DNA and Behavioral Genetics - Robert Plomin
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 14 พ.ค. 2024
- Serious Science - serious-science.org
Behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin on twin studies, genetic influence of parents on their children, and 1% of DNA that makes people different
serious-science.org/behavioral... - วิทยาศาสตร์และเทคโนโลยี
My brother and I are a classic example of the genetics of intelligence. We are both adopted, from completely different families. My brother is a literal genius. I, on the other hand, have two learning disabilities, and have struggled my entire life. It’s definitely in the genes. We grew up in the same household.
More likes under this comment
Lmao
This may have more to deal with the uniqueness of what consciousness is. Reason being, you may have siblings from the same parents who run into the same situation as you. Also parents and grandparents who aren’t smart or critical thinkers and the child has a phenomenal mind and wonder where it came from. Seems to be a mystery. For now at-least.
@@dgtrap1 Interestingly enough, my birth mother (and her mother as well) has the same learning disability that I have, so I do think it is a chromosomal flaw. Basically, I cannot do math whatsoever, and cannot tell time on an clock/watch. I also cannot read a map.
Are your parents related to each other?
What a great video. He explains this so well in layman’s terms. I’m a relatively new neuroscientist myself, but my background is in behavioral neuroscience and biobehavioral health science. I just got a new job in the industry for an interdisciplinary neuroscience lab that combines behavioral genetics, behavioral pharmacology, and molecular and cellular biology to examine a perinatal animal model of schizophrenia. I was a bit nervous about joining because I have no molecular experience (they’re going to train me), but this video got me even more excited!
Thank you for your feedback and good luck with the new job!
Genetic realism is inevitable, for me it's the new salvation of humanity
@Matteo Tironi I don't think he was being racist. Think about it, wouldn't humanity suffer less if we eliminated all genetic deficiencies that cause physical illnesses like Down Syndrome? If mental illnesses are (at least partially) caused by genetics, wouldn't it be beneficial to eliminate these factors?
I'm personally in favor of eliminating illnesses this way, but when it comes to selecting genes for certain physical traits (like height or eye color) for aesthetic reasons, that might be up to debate.
@Matteo Tironi "Boo hoo science is racist"
It's just Natural Selection.
@Matteo Tironi Maybe because they haven't done anything worth of it?
@@angstpsychose9977 and this is not fair. isnt?
The best outcome: we help each other by understanding more about genetics. The world becomes a better place when we recognize each other's differences as biological and not necessarily by choice, for example, learning speed.
The worse outcome: we discriminate each other and shove people into inferior places based on their genetics - relationships, jobs, society, etc.
The most horrible outcome: we believe that we are helpless and powerless against changing our lives based on our genetics, and thus we don't even try anymore - we accept the "fate". We give up our free will by choice and live life passively.
A change did occur due to the economic developments ppl choices increased.. so is the science of genes is going to be the next stepping stone for a change? Again for increasing human choices . We dont know what is it that will get our choices become wider. But what i understand is its always about human choices as you said best outcome horrible outcome so again you are discussing choices.. i dont know what am trying to say but its obvious that it led me to one fact.. Iam getting to choose and thus there is a judgement day.
The sooner the gifted people can developed space travel and leave Earth, the sooner the rest will be able to get back to an appropriate level of technological development.
Shut up e girl.
@shadow inc What is progress? What should he strive for?
genetics prove free will doen't exist lol
So true - I started reading late in grade 3 and both of my (genetic) kids started reading at the same age (late by school standards). All of us are avid readers now and have no learning problems. For whatever reason it just ‘clicked’ a little later for us.
I think genes play a bigger role in life then we like to give credit for. From eating habits, morality/conscienceless, educational attainment, even religious and political affiliation. Modern science has turned away from heritability because it puts nature above humans, when it’s much more emotionally appealing to feel that we can control outcomes in life. Biology has always suggested otherwise…
Biology is the overwhelming driver. Nature always wins. People gotta stop fighting it and accept reality
Facts, one found, should lead to whatever conclusions would be honestly reached without preordained biases about the conclusions. It should not lead to preordained conclusions that are thrown up fit current narratives and preferences.
very very interesting
Politician's don't want to talk about this
It will cost them votes. They care more about power and not fixing anything.
and u are the poor citizen always bad luck and higher peopless are evil bouhhhh@@SomeUserNameBlahBlah
What exactly would you want politicians to do with this information?
