day came something I have waited for so long. A quick and straightforward introduction to atferdsgenetikk. The Blueprint: How DNA Makes Us Who We Are.
Columnist Rolf Marvin Bøe Lindgren
is a psychologist and has also studied computer science and artificial intelligence. He has used his knowledge frequently in the media, most recently in the podcast about personlighetstesten the Big five.
Last published post For some abortloven always be brutal Yes thanks to egnethetstester of medical students the School’s new separates the Myths about the høybegavede children One must actually possess the knowledge to use
I have known the author, Bob Plomin, long time. At least twenty years. But he has published for the few. So they gullkornene I have picked up have been scattered everywhere. The red thread I had to find myself. So it was not so much new in the book, really. But it was all in one place. And it was the, is the world turned on its head.
There are two popular myths about “genes”. One is that if it is acquired, so is it possible to change, is it inborn, then it is not there. This is not correct. There is nothing in the “arvbart” or “genetic”, which means “unchangeable”.
The other is that well have the “genes” a lot to say, but the environment is also very important. Yes, it is true, but not like people think.
The third is that it will be possible to measure the IQ and personality by gene test at birth.
When we talk about how the “genes” affect the behavior – thinking, feeling, and action, we are not talking about individuals. We’re talking about groups, and we’re talking about groups in a very special way. We’re not talking about how much genes affect the group. We talk about how great importance the genes for the variation in the group.
Plomin reserves the term “congenital” to such properties that do not vary and that one cannot change – such as the number of eyes and number of noses. Personality is thus arvbart – and therefore not innate.
So we can study how much personality varies. We study such mainly by studying identical twins who are separated at birth, or by comparing monozygotic with dizygotic twins. To find out how much of the variation in behavior caused by variation in genetic inheritance, and how much is due to variation in the environment.
So to take an example. During the Gerhardsen-the school was the idea that absolutely all children in Norway should get exactly the same schooling. The environment was the same for all students in Norway. In other words, miljøvariasjonen was 0. All the variation in behaviour could then be explained by genetic variation.
the Sum of the miljøvariasjon and genetic variation is always 1. If you want a society where when as far, you can do miljøvariasjonen as large as the Budget allows. Where inheritable performance at school shall be, may be made to a political choice. Good luck with that.
So it is not possible to measure arvbarheten to the properties once and for all. Heritability of personality and intelligence, for example, vary with social class, and age. Heritability can be referred to as a measure of the variation in the environment. When arvbarheten is high, as is the variation in the environment small.
twin studies show that identical twins have much more personality than dizygotic twins, then we know that personality is something that varies with the environment, and that it consequently is arvbart. Children are not like their parents because of the environment, they are equally his parents, and his siblings, because of their genetic heritage. Differences between siblings, on the other hand, is not due to differences in genetic inheritance, but different experiences. The environment in which the children have shared, have almost nothing to say. There are several reasons for it.
People act on the environment, and the environment acts back again (B. F. Skinner). We influence our environment so that we will have it. If we are biological origin of our parents, so we have created an environment that is adapted to us. We seek out situations that suit us, and shaping the environment so that it suits us.
We also do not share necessarily very much environment with our siblings. We are rarely in the same class, we don’t have the same friends, we do not have necessarily access to the same activities. The things we do not easily affect themselves, they can affect us in a different direction from our siblings. Dog – identical twins growing up separated, leading to smaller differences between each other than identical twins who grow up separately.
But what really is the up/down – it is that it is not so that the environment is pushing to change us. On the contrary. That said, if the variation in the behavior is 50% genetic inheritance, then the remaining variation is not only variation in the environment. Here is also the part of the environment in which we can affect. So that our genes affect our environment also. The total genetic contribution to how we are is always greater than the genetic variation we have inherited.
Father says “so nicely you write” to dattera say, but “so clever you are” to his son when they do homework because he has learned it of a sexist culture. He has learned the lesson of their children, who have shown how they like to get praise.
So we can not change us, then?
It is important to understand the premise of how heritability is measured. Arvbarheten is a measure of what happens if no one does anything. Personality is difficult to change because we do what we can to maintain the personality we have, and because our environment offers us the opportunity to do it.
It is a common misconception that if something is arvbart, or genetic, so it can’t be changed. But there is in fact no context. The only way to find out of how easy a property is to change, is to try and see. You can f.ex try to forget to ride a bike.
It is already possible to send a spyttprøve to Switzerland in order to measure personality. I’ve done it, and it hit the insolent well. The same could happen with the IQ. It is still terribly resource-intensive to do the research that shows the relationship, so it is not the same as taking a full-fledged personality test. Not yet.
We also know that if you go in for it, so will your personality match with the genes. But most do not bother. It will for all I know be possible to measure who is going to do something with their personality, also.
Much of the in the book is academically challenging, but not necessarily controversial. For example, we know that certain mental disorders are inheritable – schizophrenia for example – but I have noticed me that my clients often have mental disorders in the family. But not the same as they themselves have. Could it be due to the environment?
Possibly – Plomin shows that what is passed on in families, is the disposition to develop mental disorders. Not specifically what disorders. Not only that, but genes are going to are so many that it begins to be difficult to defend that either one has it or one has it not.
Mental disorders are sliding transitions, not either/or, ” says genforskningen. And they are inheritable. And some of them we know, despite arvbarheten, very well what we can do with. And some of them we know very little about.
But I am afraid that there may be interesting times for psychologists who can’t count. For then it becomes difficult to understand the possibilities that are left.
What I determined is afraid of , is that the public debate will track of very early on that if personality, intelligence, and mental disorders are inheritable, so you can’t do anything with it. I’m guessing that the two viewpoints will be typical. One is that since genes means so much, so you can’t do anything with it. The second is that this sounds bad out, so then it can’t be true.
Genes means a lot. But the characteristics that the genes determine, and which are difficult to change, are rough, general framework. Frihetsgradene to fill that which is between, is great.
And why would you want to change your personality? Would it not have been better to let be, to make a formidable effort with very little advantage, and instead use the personality you have, as well as you can? Most of us are not psychopaths, somehow.
