otherwise.

I don't the the person is given enough credit when responding to their environment.

>> No.5042720

>>5040605
ENTP master race reporting:

it is both OP. you will never find a definitive answer. at the core it is defined, but your life molds your choices in a way that can give you a marker of a different type.

i.e. raised democrat. was democrat for a bit. received an education in science and math and now i lean towards the republican side.

>> No.5042724

>>5042685
>implying wanting to rebel from authority isn't an environmental effect

>> No.5042733

>>5042724
I wouldn't say it's a 'rebellion' at all. For some it may be, but that wouldn't hold true for all.

Some just have the resilience to think for themselves.

>> No.5042739

>>5042720
>at the core it is defined
What do you mean?

>> No.5042745

>>5042720
Weird, only a year ago i was an INTJ

Now I'm an ENFP

Fuck, have I changed this much?

>> No.5042777

>Look on /sci/ to see if even /sci/'s enlightened.
>Of course
>Here we go

>> No.5042792

>>5042777
wut?

>> No.5042813

>>5042745
Those personality tests are bullshit. You can't label someone, we are far too complex.

I see many similarities in a description of an ENFP, INTJ and INTP for myself.
When I take the test on a month-to-month basis I seem to fluctuate between them (and other labels). Most of those questions I couldn't answer with a 'yes' or 'no' but a 'sometimes I do, sometimes I don't'

And I think that's the problem with society. We tend to try to define the people around us with labels, associating some characteristics that they portray as 'oh, that's just typical Jim'. But it really isn't.

Too much reductionism, really.

Anyway, for those who like to restrict their minds to a label, here you go:-
http://www.personalitypage.com/ENFP.html

>> No.5042836

>>5042813
i tend to agree

>> No.5042863

Interesting discussion for once.

>> No.5042998

>>5042813
This. I'm very much interested in psychology and neuroscience. I tend to only stick to the empirical stuff though. All this pop-sci personality bullshit is akin to astrology.

>> No.5043012

>>5042998
Exactly

>> No.5043061

>>5042739
we cannot measure the core only the core's effects. if your perspective of the world changes your core will show it's effects in a different manner than before your perspective changed.

example: you like helping people. a man is hungry you give him a fish. you realize this does not change anything so you decide to teach people how to fish instead. one might say that because you are a teacher you have an innate desire to teach when in reality you were always just trying to help people.

>> No.5043078

>>5043061
I see what you mean. And I agree.

>> No.5043088

>>5043061
I don't - what exactly do you mean by the 'core'?

>> No.5043102

>>5043061
but isn't perspective part of the 'core'
does it not then mean that the 'core' is changing?

unless I am misunderstanding what you mean by 'core'

>> No.5043165

INTJ BITCHES

>> No.5043174

>>5042813
Very much true, though the characteristics a label has often applies to the person.

>> No.5043194

Everything is genes and epigenetics.

Everything.

We will one day be able to reduce absolutely everything down to a genetic and epigenetic basis in biology. While there may be explanations to as *why* said behaviour has arisen, there will be a reductionist biological explanation to as why exactly said behaviour -is- occurring.

Fucking epigenetics man, fuck. That shit gets me so hard.

>> No.5043201

>>5043088
your true, innate personality

i dont believe nature can change what you were born with but it can change how the signal goes from your innate reaction to your complete thought to your actions

>> No.5043205

>>5042685
But is that desire to rebel really encoded inside ourselves? How do we know that's not learned? Twins should be almost identical when it comes to personality. Very similar genetics and similar upbringings within the same time period. But the littlest things, like the parent choosing your sibling over you in one small, seemingly insignificant, instance could shape a personality forever, while the twin who was "favored" wouldn't have that deep seeded angst.

>> No.5043210

>>5043194
Reductionism is dangerous

>> No.5043218

>>5043194
You can have a change in synaptic physiology with absolutely no change in the distribution of promoters or histones on the genome. Behavior cannot be entirely reduced to epigenetics.

>> No.5043219

>>5043210

[citation needed]

Also you're on the /sci/ board, if you haven't noticed, we're a bit fucking reductionist over here.

EVEN THE BIOLOGISTS.

>> No.5043220

>>5043205
>Twins should be almost identical.

Exactly, yet, if you were to analyse twins as babies, you would see big differences in behaviour - long before the influence of the environment and acknowledgment of favouritism is bound to occur.

Maybe we shouldn't attribute personality down to genes solely.

>> No.5043224

>>5042813
It's just a product of how large out population has grown (and is growing). There are too many people to really be an individual anymore. There are always going to be enough people that are so similar to you that you will be grouped in with them.