Jesus Christ, all of these comments. No one walks up to an engineer and says "oh you've designed a bridge, what about harmonics, betcha didn't think of that!". If it took you 5 seconds to think of something, why do you think that the discipline hasn't dealt with these sorts of questions?
I'd tend to agree but this guy really drops the ball right at the beginning when mentioning dog breeds. What he states is trivially false.
How is it false? And when you disagree with a top scholar, it would help a lot if you explain or give sources.
You Sir are a baller. Ty for the post.
Totally agree. People presenting these (re did a geneticist account for x) semi-ignorant questions are a bit annoying, but also stimulating. As humans we are more experienced with cognition than bridge engineering, so it allows some to feel warreted to articulate thier observations in this context. Such responses underscore why Dr. Plomin and others d1o what they do. To show the connections.
@@JohnDoe-ns8ho it is false that dogs are bred for specific purposes? YOU IDIOT
Five years ago, but yes. An entire field of study spends all day every day trying to think of how they may be wrong, and Internet guy thinks he sees the error.
Poor Plommin... He is a bright and brave psychologist in the wrong Era...
Brasil
Indeed
Indeed
We hear his message saying by identifying these traits early intervention can be made to improve the condition earlier and more effective.
However, in reality this type of information can and will be used negatively to group people that naturally are better and be pre selected before the others (less trial and error) reducing costs.
Imagine being able to identify a great driver (for Formula 1) saving millions, identifying a great foot baller or great scientists (for scholarships) reducing wasted costs or denying a person insurance coverage due to their probability to have a medical condition.
In short, the possibility of using the same fact and information not to benefit the individual is the reason why this study is not popular with the political correct group. Not that their intention may be malicious but it opens a pandoras box where the benefit may not be the benefit anticipated and for the group it was originally planned for.
It has been like that for as long as man has been bipedal. Only now the process is defined, fast, and scientifically selective.
There's no disputing that. He presents those ideas as being implemented in the ideal world where government has never acted adversely towards groups of people or the general populous. Regardless, I think the ideas are intriguing and if implemented correctly would alleviate a lot of the societal problems we have today.
Or ad targeted towards genetic weakness etc. Send ads for booze to the addiction genes and fast food to the heavy genes. What a nightmare.
i learned somewhere that in wester society illiteracy is the single best indicator that a child will end up in poverty. what about weeding out those with the highest potential to succeed in areas and encourage that. he is focusing on failure it sounds in an effort to create equivalence of outcomes. which is not the way to succeed.
I know what you mean about equivalence of outcome, but you wouldn't want to perpetuate a society where the dumb are kept dumber and the only choice they see for sucess is breaking into your home. Ultimately we all have a right to basic educational opportunities.... but I would say anything that takes the subjectivity away from our discourse is a good thing, there is way too much focus on hating successful people. The problem is at the moment is some populations are being held to a different standard, we have an issue with migrants whereby people say, but "that's their culture" as if their actions are more acceptable; If there were at least a known genetic predisposition to under performance or violence then resources can be properly distributed regardless of the amount of melanin in your skin.
+Rudugger _ i am all for fairness 100%... there is a lot of baggage in this sort of topic. it is not that we hate successful people. we hate those that we perceive as undeserving or greedy or taking advantage of their power unduly. baggage... if someone is good at being a plumber they should encouraged to do so. we unfortunately want all our kids to be some profession that is genius level or ultra praised in society... until reality hits home. :)
That could be taken to mean distribute more resources to the brightest, those with the highest potential, so they can achieve more progress and stand a higher chance of benefiting and making that society better. A true meritocracy is good, but there are no true meritocracies.
The problem arises in many democracies where there are more dumb and average people than the tiny proportion with all this potential. Why would the masses vote for such treatment, after all they might not directly or proportionally benefit from this difference in treatment. Which politician would be brave enough to even suggest policies that are unpopular? And in a one party system why would the leadership want extremely intelligent outside their circle who could challenge them?
