8 ms·

Strong behavioral individuality is present at the first day after birth in fish

118 points by jonnycomputer 4y ago

version_five 4y ago
In fish...
- addajones 4y ago
  Thanks! I wish titles on posts were accurate.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    There's no problem in this case; the finding is no less true for humans than fish.
- david927 4y ago
  I read a book by a professional nanny and she believed that the behavioral individuality that you would find in babies already at a few months old (liked to sleep a lot, often grumpy, often giggly) would follow them to adulthood. I think there's some truth to that.
  - krasin 4y ago
    I am interested. Would it be possible to share the name of the book? Thank you in advance.
    - david927 4y ago
      Oh, that's a good question. It's been a long time. I'll do my best to find it but I very few memories about it, other than what I mentioned and that the premise was (in part) to nurture your child based on their personality. It was actually one of the best books I read when my daughter was born, so I'll really try to find it for you. Edit: I think it's "Secrets of a Baby Nurse," by Marsha Podd. (Maybe. It's been a long time.) I hope that's it because so many of those books were uninformative or simply reassuring (e.g. "Yes, it's normal ..."). This one talks about how your baby is communicating with you from the start and how to watch for that to make both of your lives easier.
      - krasin 4y ago
        Thank you!
  - vorpalhex 4y ago
    This aligns with Montessori beliefs that babies have personalities and are whole humans, not half baked automatons.
    - thrown_22 4y ago
      Whole humans have personalities too. Doesn't mean they can't change.
  - version_five 4y ago
    That sounds logical to me. I was just pointing out that the headline is linked to a Nature article that is specifically about fish (genetically identical fish) which makes it considerably different than what most people would assume from the fish-less headline
  - conductr 4y ago
    As parent I’d agree that there was some innate behaviors and individuality of personality that persists from the start. No idea how to quantify it but have witnessed it.
- dogmatism 4y ago
  and humans source: am parent of more than one child, each of whom had distinct personalities from birth
  - LAC-Tech 4y ago
    New dad here. How do you mean? I love my 2 month old but her personality mainly seems to be "I enjoy drinking milk and sleeping"
    - lampshades 4y ago
      Have another baby and compare.
      - nkrisc 4y ago
        Have two. They did nothing but cry, eat, sleep, and shit for the first six weeks. After that they’re a little more aware of the world and perhaps developing something that will become a personality pretty soon, maybe by month two or three. I won’t definitively state newborns don’t have personalities, but my unscientific hunch is sleep-deprived parents are simply projecting and seeing what isn’t really there. I love both my children, but for the first six weeks they are simply base creatures, outwardly.
        NateEag 4y ago
        All three of our children were obviously different in the womb. The oldest was pretty lazy and quiet during the day, but did get bouncy when my wife tried to sleep. The combination of couch potato and getting active when stimuli stops and the boredom hits is present in the kid to this day. Middle child was super-active the whole way through labor and came out active. Was surfing furniture standing up at eight months. I could go on at length. Main point is - we saw the differences before they were born.
        diogenescynic 4y ago
        My first kid was never content unless she was being held, she was very fussy during the witching hour, and never slept long stretches at night. Our second kid was immediately different--she never really cries and is very content, she just wants to be nearby and have a view of the parent. She also sleeps through the night in much longer stretches. There are definitely differences in babies immediately from birth.
- jerojero 4y ago
  In general these sort of studies can be generalized to other species as the genetic mechanisms in animals are similar. This study has more to do with the relationship of genetic, environmental and pre-natal environmental and individuality so none of it is really specific to fish. Of course, humans are still a different species and our offspring have a much more complex ontogenesis and so I would venture and say our individuality development is even more sensitive to pre-natal environmental, post-natal and genetic factor changes. But ultimately, we are all animals here so we are governed by very similar broad rules.
watersb 4y ago
Fish or no fish, my kids were themselves even before the moment they took first breath. I audited some embryology, neuropsychology classes in college. Still seems like a miracle, how the kids arrive... (I won't argue about the magic moment of person-hood, if any. Life in squishy bodies on Planet Earth, we do our best. I'm glad for the chance.)
- lampshades 4y ago
  Don't know why you're getting downvoted. I was always a big believer in humans being programmed by our environment but after having kids I realized how false that is. We all have our own personality from the get go.
  - themitigating 4y ago
    Isn't it more likely both contribute in some amount?
    - mhuffman 4y ago
      This is obvious. But I do think that the way environment is experienced and interpreted is guided by original personality traits, however it is popular to deny that nature has any effect and nurture is everything. Also have noticed this point of view when it comes to dogs ... especially pit bulls or other violent dogs.
      - themitigating 4y ago
        Pit bulls owners offer the follow defenses. 1. I think the dog has a cute name 2. I think the dog is cute 3. The dog doesn't attack me 4. Other dogs also attack people 5. It's the owner's fault for lack of training. These infuriate me more than anything because they are all invalid. You also can't point this out because it's an emotional subject for them
