[ 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: 6 KB, 299x168, genetic.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5282752 No.5282752 [Reply] [Original]

>Personality is genetic
discuss

>> No.5282759 [DELETED] 

I think genes are just social constructs.

>> No.5282762

Very "roughly speaking"
It's about 50% genetic.
25% upbringing by your parents.
25% to your own unique environment

>> No.5282763

>>5282752
Partially.

Nature and nurture both play a part in determining ones personality.

>> No.5282765

>>5282762
This

>> No.5282766 [DELETED] 

Personality is partially genetic (for example intelligence) and partially a social construct (for example gender).

>> No.5282767

>>5282762
Making up statistics for proportional cause of this is both transparent and pointless.

It is not half and half.

>> No.5282770 [DELETED] 

>>5282767
Prove that it isnt exactly 50%.

>> No.5282773

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282770[/spoiler]
checkmate.

>> No.5282774

>>5282767

Ok Einstein. What % do you think it is?

>> No.5282786

i remember being told that emotional response is largely genetic

>> No.5282787

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282770[/spoiler]
Prove that it is.

>> No.5282790

>>5282774
I am not Einstein, nor have I ever claimed to be.

Guessing at a percentage is utterly meaningless; I am not participating.

>> No.5282794 [DELETED] 

>>5282787
>shifting the burden of proof

Nice try. You made the claim.

>> No.5282797

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282794[/spoiler]
>you made the claim
0/10

see
>>5282762

>> No.5282800

>>5282797

not sure if troll or just utterly retarded

maybe both?

>> No.5282801

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282794[/spoiler]
You made a meaningless percentage claim based on zero evidence.
I am not burdened to prove anything to you.

>> No.5282804

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282770[/spoiler]
It doesn't work that way faggot. Russell's teapot etc.
First, you should define what personality is. Is the way we act? The way we think? The way we feel? All of these combined? Considering how much all of these traits change over time (basically based on our experiences and on internal changes, like puberty) "personality" is not something measurable or quantizable in any way, and I wouldn't give the question of OP any relevance.

>> No.5282805

>>5282790

Would you say the genetic to upbringing ratio is 10-90 or closer to 90-10? Nobody cares if you are wrong. We just want your "hypothesis".

>> No.5282807 [DELETED] 

>>5282801
I did not post the percentages. That was another poster. But you were the first one to make a claim. You claimed it cannot be 50%. Where's your evidence?

>> No.5282818

>>5282800
-1/10
congratz, I didn't think you could get any worse

>> No.5282815 [DELETED] 

>>5282804
>"personality" is not something measurable or quantizable

lol, you never heard of psychology?

>> No.5282816

>>5282805
Fine.
I think that it is mainly down to genetics.

>> No.5282821

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282807[/spoiler]
see
>>5282762
he made the claim
when asked for evidence, showed none
the burden is that poster's

>> No.5282823

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282807[/spoiler]
>But you were the first one to make a claim.
Incorrect.
I was refuting the claim of the person I was replying to, and pointing out that they have no evidence, and are pointlessly guessing at percentages.

>> No.5282825 [DELETED] 

>>5282816
[citation needed]

>> No.5282833 [DELETED] 

>>5282821
>>5282823
The tripfag claimed that the other poster was wrong. So far he didn't back up that claim. Don't attack anything you cannot scientifically disprove.

>> No.5282831

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282825[/spoiler]
>>5282805
good god!
>being this much of an angry autist

asking him a question so that you can try and call him out on it? are you 12?

>> No.5282837

What would happen if a sun made of wind colided with a sun made out of betty white?

>> No.5282840

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282833[/spoiler]
dat hypocrisy and flawed logic

>> No.5282841

>>5282831

Different people... I applaud him for making a "hypothesis".

>> No.5282844

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282825[/spoiler]
I do not need a citation for my own opinion.

However, consider that it is only genetic differences, a few A's T's G's and C's rearranged differently, that determine who you are, and what species you are.

A drastic alteration of your genetic code before birth could have meant that a slug is created, rather than a complex person.
The personality of slugs and peoples are extremely different.
Environmental factors will make little difference.

(The thought experiment is hypothetical; I am not suggesting that you can alter a persons genetic code to make a woman give birth to a slug, or any other species)

>> No.5282853

>>5282844
[citation needed]

>> No.5282857 [DELETED] 

>>5282844
>I do not need a citation for my own opinion.
Last time I checked this was the "/sci/ - science and math" board, not the "edgy teenagers spout baseless opinions" board.

>a few A's T's G's and C's rearranged differently, that determine who you are
Another claim without citation.