The truth is selfishness runs throughout the system. That is why there is nepotism, why people prefer to recommend people they like over merit. What might benefit that business or society is often ignored, instead drowned out by the loudest, richest or even the most arrogant voice. To many people being able to take as much as they can from society, get what they want, is more important than the whole.
Today, there are plenty of unemployed graduates and underemployed graduates. Education, regardless of its purpose, has been used as a political weapon and the politicians have sold a story and the masses have lapped it up - every one and their dog must go to university otherwise their personal future will be bad. All while there are plenty of unfilled places in the economy, requiring specialist skills and specific education, but that is boring and won't win votes. To upset it more, most jobs do not require university education.
In the universities, there are plenty of unqualified people teaching and they all need funding to do research. Not every one can get funding or enough funding. But the ones who can sound the most convincing, have a good telephone manner and can present well stands a very good chance of getting that funding. The qualified who are not very convincing might not get anything so much resort to teaching more sessions and doing far less research.
das 1 smart boi
Professor;
Thanks for your insights, great job, it is very complex to understand Genes behavior, I will do the best I can to try to understand Gene behavior. Reason been is because I have finished 4 tour in Iraq, Afghanistan, just retired from the military and I can feel that I am not the same person as before. I have lost the interest in things that I like to do, feel depress and feel anger alot. Trying to investigate how to train my Genes back to where I was before. Anyways, thanks.
Respectfully;
Ortiz, Andy
War Veteran disable
Texas
Hey, that condion is more like a form of mild PTSD, you could also consider reading about complex PTSD from Judith Herman. Therapy can help. Also, recently they are experimenting with MDMA (Excstacy) which seems to be the first effective medication against it. It is a kind of positive trauma to counter the negative.
This is not what his research can address. To deal with your PTSD you will have to face the realities of what you did, and work on redressing some of the damage you did.
You should search about epigenetics very interesting topic
Go Doc.
Finding our meaning in life..
the meaning of life is not collectif, each creates his own meaning. I am not arguing here, just... my opinion.
please see the video called:
Optimistic Nihilism
you will thank me.
meaning in life is to feel happy, happiness is not subjective @@adamalmalki7903
Tho it seems specialized intelligence is good for humans in our self domestication but general intelligence is great to especially for a wider wilder type of human living also thinking about this in relation to autism
As an education major (I haven’t even graduated yet) but based on my anecdotal experience with elementary level students I realize that 1. Parental involvement is KEY to success in school and 2. Learning is MOSTLY genetic….I know kids from rich backgrounds both parents are bosses, these kids get good lunches, all access to technology and learning resources but can’t even identify basic 2 letter sight words like “so”……
I went to the highest ranking secondary school/high school in my country….and there were boys from all backgrounds there….guys who came from poor families, ghetto environments who were smart AF especially in math. No one can fool me I know 90% of kids are never leaving special ed
And difference in intelligence gets more obvious with age... i attended the best highschool in my city and my classmates now are specialists or leaders in their industry. More than 10 of them are doctors in our hometown. It's very useful to know all these people, my kids are never stagnating in homeschool, get out and make friends lol
I This is very debunkeable, this is the same as saying that people do bad things because is in their DNA that's the most stupid ignorant statement that any scientist can do and that's what this man is saying!
@@spiritualityevolutionofhum5623 environment plays a role but I say about 40 percent.
Also you must consider the fact that genes have been isolated which code for skills like mental resilience, memory and even some aspects of temperament/mood like anger etc
My father has great memory. He is like a walking wikipedia.
I don't have that kind of photographic memory. I understand things but don't remember things like him.
I am an engineer, not a neurologist but I believe that memory and intelligence can be better understood by quantum mechanics and not by standard sampling methods he is talking about.
Even behaviour is influenced by others.
Some kind of Astral body transfer of properties.
yes sure but you have to understand :
1- you will not necessarily inherit the totality of the genes responsible of your father's great memory.
2-that the effect of genes on behaviour are not that deterministic , they play a big role indeed and there is also the effects of a ton of other factors(practice,epigenetics,experience...)
how can we understand intelligence by quantum mechanics?
May be your just exceptional case.
Atulya..... maybe he is not your father......
We are quickly approaching the time when eugenics programs will be acceptable and preferred.