>> No.5043226

>>5043219
You don't need a citation to recognise the danger of reductionism.

Also, it was a subjective statement - I knew that when I made it, and you should've known that when you read it.

>> No.5043229

>>5043218

You can? Shit, wow, fuck, tell me, tell me now!

How is this? Sources, sources needed for interest now!

>> No.5043237

>>5043226
>reductionism is dangerous
Uhh, I do need an explanation what you think reductionism is, and why you think it's bad.

I am a physics reductionist - I believe all observable phenomena have an accurate model, and all such models are reducible to the model of physics. (I leave wiggle room because obviously we haven't got a fully accurate model yet for physics.)

>> No.5043239

>>5043218
Could you translate this to commonfolk language?

A nice analogy would also be appreciated.

>> No.5043241

>>5043220
i agree, really.

>> No.5043244

>>5043220
Yeah, maybe. But who knows. With all of this "pre-memory memory" shit about babies being influenced by the music they listen to and how you talk around them, I wouldn't be surprised if something as stupid as being second out of the womb might develop some sort of inferiority complex. I know that sounds like pop-sci and a lot like Freud but who knows.

I think it's a mix, definitely. But I still believe nuture takes the lead role.

>> No.5043247

>>5043220

Epigenetics.

>> No.5043250

>>5043229
Look up NMDA/Calmodulin dependent plasticity. It's in just about every undergrad neuro textbook (Kandel's Principles of Neural Science is a good one).

The short of it is that local calcium signaling cascades in dendritic spines can cause the insertion of more AMPA receptors into the postsynaptic density, increasing the depolarization of a single presynaptic action potential by increasing the permeability of the membrane to cations, and therefore increasing the synaptic current induced by the action potential. For those of you who are computationally minded, this is the same as increasing the edge weight between the two neurons.

All of this occurs entirely locally. mRNAs for AMPARs are shuttled to synaptic spines, but this process does not require a change in the expression of mRNAs in order to work. If it did, learning would be much much slower.

>> No.5043263

>>5043250

You sir are a fucking god. Thank you for the resource. Seriously, you really have no idea how much this helps me. This might even change my life. (I realise I sound like im being an ass, im actually deadly serious. Cheers bro)

>> No.5043269

>>5043250
What the fuck does this mean? More calcium can.... make you think faster?

>> No.5043270

>>5043239
Surely. I'll explain how synaptic plasticity works as best I can.

Neurons have very close "connections" with one another called synapses, which are sites where one neuron can discharge chemicals (neurotransmitters) onto another neuron. Presynaptic neurons are neurons releasing transmitter, postsynaptic neurons are neurons receiving transmitter. The most common effect of neurotransmitters is to cause a flux of ions into the postsynaptic cell, thereby changing the overall charge of the cell. When the cell reaches a certain positive charge, it fires an action potential and communicates with further cells down the line.

Synaptic plasticity occurs when there are changes at the synapse (usually on the postsynaptic side) that change the effect that a presynaptic action potential has on the postsynaptic cell, usually by increasing or decreasing the effect. For example, in sea slugs, when you poke them they get upset and squirm. Over time, if you keep poking the slug, the number of receptors for neurotransmitters in the neuron connected to the slug's muscle will actually decrease, thereby decreasing the overall effect that activity in the neuron presynaptic to that has on the neuron, and therefore decreasing the effect that the neuron has on the muscle, and therefore reducing overall behavioral response in the slug.

I typed all of that quickly with nearly no regard for it's transparency, so I hope that it's okay.

>> No.5043277

>>5043269
No, but it makes you think differently. More precisely, it makes you behave differently. These types of things are often studied in the hippocampus, a structure known for its role in learning and memory.

>>5043263
Any time. Neuroscience rules.

>> No.5043284

>>5043194
i know that feel the environment effects gene expression in many ways and in all organisms

heredity can have a "bad gene" but especially when considering the mind, where even thought can act epigenetically and change genetic expression, there can be ways around something. i guess what you could say is which is more important - the nature OR the nurture. nahmean brah

(captcha: "growth," "GDsagery")

>> No.5043287

>>5043270
The slug analogy made it all click, thank you.

But I'm confused as to how this relates to an 'innate personality' rather than a behavioural response to the environment. Unless, you're suggest that only the latter applies and the former does not exist.

Would that then mean that we would all respond the same way to a certain environmental circumstance but some of us have had to respond to the environment more than others, creating a resilience to it? It just seems too limited when considering the depth of personality.

>> No.5043289

>>5043270

Dude, you fucking rock.