>The personality of slugs and peoples are extremely different.
You didn't even define "personality". The comparison is inappropriate and not applicable.

>> No.5282856

>>5282853
0/10 too obvious

>> No.5282863

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282833[/spoiler]
>Don't attack anything you cannot scientifically disprove.
You do not need to try to disprove all things that other people can imagine without evidence.

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

>> No.5282864

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282857[/spoiler]
at this point you are attacking his person and not any claims he made
the question was of his opinion

>> No.5282867
File: 878 KB, 400x225, gtfo_Penguin.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5282867

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282857[/spoiler]
HOLY shit. The trolls are 2 much in this thread.

>> No.5282865

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282857[/spoiler]
I was asked for my opinion, so I gave it.

I am not 'edgy', nor a teenager.

>> No.5282866 [DELETED] 

>>5282863
You didn't ask him for evidence. Instead you belligerently claimed he was wrong. Thus you made a claim which you have to back up.

>> No.5282870

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282866[/spoiler]
I am aware that there is no way he can have an accurate statistic on something as complex and untestable as this.

It was a pointless guess at 50%/50%

>> No.5282868 [DELETED] 

>>5282864
I was quoting three of his claims in my post.

>>5282865
Prove that you're neither edgy nor a teenager. Your behaviour on this board suggests you are both.

>> No.5282872 [DELETED] 

>>5282870
Please prove that he cannot have evidence. And even if he doesn't have any, that doesn't mean he was wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You are committing too many logical fallacies. Please stop trolling and back up your claim. Provide a scientific source that proves him wrong.

>> No.5282876 [DELETED] 

>>5282865
Way to dodge the other points.

>> No.5282878

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282868[/spoiler]
>his claims
you mean his opinions
so yes, you were attacking him

>> No.5282884 [DELETED] 

>>5282878
He made scientifically testable claims.

>> No.5282888

>>5282790
Theres nothing I enjoy more than observing textbook half retards at work, to say that conjecture that is not 100% exact is useless is a linear trivialization. If your idea was true then no day trader on the stock market would ever make money because the speed conjecturing they do would "be meaningless" and thus not profitable. Some of the most important concepts that can be learned are not learned in a textbook(i say textbook because they usually require the stringent scientific reqs that personal conjecture does not). Perhaps if you take your nose out of your books and take a look around, you yourself may indeed connect the dots where others cannot.

>> No.5282897 [DELETED] 

>>5282888
In fact he rather sounds like the person who never touched a textbook. He is spouting uneducated and baseless opinions, doesn't know the scientific method, the burden of proof or basic logic. Most likely his entire pseudo-education is based on watching Neil Tyson.

>> No.5282913

holy shit, since this thread has gotten so far astray from the main topic with absolutely immense amounts of bullshit and trolling, im going to try to make a relevant post -

>>5282844
i actually think its a lot more environmental than genetic. (not trying to call you out, but rather trying to present an opposing opinion). your genetic code essentially defines the toolbox (read: proteins) that your body can use for every process. id say your environment essentially acts as the person using the toolbox because responses to outside stimuli control a great deal of which genes get transcribed and how much they do.

>> No.5282915

this thread is full of butt faggots

>> No.5282910

>>5282773
For some reason I laughed

>> No.5282946

So did op ever provide a source to their claim?

>> No.5282951

>>5282913
Finally, a decent post in this thread. :)

>responses to outside stimuli control a great deal of which genes get transcribed and how much they do.
That is true, but I do not think it has as much of an effect as the many many genes that have objective function regardless of environmental effects.
With exactly the same genes and different environments, identical twins will still be extremely similar to each other, both in terms of appearance and behaviour.

Significant changes in ones genetic code can have drastic consequences to ones personality.

For example, an extra chromosome causing downs syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisomy#Human_trisomy

>> No.5282957

The ratio of genetic to environmental influence on a trait will vary for each trait.

You cannot give a blanket answer that is true for all traits.

>> No.5282961

I have 2 step siblings with totally different genes, but basically (different mom) same upbringing as me. They are assholes, I'm not. Genes all the way!

>> No.5283022

>>5282951
a lot of the time iv seen identical twins have very different behavior. iv always treated this as evidence for environment having the majority of control over personality. even though a lot of times twins have similar beliefs and idiosyncrasies, i see this as a result of a fairly common environment. the more subtle differences such as their passions i think could come from the more subtle environmental differences. even though everyone would probably call me out for not having a citation (and i dont), iv read about twins that are separated at birth that go on to become very different people.

and those are very true examples that argue for genetics, but assuming that one has a "normal" and "properly functioning" toolbox (read: average human), i see the aspects of personality that are controlled by the brain almost exclusively influenced by external stimuli. again, note that this assumes no genetic "mishaps," the person doesn't have any underlying medical conditions, etc...

