Behavioural Genetics

[Johnny Stooge]

At TAFE, in my Psychology class, I've been working on an assignment to do with behavioural genetics. And while gathering information I came across some pretty interesting information and thoughts and I wanted to see if I could an involved discussion going on here.

Now, the idea behind behavioural genetics comes back to whole nature vs. nurture arguement, in that the way you act and certain aspects of your behaviour are coded into your genetic sequence.
Unfortunately I don't have my notes dealing on some specific points at this present time, but for anyone questioning the idea behind behavioural genetics and dismissing it as crazytalk - you really can't.
We can talk about that later if you want but for now I just want to get to the stuff I found really interesting which was social implications that this research could lead to.

With all the talk about gay marriage and the lifestyle, I've seen people throw around the comment that people are born gay. Your sexual orientation is not determined by your environment or choice, but that it simply is. As I'm aware, there's no hard scientiffic data to back this up. They haven't found any specific causes. But let's say your sexual orientation is a factor of behavioural genetics. You are coded to be straight or gay from the moment of conception.

Down's Syndrome is considered a genetic defect and we recognise those with Down's as abnormal. A lot of conservatives view homosexuality as abnormal behaviour and with intelligence could probably argue that if there's a "gay gene", it's defective.
That then could lead to ethical issues regarding "cures" or preventative measures just like the ones we use for developing babies with Down's.
What do you say to that?

Similarly, should they find a "criminal gene", what could problems could that pose for our legal systems?
You didn't WANT to steal that car, you HAD to steal car. Does that make you the victim in the situation?

It's pretty controversial stuff when you think about it.
Anyway: thoughts? opinions?
Discuss.

[Iridium]

Personally I do feel that specific behaviors are influenced by both nature and nurture. However, it's not just one of those factors at work. It's like the crime scenario you just mentioned. While it could be in their genetic makeup to thrill seek by becoming a criminal (or rather for their own personal gain; money etc.) it's not all genetics. Everyone has a choice to make a morally right or wrong decision, so not slamming down the hammer on an individual with those tendencies because it's 'genetic' isn't really fair to the justice system (not like it's fool proof to begin with).

Genes do play a part in making you the person you are, physically and mentally, but some things can be under your control.

[EDIT]

Hopefully that made sense :/

[Aucune Raison]

You only need to cure that which is harmful or detrimental, homosexuality is neither. People reach the conclusion that it is nature, because there are no discovered common similarities in nurturement between homosexuals. That doesn't mean that there is one specific "gay" gene. I'd say that it's a combination of genes, or something that takes place during fetal growth.

However, there are known environmental factors which determine criminal behavior. Poverty, bad parenting, etcetera. As Iridium said it's a mix of nuture and nature. Violent behavior, for example, is sometimes nature. People affected by factors are still criminals, but they're not evil. No one deserves cruel punishments or death. Hence why I'm against capital punishment and in favor of rehabilitation.

[Bangkok Superpussy]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stooge

With all the talk about gay marriage and the lifestyle, I've seen people throw around the comment that people are born gay. Your sexual orientation is not determined by your environment or choice, but that it simply is. As I'm aware, there's no hard scientiffic data to back this up. They haven't found any specific causes.

Amazon.com: The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior (9780671887247): Dean Hamer, Peter Copeland: Books

[Johnny Stooge]

Originally Posted by Iridium

Personally I do feel that specific behaviors are influenced by both nature and nurture. However, it's not just one of those factors at work. It's like the crime scenario you just mentioned. While it could be in their genetic makeup to thrill seek by becoming a criminal (or rather for their own personal gain; money etc.) it's not all genetics. Everyone has a choice to make a morally right or wrong decision, so not slamming down the hammer on an individual with those tendencies because it's 'genetic' isn't really fair to the justice system (not like it's fool proof to begin with).

Genes do play a part in making you the person you are, physically and mentally, but some things can be under your control.

[EDIT]

Hopefully that made sense :/

We're discussing hypothetical situations.

Originally Posted by Aucune Raison

People reach the conclusion that it is nature, because there are no discovered common similarities in nurturement between homosexuals. That doesn't mean that there is one specific "gay" gene. I'd say that it's a combinn,mation of genes, or something that takes place during fetal growth.

I'm aware of this.
It was one of the first pieces of information I came across. For the sake of argument, let's just assume there's a "gay gene".

You only need to cure that which is harmful or detrimental, homosexuality is neither.

The right would argue that it's harmful to society and to family values.
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here.

However, there are known environmental factors which determine criminal behavior. Poverty, bad parenting, etcetera. As Iridium said it's a mix of nuture and nature. Violent behavior, for example, is sometimes nature. People affected by factors are still criminals, but they're not evil. No one deserves cruel punishments or death. Hence why I'm against capital punishment and in favor of rehabilitation.

Again, [for the sake of argument] we're assuming that criminal behaviour in some individuals is nature based.

Originally Posted by Sam

Amazon.com: The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior (9780671887247): Dean Hamer, Peter Copeland: Books

I was never denying this or saying I didn't believe it. I do believe there's a biological basis for sexual orientation. I just haven't seen any sort of universal agreeance.

[Grace Assassin]

If we're to assume there is a "gay" gene, then, it would fall under the scrutiny of any other gene from an evolutionary perspective. It came about through randomized mutation and has since spread. There are, obviously, beneficial, neutral, and detrimental mutations that can occur. From what we can see, this is neutral. So there really isn't any scientific grounds by which we can consider homosexuality as wrong. After all, it's naturally occurring in plenty of other animals (some with benefits) as well.

