Genetics Almost Meaningless

[Newtonian]

If the only conversation here,was that deficient environments could contribute to mental disorders in a wide spectrum of phenotypes.Then the majority here would agree,as its common knowledge.My 93 yr old grandmother(who's only interest is a life spent playing Bingo)knows that.Hardly worthy of a Uni-degree.

But Ramin is clearly stating that disorders i.e Autism are the direct result of environmental factors.Frankly if i was a parent of an Autistic child i would be greatly offended.In fact presently known genetic evidence would point us to accept the reverse of this threads title

Genetics are definitely important

Ramin are you aware of ADHT.I would be interested to read your take on this,and wether you attribute it to your DE

[ramin]

In fact we know there is an hereditory component in alcoholism. There are neurological differences in the brains of alcoholics' date=' localised to the left hemisphere (I can't remember the precise location). This difference has been observed in the sons of alcoholics. It is passed down the male line.

 

You are right about the environment. This hereditory component provides a [i']propensity[/i] for alcoholism, but it does not guarantee the individual will become an alcoholic. In effect, it just increases the probability (risk) significantly above those without this difference.

 

The same has been observed in primates. There are those with a propensity for uncontrolled drinking, and those who find the effects of alcohol aversive. This, within the same species. This occurs at a resort at which these animals regularly come down to scavange food and drink left by tourists. In this case, the environment plays a significant role, because it is that which determines access to alcohol. Nonetheless, within that environment, there are still those who will go to extreme lengths to scavange alcoholic drinks, and those who avoid it and scavange only soft drinks. A good example of a nature/nurture interaction, I thought.

 

The nature/nurture debate is old. It has been many years since anyone argued for the sole influence of one or the other. Most people now acknowledge that both play a significant role and these days look at the relative impacts of each.

 

That's the very issue. Genetics and Environment being both important is incredibly vague, is it not? We can't just dismiss the argument with that statement. The argument I am making, Glider, is that genetics are important determinants in deficient environments. Yes, you see the impact of genetics on alcoholism, but in deficient environments. Furthermore, the use of primate examples is unwarranted to explain human tendencies, as it does not prove anything. The environment could be deficient in both environments, or in only the primates'.

 

That is exactly why I posted this topic, because this is always overlooked, just as you've shown. Genetics can be linked causally in deficient environments, while they are unimportant in adequate environments. This does not substantiate that "genetics and environment both play an important role." It only substantiates that environment does.

 

Do you see this?

 

Furthermore, you mentioned some brain differences. Have you considered the plasticity of the brain functions in question before using this in your argument?

 

Last, are you aware of the assumptions underlying heridity estimates? One of the assumptions is that the environment may be deficient. So how important is this?

[ramin]

No the degree to which the defective gene affect the organism is the determining factor.A geneticist would explain a little better.

Take schizophrenia although a great deal is known about its biology' date=' the causes of schizophrenia have not yet fully been elucidated.Hence your argument. Through twin and adoption studies, we know that there is an inherited genetic component.Environmental stress may manifest or contribute to episodes of this illness,equally regardless of environment schizophrenia will not be manifested.Indicating environment only playing a minor role,and genetics as causal.[/quote']

 

Your logic is all wrong. Everyone knows there is a necessary environment element for schizophrenia. In any case, this is one of the more extreme examples. My post indicates that my argument applies to a great extent, but not fully.

A cop out,and untrue.

The majority of individuals on this planet can relate to a shitty upbringing.In the 50's many were poor ,i remember queing up in school to recieve shoes that were donated by more affluent pupils parents.I remember the majority of xmas's getting nothing more than an apple/orange and a few sweets.Hey i was no isolated case,it was hard times which affected society at the time.

There was no childline in the 50's many were physically and mentally abused,along with their mother(divorce wasnt so easy then)

To simplify the point there are millions starving,suffering genocide,poverty,orphaned ,unloved etc.How deficient an environment could they be.Yet according to your argument,the majority of the population of the planet should be running around nutters.The fact that they are not indicates that environment plays a minor role.

 

Not even close. You've changed the definition of deficiency to adequacy. Being poor in no way means having a deficient environment. Uncared for is the only one I agree with in your statement.

 

And here is your response, please read and answer to it carefully:

 

If two people are uncared for, and one develops disorder X and another does not, you would say that genetics is important?

