http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUCkylLAxK0
Behavioral Genetics - Robert Plomin (2003)
READO EL COMMIENTOS
Could it be that a supersense also results from a biological basis? Maybe culture spreads belief by feeding our bias with ideas, but that does not mean that we inevitably grow up believing. Unlike language and face expertise, which are present in almost every human, belief has much more variation. It depends on the individual as well. For example, I heard a radio interview with Peter Hitchens and his brother Christopher, who recently published his provocatively entitled criticism of religion, God Is Not Great, in the United Kingdom. Both men are intelligent, well-educated journalists. They were raised in the same family, one that taught them to be independent. However, Christopher is an atheist and Peter is a Christian. At the end of a rather surprisingly barbed argument - typical of squabbling brothers, each accused the other of changing the subject - the interviewer interjected and asked how two brothers raised in the same household could be so passionately different in their beliefs. There was a pregnant pause. This simple question had them both lost for words. Eventually Christopher answered, "This doesn't help to sell my book!"
The answer to the interviewer's question may be found in a natural experiment that allows investigators to look at the role of biology and environment. When a human egg splits into two after fertilization, the result is identical twins who mostly share the same genes. If these identical twins are fostered out to different homes, we can estimate the influence of environment and the contribution of genes to their development. It's not a perfect experiment, since most environments are very similar, but it does reveal something fascinating about the power of genes. The research findings are vast, but to sum up the conclusions drawn from identical twin studies, on many psychological measures a comparison of results indicates that it's often like testing the same person twice. Aspects of our personality that we think we have cultivated ourselves are often biologically predictable. This is also appears to be true for each twin's inclination toward religion.
Identical twins raised in separate environments share more religious beliefs and behavior compared to non-identical twins who also live apart. A study by a Minnesota team led by Thomas Bouchard found that the environment is less predictive of religiosity than genetic similarity. Another study from the same group found that once twins leave home, only the identical twins continue to share the same religious beliefs. The geneticist Dean Hamer has even identified a gene, vesicular monoamine transporter 2, or VMAT2, that is linked to the personality traits of spirituality. He found that in a survey of over two hundred people including twins, those who share religiosity also share VMAT2. This gene controls a number of the brain chemical responsible for controlling moods. Neuroscientists such as Andrew Newberg have even made progress toward identifying the relevant neural circuitry that is activated during religious experiences, again suggesting a brain-based account for the spiritual. So maybe our brains and our own unique mind design determine whether we believe or not. Even if Peter and Christopher Hitches have shared very similar environments and experiences, they will be pleased to know that they have different brains, which probably explains why their beliefs are so different.
It's early days yet, and it's not clear that reducing the search for belief to the gene level is going to make much sense of a rich and complex human behavior. However, this research does suggest that the explanation of how belief operates should look at the role of biology working within environments. If the findings from genetic studies hold up, this means that there is something in our genes that contributes to building a brain that is predisposed to belief. If that turns out to be the case, those on both sides of the debate about the true origins of belief are going to be really annoyed, because the suggestion would be that maybe we don't have a choice about whether we believe. In other words, there is no free will in making the decision to believe or not.
Your own individual mind design determines how predisposed to belief you are...if there is one thing that both believers and nonbelievers are uncomfortable about it is the prospect that there is a mind design when it comes to choices in life. That's because we like to think that when we make our decisions we are doing so on the basis of objective reason. We like to think that we are weighing up the evidence and making a balanced judgment. In truth, when we make decisions there are all sorts of biases operating that are independent of reason. We don't necessarily have the free will to choose...
Supersense: Why We Believe In The Unbelievable. Hood, p. 65-67
Read The Subsequent Pages Taken From Born That Way: Genes, Behavior, Personality. I'll Transcribe Them In Their Entirety At A Later Date.