You just neuro? Im looking for any resources on connections to genetics/cell biology, especially interesting stuff that induces "That's funny..." much like what you just posted.

>> No.5043292

>>5040605

>the MBTI

Not this falsely-dichotomous choose-your-own-horoscope bullshit again. I thought /sci/ was above that.

Although you're given a % scale, you're still assigned a letter in each category, and trying to call a 51% Introvert an Introvert is just plain wrong.

And of course, the MBTI fails to incorporate "If... then..." statements and assumes static character traits across varying circumstances.

For example, "INTJ"s are supposed to be self-confident, but consider two situations:
>doing linear regression
>asking a girl out

You can see the basic idea - any trait-based theory fails to account for when those traits show up in individuals.

>> No.5043296

>>5043284
>even thought can act epigenetically and change genetic expression
Really?

>> No.5043299

>>5043292
Read through the thread, that was the point made several times over

>> No.5043303

>>5043289
I'm a neuro Ph.D student, and my focuses are in systems-level physiology. Unfortunately, I do not have a very strong background in cell biology outside of neuron-specific function, and my background in genetics is population genomics.

If you're interested in how genome expression can be changed over time, look up stuff on promoters, acetylation, and histones. Wiki is a good starting point most of the time.

>> No.5043305

>>5043102
no, a perspective is automatic. your "core" effects your perspective and the environment effects your perspective.

(lest something like "putting a strong magnet near magnetic tape" or direct damage to the storage) the environment changes something about your perspective not your core personality - your core personality is "nature"

>> No.5043308

>>5043305
So your 'core personality' is unwavering and unalterable?

>> No.5043317

>>5043296

Oh yeah. Methylation and histone markings, among more recent findings, can completely shut down the expression of genes.

A big analogy is that we have the same genes in all our cells, yet we dont have teeth in our eyeballs. Why is this? Gene expression has been shut down.

It also explains things like parent-of-origin effects. Genes are marked as maternal and paternal not by being any different from each other but due to their methylation and histone markings. This is why we cant use two sets of female DNA to make a functioning zygote; one set of haploid chromosomes must be epigenetically marked as paternal and one as maternal.

>> No.5043327

>>5043317
But how does 'thought' change genetic expression?

What 'thought' instigates it? Unless I've misunderstood you

>> No.5043329

>>5043218
i dont think you should have a problem with this ... he pretty much said "biochemistry controls life" ..... he said it is genetics and 'things that control genetic expression'(epigenetics)

>> No.5043331

>>5043317
What is methylation and histone markings?

Sorry, this sounds really interesting and I'm new to it all.

>> No.5043333

>>5043329
ooops also fctors that can change the biochemistry (epi-genetics ... above genetics .... one of the broadest words in bio)

>> No.5043339

shit guys, epigenetics is not just histone methylation.

it is everything not including genetics and the results of those genetics

>> No.5043358

pls guys

>> No.5043372

>>5043358
pls ;_;

>> No.5043375

>>5043237
im not this guy but in this context it can be. biology is a dirty word when speaking in the context of "newtonian" ...... it is a matter of which is more important if you want to "break down a personality"

so to say either or in general is ridiculous. it is like physics - you have to consider the situation you want to observe to do the math

>> No.5043392

>>5043331

Hmm... its a big long subject and im probably not the best at explaining it. But here goes.

Of the bases (C,G,A,T) in your DNA, Cytosine (as part of a CpG string) can have a methyl group added to position 5 (resulting in 5-methylcytosine) by a DNMT enzyme. This doesnt change the genetic sequence in any way, it simply marks it.

Right, now, in genes that code for proteins there's a section of the genome called a Promoter; this is where transcription complexes bind and start copying DNA to form RNA. Promoters typically have shitloads of CpG strings in them reffered to as CpG islands. Methylation of the CpG island at the start of a gene can essentially "turn it off". It does this is numerous ways, see MeCP2 etc. but essentially this acts to permanently shut down an area of the genome so it no longer codes for proteins. This is of course useful as cells of course need to code for different proteins/not code for other proteins in regards to their specialization.

Histone markings for all intents and purposes do a similar thing... gah, I think ive probably written out a whole load of garbled nonsense though. So I wont go on :P

>> No.5043401

>>5043392
Thanks for the effort. It's still too difficult for me to understand, admittedly.

But I appreciate it :)

>> No.5043408

>>5043392

Yep, as I thought, I wrote out a load of nonsensical bullshit. Oh well.

I think there must have been books published on this in popular science now anyway. Its been what... 20? 25 years since the stuff I just typed out was groundbreaking?