 

This is also a response to your following analysis:

 

Not exactly' date='they will have the defective genes.The way that these affect /and to what degree the organism is unknown presently.However as you point out in some the disorder will manifest itself,in others it wont.Regardless of environmental stress,the disease will not neccersarily manifest.But later generations it may.

In a nutshell environmental stress,certainly will not help people with a disposition to mental illness,though equally certain it will not cause episodes of mental illness.

An individual can be in the most horrendous of environments and be well adjusted.An individual could be in the happiest of environments and be a pathological fruitcake.Which to me at least indicates a genetic cause.[/quote']

 

Except this part:

 

An individual could be in the happiest of environments and be a pathological fruitcake.Which to me at least indicates a genetic cause.

 

What do you mean happiest of environments. If that environment is "happy" but neglects something basic, it is deficient, and allows pathology. I bet you wont' be able to explain the conditions for this "happy" environment relative to the child.

 

So thus far, you still don't establish how genetics are important in the majority of cases.

 

Calling people pathological fruitcakes is the very defition of today's trend of deficient environments. Only in a deficient environment would someone label mental problems in that manner.

[ramin]

If the only conversation here' date='was that deficient environments could contribute to mental disorders in a wide spectrum of phenotypes.Then the majority here would agree,as its common knowledge.My 93 yr old grandmother(who's only interest is a life spent playing Bingo)knows that.Hardly worthy of a Uni-degree.

But Ramin is clearly stating that disorders i.e Autism are the direct result of environmental factors.Frankly if i was a parent of an Autistic child i would be greatly offended.In fact presently known genetic evidence would point us to accept the reverse of this threads title

[b']Genetics are definitely important[/b]

Ramin are you aware of ADHT.I would be interested to read your take on this,and wether you attribute it to your DE

 

The argument is that genetics are "important" in deficient environments, and so, they are not important. If you have a degree, and can't understand this, than your Uni degree isn't worth anything.

 

And, did I blame anything on autistic parents? I clearly stated that a deficient environment is produced by negative social trends.

 

Furthermore, You have shown no evidence that genetics are important in most disorders or autism

 

I want to be clear here, however, in what sense I am saying they are not important. I am saying they are not important when talking about causes/etiology.

[Newtonian]

The argument is that genetics are "important" in deficient environments, and so, they are not important.

Ok Ramin give us something to work with.Everything said to you is dismissed as a def/enviro.So give us a defined adequate environment,sufficient environment,informed environment.WHATEVER to give us a base to start from.

Your obviously at a loss that, defective genes affect the organism regardless of environmental factors.

You never answered my question about ADHT.

Which cult is teaching you this stuff?

What is the full discription of your course?

I feel this would be of benefit to other posters,to research the subject for ourselves.Look at it as peer review.

You may be bottom of your class and not understand just what their teaching you!

EDIT

I will post some links that show genetic disorders.

[AzurePhoenix]

WHAT THE FRICKIN' HELL DO YOU HAVE AGAINST MONKEYS? Where is this evidence that monkey psychology is nothing like a human's? Are you basing this off of some spectacular insight you've had, and have tested in the lab to prove our supremacy? Doubtful. Don't just dismiss the monkey thing. Address it in a way that supports your opinion.

 

"I'm Ramin. I say you're wrong. No, I won't say why; why should I waste time explaining why? You're just wrong. That's just how it is, so there!"

[AzurePhoenix]

Okay, I realize you're giving some expalnations for other things that occasionally mave at least a MARGINAL (AT LEAST!!! LEAST!!!! AT LEAST IMPLIES "QUITE POSSIBLY/PROBABLY MORE!!!!!! ALL THE WAY UP TO YOUR PRECIOUS 'SUBSTANTIAL', EVEN COMPLETE AND UTTER!!!!!!!") explanation. But you refuse to address why our theories are wrong, not by shwoing us the flaws in ours, but by preaching for the strengths in yours. You're not willing to even discuss those matters. If you think I'm gonna call you after this, you can forget it. Maybe Coral will help me with the wolf experiment. Coral's a guy, right?

[Phi for All]

Maybe Coral will help me with the wolf experiment. Coral's a guy, right?

First, I am a mother not a dad.

Brad Pitt's available, I hear. And he likes monkeys.

[AzurePhoenix]

Oh, well then, I'm sorry to have misread your gender Madam Coral Rhedd. Still friends? DOn't worry Phi, I know your married. You know who's incredibly cute in an innocent rugged way, Josh Turner, the guy who sings "Long Black Train." I'll happily make a baby with him, no matter how long it takes.

[ramin]

Okay, I realize you're giving some expalnations for other things that occasionally mave at least a MARGINAL (AT LEAST!!! LEAST!!!! AT LEAST IMPLIES "QUITE POSSIBLY/PROBABLY MORE!!!!!! ALL THE WAY UP TO YOUR PRECIOUS 'SUBSTANTIAL', EVEN COMPLETE AND UTTER!!!!!!!") explanation. But you refuse to address why our theories are wrong, not by shwoing us the flaws in ours, but by preaching for the strengths in yours. You're not willing to even discuss those matters. If you think I'm gonna call you after this, you can forget it. Maybe Coral will help me with the wolf experiment. Coral's a guy, right?

 

These jokes are pathetic Azure. I suggest you go a little slower and don't jump to conclusions simply to please an already biased crowd.

[ramin]

WHAT THE FRICKIN' HELL DO YOU HAVE AGAINST MONKEYS? Where is this evidence that monkey psychology is nothing like a human's? Are you basing this off of some spectacular insight you've had' date=' and have tested in the lab to prove our supremacy? Doubtful. Don't just dismiss the monkey thing. Address it in a way that supports your opinion.

[/quote']

 

Who said I have anything against monkeys? I love monkeys!

 

What's going on in YOUR head?

[ramin]

The argument is that genetics are "important" in deficient environments, and so, they are not important.

 

Yes, you don't get it. Keep working on it though...

 

 

Ok Ramin give us something to work with.Everything said to you is dismissed as a def/enviro.So give us a defined adequate environment,sufficient environment,informed environment.WHATEVER to give us a base to start from.

Your obviously at a loss that, defective genes affect the organism regardless of environmental factors.

You never answered my question about ADHT.

Which cult is teaching you this stuff?

What is the full discription of your course?

I feel this would be of benefit to other posters,to research the subject for ourselves.Look at it as peer review.

You may be bottom of your class and not understand just what their teaching you!

EDIT

I will post some links that show genetic disorders.

 

Talk about cults, you've obviously learned that freedom means not caring for kids, so letting "vulnerable genetics" have an effect, so ultimately your whole society can be fooled and take advantage of other societies. And hey, if any other societies want to buy it, great. You've followed the ultimate cult. I've obviously thought things through, and you just don't get it. Can it be more simple than this:

 

"The argument is that genetics are "important" in deficient environments, and so, they are not important."

 

If you don't want to respond to this, or any bolded material on this thread, then you're avoiding the argument.

 

You've been rude, avoided the argument throughout, and have even been rude, subjective, with an oppressive attitude towards people with disorders.

 

Your arguments have been simply angry "BS's" and "everything is proven" w/out providing any tangible proof which must be accompanied with an argument. Haven't you learned that empirical evidence can be interpreted tens of ways? You have to accompany your evidence with an argument, that also responds to counter-arguments such as mine.

 

Save yourself the embarrassment. I bet anything many people have been relieved that someone dogmatic-promoting like you is being refuted, but have not written anything. Its because its hard to both pinpoint your biases, and further, there is pressure to conform. I have none of those pressures, and I've pinpointed about ten of your biases consistently here, and remained unanswered with regard to my argument. You have provided absolutely no analysis that a majority of disorders deemed disorders today, develop regardless of environmental factors. This is another unscientific sweeping notion of yours. Neither does anyone agree with that statement, even on this highly biased thread.

 

I really don't know what you are doing in a scienceforums site with this stuff. You should go to some religion invention sites or something...

[ramin]

EVERYONE, PLEASE, INSTEAD OF WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME, RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING. THIS IS THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD:

 

We can continue the argument in a more precise manner. My main claim is not about single disorders like Huntington's etc; it is about the missing link in thinking about development and disorders. What follows is that genetics is unimportant in many cases that they are currently being emphasized, or even mentioned.

 

The missing link is that 1-genetic contribution is greater in deficient environments. And so, we must take this under consideration. If a genetic contribution does not exist in a different, sufficient environment, usually in the form of a proactive environment, then the genetics are not important and the environment only should be the focus of improvement. This means, depression, drug-abuse, and to a good extent (but perhaps not fully) disorders such as schizophrenia and autism (though I can't be certain about severe autism as of yet), should not be deemed genetic disorders. They do not exist in basically sufficient environments.

