3 ms·

everything is heritable, including that which controls our responses to nurture. Everything.

by fnid 17y ago

tokenadult 17y ago
From a recently published research journal article announced on another thread on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838534 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838534 Johnson, W., Turkheimer, E., Gottesman, I., and Bouchard, T. (2009). Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 4. 217-220. "Moreover, even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability. For example, height is on the order of 90% heritable, yet North and South Koreans, who come from the same genetic background, presently differ in average height by a full 6 inches (Pak, 2004; Schwekendiek, 2008)." (Alas, now the pay wall workaround for that article is no longer available. I have a complete copy of the article, obtained from one of the authors.) It is generally true that nearly all human behavioral characteristics show greater concordance among closely related individuals than among presumptively unrelated individuals (which is what "heritability," a pre-Mendelian concept, is about). This is not at all to say that young people couldn't be trained to be entrepreneurs, and thus made rather than born.
- eagleal 17y ago
  I think too they have not done clearly the research. Yes, some aspects of the behavior of a person are in the genetics, but it's more the environment that models it. Eg. in my family we have a strong tendency to identify new business opportunities, but this doesn't mean it's 100% because of the DNA. It's more about about the environment (in my case family) type of culture and education. Thanks for the name of the report. Can you send me a copy?
  - tokenadult 17y ago
    I think too they have not done clearly the research. Who is "they"? Are you referring to the authors of the article I cited above, ohnson, W., Turkheimer, E., Gottesman, I., and Bouchard, T. (2009). Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 4. 217-220. published in quite a respectable peer-reviewed journal? Anyone who follows this research should be familiar with the name of Thomas Bouchard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Bouchard,_Jr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Bouchard,_Jr. who is one of the most eminent researchers on human behavioral genetics. Eric Turkheimer, http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/ http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/ another of the co-authors, should also be well known to anyone who has done research in this field at all. But, yes, this latest paper makes clear than even highly heritable traits are very subject to environmental influences, as the quoted paragraph above says. P.S. I might be able to find another work-around for obtaining the full paper for persons who post full contact information in their HN profiles.
    - eagleal 17y ago
      No, I was referring to nytimes. Please, what information you need? (you have the email)
- fnid 17y ago
  I suspect the parents and the children are taller. I don't see how two separate populations of people evolving different physical traits over time is evidence that that height is not inherited. Your quote says, "Presently differ." Three or four generations of people have been born since 1948 when they split. Furthermore, the ability for dna to selectively turn on or off particular genes in response to environmental conditions is itself inherited from the parents. I'm sure there were, in our past, some mutants who did not have the ability to turn on or off genes and perhaps they died. It's easier to train monkeys to fear a stick than to fear a flower. It's because the genes allow it. Sticks look like snakes. If it's easier to learn to fear a snake, the monkey survives longer.
  - tokenadult 17y ago
    I don't see how two separate populations of people evolving different physical traits over time is evidence that that height is not inherited. The quotation is about expression of a trait (phenotype) and not about genotype, and thus not about "evolving different physical traits." There is no evidence that gene frequencies have changed at all in either place.
    - fnid 17y ago
      I'm still not convinced. If it's 90% heritable, then the average of the shortest population needs only be 5' tall. That's pretty short. Nutrition could account for the rest. Yes, nutrition is environmental, but it doesn't change my original claim. Our physical ability to respond to environmental changes is inherited. If you feed someone who has inherited the genes from two 5' tall parents, I highly doubt you could feed one twin better than the other and get a 6" difference in height. You know by thinking about it that it won't happen. Furthermore, 4 generations of offspring will lead to genetic differences in the population. Foxes can be domesticated in 10 generations. That's a huge divergence in phenotype.
jacquesm 17y ago
I'm not sure I follow you there. Lots of things are heritable, we have tons of proof for that. But everything ? You've just thrown out the possibility for anybody to overcome their genetic pre-disposition and to surpass their endowment. Gattaca is a movie around that whole theme. Sure you inherit a whole bunch of stuff from your parents, but your mental make-up is in large part due to how you are brought up and how much effort you put in to making something from that which you were given. If 'success' were heritable then all the successful businesspeople would have successful children, they should, especially given that they have daddy/mommy as a jump off point. The opposite is just as likely though. Family fortunes are usually cyclic: - one generation works very hard, creates a base - the next one runs with it, makes a fortune - the one after that has it easy, doesn't do much, but has lots of money - the one after that squanders the remainder It's very rare to see a family continue to be successful in an unbroken line given the freedom of choice to perform or to be lazy.
- fnid 17y ago
  People choose their behavior. You can be born with gifts and choose not to use them. I do not deny that practice makes perfect, but the amount practice benefits the individual is largely due to the genes that power them. All things being equal, the one with successful entrepreneurial parents will be more successful than one without entrepreneurial parents. That does not mean that someone without entrepreneurial parents cannot be a successful entrepreneur. The behavior is a choice. Someone with the inherited traits that may make them a successful entrepreneur may choose to be basketball player or doctor or computer scientist or mow lawns or clean houses.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    I'm sorry but I don't buy that. If I just look around me you could almost make the opposite argument. The kids of drunks and lowlifes score and the ones from 'well to do' families are doing drugs and pissing away their lives. Not all of them, of course, but a good portion at least.
    - fnid 17y ago

everything is heritable, including that which controls our responses to nurture. Everything.

by fnid 17y ago

everything is heritable, including that which controls our responses to nurture. Everything.

