Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Medical 50-0-50 rule

  1. Nov 18, 2009 #1

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    the rule:

    how adult personalities/intelligence turn out is due to:
    50% genetics
    0% family environment (how they're raised)
    50% other environment (peers, media?, etc.)

    the question:

    1) how seriously is this taken?

    2) how do you divide family environment from other environment? I mean, to some extent, don't your decisions as a parent heavily influence their "other" environment. From who you allow them to hang out with to where you chose to live and put them through school?

    3) Why? I know this will involve a lot of conjecture. My opinion is that children see their parents as more of an internal life-support system than part of the "real world".
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 18, 2009 #2
    not familiar with that as a rule, but i think about all we've got to go on are twin studies where they got split up early in life. from what i remember, genetics is a huge factor in how people turn out.
     
  4. Nov 26, 2009 #3
    That is nonsense. You can't say that familial influence is nothing. It's at least 1%.
     
  5. Nov 26, 2009 #4

    Moonbear

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I've never heard of such a rule either. And, there certainly is an influence of rearing on behavior. If there wasn't, scientists wouldn't go to such great lengths to cross-foster rats to elimate that bias of maternal interactions/rearing in behavior experiments. Why on earth would other environment be so influential and family environment not be? It doesn't even make sense.
     
  6. Nov 28, 2009 #5

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well, that's why it's so interesting, because it's counter-intuitive. Of course, we don't like to hear it as parents, but that doesn't mean it's false.

    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ule-why-parenting-has-virtually-no-effect-chi

     
  7. Nov 28, 2009 #6

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

  8. Nov 28, 2009 #7
    This is an astonishing notion, and likely as misguided as theories from the sixties which attempted to blame schizophrenia on the parents. Unless of course trauma is removed from the equation. Seems like an effort to blame aberrant behavior on the bad kids. Not discounting peer influence, vut it seems a bit of a stretch. I'd probably go 70/15/15 in order of genes, parents, and peers.
     
  9. Nov 28, 2009 #8

    Andy Resnick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

  10. Nov 28, 2009 #9

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Unfortunately this is the old "nature versus nurture" argument made by racists and eugenicists that argue that IQ is primarily genetic in order to push their agendas to wipe out races and people of "lower IQ" that are incapable of producing intelligent offspring, in their opinion.

    Neried and I fought this battle for at least 2 years here against those that were pushing this train of thought. We won.
     
  11. Nov 28, 2009 #10
    i don't think it is exactly that. genetics may determine your neurochemistry, and that may have a huge factor on your "personality". not that personality should be taken as other things, tho, like "character"/behaving morally. i'd expect genetics to have a big influence on whether a person is say, gregarious or a risk-taker.

    IQ? i'm not even sure i know exactly what that means. but perhaps genetics do play a role in predisposing people for certain tasks. we do know that it can determine what muscles you may or may not have. if you're white, you http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1467925/" [Broken], but not if you're black. and if musculo-skeletal structure is affected, there's no reason to believe that there aren't statistical differences in brain structure.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  12. Nov 28, 2009 #11

    ideasrule

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    What? So you're claiming that Judith Rich is advocating eugenics because he believes genetics is as important as environmental factors in determining intelligence? I can't believe you would make such an accusation based on a person's scientific beliefs! There's PLENTY of evidence proving genetics has a major role in determining intelligence, and PLENTY of evidence proving environmental factors play a major role as well. Just because this guy believes the split is 50-50 between genetics and environment instead of 49-51 or 40-60, he's a racist and eugenicist?

    This kind of ad hominem attack is typical of religion and politics, but has no place in science.
     
  13. Nov 28, 2009 #12

    D H

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Evo never said that. Read what she said.
     
  14. Nov 28, 2009 #13

    ideasrule

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I apologize if I misunderstood, but she said:

    Unfortunately this is the old "nature versus nurture" argument made by racists and eugenicists that argue that IQ is primarily genetic in order to push their agendas to wipe out races and people of "lower IQ" that are incapable of producing intelligent offspring, in their opinion.

    I see that she could be saying that Rich's scientific opinion is well-founded, so it's unfortunate that many racists/eugenicists share the same opinion. The phrasing ("THIS is the old ... argument") made me think "this" referred to the articles being discussed.
     
  15. Nov 28, 2009 #14

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    :rofl: I was simply telling people this was referring to the old nature vs nurture argument, since they didn't understand and thought they've never heard of it. You know the famous twin experiments? I don't think pythagorean is a eugenicist or is calling for racial cleansing, I never said that.

    But if anyone here thinks we're going to go down the racist/eugenics road, nope.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  16. Nov 29, 2009 #15
    Actually, Evo, I don't see it as nature vs nurture so much as nurture vs nurture: the claim is that most, if not all of the environmental inflluences are coming from the kids' peers and general socializing influences of whatever culture he/she may be reared in, and very little from the parents/immediate family.