TOMMY GUNN
Identical twins who were separated at an early age and raised in adoptive families became increasingly similar in their IQs. sciencedirect.com/science/articl Perhaps the most important gap in the relevant literature is the absence of a reared-apart twin analysis of developmental changes in IQ using children. The first longitudinal prospective study of young reared-apart monozygotic (MZ) twins showed convergence in IQ similarity (increased intraclass correlation and reduced within-pair difference) over time, as anticipated. Increased genetic influence, reduced impact of shared environments, and increased effects of non-shared environments appear to best explain the findings. Despite their different homes, educational experiences, and (in some cases) residences in different countries, the twins appear to have interacted with their environments in ways that aligned with their genetic propensities. This supports the notion that environments do not act randomly in fashioning developmental outcomes—rather, individuals behave selectively and actively with respect to the people, places and events that engage and challenge them. The foregoing explanation illustrates the simple, but profound concept of nature via nurture. The idea is that genetic factors are expressed “by influencing the character, selection, and impact of experiences during development.” Of course, environments here refer to the normal range of settings that support human development; unusual or extreme environments that reduce or deprive individuals of emotional and/or physical sustenance can leave enduring effects on intelligence. MZ twins can be expected to achieve similar results on school tests, whereas unrelated siblings can be expected to achieve different outcomes.
"Bouchard studied 137 twins reared apart and what had so astonished him in 1981 is, by now, well supported. Twin studies designed to uncover the genetic influence on behavioral and mental traits have gone from ignored or derided to widely accepted."
LOOP LOOP
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aou11qo50mg
20/20 Mar 9 Part 1: Separated at birth: Adults learn they have long-lost identical twins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aou11qo50mg
20/20 Mar 9 Part 1: Separated at birth: Adults learn they have long-lost identical twins
*Your Environment Includes How Your Parents, Siblings, Peers, Etc. Respond To Your Genetically Inherited Personality And Disposition (The Verbal, Behavioral, Etc. Feedback You Get From Them), The Hobbies, Activities, Etc. That Your Genetically Inherited Personality And Disposition Lead You To Engage In, The Friends And Long-Term Mates That Your Genetically Inherited Personality And Disposition Lead You To Associate And Mate With, Etc.(And When I Refer To Long-Term Mates I'm Not Talking About Their Race. I'm Talking About Their Personality Traits, Behavioral Traits, Etc.).
This puts into words some inchoate thoughts I've had about environmental influences.
Clip from The Brain: How our genes and our environment send brains off in very different trajectories. #BrainPBS
TWINNY TWIN TWIN
Twins: Is it All in the Genes? | Our America with Lisa Ling | Oprah Winfrey Network
 | ||||
| http://instagram.com/p/kcpqhJNiLR/ Dressed The Same. Why? Because They Did It On Purpose? No, Because They're Half Sisters (Sistas) And Share Genes In Common And These Genes That They Share In Common Lead Them To Have Similar Preferences And Make Similar Decisions (As Exemplified In Their Similar Taste In Clothes And Decision To Wear Similar Clothes On The Same Day). I HAD NO RELATIONSHIP WITH THESE GHETTO GIRLS BECAUSE I'M NOT LIKE THEM AND NOT FROM THEIR GHETTO WORLD. I DON'T THINK LIKE THEM, SPEAK LIKE THEM, BEHAVE LIKE THEM, LIVE LIKE THEM, ETC., ETC., ETC. WE'RE FROM COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WORLDS. |
JEW AND A GERMAN
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005XSCCCI/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i5
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/twofold/201508/twins-reared-apart-documentary-films-and-more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1wDMYuLyYohttps://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/twofold/201508/twins-reared-apart-documentary-films-and-more
How Can That Be? That Can Be Because Your Child (And Children) Inherited 50% Of Your Genes (Your Son Has 50% Of The Same Genes As You) And Those Genes That You Share With Him Have Wired Him Neurologically, Physiologically, Anatomically, Biologically, Etc. To Think, Behave, Speak, Move, Etc. Similarly To You, If Not JUST LIKE YOU. The Fact That You're A Part Of His Environment, Influencing Him With Your Phenotype (How Your Genes And Environment Have Created You) Further Reinforces The Expression Of The Genes He Shares With You Increasing The Likelihood That He'll Think, Act, Speak, Move, Etc. Similarly To You, If Not JUST LIKE YOU.