2- heriditary estimates are flawed because the similarities they detect could be due to social forces such as imitation; furthermore, their assumptions are misleading and without evidence. One admitted assumption of these estimates are that each environment could be deficient. They simply have no way of finding out via their method.

3- the child's negative temperment does not bring a negative reaction. That's a temporary correlation. The cause is the nature of the environment reacting to the child. A negative temperment can become a positive one in an informed environment.

[AzurePhoenix]

I'm sorry, you're right, I don't know what's going on in my head . But eighteen years of senility can't just be tossed out the window . My genes won't allow it ... and while I'm being civil, I wasn't doing it for the "biased crowd" I was simply venting some unfair frustrations . Are we okay ? Good. I promise not to add anything else unless it's composed of actual insights, ideas, or rebuttals (sp?)

 

Truce?

 

oh, and I think we'd all benefit if you and newtonian reached a similar understanding. I realize things are tense, but let's all just take a big breath, and cleanse our thoughts. Petty disputes between close-minded factions like this are exactly what's been holding the human race back. scientifically, socially, and politically

[AzurePhoenix]

CSI compromise. "What we are can't be changed. Who we are never stops changing" referring to nature vs. nurture

[ramin]

I'm sorry' date=' you're right, I don't know what's going on in my head . But eighteen years of senility can't just be tossed out the window . My genes won't allow it ... and while I'm being civil, I wasn't doing it for the "biased crowd" I was simply venting some unfair frustrations . Are we okay ? Good. I promise not to add anything else unless it's composed of actual insights, ideas, or rebuttals (sp?)

 

Truce?

 

oh, and I think we'd all benefit if you and newtonian reached a similar understanding. I realize things are tense, but let's all just take a big breath, and cleanse our thoughts. Petty disputes between close-minded factions like this are exactly what's been holding the human race back. scientifically, socially, and politically[/quote']

 

Truce

[ramin]

Newtonian, I have an idea for us. I say, either pick one of the claims in the last bolded post, or, give your answer to this question:

 

What factors during development influence a person to become who they are?

 

 

Feel free to give your opinion as well Azure, or if anyone else has an answer...

[AzurePhoenix]

I appreciate it, but I think I'll decline. I have an idea, but I'm not sure i could articulate the Fruedian aspects in such a way as to flow smoothly with the biological. If I figure it out, I promise to provide my share of the rant

[john5746]

EVERYONE, PLEASE, INSTEAD OF WASTING EVERYONE'S TIME, RESPOND TO THE FOLLOWING. THIS IS THE TOPIC OF THE THREAD:

 

You, please quit wasting everone's time and close this thread!

 

The missing link is that 1-genetic contribution is greater in deficient environments.

 

Deficient environments play a greater role with certain genes!

What the heck is deficient anyway? Is it the environment or the way the person perceives the environment' date=' reacts to the environment? Make everyone watch PBS, goto church, etc. Some would love this, some would shoot themselves. How do you decide which environment to apply to which person? You have a one size fits all environment for everyone?

 

2- heriditary estimates are flawed because the similarities they detect could be due to social forces such as imitation; furthermore, their assumptions are misleading and without evidence. One admitted assumption of these estimates are that each environment could be deficient. They simply have no way of finding out via their method.

 

Twins Mental Disorder

 

Yes, you can use this to argue about the environment again. But, I have never seen a 100% correlation/cure for anything, so I see a huge opportunity for gene therapy someday for bipolar disorder.

 

3- the child's negative temperment does not bring a negative reaction. That's a temporary correlation. The cause is the nature of the environment reacting to the child. A negative temperment can become a positive one in an informed environment.

 

I agree, so if you have one child that is calm and cool and another that is a pain in the a**, then you TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY. They may need a DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT. So, being ignorant of a gene that may predispose them to whatever would be an uninformed environment.

 

Yes, I pulled this out of my magic hat. Where did you pull your BS out of?

[Rekkr]

Genetics determine how an organism will react to its environment. Some genes can be triggered by environment factors, but not most. Genes are accountable for almost every behavioral and physical peculiarity of a human being.

[ramin]

Genetics determine how an organism will react to its environment. Some genes can be triggered by environment factors, but not most. Genes are accountable for almost every behavioral and physical peculiarity of a human being.

 

 

Can you provide some explanation?

 

Do you know anything about plasticity or the "critical period"?

[ramin]

[b']You, please quit wasting everone's time and close this thread![/b]

 

How am I wasting time by getting to the point????