    I find it an astonishing notion in that practically every screwed up kid I have met has guess what, screwed up parents. At least within western psychiatry, there has been a back and forth re the effect of the parents--Freudian's believe that just about every problem can be traced back to the collective influence of traumas, small and large, intended or not, on the part of the parents. More recent psychoanalytic theory tends to get away from this extreme view with folks like Melanie Klein suggestng that a parent only need be good enough for crucial development milestones to be successfully achieved.

    If you buy into the latter notion as I do, (and I'm not much of a fan of psychoanalysis) it may well be that peers, teachers and others become the primary shapers of the child's personality. And maybe the percentage of really screwed up parents is small enough that truly bad parenting gets washed out in a study of this type. I believe that's why both I and Andy R were questioning the effects of abuse. I've often wondered how the kibbutzes did in this regard as presumably the effects of lousy biological parents would be softened by the large amount of contact with healthier members, just as having a good granny or aunt here can ameliorate the effeects of the primary caregivers. At least that was my take. There were too many other confounding issues with Kibbutzism in my limited knowledge of the subject to draw any conclusions re the question at hand.
     
  17. Nov 29, 2009 #16

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I have to say I agree. I've never agreed with the nature vs nurture where genectics was the overwhelming deciding factor and environment given almost no importance.
     
  18. Nov 29, 2009 #17

    OmCheeto

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I would say the rule should be 50-50-0.

    I'm a firm believer in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_Series" [Broken] rule.

    Actually, I grew up, as did the 7-Up kids, when TV was a fairly benign* part of life.

    With people now using TV as a baby sitter, the rule might now be 40-40-20.

    Do not let Vera Lynn watch TV until she is 7! It will rot her mind.



    *as in relating to tumors.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  19. Nov 29, 2009 #18

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Firstly, this idea was taught in the open Yale psychology courses that I've been watching.

    Second, in the case of abuse and other extreme traumas, there lies an exception. It's known that many serial killers suffered brain damage at a critical time in their youth in combination with physical and mental abuse. So, yeah, if you beat your kid, you can overcome the 50-0-50 rule. I'm also pretty sure that if you don't give your kid love and care, they will be emotionally underdeveloped, which leads to learning development problems.

    However, if we assume a sort of standard situation, where the kid doesn't get abused, gets love and care, is given proper nutrition, shelter, etc, etc, etc, I can't dismiss the 50-0-50 rule quite yet (I mean, it's based on evidence, and I haven't found any evidence countering it, but I'd welcome any)

    My opinion about the reason for the 50-0-50 rule is that, basically, kids get bored with their parents rather early. We know that the brain gets bored with repetitive stimuli, the dopamine levels respond with less and less intensity every time and depending on the frequency of the stimuli. From this, I would assume that it's not too far fetched that the neuroplasticity of the young becomes less and less receptive of the constant stimuli of family until the point where, later in life (remember that the rule applies to the developed adult, no the developing child) the multiple shifting stimuli of the outer-world (outside the family) has a much more dramatic effect on the children than their parents did because it's more "interesting" to the brain than what the brain considers the "norm".
     
  20. Nov 29, 2009 #19

    Andy Resnick

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Education Advisor
    2016 Award

    It's still a straw man argument- you are asking us to believe something is true in spite of clear counterexamples. Minimizing or wishing away the counterexamples is ignoring truth in favor of dogma.

    The same is true in physics- Classical mechanics is 100% true if you ignore those pesky orbitals... :)
     
  21. Nov 29, 2009 #20
    The situation may be even more interesting and complicated than what you propose. I just read a good review found in this issue of The http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200912/dobbs-orchid-gene" that has been brewing for some time.

    I recommend reading the article but will try to summarize: There is a good deal of neurobilogical emerging evidence which helps to explain what has heretofore been a puzzle: Why are illnesses such as depression, ADHD, sociopathic behavior so common in humans? These are all neurobahavioral disorders which appear to be tightly associated with certain polymorphic alleles, the most notable being the serotonin transporter. If these are "bad" genes, why hasn't the frequency diminished over time? What good do they serve so as to persist in spite of what should be strong selective pressure?

    In the last 10-15 years, we may be nearing an answer. As it turns out there is accumulating evidence (both primate and human) which demonstrates a paradox: these genes in a normal and especially a poor environment are a deinite liability. But when such an individual is placed in a supermom environment, what was once a disadvantage now becomes a clearcut advantage. They mate "better", forge better social alliances, and rise higher in dominance heirarchies. The other fascinoma is that the two species of primate which are able to migrate and penetrate new environments are the Rhesus monkey and humans, both of which demonstrate this striking polymorphism of genes so fundamental to neurotransmitter processing. In a simple minded way it reminds me of the famed sickle cell gene which in a single dose confers resistance to malaria, while in a double dose leads to a crippling and atal disease. Only this is much more fun!
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2017
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook