Behavioral Genetics are the Emperor's New Clothes???????

edited

Interesting, but technical. I'll be back.

Got about a third of the way through, lost track. Back later for more.

(Am highly dubious of attempts to tie the nascent field of genetics to the highly empirical and volatile field of psychology...)

Oy, okay. My first reaction upon completion is, "What an awful writer" and "Um, okay, then."


What're your thoughts, bunny?

What an awful writer!!!

Heehee

UI'll be back after work.

Yer a hero, patio, good point re psychology...

Is it? I know next to nothing about it (except that I can sometimes bullshite my way around a conversation with someone who's read a book or two because I studied -- brace yourself -- acting).

Lol! Psychology wants to be a "proper" science - as I believe you well know - and hitches its wagon to that star.

It's certainly not alone in that. But the real science in development is still trying to figure out what happens in flies and sea urchins and microscopic worms, and they've got a few ideas about things with spines.

Not that there's anything wrong with being a young, empirical science -- just don't try to be what you ain't, is my feeling. I admire the immunologists I've met in this regard: they've all talked mainly in terms of, "It looks like this does that, and we think this is the reason." For the most part, anywho. I wouldn't presume to do science, myself. I lack the patience and the discipline. I'll stick with being a technician.

Yes, but psychology acts as if it IS a "hard" science.

Not that hard science is all that hard....

So what's your take on the article, rabbit?

bm

I found it difficult to follow the intended meaning, so I skimed to the last two paragraphs which seems to say we should tell lies, half truths and false inference to help bring about social changes we think are desirable. If so, I object strongly to such eletism.

I seem to be unable to post a new topic on able2know so: Several types of Solar power tower are in the prototype stage. Most advanced, perhaps, is near Barstow, California with several thousand square meters of steerable mirrors which beam sunlight to a boiler at the top of a tower. More correctly the boiler contains a mixture of sodium and potassium nitrate, which is melted by the heat from many beams of sunlight. A heat exchanger boils water producing steam which drives a steam turbine which turns an electric generator.

A much different type of solar power tower is a very large and tall chimney, which has wind turbines which extract energy from the up draft of the chimney. The heat source is a large greenhouse surrounding the base of the chimney.

Like other solar power methods, solar power towers are impractical except in locales where cloud cover is rare. Comments on any portion will be appreciated,even rebuttals. Neil

I confess, I skimmed.

On the "Genetics may be Destiny" side. Some lines of pedigreed dogs are noted for being calm or skittish or vicious or stupid.....

Glands would certainly help determine personality. Genes determine glands.....


Myself when young did eagerly frequent
Doctor and Saint, and heard great argument
About it and about: but evermore
Came out by the same door where in I went.

My take so far?

I have been concerned at the seeming current primacy of glib genetic explanations for practically everything - though infant mental health research has been once again underpinning the huge impact of environmental factors on the development of the brain.

Hence my interest in the article.

I have long been wondering what is the posited means by which genes affect temperament etc - although this article is nearly 10 years old, and may have been superseded, it seems no clear explanation has emerged.

I thought, though, that a lot of the twin data cited in these debates was of twins separated at birth, and raised apart - though I have been aware of concerns about how such data can be invisibly influenced by similarities of environments in which twins were raised. That ante-natal environments can be dissimilar even for identical twins would seem to me evidence FOR genetic influences, not evidence against.

To be farnk, I am struggling with the heritability stuff (and have just misused it on another thread!) - I need to re-read it.

I'll be back.

Have you read "Blank Slate" yet?

I haven't, am a little wary of it, but still curious.

(Re this article, extraordinarily bad writing. Have started to read it several times... just started, though.)

In the part I attended to (about Twain), he seems to be saying that there is genetic predisposition which needs to interact with the environment to come to fruition or remain latent. If I am reading that correctly, I agree.

My take on these: pedigreed dogs have been bred specifically for these behavioral traits, and even then they don't usually coalesce into a consistent pattern of behavior without extensive training.

Genes determine glands -- to an extent. But (as the article states) there are myriad nongenetic factors that influence the development and continued activity of glands. And even the genetic component of their development is spectacularly complex: many are formed from different germ layers in development, they have to be properly situated in the body, they are highly influenced by other hormones and paracrine activators as well as by direct innervation. A defective gene may have an impact (like loss of function), but to suss out trait from a host of genetic factors -- and then to single out the influence of that trait on behavior... well, I don't think science is there yet.

No.

I'm too tired to focus on this, but it seems interesting. I'll be back.

My take on this is, isn't that what I said?