 

Oh yeah, and sorry for the debate.

 

Deficient environments play a greater role with certain genes!

 

Sure, why not. In any case, they are deficient and since w/out the deficiency genes are not triggered, genes are unimportant.

 

What the heck is deficient anyway? Is it the environment or the way the person perceives the environment, reacts to the environment? Make everyone watch PBS, goto church, etc. Some would love this, some would shoot themselves. How do you decide which environment to apply to which person? You have a one size fits all environment for everyone?

 

Finally, some good questions. I mentioned before a lack of motivation to understand, get close, and be proactive with a child that is not "ideal" or "good" can constitue deficiency. You'll see all over textbooks that parents don't expect much from their children when their children do not do well on an IQ test. Or, parents will react negatively to a "negative" or "difficult" child. These trends, facilitated by the norms and ideals of current popular society, equal deficiency that becomes manifested biologically. A child's negativity can be easily countered with proactivity. In sum, there is no "potential." Things are just the way they seem, that simple. Have you ever heard of reductionism, determinism? That's what's increased.

 

In other words, I'm not implying a one size fits all in any way. Genes are variability and diversity is good. But the basics my man, the basics, are being washed away.

 

Twins Mental Disorder

 

Yes, you can use this to argue about the environment again. But, I have never seen a 100% correlation/cure for anything, so I see a huge opportunity for gene therapy someday for bipolar disorder.

 

What about fixing the cause of the disorder: society, instead of blaming genes and letting politicians get away with bad decisions?

 

I agree, so if you have one child that is calm and cool and another that is a pain in the a**, then you TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY. They may need a DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT. So, being ignorant of a gene that may predispose them to whatever would be an uninformed environment.

 

Oh yes, I totally agree. Uninformed and inactive environment is a huge problem. But you saw past my point. I'm saying that the way the child is reacted to depends much less on the child than on the nature of the environment. Is that clearer?

Yes, I pulled this out of my magic hat. Where did you pull your BS out of?

So now you're agreeing with BS?

 

And why are you all so pissed off about this? This blaming genes seems to be a trend that you all have been influenced with, otherwise it wouldn't be so darn hard to have a conversation about. This is what page 23?

[ramin]

The way you all are defending genetics is similar to the way people used to defend behaviorism. New phenomena have their eras, because they are interesting discoveries, and improvements relative to the past. Nevertheless, they are usually very overemphasized, and even detrimental.

[Newtonian]

Sorry ramin i was arguing from the common sense stance that genetic disorders are just that.You seem to be of the opinion correlation as causality and that an informed and thus proactive environment will somehow counter a psychcological disorder like autism(you favour the Lovaas Method do you not).In fact nobody here has stated that environmental factors cannot influence the severity of a disorder.Only that the environment is not the fundemental underlining cause and that genetics is(i am the parent of 5 well adjusted children,i assume as parents we gave them an individual sufficient environment)

However it is your opinion that is predudice and unsubstanciated(regardless of you wording your posts like John danced if Mary sang, and Mary sang,so john danced). .Science has improved our understanding of certain disorders ,and placed defected genes as the main causality and environment contributary. You should get help for your Narcissism its a genetic trait stop denying it.

 

You have continually been evasive and sought only to confuse.By deliberately not involving myself with your drivel,hopefully to the others i have been coherent.

 

Please dont assume my ignorance or lack of interlect in my rebuttal.Im fully aware of Emil Kraepelin and his writings,i just dont agree!You are not alone in believing psychcological disorders or diseases of the mind are not brain diseases and in fact not diseases at all.That because mind is not a material object,it can be diseased only in a metaphorical sense.This disorder or disease is not an observable phenomenon, but a social relationship.And that this fallacy of genetic disease is only a psychiatric excuse in one fell swoop curtailing responsibility and with an immoral justification , it removes motivation from action.

The fact is disorders such as Autism are being proven to be `organic mental disorders' and defective genes causal

 

Autism

http://ericec.org/faq/autism.html

I hope soon geneticists isolate these genes responsible and shut you up!!

[Coral Rhedd]

Oh, well then, I'm sorry to have misread your gender Madam Coral Rhedd.

 

With all due respect AzurePhoenix, even if I were inclined to switch my sexual orientation and you were so inclined as well, I am old enough to be your mother.

 

I am much more likely to pat your hand, bake you cookies, and tell you that there are enough unwanted children in the world.