        mhuffman 4y ago
pevey 4y ago
Parenthood is very much a roll of the dice. It’s a game of chance, and you get what you get. I’m always a bit amused by people who aren’t parents yet who are considering adoption and are very set on a baby as opposed to an older child. Most of their reasoning boils down to the idea that babies are more malleable. As a parent, I do not believe that is the case. They are born as they are, and you can only help them along the path of being true to themselves or trying to be something else. And we can try to help them make good choices. That is it. We don’t get to change who they are.
- jdironman 4y ago
  It is a game of chance for the "base" you have to work with. as a parent, you want the best for your child, no matter what. "Helping" them along implies malleablity whether we like to accept that or not. I don't say this to mean one should always be 100% in control of their child or their decisions. Some lessons are best learned by mistakes. I say this to get the point across that you are a parent and as a parent we have a role to play on our children's lives. which is largely centered around 'survivability '. The terms that make that factor up seem to always be changing.
- svnt 4y ago
  You can’t change who they are but you can sure miscalibrate a kid aged 0-6 by denying them healthy developmental experiences. Once that calibration window closes it is difficult if not impossible for most people to ever address the issues.
  - rowanG077 4y ago
    This is incredibly misleading. Your childs personality is not set in stone after 6. Don't wager yourself safe because you have done your best until 6.
    - svnt 4y ago
      That’s not what I said at all. There is a uniquely critical developmental period before six but you can absolutely mess them up after that too.
dtgriscom 4y ago
My two sons were different from day one. It gives me a lot of comfort to know, as a parent, that it wasn't all up to how I brought them up. In a similar vein, I don't understand people who want to know their child's gender before birth. Even ignoring the whole transgender and non-binary aspect, it's like they want to have their kids figured out at birth. Just because this one will be born with a penis, or that one with a vagina, doesn't mean you know anything about who they are and who they will become.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  If sex doesn't matter, what difference does it make if you know before birth? If you are getting sonograms done, the doctor will know and be able to tell you pretty early on. Is there some benefit to not knowing?
- version_five 4y ago
  I don't identify with this at all. There is choosing a name, buying clothes, decorating (not my thing personally but definitely a thing). Plus imagining your new baby as part of your life. Boiling it down to knowing their sex organ is pretty reductive and not in line with the feelings of anyone I know.
  - mc32 4y ago
    For the first month, it really doesn't matter, really. Furniture is the same, car seats the same, clothing, sure, but you can buy that any time and does not require planning. And as it regards names, just have agreed upon two options, one for each case.
    - nkrisc 4y ago
      Or just find out because it doesn’t matter either way? Or don’t. I wanted to know for both my children. It didn’t make any difference, but I still just wanted to know because I could and was curious.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
dzink 4y ago
They have dramatically different personalities in the womb as well, but only the birth mother can spot the difference late in the pregnancy. Examples: Same parents poking the belly with their finger where they feel a limb pushing from within. One baby pushes back. Another baby pulls back and hides the limb. A third one moved around but didn’t pull back. Those personalities very much persisted as they grow. The push backer has great executive thinking now and always insists on their choice for everything. The pulling baby is a great learner - listens well and absorbs prods for new information like a sponge. The third one is still young but loves to explore and catch things. You couldn’t guess the gender by any of that. A child is really an incredible genetic gamble. It’s like someone grabs legos from multiple people’s genetics, spills an even portion of random pieces from each and builds a new person. If the baby has your looks it can have the other parent’s characteristics and your grandmother’s personality. 1/4 of pregnancies have issues as well - during conception, delivery, genetics. It’s all about how many times you want to roll the dice.
- idontwantthis 4y ago
  How do you know which child had which behavior in the womb?
  - ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
    Presumably only one of them was in there at once. ;)
    - idontwantthis 4y ago
      I will only comment post coffee from now on.
      - chongli 4y ago
        To be fair to your pre-caffeinated self, I also thought of twins when reading that post. It’s worded in a way that seems to imply twins, at least at first.
Mikeb85 4y ago
Honestly doesn't surprise me. Our baby kicked like crazy in the womb, reacted to stimuli like music and poking and was very active. He was born early after my partner's water broke when she wasn't in labour (doctor said likely from our overactive baby puncturing the placenta) and had a lot of attitude from day 1. Kicked a lot, couldn't be swaddled, was super active and even liked the same music (we went to see a symphony before he was born and there was a particularly recognizable track, even now he likes that same track while crying or screaming when he hears other kinds of music). Even now at 3 months he's super active and hitting all the developmental milestones early (and kicks a lot lol).
- formerkrogemp 4y ago
  > 1. Kicked a lot, couldn't be swaddled, was super active and even liked the same music (we went to see a symphony before he was born and there was a particularly recognizable track, even now he likes that same track while crying or screaming when he hears other kinds of music). Even now at 3 months he's super active and hitting all the developmental milestones early (and kicks a lot lol). I wonder if you have a potential kickball star in the making. Congratulations
