Medical Personality & Intelligence: The 50-50 Rule

[denverdoc]

It doesn't seem to have anything to do with the point though. You've said nothing about intelligence and personality as they are defined in psychology.

I do wish I could see exactly how this study (the 50-0-50 one) was performed, honestly. I will express that I don't trust the exact numbers, but I can see how peers would be significantly more influential than parents (socially, not genetically) in terms of personality and general intelligence. In my anecdotal experience, my peer group pretty much ignored our parents ideas. We think they're old and out-dated. Of course, I come from a pretty conservative town.

Here again I disagree. What I consider personality is largely about traits like impulsivity, anxiety, introversion/extroversion, depression/innovation, exploration and innovation vs preservation of the status quo. These are exactly the traits influenced by these rogue or orchid genes.

Let me try to bring it home with the simple observation that many of the most "successful" individuals in our society are more often than not highly vain, impetuous, individuals willing to take great chances under favorable circumstances, and yet the same genes land their owners in highly disproportionate numbers in prison or condemn to an early death. What is the difference? Is it simply fortuitous? The studies, whether animal or man, seem to suggest that the biggest operative influence as to whether the roll comes out snake eyes or box cars is mom and early nurturance.

Even more mindbending is that these polymorphic genes exist in two primate species--the rhesus monkey and man--the only two primate species that are not to be relegated to a narrow and comfortable ecological niche. I would say that this adds up to a very powerful argument in favor of mom if she is able to tip the scales that take a debt ridden gene and make it advantagous is arguably the only reason we are not still huddled about a fire on the savannah--that is had we even mastered fire.

Intelligence IMHO is too narrowly defined as the ability to rapidly process certain types of info in particular ways. That Steven Haawking is a wunderkind is beyond doubt, can the same be said for a Donald Trump, Barbra Walters, or dare I say Sarah Palin? From an evolutionary perspective, the answer seems clear. I think this muddies the water horribly when talking about intelligence and how people come to possesses it as there is no clear way to measure it, as no where do I see it measure evolutionary fitness which must be considered the ultimate "intelligence."

 

[Pythagorean]

Here again I disagree. What I consider personality is largely about traits like impulsivity, anxiety, introversion/extroversion, depression/innovation, exploration and innovation vs preservation of the status quo. These are exactly the traits influenced by these rogue or orchid genes.

Let me try to bring it home with the simple observation that many of the most "successful" individuals in our society are more often than not highly vain, impetuous, individuals willing to take great chances under favorable circumstances, and yet the same genes land their owners in highly disproportionate numbers in prison or condemn to an early death. What is the difference? Is it simply fortuitous? The studies, whether animal or man, seem to suggest that the biggest operative influence as to whether the roll comes out snake eyes or box cars is mom and early nurturance.

Even more mindbending is that these polymorphic genes exist in two primate species--the rhesus monkey and man--the only two primate species that are not to be relegated to a narrow and comfortable ecological niche. I would say that this adds up to a very powerful argument in favor of mom if she is able to tip the scales that take a debt ridden gene and make it advantagous is arguably the only reason we are not still huddled about a fire on the savannah--that is had we even mastered fire.

Intelligence IMHO is too narrowly defined as the ability to rapidly process certain types of info in particular ways. That Steven Haawking is a wunderkind is beyond doubt, can the same be said for a Donald Trump, Barbra Walters, or dare I say Sarah Palin? From an evolutionary perspective, the answer seems clear. I think this muddies the water horribly when talking about intelligence and how people come to possesses it as there is no clear way to measure it, as no where do I see it measure evolutionary fitness which must be considered the ultimate "intelligence."

Ok, I read the article. It is interesting and I don't dispute it. I am disputing your interpretation of it. It seems you drew the connection in response to this thread and added a couple more of your own connections and conclusions so that they'd fit into this discussion.

The article is about success. I found nothing in it that indicates that a "supermom" will change the personality or intelligence of child. Only that a "supermom" will "teach" the child how to turn their particular traits (traits that we don't generally associate with success) into successful traits.

In fact, the article goes on to make the point that they are rare orchids in a field of dandelions. They don't turn into dandelions because of the "supermoming". They remain orchids; nurtured, healthy orchids instead of wilted orchids.