>> No.5283034

>>5282961
But you are an asshole.
You are smacktalking your own stepsiblings.

>> No.5283048

>>5283022
>a lot of the time iv seen identical twins have very different behavior. iv always treated this as evidence for environment having the majority of control over personality.

That is because you are comparing humans against humans, and looking at a very small spectrum in terms of personality. The fact is that all humans act very similarly to each other, compared to other species.

Drastically alter DNA, to see a drastic change in personality and behaviour.

>> No.5283049

>>5282961
I think its stupid to talk about genes, and not mention specifics of said gene and its implication on the governing body.

If you want to talk about genes talk about genes like VMAT2 or some other. But don't just generalize them all as having same properties, thats just stupid.

>> No.5283112

>>5283048
well of course because the average member of different species have very different toolboxes (still using the analogy as you can see). iv always thought when comparing all organisms it has to be come combination of genes and environment, but i was working under the assumption that we were just speaking with respect to human personality. if we just look at humans, my hypothesis is that if we took 2 human individuals and gave them the same genomes but different environments to grow in, their personalities would be more different than 2 human individuals who were given the same environment but different genomes.

without creating some sort detrimental phenotype (or in the extremely rare case, an advantageous one), you cant really drastically alter dna and still be talking about the same species. most differences genetically between humans don't change very much about the fundamental ways everything works together

>> No.5283127

>>5283112

>if we just look at humans, my hypothesis is that if we took 2 human individuals and gave them the same genomes but different environments to grow in, their personalities would be more different than 2 human individuals who were given the same environment but different genomes.

Hmm. I am not sure.
How different would the environments be? How different would the genetics be?
How could one fairly quantify these?

A slight change to the genome and the other person could be made to be unviable; they would be stillborn.
And zero personality at all is the most difference that there could be compared to any single personality.

Similarly, if one person is in a normal house, and the other person is in an inhospitable environment of some sort, then they die, and the same is also true.

>> No.5283169

>>5283127

>And zero personality at all is the most difference that there could be compared to any single personality.

not exactly sure what that means. and for this "experiment," the genomes would have to be able to produce healthy individuals and the environments would have to be reasonably safe. essentially you have to remove the variable of health and assume that everyone will live and be healthy. there is no way to actually fairly quantify these things, so talking about this "experiment," is actually fairly pointless, but i think its a fair way of thinking about my point of view

>> No.5283181

>>5283169
Depending on what you count as 'healthy', you could have a massive negative effect on the second subjects personality by, say, putting them in an environment where they keep getting electrocuted while they are sleeping.
This would very badly affect their mental health, and their personality would be very badly effected.

>there is no way to actually fairly quantify these things, so talking about this "experiment," is actually fairly pointless, but i think its a fair way of thinking about my point of view.
I agree, but this is an interesting subject, and you are interesting to talk to.

>> No.5283232
File: 24 KB, 283x420, Jonathan-Crane.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5283232

Differential Psychology and molecular behavioral genetics estimate the influence of genetics on personality traits (like the big five for example) to be 50%.

I could list several sources but since most of you are pretentious gloriously winged faggots and wouldn't even bother to check them, I won't.

>> No.5283244

>>5283232
>I could list several sources but since most of you are pretentious gloriously winged faggots and wouldn't even bother to check them, I won't.
I do not care for the pointless insults, but I actually would be interested in your sources, and I will read them.

Please provide. :)

>> No.5283247
File: 35 KB, 852x480, Dr-Jonathan-Crane-dr-jonathan-crane-scarecrow-26905928-852-480.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5283247

>>5283244

Anyone interested has all right to feel excluded from previous insults. Stay tuned.

>> No.5283251

>>5283181
regardless, wouldn't that be evidence of environment affecting their personality in the end?

appreciated, sir (or madam). same goes to you.

>> No.5283255

>>5283247
i will

>> No.5283259

>>5283251
Of course it would. And I agree that both certainly do have a contribution to personality.

However, it is difficult to quantify, and this is also true: >>5282957

>appreciated, sir (or madam)
And kudos for not presuming that everybody here is male, as most people usually do.

>> No.5283262

it is 100% environment if you think otherwise you are a fascist

>> No.5283266

>>5283262
That is not true, and you know nothing of Personality Psychology.
http://www.apa.org/monitor/sep02/genes.aspx

>> No.5283267
File: 24 KB, 852x480, Dr-Jonathan-Crane-dr-jonathan-crane-scarecrow-26905942-852-480.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5283267

>>5283244

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1997.tb00324.x/abstract

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/43/2/328/

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1937-04406-000

http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/clc/497355


I had to search these myself, since I only have my book citing them. There are several others but I think the ones I posted suffice. The author of my book (Amelang) claims that there is a mean of 50% for genetic influence across all studies.