- jerojero 4y ago
  Yes, I think this study is one of those "we kind of knew but we never really tested it" studies which to me are some of the most fun. There is a huge scientific difference between having an idea why something might be and actually managing to test it. Although, of course, this was tested in fish it is still probably very applicable to other species.
cr4nberry 4y ago
There's a certain sort of determinism involved in using past behavior to predict future behavior. That kind of thinking is prerequisite for a social credit system For some reason, people really love to make these kinds of predictions. They sound true and are fun to talk about, and they make sense to pretty much everyone. At the same time, the way we talk about something conditions how we see it, how we react to it, and consequently what it is
- derbOac 4y ago
  The environment being so carefully controlled to be the same is kinda one example. I don't think it's as identical as they are claiming — behavioral science is littered with these claims that are later shown to be false — but showing X percent of variance associated with the individual in the absence of environmental variation is not the same as showing X percent in the presence of significant variation. Let's say you tried to change some of the fish, for example. It's an interesting paper but full of big-picture issues.
svnt 4y ago
A lot of comments here positioning fish vs humans. There is no doubt everyone has something of a personality. However this study was performed on genetically and developmentally identical siblings, which is impossible to do in humans (at least ethically) and the interesting part is there was still individual variance, present from the time of birth, that increased over time.
- AlmostAnyone 4y ago
  Gene expression is dependent on incredible amount of variables. It'd be a cosmic level of coincidence to have two clones express the same way. That never happens even in single-cell organisms, much less something as complex as fish or human.
  - kzrdude 4y ago
    "Genes as blueprint" is something that has entered the common knowledge. At least, it needs to be tempered and modified in the common knowledge by what we have learned "recently" about epigenetics. And realistically it needs to be modified by everything we don't know too.
  - svnt 4y ago
    I don’t disagree.
- mjburgess 4y ago
  To emphasise this point: in almost all other animals, a profound level of motor specialisation is present at-birth. Most animals, are eg., born walking. Whereas in humans, we are born needing to specialise almost everything during our lifetime -- which has incredibly high costs (ie., many years of being fed without being able to hunt) -- but high rewards: we learn how to conceptualise the world in novel ways, create tools, etc. both largely a product of our ability to specialise our sensory-motor system in response to the actual environment we're in. There is no reason to suppose that we are analogous to fish in our personalities, but not in everything else -- indeed, there's obvious reasons to suppose the opposite.
bluenose69 4y ago
Fish are hatched, not born.
_0ffh 4y ago
Good, that's much less surprising than the opposite finding would have been. It indicates that these fish leverage a mixed strategy, which is an evolutionary advantage more often than not, both in terms of direct payoff and in terms of evolvability.
machina_ex_deus 4y ago
The sceptic in me feels this research is extremely fishy. This was done on fish. How much of the observed external characteristics of fish can be attributed to behavior? They are looking at median swimming speed and how fish swim. Calling this "behavior" is misleading. It could just as likely be developmental physical differences. They watched fish swim and saw that they are more correlated with themselves than others. Everything else is a very fishy narrative. Many people in this thread judge it by empathy with the story instead of what can be reasonably done.
- bszupnick 4y ago
  I hear and share your skepticism, but I'm also skeptical of pushbacks to the ever-growing research and literature on the uniqueness and, well, "personhood" of animals. The more we learn about animals (see the article on HN ~2 days ago that bees engage in play) the more it seems like they're a lot more like us than we'd like to think. We're smart, and we can try to explain every thing away (like you do in your comment), but there's a pattern that's emerging. It's an uncomfortable pattern and I get why we try to convince ourselves that animals are fundamentally different than we are, but I'm more and more believing that we're all actually a lot more similar than we'd like to think. A lot of my current thinking is from the book How to be Animal by Melanie Challenger. I recommend it!
  - machina_ex_deus 4y ago
    I don't judge scientific letter literature with empathy. I can definitely empathize with animals, and I would even say my own cat has shown some behaviors as a kitten that stayed later on (like being easily scared). Netflix's cat movie that was extremely narrativistic and meant for cat loving audience had more sound basis and plausible methodology to study actual behavior. (Like attachment tests). This is simply not it. I don't care if it supports my preconceptions - I try to judge objectively. As should more people. This isn't "pushback against personhood of animals". This is pushback against an increasingly narrativistic science, and the inability of so many people to recognize it.
pvaldes 4y ago
Those keeping guppy fish know that the males have one single thing in mind: Sex
novia 4y ago
Misleading headline. The *clonal* fish were separated on day one and the differences were observed seven weeks later. The separation occurred early to prevent the other clonal fish from having an influence on each other's later behavior. All the fish had the same DNA. This is more analogous to twin studies than not.