@1999
Thank you. I graciously accept your support. Please visit my patreon page to leave a sizable donation.
We already have that. It's called abortion.
Sounds interesting. I've seen papers which show corellation between social status and education level. It seems obvious, parents with greater income can provide more comfortable environment for their children, hence better results in education.
So considering the results Mr. Plomin have got in his research, does it mean that reach individuals in UK are more likely to be genetecally related to each other than to a poor ones. Have social groups been taken into account in the research?
SlypherSpoons No, that suggest a tighter social origin as the social aspect isn't diminished when the people you spend the most time with (family) share the same behaviors.
What about opposite causal effect. Like education leading to higher social status?
Exactly what he's not accounting for.
@SlypherSpoons That's exactly the opposite of what he's saying. He's saying the genetic correlations are predictors of small variances...Lol
Gattaca
Thanks
In all sounds nice when you say that those with some sort of a predicted problem will only get more help. But what's important to remember is that they will (!) be labelled. Such kids and people around them will expect them to do worse. As it ts shown in multiple studies, it worsens the results greatly.
What's more, it is impossible to distribute the necessary help evenly so that everybody becomes equal. That means (in a situation when such tests are widely available) that even if some will get the help, others whose scores are slightly higher may be considered "not problematic enough" to get it and it will only take the opportunity to succeed away from them (as noted above). "The help" also may not be available due to its cost and may require a complete change in the system of education.
No, we should ensure equality of rights and opportunity, not equality of outcomes.
My family has had all males for at least six generations graduate with more than a four year degree. College grads read 3/4 a book a year. We read at least a book a week.
Would you like a cookie?
@@MeadeSkeltonMusic u mad cus his heritage is superior?
@@darkyimanc4736 no, because my family did the same.
What's the average net worth in your family? How about life satisfaction?
@@jackjack4412 +10,000,000
If you don't eat crap you won't gain weight. I have trained many people. Yes it is all will power.
oh shut up, what do you know about genetics
@Mister Meeseeks mister meeseeks is that youuu?
@Mister Meeseeks oh fuck who forgot you?
@@adamalmalki7903 He's not wrong.
Self control can change people's life either they inherited a bad behavior from their dad or mom
Is this why we always see the same group of people rioting and burning down buildings?
This guy has got an high IQ.
1. iq mean almost nothing 2. how can you be sure of that 3. what does this has to do with the video problematic
We are competitive to a fault. With the productive ability we already have there is no need to work our lives away on a treadmill. Homeless people already figured that out.
Look what happened in Star Trek with Kahn and his augments that is a very good possibility on earth
This is very debunkeable, this is the same as saying that people do bad things because is in their DNA that's the most stupid ignorant statement that any scientist can do and that's what this man is saying!
Even brilliant people can become monsters when knowledge becomes more important than ethics we must never forget.
Here is the answer love your neighbor and love your enemy and forgive those that curse you.
blablabla
Religious bs.
People are cursing each other for the disparities they see and blame those disparities on an allegedly prejudiced society rather than differences in genetics.
Rats breed rats, and cats breed cats. Bad apples were from bad apple tree. Ask any agriculture experts, they will tell you.
We know that genes influence behavior. But can the reverse also be true? i.e. can behavior influence genes? And I don't mean that in the Darwinian sense of natural selection, where environment predominantly controls genetic expression. I am referring more to the individual's choice of modifying a gene's expression by the strategic control of their behavior - their emotional as well as outward reactions to the stimuli in their environment.
No. It can't. Gene's are dominated by something called an Alel. Depending on the isotope each organism typically has 4 type of Alels. AaBb Ex. The way these alels work is by modifying to the current environment so if you try to willingly change your DNA it would never happen. ALTHOUGH and that's a big although because what I'm going to say right here right in HERE in this very situation will not only shock YOU not only shock all the people that are reading my comment. But will also shock everybody on the planet. So the answer to your question which was if an INDIVIDUAL could change his Gene's if he wanted to is actually very true. Here's why. The reason we inherit Gene's in the first place (without being too scientific) is to adapt to the environment we are in and to ultimately SURVIVE. So the only way to modify your acting or personality is to try to force yourself on the deadline.