YOUR GENES HAVE A GREATER INFLUENCE ON YOU AS YOU AGE. READ BELOW.
On a number of measures of personality, temperament, interest, and attitudes, the twins reared apart measured about the same as twins reared together...rearing environments apparently made little difference in personality formation...In pointing out that their heritability figure for intelligence of .70 was somewhat higher than the earlier studies, the paper saw an explanation in that those studies primarily involved adolescents, whereas the Minnesota twins were closer to middle-aged. Other research had shown that heritability of most traits INCREASES with age - that is twins grow more alike as they grow older (a surprising statistic in light of the increased opportunity for environmental factors to work their effects) -so that the Minnesota I.Q. finding was not really inconsistent with prior studies.
Among the intriguing findings to be extracted from Colorado's wealth of data was that for certain traits the fourteen-month-olds showed considerable genetic influence, for other traits almost none. When the same children were measured later in life, significant heritabilities were found for EVERY trait. This clearly demonstrates that behavioral genes turn on at various ages. This study and other similar ones have turned up the curious fact that when the genetic component of a trait is shown to vary with age, the variance always increases, never decreases. This is surprising in that the older a child is, the more opportunity the environment has had to work its influence. But instead of gene influence diminishing, as one would expect, it increases with age. This is bad news for those who dislike sharing personality traits with their parents. With years, the similarities will probably increase. The delayed unfolding of genes also gives new resonance to the expression "finding oneself." It may be more a matter of waiting for oneself to arrive.
James Thompson “By the time a man realises that maybe his father was right, he usually has a son who thinks he is wrong.” Charles Wadsworth
Children affect their environments, often producing "customized" environments not shared with siblings. An example of this would be a naturally unruly child who would confront very different parents than his or her well-behaved siblings (angry and scolding as opposed to smiling and loving). Pushing this concept even further, a profoundly spiritual child might choose a monastery or convent, in which case he or she would have altered his environment completely.
Plomin and his wife were leaders, along with Scarr, in developing the concept that environments are not separate and distinct entities in which genes express themselves, but rather are to varying degrees products of those genes. A child growing up in a musical home or a religious one might become musical or religious because of his upbringing or BECAUSE HE SHARED WITH HIS PARENTS PREDISPOSING GENES. A Child growing up in a port city might well attribute his or her love for the sea to his upbringing. But the new view raised the possibility that HIS PARENTS MAY HAVE CHOSEN THIS LOCATION BECAUSE OF SEA-LOVING GENES THAT THE CHILD INHERITED. If the latter explanation were true, the seaside was not a genetically neutral environment but a genetically loaded one.
...
...Do Book Lovers Come By Their Passion through upbringings in book-filled homes or did they inherit a book-loving gene from their parents? Abortion opponents may have come by their aversion through religious upbringings, or their antiabortion stands as well as those of their parents may result from a family gene, one that possibly combined with other "morality" genes to make them and their parents religious...
Your perceptions of how dominant you are and how attractive your mate is affect your hormones enough to send this signal.
Also, it has to be said, the maternal organism has a fine-tuned machinery set to dispose of unfit offspring.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3GQ8hi4qi4
0:15 Look At The Strong Influence Of Genes. They Have A Much Greater Influence On Your Life Than Society Has Led You To Believe And You'd Like To Admit. Here's A Father And Son Who Share Half (50%) Of Their Genes In Common, But Lived Separately From One Another In Different Environments, Yet Their Lives Turned Out Nearly The Same (Almost Suggesting That The Environment Plays Little Role In One's Life Outcome). And This Isn't An Anomaly. There Are Millions Of Other Adoptee/Biological Parent Stories Just Like This One That Underscore The Impact That Genes Have On One's Personality, Behavior, Life Outcome, Etc. In Fact, You Don't Have To Look At Adoption Studies To Realize How Big This Genetic Impact Is On Your Life. Just Think About The Psychological Traits (Attitude, Interests, Beliefs, Etc.), Behavioral Traits (Mannerisms, Reactions, Responses, Etc.), Circumstances In Your Life, Etc. That You Share Or Have Shared In Common With A Parent Or Sibling Without Having Been Taught That Trait By A Parent Or Sibling And Without Having Been Influenced To Lead Your Life In That Direction By A Parent Or Sibling. This Is All Because Of Your Genes. Your Genes That You Share With Your Parent Or Sibling Which Lead You To Think, Behave, Create An Environment, And Lead A Life Like That Parent Or Sibling (Or Parents And Siblings).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TIgjor9hLs
59:53
59:53
#LakeShow
@JayEye13
I really hate dancing with white girls, they dance like they're getting electrocuted LOL!
Jeffrey Landrigan never knew his father. He was born on March 17, 1962, to a mother who abandoned him at a day-care center when he was just eight months old. But little Landrigan got lucky. He was adopted into an all-American family in Oklahoma. His adoptive father was a geologist named Nick Landrigan, whose wife, Dot, was a doting mother to both Jeffrey and their biological daughter, Shannon. Well-educated, straight-laced, and respectable, they provided a perfect new beginning for little Jeffrey.
Yet an insidious shadow from the past was cast over this baby that was to effectively seal his fate. By the age of two he was already throwing temper tantrums and displaying emotional dyscontrol that quickly escalated. He began abusing alcohol at the age of ten. His first arrest came when he was eleven, after he burglarized a home and attempted to break open the safe. He skipped school, abused drugs, stole cars, and spent time in detention centers. He was moving rapidly into his criminal career. When he turned twenty he had a drinking bout with a childhood friend who wanted Jeffrey to be the godfather of his soon-to-be child. Jeffrey's response? He stabbed his friend to death outside his friend's trailer. In 1982 he started a twenty-year sentence for second degree murder.
Incredibly, Landrigan escaped from prison, on November 11, 1989, and headed out to Phoenix, Arizona. It could have been a new life, a clean sheet, yet murder seemed almost destiny for Landrigan. In a Burger King in Phoenix he struck up a conversation with Chester Dyer. Dyer was later found stabbed and strangled to death with an electrical cord, with lacerations on his face and back. Pornographic playing cards were strewn around the bed, with the ace of hearts propped up maliciously on the victim's back. But Landrigan's luck was running out. While exiting the apartment he left his footprint in sugar on the floor. He was consequently arrested, found guilty of homicide, and sentenced to death.
This might have been the last chapter in Landrigan's dramatic, topsy-turvy life. But the strangest twist has yet to come. While Landrigan was on death row in Arizona, another inmate told him of a man named Darrel Hill, a con he had met while on Death Row in Arkansas. Darrell Hill was Jeffrey's spitting image. Hill turned out to be the biological father that Jeffrey Landrigan had never seen. He was a dead ringer for Landrigan, and looks were not the only eerie similarity.
Darrell Hill had himself started his criminal career at an early age. He too was a drug addict. Like Landrigan he had killed not once but twice. He too had escaped from prison. Landrigan had clearly inherited much more than his father's looks. They could hardly have been more similar.
And that's not all. Jeffrey Landrigan's grandfather - Darrell Hill's father - was also an institutionalized criminal, who was shot to death by police after he robbed a drug store in a high-speed chase in 1961. He died just feet away from his then twenty-one-year-old son Darrel.
What do we make of this? Perhaps Darrel Hill summed it up best when he said:
...
Darrel Hill, on death row, summed it up succinctly when he said:
I don't think there can be any doubt in anyone's mind that he (Jeffrey Landrigan) was fulfilling his destiny...I believe that when he was conceived, what I was, he became...The last time I saw him he was a baby in a bed, and underneath his mattress I had two .38 pistols and Demerol; that's what he was sleeping on.
Placing that gun and drugs under his baby boy's pillow foreshadowed what was to come. Like father, like son - whether it is violence, drugs, or alcohol. Landrigan was seemingly doing little more in life than acting out the sins of his biological father.
...
Let's think back to the case of Jeffrey Landrigan, which we discussed in chapter 2. He had a fabulous home background, with a loving mother, a father who was a geologist, and a sister who was as well educated and straitlaced as her parents. He had all the advantages of life. And yet Jeffrey swiftly spiraled out of control, beginning at age eleven with burglary, and eventually ending in homicide. Great home - yet awful outcome. Gerald Stano was similarly adopted into a loving home six months after birth , but went on to confess to forty-one murders before facing the electric chair. Landrigan and Stano are just two among a number of serial killers reported on by Dr. Michael Stone, a forensic psychiatrist at Columbia University, who were adopted into warm, loving, and supportive home environments. Here we should suspect their genetic heritage, rather than bad homes, as a cause of their violence.
(The Anatomy of Violence)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aou11qo50mg
20/20 Mar 9 Part 1: Separated at birth: Adults learn they have long-lost identical twins
My Brother Steven Is A Gun Owner. My Cousin Fred Is A Gun Owner. Neither Of Them Were Raised In The Same Household Or In The Same Way, For That Matter, Nor Did Either Of Them Associate With One Another Growing Up. So How Is It That They Both Became Gun Owners* And Avid Supporters/Advocates Of Guns In Adulthood? The Answer Is Genetics. They Both Share The Same Genes And Were Both Genetically Inclined To Take An Interest In Weapons (Guns) As Well As The Outdoors (Hunting, Fishing, Surfing, Etc). It's Similar To Twins Who Were Separated At Birth. Although The Twins Were Raised In Different Environments, By Adulthood They Share Many Of The Same Interests, Tendencies, Behaviors, Personality Traits, Etc. Because Of Genetic Similarity.
*They Own Multiple High Tec Guns And They're The Only Ones In My Immediate And Extended Family That Do (At Least That I Know Of). They Both Share The Same Name, Too, FREDERICK.
Jeffrey Landrigan never knew his father. He was born on March 17, 1962, to a mother who abandoned him at a day-care center when he was just eight months old. But little Landrigan got lucky. He was adopted into an all-American family in Oklahoma. His adoptive father was a geologist named Nick Landrigan, whose wife, Dot, was a doting mother to both Jeffrey and their biological daughter, Shannon. Well-educated, straight-laced, and respectable, they provided a perfect new beginning for little Jeffrey.
Yet an insidious shadow from the past was cast over this baby that was to effectively seal his fate. By the age of two he was already throwing temper tantrums and displaying emotional dyscontrol that quickly escalated. He began abusing alcohol at the age of ten. His first arrest came when he was eleven, after he burglarized a home and attempted to break open the safe. He skipped school, abused drugs, stole cars, and spent time in detention centers. He was moving rapidly into his criminal career. When he turned twenty he had a drinking bout with a childhood friend who wanted Jeffrey to be the godfather of his soon-to-be child. Jeffrey's response? He stabbed his friend to death outside his friend's trailer. In 1982 he started a twenty-year sentence for second degree murder.
Incredibly, Landrigan escaped from prison, on November 11, 1989, and headed out to Phoenix, Arizona. It could have been a new life, a clean sheet, yet murder seemed almost destiny for Landrigan. In a Burger King in Phoenix he struck up a conversation with Chester Dyer. Dyer was later found stabbed and strangled to death with an electrical cord, with lacerations on his face and back. Pornographic playing cards were strewn around the bed, with the ace of hearts propped up maliciously on the victim's back. But Landrigan's luck was running out. While exiting the apartment he left his footprint in sugar on the floor. He was consequently arrested, found guilty of homicide, and sentenced to death.
This might have been the last chapter in Landrigan's dramatic, topsy-turvy life. But the strangest twist has yet to come. While Landrigan was on death row in Arizona, another inmate told him of a man named Darrel Hill, a con he had met while on Death Row in Arkansas. Darrell Hill was Jeffrey's spitting image. Hill turned out to be the biological father that Jeffrey Landrigan had never seen. He was a dead ringer for Landrigan, and looks were not the only eerie similarity.
Darrell Hill had himself started his criminal career at an early age. He too was a drug addict. Like Landrigan he had killed not once but twice. He too had escaped from prison. Landrigan had clearly inherited much more than his father's looks. They could hardly have been more similar.
And that's not all. Jeffrey Landrigan's grandfather - Darrell Hill's father - was also an institutionalized criminal, who was shot to death by police after he robbed a drug store in a high-speed chase in 1961. He died just feet away from his then twenty-one-year-old son Darrel.
What do we make of this? Perhaps Darrel Hill summed it up best when he said:
Is there a "killer gene"? Or if not one, then multiple genes that, either on their own or in an intricate conspiracy with the environment, shape killers like Hill and Landrigan? Jeffrey Landrigan was adopted and raised in a safe and nurturing environment, yet despite all the love that his parents gave him - he could not be salvaged. This fascinating natural experiment - in which a baby with a violent heritage was transferred from a life of poverty and squalor into a loving, caring, successful family, yet still became a killer - suggests that there really is a genetic predisposition to violence.It don't take anyone too smart to look at three generations of outlaws and see there's a link of some kind, there's a pattern.
...
Darrel Hill, on death row, summed it up succinctly when he said:
I don't think there can be any doubt in anyone's mind that he (Jeffrey Landrigan) was fulfilling his destiny...I believe that when he was conceived, what I was, he became...The last time I saw him he was a baby in a bed, and underneath his mattress I had two .38 pistols and Demerol; that's what he was sleeping on.
Placing that gun and drugs under his baby boy's pillow foreshadowed what was to come. Like father, like son - whether it is violence, drugs, or alcohol. Landrigan was seemingly doing little more in life than acting out the sins of his biological father.
...
Let's think back to the case of Jeffrey Landrigan, which we discussed in chapter 2. He had a fabulous home background, with a loving mother, a father who was a geologist, and a sister who was as well educated and straitlaced as her parents. He had all the advantages of life. And yet Jeffrey swiftly spiraled out of control, beginning at age eleven with burglary, and eventually ending in homicide. Great home - yet awful outcome. Gerald Stano was similarly adopted into a loving home six months after birth , but went on to confess to forty-one murders before facing the electric chair. Landrigan and Stano are just two among a number of serial killers reported on by Dr. Michael Stone, a forensic psychiatrist at Columbia University, who were adopted into warm, loving, and supportive home environments. Here we should suspect their genetic heritage, rather than bad homes, as a cause of their violence.
(The Anatomy of Violence)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aou11qo50mg
20/20 Mar 9 Part 1: Separated at birth: Adults learn they have long-lost identical twins
My Brother Steven Is A Gun Owner. My Cousin Fred Is A Gun Owner. Neither Of Them Were Raised In The Same Household Or In The Same Way, For That Matter, Nor Did Either Of Them Associate With One Another Growing Up. So How Is It That They Both Became Gun Owners* And Avid Supporters/Advocates Of Guns In Adulthood? The Answer Is Genetics. They Both Share The Same Genes And Were Both Genetically Inclined To Take An Interest In Weapons (Guns) As Well As The Outdoors (Hunting, Fishing, Surfing, Etc). It's Similar To Twins Who Were Separated At Birth. Although The Twins Were Raised In Different Environments, By Adulthood They Share Many Of The Same Interests, Tendencies, Behaviors, Personality Traits, Etc. Because Of Genetic Similarity.
*They Own Multiple High Tec Guns And They're The Only Ones In My Immediate And Extended Family That Do (At Least That I Know Of). They Both Share The Same Name, Too, FREDERICK.