118 points by jonnycomputer 4y ago

version_five 4y ago

In fish...

addajones 4y ago
Thanks! I wish titles on posts were accurate.
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  There's no problem in this case; the finding is no less true for humans than fish.
david927 4y ago
I read a book by a professional nanny and she believed that the behavioral individuality that you would find in babies already at a few months old (liked to sleep a lot, often grumpy, often giggly) would follow them to adulthood. I think there's some truth to that.
- krasin 4y ago
  I am interested. Would it be possible to share the name of the book? Thank you in advance.
  - david927 4y ago
    Oh, that's a good question. It's been a long time. I'll do my best to find it but I very few memories about it, other than what I mentioned and that the premise was (in part) to nurture your child based on their personality. It was actually one of the best books I read when my daughter was born, so I'll really try to find it for you. Edit: I think it's "Secrets of a Baby Nurse," by Marsha Podd. (Maybe. It's been a long time.) I hope that's it because so many of those books were uninformative or simply reassuring (e.g. "Yes, it's normal ..."). This one talks about how your baby is communicating with you from the start and how to watch for that to make both of your lives easier.
    - krasin 4y ago
      Thank you!
- vorpalhex 4y ago
  This aligns with Montessori beliefs that babies have personalities and are whole humans, not half baked automatons.
  - thrown_22 4y ago
    Whole humans have personalities too. Doesn't mean they can't change.
- version_five 4y ago
  That sounds logical to me. I was just pointing out that the headline is linked to a Nature article that is specifically about fish (genetically identical fish) which makes it considerably different than what most people would assume from the fish-less headline
- conductr 4y ago
  As parent I’d agree that there was some innate behaviors and individuality of personality that persists from the start. No idea how to quantify it but have witnessed it.
dogmatism 4y ago
and humans source: am parent of more than one child, each of whom had distinct personalities from birth
- LAC-Tech 4y ago
  New dad here. How do you mean? I love my 2 month old but her personality mainly seems to be "I enjoy drinking milk and sleeping"
  - lampshades 4y ago
    Have another baby and compare.
    - nkrisc 4y ago
      Have two. They did nothing but cry, eat, sleep, and shit for the first six weeks. After that they’re a little more aware of the world and perhaps developing something that will become a personality pretty soon, maybe by month two or three. I won’t definitively state newborns don’t have personalities, but my unscientific hunch is sleep-deprived parents are simply projecting and seeing what isn’t really there. I love both my children, but for the first six weeks they are simply base creatures, outwardly.
      - NateEag 4y ago
        All three of our children were obviously different in the womb. The oldest was pretty lazy and quiet during the day, but did get bouncy when my wife tried to sleep. The combination of couch potato and getting active when stimuli stops and the boredom hits is present in the kid to this day. Middle child was super-active the whole way through labor and came out active. Was surfing furniture standing up at eight months. I could go on at length. Main point is - we saw the differences before they were born.
      - diogenescynic 4y ago
        My first kid was never content unless she was being held, she was very fussy during the witching hour, and never slept long stretches at night. Our second kid was immediately different--she never really cries and is very content, she just wants to be nearby and have a view of the parent. She also sleeps through the night in much longer stretches. There are definitely differences in babies immediately from birth.
jerojero 4y ago
In general these sort of studies can be generalized to other species as the genetic mechanisms in animals are similar. This study has more to do with the relationship of genetic, environmental and pre-natal environmental and individuality so none of it is really specific to fish. Of course, humans are still a different species and our offspring have a much more complex ontogenesis and so I would venture and say our individuality development is even more sensitive to pre-natal environmental, post-natal and genetic factor changes. But ultimately, we are all animals here so we are governed by very similar broad rules.

