6 ms·

Unfortunately I can't dedicate too much time to reading the article right now, but did anybody understand how they managed to isolate the genetic vs environment

Unfortunately I can't dedicate too much time to reading the article right now, but did anybody understand how they managed to isolate the genetic vs environmental components?

gpderetta 7y ago
I have been trying to read it, but I can't figure out that part. Possibly via adopted twins. edit: but it seems they do not use adoption data.
- leto_ii 7y ago
  Indeed, I didn't see any adoption data either.
username90 7y ago
You do it by comparing identical twins against fraternal twins and see how the variance differ. That way you have 3 variables, genes (identical twins have same genes, fraternal twins just have similar), the home and parenting part, and all other parts that aren't related to your parents at all. This study in particular found that just the genes and the other factors were relevant, while the home wasn't.
- leto_ii 7y ago
  But shouldn't they also include people with completely different genes, but the same educational background? Fraternal twins share less than identical ones, but they still share a lot. It would be interesting to see if unrelated people who come from the same environment exhibit vastly different earnings outcomes.
  - gpderetta 7y ago
    I assume it is hard to objectively define and measure 'same environment' for arbitrary pairs. Using sibilings (fraternal or twins) is a way around that.
- mrrrgn 7y ago
  While I think on the whole our society is very biased toward a Boasian view of nature versus nurture: "give me a child and I can raise it to have any personality and aptitudes via deliberate rearing techniques." I'm skeptical of some of the conclusions being drawn from this study. Environment has not been entirely separated out here it seems. And while a comparison of fraternal and identical twins detangles things somewhat it doesn't completely. My intuition is that a person's personality and aptitudes (around 50% heritable according to many studies) can help them to take advantage of their environment in certain ways. So it's not that environment doesn't matter at all. It's just that people with varying attributes will leverage their environment in different ways, leading to different outcomes. It would be even more interesting to me to see the personality profiles of the children compared against their future earnings. My guess is there would be a strong correlation since personality -> interests -> career choices. Then it would just so happen that identical twins have similar personalities. Leading to the results we see here. Admittedly I'm hopeful that if we could figure out the correlation between personality and environment maybe we could shift our focus away from the unhealthy extremes of 100% nurture (leads to children being pushed by their parents to fit into a mold that may not suit them) and 100% nature (genetic fatalism leads to apathy and hopelessness). Instead what if we took a child's natural gifts and personality profile into account and tailored their environment to maximize their potential within those constraints? Seems like a more hopeful and useful path.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    > While I think on the whole our society is very biased toward a Boasian view of nature versus nurture: "give me a child and I can raise it to have any personality and aptitudes via deliberate rearing techniques." I'm skeptical of some of the conclusions being drawn from this study. Boas was wrong. > Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits > There is now a large body of evidence that supports the conclusion that individual differences in most, if not all, reliably measured psychological traits, normal and abnormal, are substantively influenced by genetic factors. This fact has important implications for research and theory building in psychology, as evidence of genetic influence unleashes a cascade of questions regarding the sources of variance in such traits. A brief list of those questions is provided, and representative findings regarding genetic and environmental influences are presented for the domains of personality, intelligence, psychological interests, psychiatric illnesses, and social attitudes. These findings are consistent with those reported for the traits of other species and for many human physical traits, suggesting that they may represent a general biological phenomenon. http://humancond.org/_media/papers/bouchard04_genetic_influence_psychological_traits.pdf http://humancond.org/_media/papers/bouchard04_genetic_influe...

Unfortunately I can't dedicate too much time to reading the article right now, but did anybody understand how they managed to isolate the genetic vs environmental components?

gpderetta 7y ago

I have been trying to read it, but I can't figure out that part. Possibly via adopted twins. edit: but it seems they do not use adoption data.

leto_ii 7y ago
Indeed, I didn't see any adoption data either.

username90 7y ago

You do it by comparing identical twins against fraternal twins and see how the variance differ. That way you have 3 variables, genes (identical twins have same genes, fraternal twins just have similar), the home and parenting part, and all other parts that aren't related to your parents at all. This study in particular found that just the genes and the other factors were relevant, while the home wasn't.

leto_ii 7y ago
But shouldn't they also include people with completely different genes, but the same educational background? Fraternal twins share less than identical ones, but they still share a lot. It would be interesting to see if unrelated people who come from the same environment exhibit vastly different earnings outcomes.
- gpderetta 7y ago
  I assume it is hard to objectively define and measure 'same environment' for arbitrary pairs. Using sibilings (fraternal or twins) is a way around that.
mrrrgn 7y ago
While I think on the whole our society is very biased toward a Boasian view of nature versus nurture: "give me a child and I can raise it to have any personality and aptitudes via deliberate rearing techniques." I'm skeptical of some of the conclusions being drawn from this study. Environment has not been entirely separated out here it seems. And while a comparison of fraternal and identical twins detangles things somewhat it doesn't completely. My intuition is that a person's personality and aptitudes (around 50% heritable according to many studies) can help them to take advantage of their environment in certain ways. So it's not that environment doesn't matter at all. It's just that people with varying attributes will leverage their environment in different ways, leading to different outcomes. It would be even more interesting to me to see the personality profiles of the children compared against their future earnings. My guess is there would be a strong correlation since personality -> interests -> career choices. Then it would just so happen that identical twins have similar personalities. Leading to the results we see here. Admittedly I'm hopeful that if we could figure out the correlation between personality and environment maybe we could shift our focus away from the unhealthy extremes of 100% nurture (leads to children being pushed by their parents to fit into a mold that may not suit them) and 100% nature (genetic fatalism leads to apathy and hopelessness). Instead what if we took a child's natural gifts and personality profile into account and tailored their environment to maximize their potential within those constraints? Seems like a more hopeful and useful path.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  > While I think on the whole our society is very biased toward a Boasian view of nature versus nurture: "give me a child and I can raise it to have any personality and aptitudes via deliberate rearing techniques." I'm skeptical of some of the conclusions being drawn from this study. Boas was wrong. > Genetic Influence on Human Psychological Traits > There is now a large body of evidence that supports the conclusion that individual differences in most, if not all, reliably measured psychological traits, normal and abnormal, are substantively influenced by genetic factors. This fact has important implications for research and theory building in psychology, as evidence of genetic influence unleashes a cascade of questions regarding the sources of variance in such traits. A brief list of those questions is provided, and representative findings regarding genetic and environmental influences are presented for the domains of personality, intelligence, psychological interests, psychiatric illnesses, and social attitudes. These findings are consistent with those reported for the traits of other species and for many human physical traits, suggesting that they may represent a general biological phenomenon. http://humancond.org/_media/papers/bouchard04_genetic_influence_psychological_traits.pdf http://humancond.org/_media/papers/bouchard04_genetic_influe...