From a recently published research journal article announced on another thread on HN: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838534 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=838534 Johnson, W., Turkheimer, E., Gottesman, I., and Bouchard, T. (2009). Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 4. 217-220. "Moreover, even highly heritable traits can be strongly manipulated by the environment, so heritability has little if anything to do with controllability. For example, height is on the order of 90% heritable, yet North and South Koreans, who come from the same genetic background, presently differ in average height by a full 6 inches (Pak, 2004; Schwekendiek, 2008)." (Alas, now the pay wall workaround for that article is no longer available. I have a complete copy of the article, obtained from one of the authors.) It is generally true that nearly all human behavioral characteristics show greater concordance among closely related individuals than among presumptively unrelated individuals (which is what "heritability," a pre-Mendelian concept, is about). This is not at all to say that young people couldn't be trained to be entrepreneurs, and thus made rather than born.

eagleal 17y ago
I think too they have not done clearly the research. Yes, some aspects of the behavior of a person are in the genetics, but it's more the environment that models it. Eg. in my family we have a strong tendency to identify new business opportunities, but this doesn't mean it's 100% because of the DNA. It's more about about the environment (in my case family) type of culture and education. Thanks for the name of the report. Can you send me a copy?
- tokenadult 17y ago
  I think too they have not done clearly the research. Who is "they"? Are you referring to the authors of the article I cited above, ohnson, W., Turkheimer, E., Gottesman, I., and Bouchard, T. (2009). Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 18, 4. 217-220. published in quite a respectable peer-reviewed journal? Anyone who follows this research should be familiar with the name of Thomas Bouchard, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Bouchard,_Jr http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_J._Bouchard,_Jr. who is one of the most eminent researchers on human behavioral genetics. Eric Turkheimer, http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/ http://people.virginia.edu/~ent3c/ another of the co-authors, should also be well known to anyone who has done research in this field at all. But, yes, this latest paper makes clear than even highly heritable traits are very subject to environmental influences, as the quoted paragraph above says. P.S. I might be able to find another work-around for obtaining the full paper for persons who post full contact information in their HN profiles.
  - eagleal 17y ago
    No, I was referring to nytimes. Please, what information you need? (you have the email)
fnid 17y ago
I suspect the parents and the children are taller. I don't see how two separate populations of people evolving different physical traits over time is evidence that that height is not inherited. Your quote says, "Presently differ." Three or four generations of people have been born since 1948 when they split. Furthermore, the ability for dna to selectively turn on or off particular genes in response to environmental conditions is itself inherited from the parents. I'm sure there were, in our past, some mutants who did not have the ability to turn on or off genes and perhaps they died. It's easier to train monkeys to fear a stick than to fear a flower. It's because the genes allow it. Sticks look like snakes. If it's easier to learn to fear a snake, the monkey survives longer.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  I don't see how two separate populations of people evolving different physical traits over time is evidence that that height is not inherited. The quotation is about expression of a trait (phenotype) and not about genotype, and thus not about "evolving different physical traits." There is no evidence that gene frequencies have changed at all in either place.
  - fnid 17y ago
    I'm still not convinced. If it's 90% heritable, then the average of the shortest population needs only be 5' tall. That's pretty short. Nutrition could account for the rest. Yes, nutrition is environmental, but it doesn't change my original claim. Our physical ability to respond to environmental changes is inherited. If you feed someone who has inherited the genes from two 5' tall parents, I highly doubt you could feed one twin better than the other and get a 6" difference in height. You know by thinking about it that it won't happen. Furthermore, 4 generations of offspring will lead to genetic differences in the population. Foxes can be domesticated in 10 generations. That's a huge divergence in phenotype.

jacquesm 17y ago

I'm not sure I follow you there. Lots of things are heritable, we have tons of proof for that. But everything ? You've just thrown out the possibility for anybody to overcome their genetic pre-disposition and to surpass their endowment. Gattaca is a movie around that whole theme. Sure you inherit a whole bunch of stuff from your parents, but your mental make-up is in large part due to how you are brought up and how much effort you put in to making something from that which you were given. If 'success' were heritable then all the successful businesspeople would have successful children, they should, especially given that they have daddy/mommy as a jump off point. The opposite is just as likely though. Family fortunes are usually cyclic: - one generation works very hard, creates a base - the next one runs with it, makes a fortune - the one after that has it easy, doesn't do much, but has lots of money - the one after that squanders the remainder It's very rare to see a family continue to be successful in an unbroken line given the freedom of choice to perform or to be lazy.

fnid 17y ago
People choose their behavior. You can be born with gifts and choose not to use them. I do not deny that practice makes perfect, but the amount practice benefits the individual is largely due to the genes that power them. All things being equal, the one with successful entrepreneurial parents will be more successful than one without entrepreneurial parents. That does not mean that someone without entrepreneurial parents cannot be a successful entrepreneur. The behavior is a choice. Someone with the inherited traits that may make them a successful entrepreneur may choose to be basketball player or doctor or computer scientist or mow lawns or clean houses.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  I'm sorry but I don't buy that. If I just look around me you could almost make the opposite argument. The kids of drunks and lowlifes score and the ones from 'well to do' families are doing drugs and pissing away their lives. Not all of them, of course, but a good portion at least.
  - fnid 17y ago