That's just new enough to have some sort of cheap, reasonable, literature around.

>> No.5043413

>>5043327
>>5043327

I'm more concerned with this question.

>> No.5043416

>>5043305
>>5043305

>>5043308
>>5043308

And these.

>> No.5043437

>>5043327
i said thought can act epigenetically
i agree with what you responded to but not me


among other things i could say, think of it like this:

say you come up with an idea through reasoning. if what you thought could not act epigenetically you could not remember it long enough to find a pen to write it down.

>> No.5043456

>>5043392
ah wrote a paper on this once 3 years ago

they originally thought that but it is not that simple with CpG islands. methylated histones turn genes off. methylated CpG islands can effect the specific binding of protein to DNA.

it is not like RNA transcriptase falls off if it hits a methylated CpG (it WAS thought this but it changed - stemmed from an old study that demthylated chemically and demethed the histones or soemthing like that - dont quote me)

this is an extremely common mistake though dont worry

>> No.5043457
File: 9 KB, 367x190, enneagram.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5043457

I'm surprised no one talks about the Enneagram, it's a much better system MBTI.

The Site:
http://similarminds.com/test.html
A free test, pretty much the real thing:
http://www.enneagraminstitute.com/

>> No.5043460

>>5043457

Whoops, switch those links (The first one is the test, second one is the site.

>> No.5043466

>>5043308
yes, thats what makes it your 'core personality'

it is just a term to label what is nature when considering nature vs nurture and your personality

>> No.5043489

Shouldn't that wheel be
>implying
>implying
>implying
>implying

>> No.5043503

>>5043456

Ah, that refines it for me slightly.

Any further sources you could suggest for this specific area?

>> No.5043512

>>5043437
I still don't understand. Maybe because I don't understand what 'acting epigenetically' means.

Would you mind explaining it to me? I would greatly appreciate it :)

Also, I have a question:
If you think something up once, is it possible to think it up again down the line or is it forever lost once you forget it?
What about personality? If you behave a certain way during one stage in your life, and you then change in 10 years time, is it possible to make the decision to revert back? Or is it forever lost in time once you've made the change?

>> No.5043519

>>5043489
Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

>> No.5043522

>>5043327
>>5043305
>>5043308

I would appreciate an opinion on the above posts in light of scientific reasoning and, if applicable, epigenetics.

Much appreciated!

>> No.5043525

>>5043327
>>5043305
>>5043308

I would appreciate an opinion on the above posts in light of scientific reasoning and, if applicable, epigenetics.

Much appreciated!!

>> No.5043548

>>5043503
can't find my paper's reference list - it was for senior year. not online and data not on me. couple browses through gScholar is what I did.

found this free thing on google
http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/25/10/1010.full

>> No.5043557

>>5043512
epigenetic means above-genetics

it usually means what influences the regulation in genes out side of the sequence of a protein that binds to it to make the stuff.

>> No.5043568

>>5043525
i really dont know what else you are looking for
> you come up with an idea through reasoning. if what you thought could not act epigenetically you could not remember it

>> No.5043628

>>5043568

So memory is above genetics?

>> No.5043642

>>5043628
thought can effect the expression of your DNA

>> No.5043660

>>5043642
Oh, is thought restricted to DNA?

>> No.5043708

>>5043660
Good question

>> No.5043716
File: 478 KB, 800x600, 4422514Neurology_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5043716

awesome /sci/ board

I would find great solace in the knowledge that a portion of our 'personality' is derived directly from our DNA. I cannot seem to find any resemblance between me and either of my parents. But that's just me.

>>5040659

The Tongan question hit the nail on the head spectacularly. My only guess to answer that question, would be to ask him directly about whether his upbringing varied at all from his siblings, no harm in pushing data, unless he's hypersensitive about racism.

>>5040751

being one with the universe? ... i.e some global cosmic connection between all of us?

I have had this thought a few times before, as I have read regularly that the human brain has more neurons than stars in the universe, but maybe I was just trippin'.

--
Athene's Theory of Everything
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbh5l0b2-0o

It has roughly 1.5m views, I don't know if people are taking this as gospel or not, but I do find the video extremely interesting.
It's a refreshing look at conciousness and if it goes viral, it will perhaps spark a well needed philosophical paradigm shift globally

>> No.5043723

>>5043716
I've seen that video. Who exactly is Athene?

>> No.5043754

>>5043660
Your genes constrain the machinery that is available to the cell, as well as a large portion of your brain's anatomical connections and histological properties. "Thoughts" as you know them are not something that occur on the DNA level, gene expression takes far far longer to regulate than you can become aware of new things and form new memories.

