3 ms·

> You have to elaborate a bit more if your claim is that this paper disprove environmental influences. Not at all, but I think it disproves this part: > but a

by tomp 9y ago

> You have to elaborate a bit more if your claim is that this paper disprove environmental influences. Not at all, but I think it disproves this part: > but alone the genetic factor tend to have no effect

belorn 9y ago
I disagree. Take the immutability aspect highlighted. Without environmental influences, how do you cause a change? Genes can technically change during life, but I doubt thats what the study referees. The idea that genes dictate outcomes in immutable ways is exactly what the authors of this study disagree with. To make a direct example on the study of a particular gene and depression. If you take a person with this gene, they have (if i recall right) 6 times higher risk factor for depression compared to other people, but only if they also have had a child hood trauma. People with the gene and no such trauma has no higher risk for depression than people without the gene and no trauma. The gene has a environmental aspect to it. Page 5: For example, a heritability of nearly 100% implies that environmental differences that exist in the population do not have an effect on a particular phenotype assessed at a particular stage in development. Title: Finding 2. No traits are 100% heritable. Although heritability estimates are significantly greater than 0%, they are also significantly less than 100%. As noted earlier, heritability estimates are substantial between 30% and 50%, The study is very clear here. Environmental influences are estimated to be between 70% and 50%, and never as low as 0% for any single trait. Further more on page 6: Many others have noted that no traits are 100% heritable (e.g., Plomin, 1989; Turkheimer, 2000). My original claim was that alone the genetic factor tend to have no effect, ie, no genetic factor gives 100% heritability for a trait in behavioral science. This study support this claim. I am sorry to say that either you read the study wrong or you misinterpreted my comment.
- tomp 9y ago
  Definitely misinterpreted your comment. My interpretation of "no effect" is 0%, not <100%. Looks like we're mostly in agreement.

by tomp 9y ago

belorn 9y ago

I disagree. Take the immutability aspect highlighted. Without environmental influences, how do you cause a change? Genes can technically change during life, but I doubt thats what the study referees. The idea that genes dictate outcomes in immutable ways is exactly what the authors of this study disagree with. To make a direct example on the study of a particular gene and depression. If you take a person with this gene, they have (if i recall right) 6 times higher risk factor for depression compared to other people, but only if they also have had a child hood trauma. People with the gene and no such trauma has no higher risk for depression than people without the gene and no trauma. The gene has a environmental aspect to it. Page 5: For example, a heritability of nearly 100% implies that environmental differences that exist in the population do not have an effect on a particular phenotype assessed at a particular stage in development. Title: Finding 2. No traits are 100% heritable. Although heritability estimates are significantly greater than 0%, they are also significantly less than 100%. As noted earlier, heritability estimates are substantial between 30% and 50%, The study is very clear here. Environmental influences are estimated to be between 70% and 50%, and never as low as 0% for any single trait. Further more on page 6: Many others have noted that no traits are 100% heritable (e.g., Plomin, 1989; Turkheimer, 2000). My original claim was that alone the genetic factor tend to have no effect, ie, no genetic factor gives 100% heritability for a trait in behavioral science. This study support this claim. I am sorry to say that either you read the study wrong or you misinterpreted my comment.

tomp 9y ago
Definitely misinterpreted your comment. My interpretation of "no effect" is 0%, not <100%. Looks like we're mostly in agreement.