@@The-illuminated shut up you idiot
You can not change your own genes (except via the few up and coming techniques like CRISPR and other more old fashioned gene therapies) through changing your "behaviour"...
Behaviour can have some changes in your biology though... you may not be able to change your "warrior gene" but you can meditate so as to lower cortisol etc etc.
Yes you can
You can't do it deliberately. Nature need to take part.
Do you really think these scientists who study the genomes of people with sample sizes in the hundred thousands don't do basic factor analysis for things like social status and education?
Shitpost Eloquently. Turning infants into slaves at birth.
I'm going to wager that yes, they do.
No, I don't believe scientists account for those. Because that makes the scientist share in responsibility beyond their field. To prove that racial prejudice creates institutional barriers to success, would in fact mean the scientist has to change the objective if their research.
Doesn’t matter. It’s geneticist not sociologist. Including somewhat subjective “status” class isn’t scientific
I don't know, do we really need to tell 90% of the people that they are probably not good enough and most likely not make it?
I don't think this is what he meant.
The idea is if genetics are linked to a certain behavioural trait (like for example educational achievement), we can predict the students that are more or less likely to succeed, and create better environments for those that are more likely to fail in order to compensate for genetic differences.
Normal distribution curve or bell curve makes sure of that. There is a limited supply of superior positions. We are lucky in America where average is a relatively good life.
Better know the truth than being delusional
Yes. It is better that way then waste people's time and money. This is why we have standardized tests for university entrance, for example.
Yes. Tell them so they can understand where they can win and where they can’t. Give them KNOWLEDGE not hide it
Do you think that that the science of genetics will end the need for affirmative action or cause a doubling down?
@SlypherSpoons
A persons Gene's are the product of causality, not privilege.
@Darius Kang I think there is truth to what you say but I don't think it's as pronounced as people get more intelligent. Add a calm pleasant temperament to people and racial friction becomes even less pronounced. In a hundred years when parents are using prenatal selection and picking traits none of it will matter. Eventually what negatives exists with having a racial diverse society will be gone.
IQ was developed to figure out who needs more help but ended up as something else. Judging people based on things they have no control over can go in bad directions, intelligent informed view I am fine with but this can go in a 100% nature direction means people can't change and 100% nurture means people can be changed into anything, both are wrong.
Adopt a baby from low iqed and a child from high iqed parents. Raise them in same environment and give them all same nutrition and education. Atlast at 21 years of age give them applied math problems and experience the resullt for yourself.
Exactly. There’s really very little we can do to change iq and the corresponding opportunities based on that. Accept it. Its reality.
Some people make terrible choices on top of the genetics. How do we separate out personal responsibility from genetic fatalism?
Genetic fatalism doesn't free you from responsibility. I am a genetic fatalist (so much that I don't believe in free will). The absence of free will doesn't mean that if you murder someone (even though you were predestined to do so) that you are somehow free from accountability. The fact that you did something that is against the law is enough evidence for you to be guilty
My young brother acts alot like my dad in many ways.
His attitude, his desires for money, cars and all that expensive life.
Even tho he most likey inherited this, I don't doubt he can change his attitude and desires.
I believe in adaption ( not evolution) just adaption. My example of adaption is whatever a person pursuits will eventually adapt to whatever they're pursuing.
Either food wise, behavior or anything in life.
The reason why I believe this is true, and my answer is from this.
Adam and Eve sinned and through them sinful behavior entered us, now all humans sin cause it's their nature now.
Yet While people are sinful by nature God still tells people to repent.
How can we overcome a sexual passion if we inherited from are dad or mom or how can we not steal if I inherited the desire of theft from my Dad?
It's easy, self control.
God says, to become like Christ, of course through the help of God's power in your life.
This is why I believe a person can change their ways no matter what.
It won't be easy probably but it's not impossible.
how is ur adaptation choice determined ? why didnt your brother followed you ? u guys git almost the same genetics @@justadude777
So basically you want to edit the poor
Do we all think the guys paying for all this only want to help kids read!