On top of that, I don't see mention of a measurement later in life, when the subjects are adult. As new as the research is, have any of the subjects even had a chance to reach adulthood yet? I reiterate, the OP article is about the fully developed adult, the end result, years and years after they've had all kinds of ups and downs and their personalities have leveled out.

 

[Andy Resnick]

<snip>

On top of that, I don't see mention of a measurement later in life, when the subjects are adult. As new as the research is, have any of the subjects even had a chance to reach adulthood yet? I reiterate, the OP article is about the fully developed adult, the end result, years and years after they've had all kinds of ups and downs and their personalities have leveled out.

But that is an essential component of all biology/psychology: the current state of an organism is highly dependent on the details of the history of that organism. We gloss over that point in Physics all the time-the current state of a system is assumed to be independent (or weakly dependent, at best) of the past states of the system.

Trying to apply that simplification to biology is pure folly. Even clonal populations of cells have a huge range of responses to simple stimuli- the standard deviation is often as large as the mean.

 

[denverdoc]

Ok, I read the article. It is interesting and I don't dispute it. I am disputing your interpretation of it. It seems you drew the connection in response to this thread and added a couple more of your own connections and conclusions so that they'd fit into this discussion.

The article is about success. I found nothing in it that indicates that a "supermom" will change the personality or intelligence of child. Only that a "supermom" will "teach" the child how to turn their particular traits (traits that we don't generally associate with success) into successful traits.

In fact, the article goes on to make the point that they are rare orchids in a field of dandelions. They don't turn into dandelions because of the "supermoming". They remain orchids; nurtured, healthy orchids instead of wilted orchids.

On top of that, I don't see mention of a measurement later in life, when the subjects are adult. As new as the research is, have any of the subjects even had a chance to reach adulthood yet? I reiterate, the OP article is about the fully developed adult, the end result, years and years after they've had all kinds of ups and downs and their personalities have leveled out.

I found nothing in it that indicates that a "supermom" will change the personality or intelligence of child.

Well I guess this depends on whether you consider behavior a measure of personality: The article opened with a study that showed a small but measureable (and much lauded) effect on the level of acting out behaviors which were considered potentially deleterious by providing a few hours of for the lack of a better and less emotionally charged term "improved parenting".

You may be quite correct in your insertion that I'm adding somewhat to the text of the article with knowledge of the subject not explicitly mentioned. One common observation (and the subject of lots of papers) is that kids with ADHD, unless treated by whatever means" tend to have fairly predictable downward trajectories leading to mildly sociopathic behavior early in adolescence and all too often leading to drug addiction, increasing antisocial behavior, and all too often, long term adult incarceration.

I agree that the discovery of these genes is far too recent to have generated conclusive studies in human cohorts, but you have to agree that the rhesus monkey research is tantalizing--since they grow up at 4:1 rate, data are beginning to accumulate, but agreed it is always a leap when crossing species, however closely related.

I guess if I had a primary point is that the situation may be too complex to even begin to assign some ratio as to importance of influence. To wit, that the early interactions with mom from years 0 to 3 say,and have to go well enough to prepare for future development/socialization. This much seems obvious. What the article adds to the discussion in my mind is the robust but difficult to quantify feedback between genetic endowment and environment which is occurring in both directions at multiple levels. And that genetic failings in one environment become blessings in another. That much does seem clear--whether the kid has a preference for a certain color or type of music or scores 112 on an IQ test seem far less important than how successfully the kid navigates the world and applies/reigns in certain hardwired predilictions is more on point in understanding ourselves and how best to maximize human potential.

 

[Pythagorean]

But that is an essential component of all biology/psychology: the current state of an organism is highly dependent on the details of the history of that organism. We gloss over that point in Physics all the time-the current state of a system is assumed to be independent (or weakly dependent, at best) of the past states of the system.

Trying to apply that simplification to biology is pure folly. Even clonal populations of cells have a huge range of responses to simple stimuli- the standard deviation is often as large as the mean.