watersb 4y ago

Fish or no fish, my kids were themselves even before the moment they took first breath. I audited some embryology, neuropsychology classes in college. Still seems like a miracle, how the kids arrive... (I won't argue about the magic moment of person-hood, if any. Life in squishy bodies on Planet Earth, we do our best. I'm glad for the chance.)

lampshades 4y ago
Don't know why you're getting downvoted. I was always a big believer in humans being programmed by our environment but after having kids I realized how false that is. We all have our own personality from the get go.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Isn't it more likely both contribute in some amount?
  - mhuffman 4y ago
    This is obvious. But I do think that the way environment is experienced and interpreted is guided by original personality traits, however it is popular to deny that nature has any effect and nurture is everything. Also have noticed this point of view when it comes to dogs ... especially pit bulls or other violent dogs.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      Pit bulls owners offer the follow defenses. 1. I think the dog has a cute name 2. I think the dog is cute 3. The dog doesn't attack me 4. Other dogs also attack people 5. It's the owner's fault for lack of training. These infuriate me more than anything because they are all invalid. You also can't point this out because it's an emotional subject for them
      - mhuffman 4y ago

pevey 4y ago

Parenthood is very much a roll of the dice. It’s a game of chance, and you get what you get. I’m always a bit amused by people who aren’t parents yet who are considering adoption and are very set on a baby as opposed to an older child. Most of their reasoning boils down to the idea that babies are more malleable. As a parent, I do not believe that is the case. They are born as they are, and you can only help them along the path of being true to themselves or trying to be something else. And we can try to help them make good choices. That is it. We don’t get to change who they are.

jdironman 4y ago
It is a game of chance for the "base" you have to work with. as a parent, you want the best for your child, no matter what. "Helping" them along implies malleablity whether we like to accept that or not. I don't say this to mean one should always be 100% in control of their child or their decisions. Some lessons are best learned by mistakes. I say this to get the point across that you are a parent and as a parent we have a role to play on our children's lives. which is largely centered around 'survivability '. The terms that make that factor up seem to always be changing.
svnt 4y ago
You can’t change who they are but you can sure miscalibrate a kid aged 0-6 by denying them healthy developmental experiences. Once that calibration window closes it is difficult if not impossible for most people to ever address the issues.
- rowanG077 4y ago
  This is incredibly misleading. Your childs personality is not set in stone after 6. Don't wager yourself safe because you have done your best until 6.
  - svnt 4y ago
    That’s not what I said at all. There is a uniquely critical developmental period before six but you can absolutely mess them up after that too.

dtgriscom 4y ago

My two sons were different from day one. It gives me a lot of comfort to know, as a parent, that it wasn't all up to how I brought them up. In a similar vein, I don't understand people who want to know their child's gender before birth. Even ignoring the whole transgender and non-binary aspect, it's like they want to have their kids figured out at birth. Just because this one will be born with a penis, or that one with a vagina, doesn't mean you know anything about who they are and who they will become.

DangitBobby 4y ago
If sex doesn't matter, what difference does it make if you know before birth? If you are getting sonograms done, the doctor will know and be able to tell you pretty early on. Is there some benefit to not knowing?
version_five 4y ago
I don't identify with this at all. There is choosing a name, buying clothes, decorating (not my thing personally but definitely a thing). Plus imagining your new baby as part of your life. Boiling it down to knowing their sex organ is pretty reductive and not in line with the feelings of anyone I know.
- mc32 4y ago
  For the first month, it really doesn't matter, really. Furniture is the same, car seats the same, clothing, sure, but you can buy that any time and does not require planning. And as it regards names, just have agreed upon two options, one for each case.
  - nkrisc 4y ago
    Or just find out because it doesn’t matter either way? Or don’t. I wanted to know for both my children. It didn’t make any difference, but I still just wanted to know because I could and was curious.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

dzink 4y ago

They have dramatically different personalities in the womb as well, but only the birth mother can spot the difference late in the pregnancy. Examples: Same parents poking the belly with their finger where they feel a limb pushing from within. One baby pushes back. Another baby pulls back and hides the limb. A third one moved around but didn’t pull back. Those personalities very much persisted as they grow. The push backer has great executive thinking now and always insists on their choice for everything. The pulling baby is a great learner - listens well and absorbs prods for new information like a sponge. The third one is still young but loves to explore and catch things. You couldn’t guess the gender by any of that. A child is really an incredible genetic gamble. It’s like someone grabs legos from multiple people’s genetics, spills an even portion of random pieces from each and builds a new person. If the baby has your looks it can have the other parent’s characteristics and your grandmother’s personality. 1/4 of pregnancies have issues as well - during conception, delivery, genetics. It’s all about how many times you want to roll the dice.

idontwantthis 4y ago
How do you know which child had which behavior in the womb?
- ThePowerOfFuet 4y ago
  Presumably only one of them was in there at once. ;)
  - idontwantthis 4y ago
    I will only comment post coffee from now on.
    - chongli 4y ago
      To be fair to your pre-caffeinated self, I also thought of twins when reading that post. It’s worded in a way that seems to imply twins, at least at first.

Mikeb85 4y ago

Honestly doesn't surprise me. Our baby kicked like crazy in the womb, reacted to stimuli like music and poking and was very active. He was born early after my partner's water broke when she wasn't in labour (doctor said likely from our overactive baby puncturing the placenta) and had a lot of attitude from day 1. Kicked a lot, couldn't be swaddled, was super active and even liked the same music (we went to see a symphony before he was born and there was a particularly recognizable track, even now he likes that same track while crying or screaming when he hears other kinds of music). Even now at 3 months he's super active and hitting all the developmental milestones early (and kicks a lot lol).

formerkrogemp 4y ago
> 1. Kicked a lot, couldn't be swaddled, was super active and even liked the same music (we went to see a symphony before he was born and there was a particularly recognizable track, even now he likes that same track while crying or screaming when he hears other kinds of music). Even now at 3 months he's super active and hitting all the developmental milestones early (and kicks a lot lol). I wonder if you have a potential kickball star in the making. Congratulations
jerojero 4y ago
Yes, I think this study is one of those "we kind of knew but we never really tested it" studies which to me are some of the most fun. There is a huge scientific difference between having an idea why something might be and actually managing to test it. Although, of course, this was tested in fish it is still probably very applicable to other species.