I am personally of the mind that it is a case of nature and nurture though, as most behavior appears to be. How much of each plays a part, who knows. I doubt it's the same with each individual case.

But I don't mean that by homosexuality having a "nurture" aspect, that you're, say, more prone to be gay if you're raised by gay parents. It's much, much, much more complicated than that and, again, I don't think it's a bad thing.

[Bangkok Superpussy]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stooge

The right would argue that it's harmful to society and to family values.
I'm playing Devil's Advocate here.

The right would be incorrect. We can measure the effects that homosexuality has on society and weigh it against what sort of behavior should be considered permissible. Even if homosexuality did have deleterious effects that weren't fabricated by our culture to begin with, it goes without saying that it's irrational to regulate that sort of behavior. Why? Because it violates the rights of the individual to appease the prejudices of the few. I can think of many places in the world where that is practiced, but none where it is considered proper.

I get what you're saying and think it's an extremely interesting (not to mention relevant) thing to discuss and debate, but homosexuality would not have been the example that I put forward to demonstrate my point.

On the subject of criminal behavior - I feel comfortable assuming the position that it is very nature based. If people can be genetically predisposed to violence then it stands to reason that they can be genetically predisposed to violent crime, doesn't it?

Now the question seems to be whether or not people who are shown to be more likely to commit crimes ought to be given preferential treatment in the eyes of the law because of their condition, and in my opinion the answer is no. When we study behavioral genetics we're faced with the reality that not all people are created equal and that some are born with god given obstacles that they'll have to overcome on their own time.

Just my two cents.

[quitejaded]

I think it also has to do with the nutrients you are able to get your hands on.

That is, maybe your DNA gives you a tendency towards something. But this wouldn't be an issue if your nation didn't put a ban on broccolli which would provide you the calcium you needed for your tendency to become a non-issue.

So my point is, I think environment has a lot to do with problems than DNA. A lot of people use the mercury idea for explaining birth defects. There is too much mercury. If we all consume on average 5 - 8 mg of mercury a day, then why do some people live just fine and others produce babies with down syndrome? I think there is a combination between DNA and environment/overall health.

When we talk about sexuality, its even more complicated. I think sexuality can be manipulated in certain ways. For example, the statistics for men who like to see bigger uh... vaginal lips has increased over the years. Probably because of the internet and the easy access to porn. I know there are some studies that show boys have a higher tendency of being homosexual if they were sexually assaulted by a male in their youth. Psychology is interesting. I don't think we can compare psychological issues to biological ones.

[Aucune Raison]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stooge

The right would argue that it's harmful to society and to family values.I'm playing Devil's Advocate here.

The only platform they have is religious, their arguments don't hold when confronted with the facts.

Again, [for the sake of argument] we're assuming that criminal behaviour in some individuals is nature based.

I don't see how criminal behaviour could be purely nature, though there are those cases of financial scams and ponzi schemes, but I suspect that something happened during development.

Originally Posted by quitejaded

I know there are some studies that show boys have a higher tendency of being homosexual if they were sexually assaulted by a male in their youth.

Unless there's something I don't know about, those are more like polls. People are often confused and especially those who suffered sexual trauma try to blame that for their sexual preference when it was most likely irrelevant.

[GRD]

Originally Posted by Sam

Amazon.com: The Science of Desire: The Search for the Gay Gene and the Biology of Behavior (9780671887247): Dean Hamer, Peter Copeland: Books

sorry I couldn't help myself

Amazon.com: Biological Exuberance: Animal Homosexuality and Natural Diversity (9780312192396): Bruce Bagemihl: Books

[∞]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stooge

should they find a "criminal gene", what could problems could that pose for our legal systems?

Phrenology failed once. I think anything like it will be destined to fail again.

[Hidden]

Originally Posted by Johnny Stooge

Down's Syndrome is considered a genetic defect and we recognise those with Down's as abnormal. A lot of conservatives view homosexuality as abnormal behaviour and with intelligence could probably argue that if there's a "gay gene", it's defective.
That then could lead to ethical issues regarding "cures" or preventative measures just like the ones we use for developing babies with Down's.
What do you say to that?

Our ability to shape/distort the human being is astonishing even ignoring scientific progress in genetics. It's so pervasive, so all-encompassing, I don't know how we can even judge such 'conditioning' on a moral basis--we are all recipients of it, after all.

So, if people could be programmed to be heterosexual--what then?

Originally Posted by Johnny Stooge

Similarly, should they find a "criminal gene", what could problems could that pose for our legal systems?
You didn't WANT to steal that car, you HAD to steal car. Does that make you the victim in the situation?

Given how little consideration we give to "criminal nurturing", it really shouldn't pose a problem to how we conceive of justice. But we are very much inclined to "scientific" progress, and if such reasoning contains the word "genes" we are likely to give precedence to it.

Originally Posted by Sam

The right would be incorrect. We can measure the effects that homosexuality has on society and weigh it against what sort of behavior should be considered permissible.

Sociology really does not have this analytical capability.

Originally Posted by Sam

When we study behavioral genetics we're faced with the reality that not all people are created equal and that some are born with god given obstacles that they'll have to overcome on their own time.

That "not all people are created equal" is a difficult point for our enlightened society to swallow, but I agree with you on this.


I really don't know how to answer the main issue. To what extent is controlling the development of others, to whatever purpose, acceptable?

[Square Ninja]

inb4kwisatzhaderach

_________

[Bangkok Superpussy]

Originally Posted by Hidden

Sociology really does not have this analytical capability.

You are right; "should" was a poor choice of words on my part, but if I recall correctly I was looking at it through the "live and let live" lens.