Well, I can't deny that I'm a product of my physics background. That's interesting that the deviation is as large as the mean in cell populations, though I myself couldn't draw any conclusions about psychology from that. I mean, doesn't the same thing occur in physics? A bunch of little particles are a stochastic system, but the object they come together to make can be analyzed in a very Newtonian fashion?

Since this (the 50-0-50 rule) was taught by a developmental psychologist (Paul Bloom) in the Yale introductory psychology course, I assumed that there were controls involved in the experiment that came to this conclusion, and he mentions a little bit about the research. I only later found the article in psychology today just for reference for posting it here.

Here's the open course sessions. If anyone wants to see the lecture for themselves, it's #13 iirc:

http://oyc.yale.edu/psychology/introduction-to-psychology/content/class-sessions

 

[Pythagorean]

In these lectures on Human Behavioral Biology (which I've posted here:)

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=475074

the "behavioral genetics" portion of the lectures goes into the details of how they measure "% contribution" and talks about the criticisms with it (and there are many)

They basically set up a 2x2 grid. In each grid, they choose a trait that an adopted person exhibits, then they compare to adopted and biological parents.

So basically, if the subject has schizophrenia, there's a x% chance their biological parent (the yes-no square of the grid) has it, a y% chance their adopted parent does (the no-yes square of the grid, and z% chance (where z can be greater than x+y) both your adopted and biological parent had it (implying a synergistic effect) (yes-yes). And of course, some (no-no) chance.

Criticism: now you have all the environmental effects of adoption (and the intentional effects; adoption clinics try to match kids with parents)

But also you haven't subtracted the environmental effects in the womb.

The above research method is now conducted with twin separated at birth, for a better genetic "control" but there still can be problems with considering the environmental effects even in the womb, especially if the twins don't share a placenta.

 

[DanP]

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.

How exactly did you won ?

In the first place there is not nature vs nurture. You simply cannot talk the effect of a gene in general, in any environment. What you can say is: expression of gene X in environment Y leads to blah blah blah. Expression of gene X in environment Z leads to bal bla bleh

The right way is to talk about how different factors modulate behaviors. You say that 50-0-50 is a nature vs nurture. False. How can be nature vs nurture when in this theory 50% is attributed to social influences (peers) ?

It is somehow disturbing that anyone which talks about genes in the context of behaviors is labeled a nazi, an anti-woman, an instigator to genocide.

Humans seems to harbor some irrational fears about discovering the truth behind human nature. There is a blind will to see humans as either blank slates on which our golden society can write anything , either as innately and fundamentally good or moral creatures. Wrong. We are apes. With a highly sophisticated social structure , but nevertheless, just apes. With genes whose expression can make us strong and fearless, or as anxious and fearful as a rabbit in front of a fox.

I wouldn't go as far to say that parental influences worth 0. But they are also way less important then credited for IMO. I think the best way for a parent to shape the development of a child is to fork enough money to put him in very good schools and universities. Places where he is forced to find his way in a hierarchy of what are usually highly educated, highly competitive individuals. Money for a Ivy league education will make your kid successful. Or at least, help making strides in that direction.

 

[DanP]

That much does seem clear--whether the kid has a preference for a certain color or type of music or scores 112 on an IQ test seem far less important than how successfully the kid navigates the world and applies/reigns in certain hardwired predilictions is more on point in understanding ourselves and how best to maximize human potential.

And where do you think someone is most likely to learn to navigate the social world ? In the confines of a home and from interaction with his mother, or from immersion in the environment and continuous effort to adapt and navigate (that would be his peers).

And a point which must never be forgotten, is that navigating the social world is ultimately done by a biological formation, mainly the PFC. While PFC matures very late in the life of an individual, around the age of 25, suggesting that is the least constrained genetically part of the human brain, but that doesn't mean that it is free from genetic constraints. Navigation of social world doesn't happen by magic, it is biologically mediated. What if your neurobiology of PFC is heritable ? Less receptors for a certain neurotransmitter. Less activation in the pathways which allow PFC to control the dopaminergic receptors in mid-brain What then ? Doesn't the modulation on social behavior , modulation which may be traced in expression of ceratin genes, become as powerful as the predisposition toward a certain color or the 112 IQ ? It is not something that can be neglected.