Memories probably form from to changes in the physiology of the cell that alter the functional connectivity of different populations of neurons. Thoughts are caused (more specifically, behavior is caused) by the communication of these neural populations.

>> No.5043763

Is it odd that my personality has changed dramatically, not because of a change in the environment, but because I spent a good 3 months after school ended thinking to myself, barely leaving my house? I felt like that intense contemplative state has developed my personality intensely.

Can a person's change be instigated by themselves as opposed to any environmental intrusions? Because this is what has happened to me.

>> No.5043767

>>5043754
Can the 'way' they communicate change significantly? Or is it unalterable?

>> No.5043809

>>5043767
What do you mean? Neurotransmitters that produce fairly static postsynaptic effects will always be the way that cells talk. Glutamate will always produce a positive current in the postsynaptic cell, but the amount of current that it induces can change.

Of course, other transmitters (catacholamines, neuropeptides) are more complicated.

>> No.5043821

>>5043809
>Thoughts are caused (more specifically, behavior is caused) by the communication of these neural populations.

But what are they communicating? What is the exact 'signal' being sent? What is it made of?
Are thoughts intangible or tangible? Is it possible to extract the line of communication and implant it into someone else's head, trigger that same thought? (a mere hypothetical, of course)

Is the 'manner' or 'pattern' in which they communicative determinative of personality? If so, can this be changed or is it unalterable?

>> No.5043826

>>5043821
>Are thoughts intangible or tangible?
Thoughts are patterns of information flow. They can be embodied in various physical phenomena, like neurochemical cascades (pulses) in a brain.

>> No.5043832

>>5043723
That's exactly what I thought, if you the click on the user on youtube that had posted it, it's like a gaming channel.
Also I found a video of, i think, pretending to be a cutting edge physicist, he must of mentioned relativity + quantum = quantum grav about 5 times

>>5043303
>>5043270
Have you ever seen this video? Would you consider it bull?
When he says c stand for conciousness as well as light, I lost it

>> No.5043838

>>5043832
>a video of, i think, pretending to be a cutting edge physicist, he must of mentioned relativity + quantum = quantum grav about 5 times
I don't think he made the video.

At least I hope not. It seems to make a lot of sense. He, himself, does not seem very credible.

I think he stole the video, posted it, and put 'Athene's Theory of Everything' as a joke.

>> No.5043859

>>5043763
Me too, I have changed a lot, just generally a bit more misanthropic

You say that your thought's effect your DNA.
So if you obsess over your ex-wife, that can change the way your DNA expresses itself?

>>5043838
Yeah I thought that'd be the case, you can see his desktop he looks like a gamer.

Just googled, found this http://ipowerproject.com/page/athenes-theory-of-everything

say's its from research from Chiren Boumaaza, (aka 'Athene') in the year 2010

It also has credited and related links which I shall peruse now

>> No.5043866

>>5043859
It is actually his video, I just found out.

He seems to be an A-grade moron and just makes sweeping speculations. Chiren Boumaaza is actually him.

>> No.5043885

>>5043866
>Chiren Boumaaza
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/01/prweb4997224.htm

>> No.5043891

>>5043885
>http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/01/prweb4997224.htm

I just finished reading that.

He expects to take one year learning up on quantum mechanics (with others devoting their entire lives) to come up with a 'theory of everything'/

I feel stupid for having watched it in the first place.

>> No.5043894

>>5043821
The signal that's being communicated is electrochemical. Electrical events happen inside neurons that cause the release of chemicals onto other neurons that effect the probability that those neurons produce electrical events.

These electrochemical signals work like this all the way from the retina to the muscles. How and why (and if?) that becomes thought is not known, and may just be an ill posed question.

Consciousness awareness of the exterior world probably happens in the cerebral cortex, though.

>> No.5043903

>>5043891
Ah man, feel stupid? Nahh.

Food for thought, besides it depends how much you read in a year.
But yes, that's primitive, and it's far from everything.
Infact it's hardly everything, it's just us.

>> No.5043915

>>5043891
his video quotes v.s ramachandran, he's wrote books such as 'Phantoms in the brain' and has studied neurology and visual psychophysics

>> No.5043916

>>5043915
Just check that the quote is accurate. He made another video where he misquotes people.

>> No.5043951

>>5043916
6 minutes 47s into the video (yes I watched it for quote)
"The mirror-neuron does not know the difference between it and others" - VS ramachandran

I've googled the shit out of it and can't confirm (n)

>> No.5043955

>>5043916
But it's not exactly an 'out-there' quote