Im pretty sure they want to find new scientific discoveries in human DNA
well good luck, there are just things that are meant to be unknown forever, the greatest philosophers failed @@Prettyordying
i specialize in teaching dyslexic children. i use a special program designed to intervene.then almost 75% become "A" students and most go on to college. asking a dyslexic child to read with no intervention is just like asking a child to see who needs corrective lenses to see clearly. most dyslexic students feel stupid. in reality, they have an iq that is equal to if not higher than those w/o the disability! they then learn to love themselves and have hope
Are intelligent people the most happy? Do not play God
This is very debunkeable, this is the same as saying that people do bad things because is in their DNA that's the most stupid ignorant statement that any scientist can do and that's what this man is saying!
All this guy said, was that genetic tests can predict a small percentage of variance in heritable human behaviour, but for some reason actual testing which is far more reliable and accounts for the more significant environmental impact, seems to be less relevant. I think he's just trying to validate the necessity of his research. And ignoring the real abuses of his research, which he's too afraid/egotistical to address.
Ohh please sod off you cultural marxist. Its the politicians and policy makers job to handle "racial supremacists" who misuse the truth that is uncovered in honest scientific research.
Do not conflate politics with science. Separation of science and politics is essential for progress.
Environment doesn't do shit. People have already done the experiment for a century.
It accounts for 10% atmost. Large scale study have already all over the have shown this.
@@roberthoffenheim7861 lol racial supremacists. elites make political decisions based on utility of people all the time. africans get the boot and resources stolen, middle eastern people get bombed for hydrocarbons. cop28 summit DENIED leader for hydrocarbons because his pop has too low IQ.
Rabish....
Ironic that he the doesn’t consider the massive potential for this data to be used to harm people. There is no possibility this kind of categorizing doesn’t lead to permanent stigmas and a cast system.
There's already a cast system. This method would prove the source of the problem. In the US, there are many people living in ghettos, who can't read/write properly, or at all. They're already stigmatised, aren't they? If there were new methods to teach these people to read, to write whose brain works differently because of their genes, wouldn't it be an opportunity for these poeple to achieve something and being accepted?
So your argument is we should hide the truth to not being harmed
People are already separated by ability. People are not the same.
So hide it? Yeah keep your head in the sand and driving without a map 😂 grow up
So everything is heritable? Please explain that to these eye-rolling, five-year-old evangelicals, expecting people to "pray the gay away" and replace it with bogus marriages. Because forcing inauthenticity on young people could never go wrong at any point in time -.-.
I notice a lot of ex-gays and people who run that industry have what is known as ‘gay face’. Lots of research actually indicates gay men really do have different physiological features which can be noticeable.
research has been done to find the 'gay' gene and surprise, it doesn't exist. Homosexuality is mainly due to nurture
Since gay people don't really have bioloigical children even if their is a gay gene it would die out in a few generations
"gay genes" beinggay is educational@@datweirdguy1139
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
How is that in any way relevant here?
@@___Zack___ Likely a not so subtle insinuation that furthering our understanding of genetics will lead to a resurgence of eugenics. Of course I counter that purposely imposing ignorance on genetics and heritability is also paving a road to hell with good intentions.
Okay. Don't go to the doctor when you get sick. The doctor has good intentions.
PUBLIUS.... I did not know that there was a "hell", never mind that there even was a road in that direction.....
@@connor8689 Eugenics? Don't people already pick their mates on their own because of certain traits they want in their children? Don't parents want intelligent and healthy children?
This is PSEUDO SCIENCE because have nothing about serious
I'm sure Dr. Mengele would be proud of this man.
Meade Music I’m sure LaMarck would be very proud of your assessment.
Tell you don’t like data without telling me your don’t like data 😂
@@darbyohara most DNA testing is bunk
Genetics can only predict so much...don't agree with this theory at all.
But genetics are definitely an important factor in physical traits (like height, bone density, skin colour, eye colour, and so on...), why isn't it the case for behavioural traits then?
@@dandash9870 first of all genetics still a mystery to me...just go watch people dna results on youtube, you'll see for yaself. We can pretty much have the same ethnic dna % as far as European%, Asian% and African% but still gonna look way different from each others...go figure...
Yes of course dna definitely plays a part, but I still think that the environment in which you evolve and your surroundings are more important factors...but yes dna is a factor also but not as decisive as the other two ( environment & surrounding )
@@dandash9870 I even do believe that dna is affected by our environment...dna is dynamic...