cr4nberry 4y ago

There's a certain sort of determinism involved in using past behavior to predict future behavior. That kind of thinking is prerequisite for a social credit system For some reason, people really love to make these kinds of predictions. They sound true and are fun to talk about, and they make sense to pretty much everyone. At the same time, the way we talk about something conditions how we see it, how we react to it, and consequently what it is

derbOac 4y ago
The environment being so carefully controlled to be the same is kinda one example. I don't think it's as identical as they are claiming — behavioral science is littered with these claims that are later shown to be false — but showing X percent of variance associated with the individual in the absence of environmental variation is not the same as showing X percent in the presence of significant variation. Let's say you tried to change some of the fish, for example. It's an interesting paper but full of big-picture issues.

svnt 4y ago

A lot of comments here positioning fish vs humans. There is no doubt everyone has something of a personality. However this study was performed on genetically and developmentally identical siblings, which is impossible to do in humans (at least ethically) and the interesting part is there was still individual variance, present from the time of birth, that increased over time.

AlmostAnyone 4y ago
Gene expression is dependent on incredible amount of variables. It'd be a cosmic level of coincidence to have two clones express the same way. That never happens even in single-cell organisms, much less something as complex as fish or human.
- kzrdude 4y ago
  "Genes as blueprint" is something that has entered the common knowledge. At least, it needs to be tempered and modified in the common knowledge by what we have learned "recently" about epigenetics. And realistically it needs to be modified by everything we don't know too.
- svnt 4y ago
  I don’t disagree.
mjburgess 4y ago
To emphasise this point: in almost all other animals, a profound level of motor specialisation is present at-birth. Most animals, are eg., born walking. Whereas in humans, we are born needing to specialise almost everything during our lifetime -- which has incredibly high costs (ie., many years of being fed without being able to hunt) -- but high rewards: we learn how to conceptualise the world in novel ways, create tools, etc. both largely a product of our ability to specialise our sensory-motor system in response to the actual environment we're in. There is no reason to suppose that we are analogous to fish in our personalities, but not in everything else -- indeed, there's obvious reasons to suppose the opposite.

bluenose69 4y ago

Fish are hatched, not born.

_0ffh 4y ago

Good, that's much less surprising than the opposite finding would have been. It indicates that these fish leverage a mixed strategy, which is an evolutionary advantage more often than not, both in terms of direct payoff and in terms of evolvability.

machina_ex_deus 4y ago

The sceptic in me feels this research is extremely fishy. This was done on fish. How much of the observed external characteristics of fish can be attributed to behavior? They are looking at median swimming speed and how fish swim. Calling this "behavior" is misleading. It could just as likely be developmental physical differences. They watched fish swim and saw that they are more correlated with themselves than others. Everything else is a very fishy narrative. Many people in this thread judge it by empathy with the story instead of what can be reasonably done.

bszupnick 4y ago
I hear and share your skepticism, but I'm also skeptical of pushbacks to the ever-growing research and literature on the uniqueness and, well, "personhood" of animals. The more we learn about animals (see the article on HN ~2 days ago that bees engage in play) the more it seems like they're a lot more like us than we'd like to think. We're smart, and we can try to explain every thing away (like you do in your comment), but there's a pattern that's emerging. It's an uncomfortable pattern and I get why we try to convince ourselves that animals are fundamentally different than we are, but I'm more and more believing that we're all actually a lot more similar than we'd like to think. A lot of my current thinking is from the book How to be Animal by Melanie Challenger. I recommend it!
- machina_ex_deus 4y ago
  I don't judge scientific letter literature with empathy. I can definitely empathize with animals, and I would even say my own cat has shown some behaviors as a kitten that stayed later on (like being easily scared). Netflix's cat movie that was extremely narrativistic and meant for cat loving audience had more sound basis and plausible methodology to study actual behavior. (Like attachment tests). This is simply not it. I don't care if it supports my preconceptions - I try to judge objectively. As should more people. This isn't "pushback against personhood of animals". This is pushback against an increasingly narrativistic science, and the inability of so many people to recognize it.

pvaldes 4y ago

Those keeping guppy fish know that the males have one single thing in mind: Sex

novia 4y ago

Misleading headline. The *clonal* fish were separated on day one and the differences were observed seven weeks later. The separation occurred early to prevent the other clonal fish from having an influence on each other's later behavior. All the fish had the same DNA. This is more analogous to twin studies than not.