A good nature/nurture article

[James Hannam]

chronicle.com/free/v55/i18/18b00601.htm

Sociologists have finally realised that they cannot ignore genetics and that they have something to bring to the party.

J

[unkleE]

James

Thanks for that most interesting article. I have a question and a comment:

You have posted many times on the folly of ignoring the impact of genes, and I had the impression that you were arguing for a very determinative roles for genes in behaviour. (I recall you criticising programs to educate the lower socioeconomic segments of society without recognising that a person's genetic make-up might make such education impossible.) But this article, while combatting the view that sociologists can ignore genetics, gives many examples of how behaviour is determined by a mix of genetics and environment. To my ignorant mind, that seems to be a more cautious statement than you have made.

I'd therefore be interested if you were able, please, to give a very brief summary of what you think the best current research shows.

But I was also interested in how much that article touched on issues that are strongly affected by "political correctness", or social taboos that make it difficult to discuss what may be the truth in certain cases. For example:

• whether humans actually have genuine choice (a real Achilles heel of modern biology and atheism, in my opinion);
  
• whether any behaviours and characteristics are racially distributed;
  
• whether poverty changes what characteristics are heritable;
  
• the social vs genetic basis for depression and homosexuality, and the different ways these two matters have been approached in the literature, media and public discussion.

I can't help wondering whether public acceptability will control conclusions in some areas more than the results of research will.

[eckadimmock]

The nature /nurture viewpoints go in and out of fashion in the social sciences. Basically, human behaviour is an interactive effect between genetic potential and environment, which influences how much of that potential is realized. It isn't predetermined that a given individual will be good at maths or become an alcoholic, but may be more likely than for another person.

It is very hard to measure, because people with similar genotypes (siblings, families) also tend to have similar environments. This research also has a dark history, because genetic arguments can be used to support the view that disadvantaged groups of people are genetically predestined for poverty.

It was very popular in the 1980s to identify genes for depression, alcoholism, crime etc. However, most of these findings were later debunked (the 'alcoholism gene" for example turing out to be just as common in the nonalcoholic population)

I'll have a stab at your questions:

1. People have a genuine choice, since we don't have a gene covering every possible situation. However, you may have genetic predispositions towards a particular course of action.

2. Race is a cultural construct rather than a strictly biological one, and culture is likely to influence behaviour much more strongly than genes, imo.

3. Poverty wouldn't change genes, though it would influence expression. For example, if you have genes for height, you would not be especially tall if you are malnourished. Likewise intelligence: its hard to pass an IQ test if you cannot read.

4. Depression / homosexuality: definitions of these are constantly changing, and as you say the media tends to put its own slant on these. Depression tends to run in families, but whether by genes or learned behaviour is hard to say. Homosexuality seems to be genetically linked, but certainly environment plays a role.

Colin

[James Hannam]

Jan 5, 2009 20:56:59 GMT unkleE said:

I was also interested in how much that article touched on issues that are strongly affected by "political correctness", or social taboos that make it difficult to discuss what may be the truth in certain cases. For example:

• whether humans actually have genuine choice (a real Achilles heel of modern biology and atheism, in my opinion);
  
• whether any behaviours and characteristics are racially distributed;
  
• whether poverty changes what characteristics are heritable;
  
• the social vs genetic basis for depression and homosexuality, and the different ways these two matters have been approached in the literature, media and public discussion.

I should say that while I don't agree with everything in the article, I did think it had some interesting points.

On the nature/nurture question, I do take the view that genes have a bigger role than generally accepted. I also believe we have a genuine choice and hence can defeat the predispositions our genes foist on us.

For instance, alcoholism has a high genetic component. Some people will never be alcoholics no matter how much they drink (although they'll still mess up their livers). But to be an alcoholic requires one to drink alcohol in excess and that we can choose.

So I think genes provide the envelope within which environmental factors can act. Genes determine whether we could ever be a great tennis player but choice and environment decide whether we will actually be one. Genes determine whether we could ever be a genius at mathematics or painting but on their own they won't make us one.

But this does mean that genes put an upper limit on our ambitions and in some cases the upper limit will not be very high (like me in any kind of sport).

I'll leave aside the political questions except to say that there's politics in everything!

Best wishes

James