@@cariocabassa I'm definitely not an expert on genetics, and I have very little background on biology in general. When it comes to "race", I think it's a matter of gene expression, which ones are recessive and which ones are dominant. That's not to say that races exist in a strict biological sense (as in races meaning different species), but what we call "races" is mostly genetic variations due to different environment and climate.
Genetics is definitely a difficult subject, and a relatively recent field too, and determining the relationship between genes, biological environment and social environment is even more difficult and not easily quantifiable.
Of course, no one should diminish the effects of the environment, or even personal choices that each individual make, it's not like everything is pre-determined (I hope it's not the case anyway).
@@cariocabassa DNA is definitely dynamic, but as evolution theory teaches us, it's a very slow process. I think it's even slower for our species now because we're the first species on planet Earth to control our environment and make it comfortable for us to live in, instead of the environment forcing us to adapt to it.
So at the scale of hundreds, perhaps thousands of years I don't thing that we're going to change that much.
Dear God, save us from these "scientists" who want to "make the world a better place".
What say you, go back to simpler hunter gatherer times and stop the progress you seem to despise? Regulate sciences by "beliefs and politics? Nay, if such kind of thinking prevailed we would still consider the Earth the static centre of the universe 😅
Girl god made our marvelous world for us to discover, correct to say lots of mistakes have/will be made! But if you truly have faith in God, pray instead to give these amazing scientists the wisdom, patients, and direction they need to fulfill what God intended for them on an individual level and for humanity as a whole. See, be, and spread gods light, not fear!
Challenge yourself to see his grace in his mericals you doubt!
🤣👉👉👉This is very debunkeable, this is the same as saying that people do bad things because is in their DNA that's the most stupid ignorant statement that any scientist can do and that's what this man is saying!
Ah yes you, the youtube commenter, has debunked the geneticist with 30+ years of research.
With all due respect, this professor must realize it is not the genes only; we are not victims of our genetics alone, perceptions of our environmental nurturing greatly outweigh the genes.
i think they are finding it is a combination of both... your environment will trigger gene activity for both benefit or poor adjustment. for example the gene that causes psychopathy also creates a high achiever. if the childs environment is abusive they become psychopathic, loving result in achievers .
Armando Voges the environment can only supress or enhance traits that is provided by your genes.
Armando Voges nearly 2 centuries of twin studies have clearly elucidated that ~50-60% of who we are is due to our genes, 20-25% is due to upbringing, and 20-25% is due to a mystery mix of environmental factors (both upbringing and environment certainly impact epigenetic factors). He references 70% rather than 60%, but it's actually a range. What he's talking about is now trying to explain as much of that 60% genetic component as possible. And, doing that, will no doubt help us elucidate a portion of the remainder.
A great example of the complexity are the Dionne quintuplets. Five identical twins, quite different life outcomes. It does not deny genetic influences in behavior and abilities, but helps to show that it's more complex than such expositions trying to highlight the successes of behavioral genetics may suggest.
That's wrong. You can't expect that twins on highly different environments, extreme deprivation versus rich and stimulating environment, will have closer IQs than two normal unrelated individuals in the same environment. What is actually shown is that for the "same", _"rich"_ or ideal environment and upbringing, most of the individual variation is genetic.
www.wired.com/2012/09/neuroscience-of-neglect/
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1046/j.0956-7976.2003.psci_1475.x
_"[...] the models suggest that in impoverished families, 60% of the variance in IQ is accounted for by the shared environment, and the contribution of genes is close to zero; in affluent families, the result is almost exactly the reverse."_
this sounds insanely evil
and a bunch of excuses. if you are overweight your going to have to fight to lose weight, its not easy.
did not watch because not even the title is grammatically correct. Serious science? More like silly science.
You're not the brightest tool in the shed are you.
@@roberthoffenheim7861 I think you mean sharpest tool in the shed, or brightest bulb in the box. Last time I checked, a tool’s “brightness” has nothing to do with its efficiency of use. Statistically speaking, you’re likely not the “brightest tool in the shed” either.
@@willb295 you get the drift dont you. Also, statistically speaking, neither are you.