>> No.5283272

>>5283267
50% is clearly an estimate here, but thankyou for the sources.
I am currently reading:

>> No.5283277

>>5283259
it is quite difficult to quantify, and yes that poster was very correct. you might be able to use QTL analysis to sort of get an idea with much simpler organisms. but yeah, essentially we've come back to square one and can just say that they both contribute in different ways. once you get to a certain point in any subject, you learn that you can't really say anything about anything. but its fun to try. however, i am excited to see the possible sources to come

>> No.5283282

>>5283277
>however, i am excited to see the possible sources to come.
The four already posted are not sufficient?

>> No.5283283
File: 42 KB, 459x1024, Dr-Jonathan-Crane-dr-jonathan-crane-scarecrow-11686033-459-1024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5283283

>>5283272

Upon further investigation I realize that only the first of my listed sources is accessable for the public.
However, in the abstract they already list numbers.

And while we're at it. This comes up so often on this board that it is worth mentioning:
The genetic influence on intelligence is estimated to be 60% for adults, 40% for children.

>> No.5283290

>>5283282
>The four already posted are not sufficient?
i had not refreshed the page before typing that post, so i did not see those 4 posted at that time

>> No.5283292

>>5283283
>>5283290
>>5283282

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/86/1/112/

Here is also a source for my claim about intelligence. Sadly, once again I could only find a PsycNet source, so you won't be able to read more than the abstract.

By the way pleasantly surprised by what appears to be a genuine interest in the topic.

>> No.5283298

>>5283292
Is there any way that we could view the full articles for the other sources please?
I do not currently have a Psychnet account.

I could borrow yours for a few minutes?

>> No.5283303
File: 22 KB, 279x400, 35771_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5283303

>>5283298

I don't have one myself. I'm researching these links based upon the citations in my book.

Maybe you can find a decent book on differential and personality psychology somewhere online? My book is german, though. Otherwise I would have recommended that.

I'll take a look into the other sources regarding genetics and personality. Maybe I'll find some which are "open source".

>> No.5283309

>>5283303
I think I still have a couple of books lying around somewhere that are related to this, I think I will go and find one of them while I am in the mood.

Feel free to post any open source material that you can find though. I will bookmark this thread and check back later.

And thankyou. :)

>> No.5283315
File: 9 KB, 400x266, Dr-Jonathan-Crane-dr-jonathan-crane-scarecrow-26906040-400-266.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5283315

>>5283303
>>5283298

abstract only:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0001691864900046

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=1012033804D6E335650315F200E0901C.jou
rnals?fromPage=online&aid=1360176

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/54/6/1031/

http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/55/6/950/

Not even abstract:
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1973-26235-000

and finally one as pdf:
http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~knutson/per/bouchard94.pdf


These are all of them. It really baffles me how hard it appears to be to get your hands on the original papers.

>> No.5283318

>>5282762
this.

>> No.5283356

Went to see a PhD thesis defense today.
Title of the thesis: Genetic Variation and Attentional and Memory Biases for Emotional Information
They researched 4 genes important in depression, emotional investment in memory making and cognitive functioning. It was quite interesting to see how certain populations who has a mutation in a certain gene (I really can't recall them sorry) had a higher prevalence to depression, were less emotionally invested in evoquative images and how another gene, if it was deleted, corrected for that "maladaptation". However, if only this gene was deleted and the other wasn't mutated, the same incidence would occur.

I guess only time will tell howmuch our genome (intrinsic) and proteome (more environmentally related, but still has intrinsic factor) is involved in this whole peronality, intelligence question..

>> No.5283510
File: 1.47 MB, 320x240, UTjl5.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5283510

>>5282752
Y'know, since you are made of of your parents junks that is all it would take and you will get a similar personality. (assuming no trauma)

>> No.5283571
File: 17 KB, 203x312, _39092054_ap_blank_203.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5283571

Oh wow. This thread certainly went kind of retard but corrected itself.

I'm this poster here >>5282762. Went to bed After I posted that.

Pretty sure I got those numbers from Steven Pinkers Blank Slate Book. Though I could be slightly of on those numbers. I think there might be another factor that causes variations but its influence is less than 10%.

Also Pinker does give a detailed list of traits in order to define personality as well.

>> No.5283586

Personality is shaped by the fluctuation of testosterone levels through diet when pregnant.