3 ms·

This reminds me of systems theory; anyone else? It makes intuitive sense if I think of traits as one outcome of a system. Rather than converging to a single par

This reminds me of systems theory; anyone else? It makes intuitive sense if I think of traits as one outcome of a system. Rather than converging to a single particle-like "cause," such as a gene, it seems that the wider system is the basis for the trait--the objective appearance of the trait is an expression of the system. It seems it should follow that you can continue tracing the trait from the individual level up though additional systems, like social group, atmosphere/environment, etc.

chiefalchemist 8y ago
> "It makes intuitive sense if I think of traits as one outcome of a system." Put another way, if you were building something and you wanted it to survive, would you want a flexible multifaceted system, and not a dogma-esque checklist of X, Y and Z.
- themodelplumber 8y ago
  That's a great way to put it. You'd want a system that would instinctively re-implement patterns as a way of protecting itself, as well. I've noticed lately that if you take business process development, personal productivity, value-creation philosophy, socio-political framework-building (e.g. development of democracy) and combine that sort of thing with the traditional "software OR firmware OR hardware" definition of technology, the human system is always building "technology" toward what might be called survival+. In this human systems/outside-systems interaction there is a periodicity aspect where at times (e.g. giant meteor approaching) human "survival" is definitely the question, and other times we surge way past just putting meat on the table, so to speak. Also, a trait, e.g. a psychological trait, or a group of them ("values-centered, empathetic, philosophical" vs. "productivity-centered, logical, process-oriented") could be seen as a technology orientation that helps the system build technology of a specific kind.
  - chiefalchemist 8y ago
    The humans sub-systems compliment each other and at the same time feels like backups of each other. The hardware of genes get adjusted by the software of epigenetics. And who knows what we have yet to find. But it's making more and more sense in a why didn't we see this sooner sorta way.
nabla9 8y ago
It makes so much sense that it's a subfield in biology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology
teshier-A 8y ago
This is basically what it is : basic systems theory applied to basic genetic knowledge. Having worked in this field during my studies, I can say that most of the leading figures were not impressed by the Omnigenics paper. It was simply the right claim at the right time, it made a splash, but it will probably not change at all how research is conducted. Some say that the view it is pushing (core vs peripheral genes) is simply wrong as evidence of it cannot be found in the data (and there is a lot of data), see the end of the article about Naomi Wray's article. Also see the many mentions of the paper's critics! I like the phrase "provocatively phrased extension of earlier ideas". There are bigger issues that need addressing but all of them are much much harder to get right and they would probably not make it to Quanta magazine ;) For example, phenotype heterogeneity and patient stratification are two big thorns in precision medicine's side.

chiefalchemist 8y ago

> "It makes intuitive sense if I think of traits as one outcome of a system." Put another way, if you were building something and you wanted it to survive, would you want a flexible multifaceted system, and not a dogma-esque checklist of X, Y and Z.

themodelplumber 8y ago
That's a great way to put it. You'd want a system that would instinctively re-implement patterns as a way of protecting itself, as well. I've noticed lately that if you take business process development, personal productivity, value-creation philosophy, socio-political framework-building (e.g. development of democracy) and combine that sort of thing with the traditional "software OR firmware OR hardware" definition of technology, the human system is always building "technology" toward what might be called survival+. In this human systems/outside-systems interaction there is a periodicity aspect where at times (e.g. giant meteor approaching) human "survival" is definitely the question, and other times we surge way past just putting meat on the table, so to speak. Also, a trait, e.g. a psychological trait, or a group of them ("values-centered, empathetic, philosophical" vs. "productivity-centered, logical, process-oriented") could be seen as a technology orientation that helps the system build technology of a specific kind.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  The humans sub-systems compliment each other and at the same time feels like backups of each other. The hardware of genes get adjusted by the software of epigenetics. And who knows what we have yet to find. But it's making more and more sense in a why didn't we see this sooner sorta way.

nabla9 8y ago

It makes so much sense that it's a subfield in biology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_biology

teshier-A 8y ago

This is basically what it is : basic systems theory applied to basic genetic knowledge. Having worked in this field during my studies, I can say that most of the leading figures were not impressed by the Omnigenics paper. It was simply the right claim at the right time, it made a splash, but it will probably not change at all how research is conducted. Some say that the view it is pushing (core vs peripheral genes) is simply wrong as evidence of it cannot be found in the data (and there is a lot of data), see the end of the article about Naomi Wray's article. Also see the many mentions of the paper's critics! I like the phrase "provocatively phrased extension of earlier ideas". There are bigger issues that need addressing but all of them are much much harder to get right and they would probably not make it to Quanta magazine ;) For example, phenotype heterogeneity and patient stratification are two big thorns in precision medicine's side.