Ten years ago, I wrote with Atam Vetta a paper on 'Demographic behavior and behavior genetics', which showed clearly that Fisher's assumptions and heritability analysis are based on false assumptions (see the joint attachment). However behavior genetics had been increasingly used by a number of social scientists in psychology, in demography, in gerontology, in medicine, in biometry, etc. More recently, after sequencing the human genome, a number of scientists believed it would be possible to draw up a list of behavioral traits linked to each gene. Such a belief again was not verified., but this did not prevent behavior geneticists to argue that the links between genes and behavioral phenotypes will permit new advances in the understanding of human behavior.
There are in fact two questions to be answered: (1) Is human behavior influenced by genes? (2) If, yes, what is the 'magnitude' of this influence? The answer to the first question is evidently 'yes', and it can be said pointless. For the second question we can refer to Gilbert Gottlieb in a paper on 'Genetics and development' (2001): 'It is now known that both genes and environment are involved in all traits and that it is not possible to specify their respective weighting or quantitative influence on any trait'. He adds: 'this had been a hard-won scientific insight that had not yet percolated to the mass of humanity'.
This Nature-Nurture question is always under debate, and I think it may be of interest for many ResearchGate members to discuss it.
It is largely because scientists, be they natural or social, believe that genes are the determinants of the phsiology and psychology of the organism. In reality, while there are some gene products (i.e proteins) that can influence behaviour (like hormones), there are no genes that determine behavioural traits. However, most scientists would retort by saying that innate behaviour must be inherited biochemically by genes.
Yes, I entirely agree with you that the scientist’s interest on behaviour genetics lies in the fact that they believe genes are the determinants of the physiology and the psychology of organisms. But I think that the roots of the interest on behavioural genetics may be different to the roots for eugenics which is called nowadays ‘hereditarianism’.
I am, with other researchers, writing a paper on the four Baconian idols in order to see if they are still alive.
I found that the idols of the tribe correspond perfectly to behaviour genetics. Bacon said about them: ‘The human understanding is of its own nature prone to suppose the existence of more order and regularity in the world that it finds’. He gave the example of astrology for his time. I think that nowadays behaviour genetics play an equivalent role as you clearly showed it.
However the idols of the market place seem to correspond to eugenics and ‘hereditarianism’. Bacon said about them that they are ‘formed by the intercourse and association of men with each other’. Their political purpose is clear in order ‘to improve the inborn qualities of race’. They promoted the use of sterilization laws before the Second World War, and after it they assist the race towards the elimination of the unfit. They used the concept of heritability drawn from behaviour genetics to reach their political goals.
Joseph Hannon Bozorgmehr ·
you have said that there are no genes that determine behavioural traits. Do you believe that humans are born with blank slates? You might find Steve Pinker`s book on blank slates interesting
There is a myth that thinking is a gift instead of a skill. As long that this myth of thinking is a gift will be alive then the myth of behavior genetic will be alive.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology